Has Ecumenism changed the meaning of EENS?

[MarMax]

One of the requirements of the excercise of the Charism of Infallibility is the EXPLICIT INTENTION of a Pope to excercise that Charism. Intentional excercise of an undefine charism prior to that charism beiing defined is improbable at best. In any case this evades my central point, which is that the Church teaches us we may hope that a Protestant/Buddhist/Luciferian/Totemist who is, through no fault of their own invincibly ignorant of their obligation to join the Catholic Church: and who otherwise responds to God’s grace in good conscience to the best of their ability; are thereby, invisibly, members of the Church, though never visibly joined to Her. No violation of EENS occurs in such cases, so rare or so frequent as such may happen, by God’s Grace and Mercy.

You need to re-read what the teaching is… which isn’t what you’ve expressed (which is, as best I can tell, a subtlety used by the Spirit of Vatican II crowd ( a most insidious group) to discount prior infallible teaching; which is not to say Vatican II Conciliar documents which are in line with Tradition when read as such)

Here is the definition:

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
    This holy see has always maintained this,
    the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
    the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

[councils]
So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
    The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] . 
What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
    "The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57] 
Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:
    "The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church." [58]

[Holy See]
To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

[Custom]
It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

[Holy See]
The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
    sometimes by
        summoning ecumenical councils or
        consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
        special synods, sometimes by
        taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, 
    defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with
        sacred scripture and
        the apostolic traditions.

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
    not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
    but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. 
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
    embraced by all the venerable fathers and
    reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

Therefore,
    faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
    to the glory of God our saviour,
    for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
    for the salvation of the christian people,
    with the approval of the sacred council,

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.

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.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be **anathema. **

Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined

Simply put, YES, that statement in question was defined via infallibility because it was written/declared/decreed ex cathedra!

 

[MarMax]

to edit… since I can’t edit-edit.

Simply put, YES, that statement in question was defined via infallibility because it was written/declared/decreed ex cathedra as defined!

 

[flameburns623]

My impression is that for much of the century even prior tol VII, the tendency was to read into EENS a much broader understanding of God’s mercy and His grace than had been embraced in the heat of schisms and heresies during the Reformation and the period leading up to it. While we don’t have a “master list” of dogmas infallibly defined on Papal authority alone, I don’t think the decree cited is received by the living Magisterium or by most orthdox Roman Catholic theologians of the past century or so as a pre-Vatican I example of an infallible Papal decree. I am quite happy to believe, as traditional as I am, that God in His mercy is likely to receive unto Himself as invisble members of His True Church, many of my family and friends who, in good conscience, have never been able to join themselves visibly unto that Church.

 

[MarMax]

My impression is that for much of the century even prior tol VII, the tendency was to read into EENS a much broader understanding of God’s mercy and His grace than had been embraced in the heat of schisms and heresies during the Reformation and the period leading up to it. While we don’t have a “master list” of dogmas infallibly defined on Papal authority alone, I don’t think the decree cited is received by the living Magisterium or by most orthdox Roman Catholic theologians of the past century or so as a pre-Vatican I example of an infallible Papal decree. I am quite happy to believe, as traditional as I am, that God in His mercy is likely to receive unto Himself as invisble members of His True Church, many of my family and friends who, in good conscience, have never been able to join themselves visibly unto that Church.

The decree cited is from the Council of Florence and it IS an explanation of EENS, IS doctrinal and binding as it is Magesterial in nature, and it IS fully in line with Tradition which has nothing to do with the era in which said doctrine was cited.

Those who are not Catholic upon the sealing of their time to choose to be united to the Mystical Body of Christ, whether explicitly by becoming visible Catholics or implicitly through the attachment to the Mystical Body of Christ, go to HELL.

Go back to the basics of what it means to be Catholic/Christian/in Heaven… CATHOLIC. In the Church. What IS the Church? The Mystical Body of Christ! If one is not part of the Mystical Body of Christ before they die, they go to HELL!

HERE is where the issue is:

You’re reading this in a manner which is not based on doctrine but the impression of those meanie pre-Vatican II Councils. The post-Vatican II crowd who delve into the “Spirit of Vatican II” would read this and see it as Fr. Feeney’s misunderstanding on PCP. NO.

Doctrine is doctrine; this doctrine is defined ex cathedra as the Pope wrote it in the Papal Bull Cantate Domino: exercising preaching on doctrine. He COULD NOT have violated and contradicted doctrine. If it is misread, outside the scope it foundational Christian doctrine, and contradicts other doctrine in its misreading, that’s not the problem of the Pope who was speaking ex cathedra. And doctrine states there is No Salvation Outside the Church. Again, see Baltimore Catechism #3 Questions 510-513, Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X Questions 27-29, Chapter 10 of “Open Letter To Confused Catholics” by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre… etc.

Vatican II went wishy-washy in its language and looking at the two side by side, it seems there is a disconnect. There can’t be, unless one of the two Councils was a farce. The only disconnect is in the cognitive dissonance of those unwilling to view the information FIRST as doctrinal and in line with Tradition.

 

[flameburns623]

Well, this is turning into an unproductive little spat. Enjoy your reading of Soteriology–IMHO, myopic, narrow, and WRONG!!!–and I’ll stick to what I know to have been the normative teaching of the Church from Her beginning. As an attendee at SSPX services, btw, I am no fan of Vatican II. You can abstain from flailing that around as if it might wound my feelings. God bless!

 

[MarMax]

Well, this is turning into an unproductive little spat. Enjoy your reading of Soteriology–IMHO, myopic, narrow, and WRONG!!!–and I’ll stick to what I know to have been the normative teaching of the Church from Her beginning. As an attendee at SSPX services, btw, I am no fan of Vatican II. You can abstain from flailing that around as if it might wound my feelings. God bless!

What are you on about? It’s a phrasing of No Salvation Outside the Church!

There’s nothing different in what I’m saying, the Council of Florence is saying, and the references I cited are saying: Don’t find yourself Catholic at death, then you go to Hell.

What is properly understood by this? Well, being attached to the Mystical Body of Christ.

Here’s Bishop Fellay explaining the nuance of that:

The Reality of the Mystical Body

So the Faith is necessary. The Church is necessary. If we want to be saved, there is no other way except for the Church which Jesus has founded. Between God and creation, there is an infinite gap. On the side of man, since Original Sin, there is no way to cross this infinite abyss except by the bridge imposed and created by God in His only-begotten Son made flesh, Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other way to go to heaven except Our Lord Jesus Christ and Our Lord Jesus Christ wanted to associate with this work of Redemption the souls who would be united with Him, in Him, through Baptism, and which constitute the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. What a tremendous mystery.

This is why the Church is as necessary as Jesus; because it is the same reality. What is the difference between Jesus and the Church? The Church is Jesus extended in space and time in the souls which are one body with Him, incorporated in Him: the Mystical Body of Christ. St. Paul dared to use unbelievable words: We are the bones of His bones, the flesh of His flesh. It’s very expressive to say how deeply we are united with Christ in baptism. But that’s the Church! **When you say “the Catholic Church,” you say “Jesus” plus all these souls who are united to Him.**

Source: angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2497

I’m saying this, the Council of Florence is saying this, Pope Eugene IV is saying this… so, your interpretation, if it doesn’t agree with this, is saying the CHURCH is narrow, myopic and wrong. Don’t think so. Just because the language is difficult doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Don’t be Catholic, go to Hell. Simple. It’s exactly what Abp. Lefebvre said in Open Letter to Confused Catholics Chapter 10.

There are ONLY Catholics in Heaven. No Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Baptists, etc. JUST Catholics. Does that meant there aren’t/won’t be those in Heaven who thought they were Muslim, Buddhist, etc? NO.

I could care less if you go to SSPX as it’s immaterial. Your reading of the phrasing is causing you to read it like it’s saying only those who go to Mass and are visibly Catholic go to Heaven and forget everyone else. This isn’t the fault of the Council, and thus, you are reading it incorrectly.