J
Juxtaposer
Guest
I think we should change these questions to the following:
- What exactly did it mean to be part of the Church?
- What exactly *did *it mean to be part of the Catholic Church?
- Status
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
Wait a second. Surely the answers to these questions must be the same as at the time of Eugene. As Vatican I makes clear, the sense in which dogmas are to be understood cannot change.
Vatican I:
J
Juxtaposer
Guest
What I mean is what people usually mean when they say “Catholic Church”. When people say Catholic, they sure don’t mean Orthodox. If Eugene did mean to include Orthodoxy in the realm of the Catholic Church, the definition has obviously changed, which is why we need to look at what he said in context.
J
Juxtaposer
Guest
I haven’t finished the entire document. I’m about 10 paragraphs through. Something interesting that I’m noticing is that Eugene often speaks of two different churches; the Roman and the Catholic. I’m assuming that the Roam Church he refers to includes the churches that are in communion with Rome, and the Catholic Church is Christianity, but you know what happens when you assume… Any thoughts?
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello Skyron,I appreciate everything so far. But it’s obviously not a simple answer is it?
Ok, so we have Pope Eugene with his “infallible” teaching. However, it’s believed that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Churches were part of the salvation. So here’s a few more questions to help get a better understanding.
- Why were these churches included? I understand it, there really any other MAJOR christian churches then. Perhaps he included them because they were Catholic? Perhaps becasue of their apostolic tradition? Does this mean he meant that everyone believing in Jesus for salvation will have it?
- What exactly does it mean to be part of the Church?
- What exactly does it mean to be part of the Catholic Church?
Here is the link to “schism” at the New Advent Catholic Encycopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
Pope Eugene tells us “schismatics can never be partakers of eternal life” From the following portion of the definition of schism it seems that all under Church excommunication, like abortionists, are outside of the salvation in the Church. It sure seems to me that the Protestants are also “schismatics” and therefore out side the Church according to Pope Eugene. How do you read it?
Again, I believe that the Pope should use the “keys to the Kingdom” to “loost” this “infallible” Pope Eugene “no salvation outside the Church” doctrine and write a better one. Though I am not an expert in this area. “Some theologians distinguish “active” from “passive” schism. By the former they understand detaching oneself deliberately from the body of the Church, freely renouncing the right to form a part of it. They call passive schism the condition of those whom the Church herself rejects from her bosom by excommunication, inasmuch as they undergo this separation whether they will or no, having deserved it. Hence, this article will deal directly only with active schism, which is schism properly so-called. It is nevertheless clear that so-called passive schism not only does not exclude the other, but often supposes it in fact and theory. From this point of view it is impossible to understand the attitude of Protestants who claim to hold the Church they abandoned responsible for their separation. It is proved by all the historical monuments and especially by the writings of Luther and Calvin that, prior to the anathema pronounced against them at the Council of Trent, the leaders of the Reformation had proclaimed and repeated that the Roman Church was “the Babylon of the Apocalypse, the synagogue of Satan, the society of Antichrist”; that they must therefore depart from it and that they did so in order to re-enter the way of salvation. And in this they suited the action to the word. Thus the schism was well consummated by them before it was solemnly established by the authority which they rejected and transformed by that authority into a just penal sanction.”
Quoted from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
Greg said:
*Wait a second. Surely the answers to these questions must be the same as at the time of Eugene. As Vatican I makes clear, the sense in which dogmas are to be understood cannot change.
*
But Greg, the documents that we are talking about from the 13th century did not define the exact nature of the Church and the boundaries of the Church.
The statement that Outside the Church there is no salvation is an infallible dogma.
However, the Church did not define the boundaries of where the Catholic Church is and is not.
So when you say that dogmas cannot change, I agree with you.
However, the sense in which the Church of the 13th century defined itself is not the same sense in which it defines itself today. There was no dogmatic statement on the nature of the Church.
Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable for Vatican II to develop the theology of the nature of the Church.
If for instance, the 13th century councils sought to close the issue on the Church, then there would be no need for Mystici Corporis Christi, Lumen Gentium, or Dominus Iesus.
Would you not agree?
*Wait a second. Surely the answers to these questions must be the same as at the time of Eugene. As Vatican I makes clear, the sense in which dogmas are to be understood cannot change.
*
But Greg, the documents that we are talking about from the 13th century did not define the exact nature of the Church and the boundaries of the Church.
The statement that Outside the Church there is no salvation is an infallible dogma.
However, the Church did not define the boundaries of where the Catholic Church is and is not.
So when you say that dogmas cannot change, I agree with you.
However, the sense in which the Church of the 13th century defined itself is not the same sense in which it defines itself today. There was no dogmatic statement on the nature of the Church.
Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable for Vatican II to develop the theology of the nature of the Church.
If for instance, the 13th century councils sought to close the issue on the Church, then there would be no need for Mystici Corporis Christi, Lumen Gentium, or Dominus Iesus.
Would you not agree?
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
Err, no. Eugene did not mean to include “Orthodoxy,” he meant to include the Eastern Church. The two are not the same thing. Byzantine Catholics are part of the eastern Church. The “Orthodox,” properly understood, are eastern schismatics. In other words, Florence sought to end the division between the Orthodox and the Catholics, making just one Catholic Church, or which the Eastern Xians were a part. Cantate Domino was addressed, at least in part, as a warning to those Orthodox who might refuse the reunion, reminding them that they are lost so long as they remain apart from the Catholic Church.
No, this is all wrong. “Roman” refers to that part of the Catholic Church which the Roman patriarch oversees. “Catholic” refers to the whole Church, including those portions under non-Roman patriarchs. Eugene understood the idea of Christian who were neither Roman nor Catholic, and those are the heretics and schismatics whose salvation is emperilled by their separation from the Church.
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello Dan and Greg,
Am I reading a different doctrine than you two? Pope Eugene clearly states who is outside of the boundries of the Church. We can be assured that Pope Eugene “infallibly” thought the Jews and pagans are outside the Church and going to burn in hell.
I have heard that Pope John Paul II does not firmly know that anyone is in hell. He should read this “infallible” Doctrine by Pople Eugene. Clearly this “infallible” doctrine would assure him that the Jews go to hell.
Again, if papal “infallibility” is taken from the Christ given “Keys to the Kingdom” to hold sins bound or loost, I think it is time for Pope John Paul II to hold Pope Eugenes “infallible” doctrine, “loost”. Then the Church can write a more appropriate doctrine in line with the will of Jesus.
none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can never be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
Steven Merten:
I am sure that John Paul II would claim that he knows that Jews and pagans go to Hell. What he would not claim to know (indeed, what no one but God can claim to know) is who is a Jew or a pagan at the moment of death. So long as we are alive, we can still repent and turn to God, so who is to say that a pagan like Celsus did not form his heart to a perfect act of faith and contrition in the last milisecond before his death?
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
As you know, Dan, I am skeptical about the claim that the boundaries of the Church were not defined prior to Vatican II. I think that, for instance, Lateran I and Unam Sanctam make fairly clear that you are not in the Church if you are not in willing communion with the Roman Pontiff. I will confess, however, that I am no canonist and no theologian, so I will not press the point too strongly.
R
RBushlow
Guest
carol marieCould it have been that when that Pope wrote that all Christians WERE Catholic so he was basically saying that there was no salvation outside of Jesus? [/quote said:Yup!
GrzeszDeL:
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
I am sure that Eugene VI would agree that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, but that is scarcely the same thing as to say that all Christians at the time of Florence were Catholics (there were plenty of non-Catholic Christians around at the time), or that Eugene had no concept of large numbers of Christians who were not part of the Catholic Church (he was so obviously happy when writing Cantate Domino precisely because a large number of Christians had just been convinced to return to the unity of the Catholic Church, so he was well aquainted with the idea of Christians who are not Catholic).
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
greg,
re #30
and i honestly think that this is the main point in which we disagree on this issue, on the boundaries of the Church.
To me, it seems that the Conciliar documents of Vatican II speak more about this, especially the Decree on Ecumenism.
But I too am not a canonist or theologian, so i am only going on how i best understand how the documents are to be harmonized together.
re #30
and i honestly think that this is the main point in which we disagree on this issue, on the boundaries of the Church.
To me, it seems that the Conciliar documents of Vatican II speak more about this, especially the Decree on Ecumenism.
But I too am not a canonist or theologian, so i am only going on how i best understand how the documents are to be harmonized together.
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
For the life of me Dan, I do not see how you are going to define the boundaries in such a way as to leave room for these invisible Catholics without running afoul of Unam Sanctam. When the Pope says “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” I do not think that it would be unfair to draw the conclusion from this that one must be Catholic to be saved. Any faithful interpretation of Lumen Gentium must be able to take this claim into account.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
It’s pretty clear to me that from documents others have mentioned that the catholics are the only ones who have salvation - a concept I now find deplorable and without merit on the grounds that the pope said so. “we have salvation because I say so and have the authority to say so” is a circular argument.
I have been studying predestination, election and sovereignty of God and find it the best explanation for the whole concept of “salvation”
I have been studying predestination, election and sovereignty of God and find it the best explanation for the whole concept of “salvation”
B
BlessedBe13
Guest
I do not believe that only Catholics will be saved. I believe that all religions are following the same god. Religion is just the way someone chooses to worship that god. The official position of the Catholic Church is, that although, it ‘promotes’ Catholicism and/or Christianity as being the “best way” to go, no one religion holds the monopoly on spiritual truth.
From “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian religions”:-
In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together,
and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the
Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian
religions. In her tasks of promoting unity and love among men, indeed
among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men
have in common and what draws them to fellowship.
Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved
riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times,
deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the
aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and
what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness?
What are death, judgement and retribution after death? What, finally
is the ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence:
whence do we come, and where are we going?
From ancient times down to the present, there is found among
various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers
over the course of things and over the events of human history; at
times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or
even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their
lives with a profound religious sense.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she
proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, “the way the truth, and the
life” (John 14, 6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious
life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.
rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/nostra.aet
From “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian religions”:-
In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together,
and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the
Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian
religions. In her tasks of promoting unity and love among men, indeed
among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men
have in common and what draws them to fellowship.
Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved
riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times,
deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the
aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and
what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness?
What are death, judgement and retribution after death? What, finally
is the ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence:
whence do we come, and where are we going?
From ancient times down to the present, there is found among
various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers
over the course of things and over the events of human history; at
times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or
even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their
lives with a profound religious sense.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she
proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, “the way the truth, and the
life” (John 14, 6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious
life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.
rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/nostra.aet
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, one can easily admit that no one religion has a monopoly on truth without at all conceding that other religions might also offer salvation. “Spiritual truth” and “salvation” are not the same thing and one ought not to confuse the two.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
very true, Greg.
C
carol_marie
Guest
**All religions are following the same god? Oh really… that’s funny because I worship Jesus who died on the cross for my sins and my sister, who believes in a New Age sort of hodge podge doesn’t believe in Jesus at all but rather, she worships the mother Earth and the tree gods. Is that the same thing?? I believe that Jesus was the Son of God… Muslums believe that although he was a good man, he was not nearly as special as Muhammad. Does that sound like we worship the same God? I believe that he was the Christ, the son of the Living God and the second part of the trinity; the Jehovah Witnesses believe that he was an angel and in no way, shape or form God. Does that sound like the same God? **
**When Jesus said, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” I believe him. When he said the gate to eternal life was narrow and few find it I believe him. There is no other name under heaven by which we might be saved. Do you believe it? If so then you must agree that all religions are not the same. Most religions reject Jesus. They put their faith in other prophets. They are NOTHING like me. My faith is in Jesus. **
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
It is not often that I find myself quoting the arch-heretic, but I think that Martin Luther put the matter well when he said “I know of no other God, except the one called Jesus Christ.”
- Status