Has the Catholic Church not contradicted itself already?

  • Thread starter Thread starter salival
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Axion,

Well said!!

Dear Rsiscoe,

May I humbly suggest you are confusing the definition of the word “Canon” with “dogma.” Canons are the disciplinary decrees that are often attached to dogmatic decrees. The canons are not the dogma themselves. Indeed, as you say, the words are infallible, but this axiom does not apply to the canons, but to the expression of the teaching itself – i.e., the matter to be defined. Please look it up in your Catholic dictionary.

God bless all
 
GAssisi: I think you are only partly correct. In an ecumenical council, some of the canons may pertain to disciplinary matters. These are not eternal and unchanging. (Though they can not be contrary to Divine Law, even if they are not technically infallible, as in immutable, per se). Other canons, however, state and define a certain belief of the Holy Catholic Church. When a canon begins with something like: “We solemnly define…”—the Fathers of the Council are certainly invoking infallibility

As for Vatican II, it may not have solemnly propogated any new dogmas by use of the extraordinary magisterium…it would, however, still include many infallible statements as teachings of the ordinary magisterium (restating what has always been believed). Is this not correct?

In Christ,
Tyler
 
The quesiton about context - the reuniting of east and west - seems a little beside the point. We profess one baptism anyway - and the problemative declaration (Florence) refers to Jews.

Seems to me you either have to throw out Florence (might be a discussion for another thread - is this possible?) Else you need to reinterpret Florence.

I have always favoured a vertical interpretation in which all such statements are reduced to a Tautology - because the Church incorporates all those who are saved. “No salvation outside of the Church” becomes “No salvation outside of those who are saved”. The wording of Florence however does put a lot of strain on this approach. (Jews… “before the end of life”)… I guess one can still try - “life does not end at death” being one option that someone mentioned.

Somone else mentioned that there is a long tradition re “invincible ignorance”. This is comforting.

VII is very clear though.

Furthermore - there is the light of reason. Obviously we must be docile to the Church’s teaching - but the literal interpretation of Florence just can’t REASONABLY be the case. Just becasue you are a Jew you can’t be saved? To say this isn’t to say that “It doesn’t matter”. Or “as long as you believe what you believe”… Of course it matters and of course the Church is the way of salvation - but it is still unreasonable to say “If your a Jew you’re not saved”.

So we are left with having to “reinterpret” Florence. Not an entirely satisfactory situation but beats any of the alternatives that’s for sure…
 
40.png
Vincent:
Vatican II clarifies that “those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics”—referred to by Pope Eugenius as those who cannot be saved—are precisely those who DO “know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ” and “refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

But what about those who DO NOT “know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ. . .”? Pope Eugenius’s statement didn’t address that question, but Vatican II did. And so there is no contradiction.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

– Mark L. Chance,
 
The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are the things that speak Vatican II. But if one know the Catholic Church and refuses it, he/she won´t save.
 
My personal opinion is that the Catholic teaching on salvation for Jews has changed. For example, even Mr. Keating has a problem with some of the newer developments. See:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp

I don’t know if any of this has to do with infallibility, but I think there is a problem with the E. Orthodox Church and what it believes on certain points and what the RCC beleives. For example, both Churches say that they are teaching what has always been taught from the beginning, but they are not teaching the same thing with reference to papal infalliblity, the filioque and the Immaculate Conception. I don’t know how this would be resolved in a reunion of the two Churches.
 
Interesting debate…

Just to thow another possibility into it - is there any possibility / precedent for removing a council from the list. Is there any argument for why the council of Florence might not qualify?
 
Vincent said:
The paragraph immediately preceding the quote is . . .

“Now, since our Apostolic Office demands we carefully and zealously defend the cause of the Church committed to us by Christ, we condemn those who attack and despise the Church itself, its sacred laws, ministers, and this Apostolic See. Hence, with this letter, once more we confirm, proclaim and condemn totally and singly that which in many consistorial allocutions and in our other Letters we have been forced to deplore, declare and condemn.”

. . . which doesn’t seem to be relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
paragraph 8
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.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”[11]
 
In 1983 Pope John Paul rewrote the Catachism of the Catholic Church. In Pope John Paul’s new Catiachism of the Catholic Church he seems to now say that Church Anathema which cuts people off from the bosom of the Catholic Church, no longer sends people to hell. Pope Eugene indicates that those cut off from the bosom of the Church do go to hell.

I do think that Pope John Paul II’s new 1983 Catacism of the Catholic Church has contradicted the Catacism of Pope Eugene’s day.

Just because Pope John Paul II dislikes and irradicates Church Anathema from the CCC in 1983, I do not think he can reverse how Pope Eugene and 2000 years of previous Popes understood and used Church anathema punishments. Church anathema punishments which cut off people from the life of the bosom of the Catholic Church.

Anathema

…“To understand the word anathema”, says Vigouroux, “we should first go back to **the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, **whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of.”…

…but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven"…

…“Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.”…

…“If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first be excommunicted; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should be given over to the secular arm.”…

…**In passing this sentence, the pontiff **is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces **the formula of anathema **which ends with these words: **Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate **, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions.

Quoted from: New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - Anathema

Pope Eugene IV ( A.D. 1441 ) " The most Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatic’s cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart " into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" ( Matt. 25:21), unless before the end of life the same has been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting’s, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
 
Nobody’s answering my question

Is there any basis for the Council of Florence not fulfilling the requirements of ORdinary Magisterium

I don’t know - was the pope in union with his council of bishops annunciating a truth

I.e. looking at Florence through the optic of LG 25 is there any reason to question it’s status as infallible
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.
Click to expand...
 
When someone is excommunicated, if they are culpable to the extent of an actual mortal sin, and if they fail to repent before death, then they go to Hell.

However, some persons (e.g. Joan of Arc) have died in a state of excommunication and have not gone to Hell.

The one papal pronouncement assumes the guilt of the person who is excommunicated is that of an actual mortal sin, and that the excommunication was just, and that the person did not repent.

The other papal pronouncement takes into account these other factors and so concludes that they might not end in Hell.

Popes and Councils are only infallible when certain criteria have been met. Some have overly narrowed the number of pronouncements that are infallible, others have overly extended them.

Also, temporal decisions are never infallible.

When a teaching is infallible, it is not conditioned by time or circumstance, but rather is an absolute truth about whatever is asserted.

Ron
 
Ron_Conte said:
When someone is excommunicated, if they are culpable to the extent of an actual mortal sin, and if they fail to repent before death, then they go to Hell.

However, some persons (e.g. Joan of Arc) have died in a state of excommunication and have not gone to Hell.

The one papal pronouncement assumes the guilt of the person who is excommunicated is that of an actual mortal sin, and that the excommunication was just, and that the person did not repent.

The other papal pronouncement takes into account these other factors and so concludes that they might not end in Hell.

Popes and Councils are only infallible when certain criteria have been met. Some have overly narrowed the number of pronouncements that are infallible, others have overly extended them.

Also, temporal decisions are never infallible.

When a teaching is infallible, it is not conditioned by time or circumstance, but rather is an absolute truth about whatever is asserted.
Ron
Click to expand...
Hello Ron,

Would you agree that excommunication today is pretty harmless? Most speeches, homilies or writings from the Church on modern excommunications, as I have understood them, point out that modern Church excommunications, or lack of, does not effect a persons eternal salvation.

The definition of anathema is very clear to point out that anathema maranatha goes beyond a simple Church excommunication.

Do you agree that Pope John Paul II took the teeth out of Church punishments by abandoning, not harmless excommunication, but Church anathema. Church anathema were where Popes called upon Jesus to bind souls to sin in heaven, not basic Church excommunications. What happens to someone, in Church anathema, when Jesus refuses to forgive them of sin in heaven due to His sworn oath to Apostolic Successors to do so? They go to hell. What happens if someone, guilty of sin, is excommunicated by the Church? According to my understanding of the modern Church view on excommunication, basic excommunication (that is all that is allowed since Pope John Paul II 1983 revision) it has no impact on eternal salvation.

Church leaders are now trying to disempower pre Pope John Paul II (1983) Church anathemas as being as powerless as modern post Pope John Paul II (1983) Church excommunications. This is an intentional contradiction of how past Popes used and understood Church anathemas.

Do you agree that modern Church excommunications have no power compared to pre 1983 Church anathemas which called upon Christ to bind a soul to sin in heaven which, if not called to be loost again, damns the soul to hell?

Please visit Throwing Stones

AnathemaA Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and "that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven"…"Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate,…He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions.
 
NAB MAT 16:13

Jesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **NAB REV 1:16 **

A sharp, two-edged sword came out of his mouth,…
…I hold the keys of death and the nether world."
NAB ISA 11:4
The Rule of Immanuel
He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.​
**NAB JOH 20:20 **

At the sight of the Lord the disciples rejoiced. “Peace be with you,” he said again. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Then he breathed on them and said: **“Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound.”**NAB MAT 5:22

What I say to you is: everyone who grows angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; any man who uses abusive language toward his brother shall be** answerable to the Sanhedrin,** and if he holds him in contempt he risks the fires of Gehenna. **NAB MAT 18:17 **

“If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top