Ecumenism and pre-Vatican II dogma

[DesertBrother]

I need some help because I am shaken and upset. I came across another thread that gave some startling information about dogmas declared by Pope Pius IX that seem to be the complete opposite of the current ecumenical trends of the Church since Vatican II.

Here’s what I mean:
Pope Pius IX infallibly defined in his Syllabus of Errors that the following are errors…

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

These are supposedly unchangeable truths, but these do not seem to be in line with the current philosophy of the Church. What’s going on?

Instead of genuinely considering these questions, the poster was attacked with nothing but name calling and accusations of being a ultra conservative, JPII hater, etc, when I think these points deserved more careful thought. I always thought the “rad-trads” simply had a beef with the new Liturgy, but now I understand more of their concerns, although I think it’s wrong to separate from the Church. I’m not excusing their behavior in that department.

Is blind submission to Church leadership what we are called to in these situations? We are called to adhere to the doctrines and dogmas that have been defined. But what if new ones contradict the old ones?

If I am way off here, someone please gently let me know. I am devoted to the Catholic Church, so don’t anyone call me a schismatic or an extremist! I just came across these things yesterday and today. I want answers because I love my Church and the Truth she has taught from the beginning. I don’t want to be confused and scandalized! Help me out!

 

[John_Higgins]

Brother,

The problem with what you quoted is this “Pope Pius IX infallibly defined …” Pope Pius IX made one infallible proclamation, Ineffabilis Deus, proclaiming the Immaculate Conception a dogma of the Church on December 8, 1854.

John

 

[DesertBrother]

Brother,

The problem with what you quoted is this “Pope Pius IX infallibly defined …” Pope Pius IX made one infallible proclamation, Ineffabilis Deus, proclaiming the Immaculate Conception a dogma of the Church on December 8, 1854.

John

Thanks, that’s good to know (those weren’t my words by the way). That still doesn’t bring me much feeling of closure though. Either he was way off, or we have become so in modern times. Which is it? Weren’t these things he declared pretty much re-emphasizing what the Church had always taught? What caused things to change so drastically?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I need some help because I am shaken and upset. I came across another thread that gave some startling information about dogmas declared by Pope Pius IX that seem to be the complete opposite of the current ecumenical trends of the Church since Vatican II.

Those quotes are usually tossed out and at first appear to be contrary to post VII teaching but they are not, each of those issues has to be properly understood.

Here’s what I mean:
Pope Pius IX infallibly defined in his Syllabus of Errors that the following are errors…

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

This is not to be interpreted in that every man is forced to be Catholic, Catholicism is against forced conversion and infact forced conversion isnt really conversion. What that is condemning is the idea that people are not required by God to become Catholic. God requires all men to repent and obey His Church, they are not free from that obligation.

1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

The Church didnt teach this then nor does it teach this today.

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

Here is an important quote to note in the letter Quanto Conficiamur Moerore which the syllabus cites:7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

1. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.” … …]
2. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth …]

… …]

1. … …] Let us pray that the errant be flooded with the light of his divine grace, may turn back from the path of error into the way of truth and justice and, experiencing the worthy fruit of repentance, may possess perpetual love and fear of his holy name.
   After reading the quotes by Pope Pius IX it is clear the condemnation is in regards to those who knowingly and willfully reject the Church. Such individuals have severed themself from Christ and cannot be saved apart from repenting. In that same letter the Pope calls for prayers that those in error may receive divine help and is also clear we are to love them.
   (cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

1. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

The Catholic Church didnt teach this then nor does it teach this now.

These are supposedly unchangeable truths, but these do not seem to be in line with the current philosophy of the Church. What’s going on?

Those truths are still held by the Church. The problem is many radtrads toss out half quotes here and there which on the surface appear to be contradictions. What these radtrads are doing infact is grave sin, it is poisoning the minds of the average joe Catholics and causing them to doubt the Church and the Pope.

Instead of genuinely considering these questions, the poster was attacked with nothing but name calling and accusations of being a ultra conservative, JPII hater, etc, when I think these points deserved more careful thought. I always thought the “rad-trads” simply had a beef with the new Liturgy, but now I understand more of their concerns, although I think it’s wrong to separate from the Church. I’m not excusing their behavior in that department.

Their “concerns” are usually nothing more than trying to explain why the Church is in the shape its in today. Instead of recognizing the problems today are more about cultural decline they mistakenly and gravely think the Church has taught error. Some radtrads go so far as to even believe the pope isnt even a real pope which results in them taking drastic measures themselves (eg electing their own popes).

Is blind submission to Church leadership what we are called to in these situations? We are called to adhere to the doctrines and dogmas that have been defined. But what if new ones contradict the old ones?

If you believe the Church has officially taught error then your not Catholic. Catholics believe in infallibility and that despite how bad the situation might look we believe God has preserved and will always preserve the Church from error.
There is no need for “blind submission” especially in todays technological world, you can get answers.

If I am way off here, someone please gently let me know. I am devoted to the Catholic Church, so don’t anyone call me a schismatic or an extremist! I just came across these things yesterday and today. I want answers because I love my Church and the Truth she has taught from the beginning. I don’t want to be confused and scandalized! Help me out!

You seem to be a good Catholic doing the best you can and it was good that you asked. We have seen those supposedly “contradictory” accusations around here many times.

 

[DesertBrother]

(cont 2 of 2)

The Catholic Church didnt teach this then nor does it teach this now.

Those truths are still held by the Church. The problem is many radtrads toss out half quotes here and there which on the surface appear to be contradictions. What these radtrads are doing infact is grave sin, it is poisoning the minds of the average joe Catholics and causing them to doubt the Church and the Pope.

Their “concerns” are usually nothing more than trying to explain why the Church is in the shape its in today. Instead of recognizing the problems today are more about cultural decline they mistakenly and gravely think the Church has taught error. Some radtrads go so far as to even believe the pope isnt even a real pope which results in them taking drastic measures themselves (eg electing their own popes).

If you believe the Church has officially taught error then your not Catholic. Catholics believe in infallibility and that despite how bad the situation might look we believe God has preserved and will always preserve the Church from error.
There is no need for “blind submission” especially in todays technological world, you can get answers.

You seem to be a good Catholic doing the best you can and it was good that you asked. We have seen those supposedly “contradictory” accusations around here many times.

Thank you Catholic Dude,
Your explanations have given me some relief. That’s exactly why I’ve been scandalized. There are some websites out there that claim the Church has fallen into apostasy and that this is the unrevealed third secret of Fatima. All their arguments seemed really chilling, and I felt a dark presence when reading them. I now see that although it may be true that some individual clergy teach error, it’s impossible for the Church as the Mystical Body to be in error. I think I need to go confess reading these dissenting websites. They have really caused me pain.
Thanks again:tiphat:

 

[DesertBrother]

CatholicDude,

Someone posted this in another thread:

The following is a quote of Pope John Paul II’s statement in English to those gathered in St. Peter’s square on Wednesday, December 6th, 2000, in which he briefly summarized his message of the day, “FOR US, THE KINGDOM IS GRACE”:

“Dear brothers and sisters, the theme of Our general audience during this great Jubilee year, has been the glory of the Trinity, and today we ask what we must do to ensure that the glory of the Trinity shines forth more fully in the world. In essence we are called to be converted and to believe in the Gospel. We are to accept the kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world and should be a source of serenity and confidence to our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God’s kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom. In the Lord’s prayer we say ‘Thy kingdom come’. May this be the hope that sustains us and inspires our Christian life and world.”

We confess with the Apostle Paul “that there is salvation in no other name” (Acts 4:12). The “Dominus Iesus” declaration, in the wake of Vatican II, shows that with this the salvation of non-Christians is not denied, but explains its ultimate source in Christ, in whom God and man are united. God gives light to all in a way appropriate to their interior and environmental situation, granting them saving grace through ways known to him (see “Dominus Iesus,” VI, 20-21). The document clarifies the essential Christian elements, which do not obstruct the dialogue, but show its basis, because a dialogue without foundations would be destined to degenerate into empty verbosity.

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples,

The Church Teaches Ex Cathadra:
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

These two examples seem even more conflicting. John Paul’s words echo what I’ve always been taught and seem to be the common belief of most of us today in the Church. How can these be reconciled? I loved John Paul, and I’m not out to smear him, nor to offend anyone. Questioning the words of such a beloved man of God is painful to me.
I’m just seeking Christ’s truth here.

 

[Nita]

The Church Teaches Ex Cathadra:
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41)** unless before death they are joined with Her**; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

A reflection on the bold portion:
St. Theresa of Avila (at least I think it was that saint) was praying for the soul of someone who had committed suicide. Then, she began to be troubled and have doubts as to whether she should be praying for her, since suicide is a mortal sin, … As she was anguishing, Our Lord spoke to her and said “And where do you think I was in those few seconds between when she leapt off the bridge and before she hit the water.”

Nita

 

[DesertBrother]

A reflection on the bold portion:
St. Theresa of Avila (at least I think it was that saint) was praying for the soul of someone who had committed suicide. Then, she began to be troubled and have doubts as to whether she should be praying for her, since suicide is a mortal sin, … As she was anguishing, Our Lord spoke to her and said “And where do you think I was in those few seconds between when she leapt off the bridge and before she hit the water.”

Nita

Hi Nita,
I know miraculous split second conversions can and do happen. Good story and good reminder!

 

[scylla]

The Church will never fail, Jesus promised.

Not that some of those sites don’t have valid beefs with some of the things that are going on but that doesn’t mean the Church has failed.

What they are failing to see if they are schismatics are that there have always been crummy Catholics, and sometimes they are priests and sometimes they are gasp! Bishops.
This doesn’t mean the Church is bad but that there are many who sin and sometimes outright deny truths of the Catholic Church.

So what if we have a Church with nuns without habits, that just shows we have some liberal nuns who will die off eventually.

Not that we need to crown a new Pope in Michigan and start over.
We need to work on ourselves first and help spread devotion to true Catholic belief.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[DesertBrother]

The Church will never fail, Jesus promised.

Not that some of those sites don’t have valid beefs with some of the things that are going on but that doesn’t mean the Church has failed.

What they are failing to see if they are schismatics are that there have always been crummy Catholics, and sometimes they are priests and sometimes they are gasp! Bishops.
This doesn’t mean the Church is bad but that there are many who sin and sometimes outright deny truths of the Catholic Church.

So what if we have a Church with nuns without habits, that just shows we have some liberal nuns who will die off eventually.

Not that we need to crown a new Pope in Michigan and start over.
We need to work on ourselves first and help spread devotion to true Catholic belief.

In Christ
Scylla

Well said.
Couldn’t agree more.

Not that we need to crown a new Pope in Michigan and start over.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

It’s good for people on both extremes to read Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. The “traditionalists” falsely so-called use the Syllabus without its background tradition. Very slick.

Modernists use Unitatis Redintegratio without all of its background tradition. More obviously false, but with similar outcomes.

At the official levels of Ecumenism, I know that we stand firm on Catholic teaching. We tend to be more flexible in our ability to discuss issues, but that is what one is blessed with when you have as rich of an intellectual and spiritual foundation that Catholicism has. For instance, many protestants will just glaze over if we start using our Catholic words like “transubstantiation” or “infallibility” because they have been fed strawman explanations of our doctrines. To some, “transubstantiation” equals “magic” and they can’t seem to get past the 16th Century misconceptions and misinformation their founders imposed on them

We often hear all sorts of warm n’ fuzzies from the media about Ecumenism, but that is not really what is happening. There has been no change, the Church maintains Her traditional understanding of Ecumenism in terms of a process of re-union with Rome as its final end .

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We often hear all sorts of warm n’ fuzzies from the media about Ecumenism, but that is not really what is happening. There has been no change, the Church maintains Her traditional understanding of Ecumenism in terms of a process of re-union with Rome as its final end .

Amen.

 

[DesertBrother]

We often hear all sorts of warm n’ fuzzies from the media about Ecumenism, but that is not really what is happening. There has been no change

I really want to agree with you, but I still don’t see how you can say there’s been no change.

“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)"

and now:

Lumen Gentium" (1964):
5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

I have no agenda, and I believe in Infalliblity. I genuinely want to know how the teachings are the same.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…dogmas declared by Pope Pius IX

Firstly, these are not dogmatic definitions of the pope (i.e. papal ex cathedra acts)

that seem to be the complete opposite of the current ecumenical trends of the Church since Vatican II.

Here’s what I mean:
Pope Pius IX i…

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851. …

Indifferentism is still condemned. The above condemnation was against “freedom to error.” We still are not at liberty to reject the Truth without grave consequences.

What you may be confused about is either the authentic understanding of religious liberty as it was taught pre-Vatician II, or you may misunderstand the authentic understanding of religious liberty as it was taught by Vatican II and afterwards.

I recommend you read through the following articles…

Vatican II and Religous Liberty: Continuity or Contradiction?
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Pius IX, Vatican II, and Religious Liberty
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Religious Liberty - Rights versus "tolerance"
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Catholicism doesn’t teach that we can be saved by Buddha, or by Mohommed, or by any other Savior other than Jesus Christ. Non-Chrisitans are related to the Church, according to Vatican II, but the Vatican II texts refer you to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Letter of the Holy Office approved by Pius XII to understand the context of her teachings. See here: #8 and here: #9 from another thread.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

DesertBrother,

If one means by “religious liberty” that one is “free to embrace” and promulgate error without refutation, ecclesiastical censure or punishment by legitamite ecclesial authority in accord with Catholic law, then nobody has such a freedom.

If one means by “religious liberty,” freedom from “the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ,” (*Dignitatis Humanae, *1) then nobody has this kind of religious liberty.

If one means by “religous liberty,” that freedom which is “necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God,” (*DH, *1) then everybody has this kind of religious liberty, which requires “immunity from coercion in civil society” (DH, 1) so they may fulfull such obligations toward God.

Vatican II taught that religious liberty means "that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

Pre-Vatican II also taught that we are not to force people, against their will, to convert to any religion.

All mankind have the same “immunity from coercion in civil society” in the sense that they cannot be “forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs” as Catholics.

Now, one is* surely obliged to FREELY change their beliefs, insofar as their beliefs are not true. Why? Because religious liberty does not mean permissiveness, does not mean “freedom to error.” It does not negate “*the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (*DH, *1).

The immunity is against forcing someone against their will. Of course, this immunity is “within due limits.” So, the U.S. government can indeed force the Aryan Nations Church in northern Idaho from infringing upon the human rights of Jews, because they cannot use the cover of “religious liberty” to violat “just public order” (DH, 2).

Moreover, religious liberty is not to be understood as liberty from truth, as “all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.” (DH, 2). Nonetheless, so long as “just public order be observed,” (*DH, *2) humans have the gift of free will given to them by God, and other humans cannot coerce them to act contary to such a gift by forcing them against their will in matters religious.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I really want to agree with you, but I still don’t see how you can say there’s been no change.

“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)"

and now:

Lumen Gentium" (1964):
5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

I have no agenda, and I believe in Infalliblity. I genuinely want to know how the teachings are the same.

Please cite the paragraph number you are quoting from Lumen Gentium. It’s not par. 5. See here. Then we can talk.

I don’t believe Eugene IV is treating of those who suffer from involuntary ignorance, do you?

I think Eugene IV’s papal bull ought to be interpreted in the context of Catholic teaching that preceded it…

St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) affirmed:

"…it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin." (Summa Theologica, IIa, 76,2)

"If ignorance causes involuntariness, it is in so far as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of voluntariness… Ignorance is “consequent” to the act of the will, in so far as ignorance itself is voluntary…First, because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin, or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: “We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.” And this is called “affected ignorance.” … ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it regards that which one can and ought to know…And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called “ignorance of evil choice,” and arises from some passion or habit: or when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence. (ST, IIa, 6, 8)

“Whatever is a reason for sin to be forgiven, diminishes sin. Now such is ignorance, as is clear from 1 Tim. 1:13: “I obtained . . . mercy . . . because I did it ignorantly.” Therefore ignorance diminishes or alleviates sin.” (ST, IIa, 76, 4)

Consequently, I doubt Eugene IV was deliberately contradicting St. Thomas’ prior teaching that “ignorance diminishes or alleviates sin,” but instead I think he was treating of those whose separation from the Church was truly voluntary–with full advertence and perfect consent.

 

[DesertBrother]

Firstly, these are not dogmatic definitions of the pope (i.e. papal ex cathedra acts)

Indifferentism is still condemned. The above condemnation was against “freedom to error.” We still are not at liberty to reject the Truth without grave consequences.

What you may be confused about is either the authentic understanding of religious liberty as it was taught pre-Vatician II, or you may misunderstand the authentic understanding of religious liberty as it was taught by Vatican II and afterwards.

I recommend you read through the following articles…

Vatican II and Religous Liberty: Continuity or Contradiction?
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Pius IX, Vatican II, and Religious Liberty
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Religious Liberty - Rights versus "tolerance"
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Catholicism doesn’t teach that we can be saved by Buddha, or by Mohommed, or by any other Savior other than Jesus Christ. Non-Chrisitans are related to the Church, according to Vatican II, but the Vatican II texts refer you to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Letter of the Holy Office approved by Pius XII to understand the context of her teachings. See here: #8 and here: #9 from another thread.

Thank you for the material. I’ll try to read through it.

I was already corrected about the Pius IX Syllabus.

Once again this one is dogmatic:

…"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,”…
…No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441

Doesn’t square with this:

Lumen Gentium" (1964):
5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

Believe me, I really want to be wrong here. Hopefully your articles will show me how I am misunderstanding these. I’m by no means a scholar.

 

[Nita]

I really want to agree with you, but I still don’t see how you can say there’s been no change.

“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, **can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” **(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)"

and now:

Lumen Gentium" (1964):
5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

I have no agenda, and I believe in Infalliblity. I genuinely want to know how the teachings are the same.

I’ll share my way of understanding why there is no conflict. I accept the truth of Pope Eugene’s statement that no one can be saved who does not abide in the Catholic Church. Now, we believe that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. (Pope Pius XII’s “Mystici Corporis”; Ephesians 1:22)
We also believe that all who are in the state of Sanctifying Grace are united to the Body of Christ - which, on earth, is called the Catholic Church. So, all in the state of grace, are united in some way to the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not.

The big question is how is Sanctifying Grace is received. The normal means is through the Sacraments

CCC #1257 “…The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” *God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. *”

As to who (Catholic or non-Catholic) is in this state of grace, only God knows.

So, Pope Eugene’s declaration is true; but there has been further development and understanding of the fullness of its meaning.

Nita

 

[DesertBrother]

St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) affirmed:
Quote:
“…it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin.” (Summa Theologica, IIa, 76,2)

"If ignorance causes involuntariness, it is in so far as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of voluntariness… Ignorance is “consequent” to the act of the will, in so far as ignorance itself is voluntary…First, because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin, or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: “We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.” And this is called “affected ignorance.” … ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it regards that which one can and ought to know…And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called “ignorance of evil choice,” and arises from some passion or habit: or when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence. (ST, IIa, 6, 8)

“Whatever is a reason for sin to be forgiven, diminishes sin. Now such is ignorance, as is clear from 1 Tim. 1:13: “I obtained . . . mercy . . . because I did it ignorantly.” Therefore ignorance diminishes or alleviates sin.” (ST, IIa, 76, 4)

THANK YOU!!! This helps immensly!

I understand what everyone is saying now. That all the categories of those listed who cannot be saved are those who choose separation. No Pope would ever contradict St. Thomas. I don’t know why I wasn’t getting it before. Thanks again.