C
CMatt25
Guest
I think I understand now you weren’t necessarily saying you think he committed sacrilege but Church law does. Thanks.
- Status
C
CMatt25
Guest
M
Malleus_01
Guest
Once a matter is defined (De Fide) then it is true and always will be true. If an Item is not defined - and there are several shools of thought as is the case with “Limbo” then several theologians have probably offered plausible opinions which may be accepted or rejected in regards to these types of occurances. For example.
The Immaculate Conception is DOGMA. Every Catholic must accept it.
But belief in “Limbo” is not dogma. It isnt a matter of Faith to believe or not believe in it.
Hope this helps
pax
The Immaculate Conception is DOGMA. Every Catholic must accept it.
But belief in “Limbo” is not dogma. It isnt a matter of Faith to believe or not believe in it.
Hope this helps
pax
U
una_fides
Guest
It seems the question here over being subject to the pope is hinging on the last words comprising an infallible definition in Pope Boniface’s Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, which again states:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
What did pope Boniface mean by this definition? If we try to say that he meant that it’s necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope but that in some round about way everyone already is subject, then why the dogmatic and infallible definition? It would be essentially and completely rendered meaningless. We must read the context of the papal bull to understand what is meant by his definition. The pope begins the bull with the following profession of faith of the Catholic Church:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess * with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins*, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
Notice that the pope explains that no salvation outside the Church is to be understood “with simplicity.” The Church simply teaches that outside of her there is no salvation or forgiveness of sins. He then explains how one had to be in the ark of Noah in order to be saved. This ark is the Church and all who are not in this sole ark of salvation will perish in the flood.
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis warned against the false interpretations of the Church’s infallible dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (“Outside the Church there is no salvation”) that turn it into a meaningless formula:
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[11] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. 28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error. newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm
Here is a compilation of the Church’s official teachings and pronouncements on this matter. I suggest reading through them before coming to a conclusion on this doctrine. Then read the modern “pastoral” and non-dogmatic documents of Vatican II in this same light. no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes there would be, just as there is now. As Catholics, we are subject to the Pope, right? But I’m sure that you’ll agree with me that just because we are, doesn’t mean that we are ‘guaranteed’ salvation. First of all, there are Catholics who (despite their baptism) reject Catholic teaching. So even if they say they are subject to the Pope and meet the ‘criteria’ of ‘being subject’, they aren’t necessarily saved, right? It’s not, “the ONLY thing you need do to be saved is to be subject to the Pope’ any more than it’s the “only thing you need to do to be saved is to be subject to Christ.” It isn’t just saying, “Lord, Lord, I’m subject to you” (while ignoring His directives as to how we are to live for Him). I mean, people go around curing people in His name and 'casting out demons in his name” and in the end, they go off with the goats to hell, because they didn’t feed the hungry, etc.
Does that help?
- Just being subject to the Pope is not the ‘only’ criterion for salvation.
- One can be subject without ‘agreeing’ or recognizing one’s subjection.
- Being subject does not mean we don’t have to do anything else for our salvation.
- Deepening understanding of a teaching doesn’t mean that the ‘original’ or earlier versions weren’t ‘good enough’ or that the teaching has ‘changed’. A child understands that 2 toys plus 2 more toys is 4 toys. An older child can understand that x + 12 = 34 means that x = 22. It doesn’t mean that the 2 + 2 equation isn’t as ‘good’ as the x + 12 = 34, or that the younger child was stupid, or that somehow math has ‘changed’ In fact, if you go back and say, 2 + x =4, with some visual help the young child will be able to use that more advanced ‘priniciple’ and find that x = 2. The more ‘advanced’ teaching is just a deepening understanding of mathematics and is applied for more advanced subjects.
E
Ed_Sorenson
Guest
The question remains, why can the Church not clearly tell us what is infallible and what is not? The charism of infallability is what the credibility of the Church is founded on. If it cannot be defined, then what is the credibility?
U
una_fides
Guest
How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct? There are tens of thousands of protestant denominations all believing different things and basing them on the same Scriptures. The reason God gave us a Church was to be able to clarify matters of faith. By the way, where did that Bible you are reading come from? How do you know the books in it were rightly compiled? How do you know for sure it is inspired by God? Without the authority of the Church that gave us Scripture, you can’t even know what you are reading is inspired. After all it was the authority of the Church that put those books together. You are trusting in her decision in compiling the right canon over 300 years after the apostles lived. If you trust her in that decision, why not others as well?
U
una_fides
Guest
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
- **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
- **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
- **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
- Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Limbo was a place where it was unknown whether the soul was in heaven or hell. Limbo was never an actual place. Thus the name. Supposedly they now have found theological justification for everyone to have either attained heaven or hell, the state of purgatory notwithstanding. Thus no more Limbo.
S
sidbrown
Guest
This is problematical because according to the missalette, Eastern Christians are admitted to Holy Communion and yet they do not accept the Immaculate Conception, at least that is what I have seen them say.
S
StillWondering
Guest
One question that keeps coming up is about: Without the Church, there is no salvation. Another statement: Outside the Church, there is no salvation. Remember there is translation between those words and the original words. The meaning of “Outside” and “Without” is that there is a lack of the presence of the Church.
Let’s imagine a world where the Catholic Church does not exist. That would be Old Testament days. Before the founding of the Church–Jesus building it on Peter, the giving of the keys, the death and resurrection of our Lord, and Pentecost–Adam and Even and other great people from the Old Testament was not in Heaven from what I can understand. Only a few were in Heaven, Elijah because he was taken up. Maybe Moses, since he was at the transfiguration. Enoch is thought to be in Heaven.
What about everyone else? I am taught that until Jesus died and open the gates of Heaven, the gates were closed from the days of Adam and Eve’s exile. What does that mean, if Jesus never founded the Church upon Peter and the other Apostles, Jesus may never have finished his mission of salvation. Israel would be the same Israel between the Book of Daniel and when John the Baptist appeared.
So the world would still be waiting for the Messiah and salvation would not have happened.
That situation in itself, already tells me those statements are objectively true. Without the Church, there is no salvation. This is because the Church is the extension of Christ’s Incarnation.
Let’s imagine a world where the Catholic Church does not exist. That would be Old Testament days. Before the founding of the Church–Jesus building it on Peter, the giving of the keys, the death and resurrection of our Lord, and Pentecost–Adam and Even and other great people from the Old Testament was not in Heaven from what I can understand. Only a few were in Heaven, Elijah because he was taken up. Maybe Moses, since he was at the transfiguration. Enoch is thought to be in Heaven.
What about everyone else? I am taught that until Jesus died and open the gates of Heaven, the gates were closed from the days of Adam and Eve’s exile. What does that mean, if Jesus never founded the Church upon Peter and the other Apostles, Jesus may never have finished his mission of salvation. Israel would be the same Israel between the Book of Daniel and when John the Baptist appeared.
So the world would still be waiting for the Messiah and salvation would not have happened.
That situation in itself, already tells me those statements are objectively true. Without the Church, there is no salvation. This is because the Church is the extension of Christ’s Incarnation.
S
sidbrown
Guest
My impression is that what ws declared at the Council of Florence on this was somewhat stronger than this.
S
StillWondering
Guest
I don’t mean the statement to be limited to just that. We have lots more developed statements dealing with the same idea and so if it’s limited to than we are stagnant.
What I was saying in that post is that no matter what, the core statement is true without question. The additional understands are true as well, it’s just people are using the recent statements, incorrectly, as ammo to refute the old one as if they are different statements.
In other words if the Church teaches that it’s Dogmatic teachings are infallible and thus it cannot be contradicted, then it would be stupid of the Church not to “catch” these contradictions people keep pointing out. Somehow bishops from around the world with the best theologians don’t notice these simple contradictions that forum lurkers so easily see. This of course is just silly. The Church does not contradict it’s own teachings.
U
una_fides
Guest
The actual word used in all the Church’s dogmatic definitions is extra, which means “outside.” In her definitions, the Church has always been most careful to use the most exact and theologically precise wording. If by “Outside the Church there is no salvation” the Church wanted communicate that “without” the Church no one could be saved, then she would have used the word sine rather than extra. One of the benefits again to Latin is that it’s a dead language and its word meanings do not change from colloquial usage. We can also know what the Church means by this definition by looking at her dogmatic explanations.
U
una_fides
Guest
It is my understanding that Moses, Elijah, and Enoch who did not die but were taken up into the heavens also waited in Abraham’s bosom, limbo, with the rest of the OT saints until Jesus opened the gates of heaven. I understood that when Scripture says they were taken up into heaven that it wasn’t necessarily heaven in the sense of the beatific vision but rather Abraham’s bosom, similar to how the creed and the OT refer to “hell” by which they really meant “realm of the dead” where Jesus descended after his death.
Do you have any sources that say that Moses or Elijah attained the beatific vision or had some other higher heavenly experience than the rest of the OT saints? If so, I’d be interested to see. Thanks.
U
una_fides
Guest
Great point that the old teachings cannot contradict the new. As I pointed out, it is essential to the continuity of the Church that we do not view the Church as two different Churches: one pre-Vatican II and the other post-. Vatican II was not even a dogmatic council so it could not have authoritatively changed any dogmas, as if it would be even possible to do so. The Church is built on tradition and continuity. V2 posed a great break with its new mass being created by a group of people rather than through organic growth and development as the Mass has always developed throughout history, and its chief architect was a Freemason who was exiled to Iran as punishment after evidence was provided of his masonic involvement. There are certainly forces at work within the highest rankings of the Church today doing their best to create a new post vatican ii church run by the dictates of modernism and its relativism, as Pope Pius X warned us of in years past.
The Church’s modern documents employ a “medicine of mercy” in that they try to explain seemingly “harsh” traditional teachings in a more softer light. The problem that often happens is that they tend to be easily misread and misunderstood even by the highest authorities in the Church! Cardinal Kasper, for example, thinks that Jews have a salvific covenant still in tact and that they can therefore be saved outside the Church. This is clear heresy as it runs directly contrary to the infallible dogmatic definition given by the Council of Florence. Yet Kasper continues to be permitted to have his position and spread his deceits. Ecumenism is a serious problem as the Jews are convincing people like Kasper that they do not need the Church and are succeeding! The Church is surely in a state of crisis of faith and needs a restoration of her traditional teachings, understandings, and practices. You can’t have mercy without justice. God is both mercy and justice, and our approach must include both.
Lastly, the Church’s new teachings on NSOC must be and can be read and interpreted in light of her past teachings. You cannot try to read the current and understand and then read that understanding into the past documents as it simply does not work and is not intellectually honest to the way the Church meant and intended her past teachings to be understood. We must understand her constant teachings throughout her history in the same sense as she has always understood them.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
According to Boniface, Eugene and many other popes it was an absolute necessity. We can now go ahead and disagree on the definition of “being subject to the Roman Pontiff” and I know I will not change your mind but here is why I believe it means being a formal member of the Roman Catholic Church:
Pope Boniface lived in the 13th century, Pope Eugene lived in the 15th century. The Great Schism or East West Schism occurred in 1054 so in Pope Eugene’s day there had already existed generations of Jews, Eastern Christians and many other factions and religions. All were excluded from eternal life according to Catholic tradition. Baptized non-Catholics could have the sacrament of baptism but they could not have eternal life until they were formal members of the Roman Catholic Church.
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
Fulgentius of Ruspe
“Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church” (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
No one was under the authority of the pope until they became a formal member of the Roman Catholic Church.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
We kmow that Catholic and Protestant theologians have always been determined to find the errors in the opposition so we can be sure that whatever they agree upon is the truth.
U
una_fides
Guest
If there was consensus, then you would be able to argue your point. But what exactly do they all agree upon? Even the most basic and most fundamental issues there is absolutely no consensus. Is water baptism a sacrament of initiation that saves the soul or is it just an ordinance to only symbolize one’s salvation by faith alone? Did Jesus mean “This IS my body” and “This IS the cup of my blood” literally or just figuratively? How is one saved? Faith alone? Baptism? Faith and works? State of Grace? Confession to a priest or confession to God? Does one even need to confess his sins or are they already forgiven?
I could continue this list for pages upon pages. There is no consensus as to the teachings of Christ among the tens of thousands of protestant denominations that were created between 1500-1900+ years after Christ established his one true Church. If you only believe that things that both Catholics and protestant scholars from their plethora of denominations agree upon, then not only would you be not believing very much at all concerning Christ but you yourself would not and could not claim to be Catholic; for to be Catholic is to not pick and choose which teachings you wish to believe. There is no such thing as a cafeteria Catholic.
[Pope Benedict XV](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV) (1914-1922), Encyclical *Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum*: "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
S
StillWondering
Guest
So True.
- Status