How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

[gabriel777]

The Point here is that The Catholic church has always held that she is the body of Christ with Christ as her head. That to reject her doctrines is to reject Christ. And if you reject Christ you **cannot **go to heaven. End of story.

 

[Popeurri]

Kaste,

Thanks for the response. You’ve made many great points through out this thread. I obviously disagree, but I find this to be a worthwhile conversation.

I would reference the book “Not by Faith Alone” by Robert Sungenis as a well cited source that argues convincingly (at least convincing to me) for the unity between OT and NT salvation through Christ both .

I will simply add that the Early Church does not even use the words OT and NT in reference to their scriptures at the get go, so they wouldn’t logically make the same destinction that a modern Protestant might make. The Early Church simply had the scriptures. The OT books flowed into the NT books but the distinction was not fully made. It is relevant to note that both the Roman Catechism (aka the Catechism of the Council of Trent) and the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church reference the People of God as referring to both the NT and OT people. This term “the People of God” is found within the Early Church as well with a similar connotation. There isn’t a great distinction made between pre and post Christ.

As an aside, my argument should not be interpreted to mean that the Fathers and even Paul believe that those before and after Christ are in an identical situation – simply that those before Christ are saved because of the Law of Christ just as we are saved today. Certainly, there are times where Paul and the Fathers point out distinctions on how folks before Christ thought they were saved, i.e. many Jews believed it was through the old law. However, Paul and the Fathers go back time and again noting that it is through Christ – i.e. the faith of Abraham, the faithfulness of Noah, etc.

On the second point:

Your example of Christ’s promise to the thief overlooks the fact that the thief was with Christ on the first day, since Christ is God and the Holy Spirit. So I suppose I would say Scripture can be defended against the accusation of contradiction much more convincingly than the Magisterium can.

I may suggest this is only “more convincing” because of your familiarity with trinitarian doctrine and what may be your more limited familiarity with Catholic soteriology.

A devil’s advocate might say it is Christ on the cross not the Holy Spirit or God the Father. Because of this, the Good Thief is not with Christ in paradise at 4pm on Good Friday because of the unity of the Godhead. Of course, I may be misunderstanding your remedy of the contradiction.

I would argue the remedy to the contradiction lies in some more complex explanation of either what “paradise” means or what “day” means in that passage.

In any event, we can both agree to sweep the objection away because of our agreement in the inerrancy of scripture, not because scripture has easier to deal with apparent contradictions.

Finally, I will note that there may be a number of ways to exegetically explain why Eugene’s bull does not contradict the magisterium. Not unlike there being a few possible remedies to apparent contradictions in scripture.

 

[gabriel777]

The Point here is that The Catholic church has always held that she is the body of Christ with Christ as her head. That to reject her doctrines is to reject Christ. And if you reject Christ you **cannot **go to heaven. End of story.

For a moment lets say that it is on account of this UNDERSTANDING that has **always **been taught by the church. That Eugene has made this statement.
It is clear that all of the peoples that he refers to reject Christ according to the teaching of the church so…
Unless they be joined to the church before death they cannot go to heaven. I believe it is safe to say that all of the fathers of the church and all of the Popes have held this to be true.

 

[gabriel777]

The Point here is that The Catholic church has always held that she is the body of Christ with Christ as her head. That to reject her doctrines is to reject Christ. And if you reject Christ you cannot go to heaven. End of story.

For a moment lets say that it is on account of this UNDERSTANDING that has **always **been taught by the church. That Eugene has made this statement.
It is clear that all of the peoples that he refers to reject Christ according to the teaching of the church so…
Unless they be joined to the church before death they cannot go to heaven. I believe it is safe to say that all of the fathers of the church and all of the Popes have held this to be true.

you are quite tricky Kaste;

You know quite well that the doctrine of the Catholic Church stands on three legs.
First: Scripture
Second: Tradition
Third: The Magisterium

You are indeed crafty to try to Keep us from enlightening you, standing on all three legs of Doctrine, Knowing you can’t stand against them.

My Last two posts ( quoted above ) are taken from the First leg of Doctrine, added to the logical conclusion that all Catholics must make regarding the scripture. So shall we take a look:

Colossians 1:18-20 He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might be preeminent. For him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of the cross (through him) whether those on earth or those in heaven.

Ephesians 1:19-23 and what is the surpassing greatness of his power for us to believe, in accord with the exercise of his great might, which he worked in Christ, raising him at his right hand in the heavens, far above every principality, authority, and dominion and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Ephesians 4:13-16 Until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept away by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.

Ephesians 5:23-24 For the Husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

Are you suggesting that Eugene, The magisterium, The Fathers were ignorant of scripture The first leg of Doctrine?

Go on rejecting Christ, Im through with this dicussion.

 

[gabriel777]

As I stated in my last post, I refuse to argue No Salvation Outside The Church Any More. so this is my final post on this thread.

However I Do Have one last point to make. In my experience, Christians when faced with this Question invariably come to the mistaken belief that If they concede this point they are damning their loved ones. This is not necessarily true. First I point out that the absolute definition of heretic is one who teaches heresy. And a schismatic is one who breaks off and starts his own church. So, someone lead astray by one who teaches heresy may be invincibly ignorant.

This said however, to refuse to concede the argument only because we believe that God would never condemn good people, is wrong on two levels. One there are certainly “good people” in hell and secondly for us to claim that God is wrong for this is selfish and arrogant both born of VANITY and vanity always leads to hell.
I don’t know if this applies to anyone on this thread, but I hope this might help someone find the truth that they are looking for.
Thank-you for your time and patience.
sincerely,
Gabriel

 

[Kaste]

I just returned from a visit to a Catholic priest to discuss this topic. Interestingly he pointed out that when he was in seminary he tried to find a document written by Joseph Ratzinger that supposedly explained that “No salvation outside the Church” was understood broadly back then. He could not find it. It may be written in German, Latin or Italian.

Also he said that infallibility does not prevent the Church from wording Truth poorly, just that it teach no positive error. Both of his points are reflected well in this discussion. My challenge is still the same though: a reasonable person should expect to see quotes from the early Church that shows the early church understood “No salvation outside the Church” as it currently does.

Now let me respond accordingly:

 

[Kaste]

Popeurri,

I see your point about the continuity of following the Law as necessary for salvation. However don’t you think that if we are saved by the Law, (Christ’s Law) as you call it, then Galations 2:21 would seem an odd passage? My intent is not to argue over Scripture, but to see if the early Church Fathers believed what you are saying. If they did, I would expect we would see some more quotes regarding salvation for heretics, pagans and Jews. You do say that you are uncertain that those before Christ are in an identical situation with those that came after Christ.

And regarding the thief question, I’m willing but hesitant to entertain a solution that relies on the interpretation of “paradise”. This may be just as good or better than relying on the Trinitarian dogma that Christ is God, but it seems to me that the problem is solved enough by knowing that Christ is God. Paradise is obviously not the netherworld or hell, which is where Christ descended.

So I still must say I believe that contradictions are easier settled in Scripture than in the Magisterium. I don’t think I can agree that the methods to solve the apparent or real contradictions in the two would be exegetically explained the same way. However this is only my initial reaction, and I will have to consider this further.

 

[Kaste]

Gabriel777,

You say, “To reject the Church’s doctrine is to reject Christ.” And so therefore those that reject the Church reject Christ and go to hell.

But this is too sweeping. Augustine says heretical baptism is still legitimate, but the Donatists deny the Church’s doctrine, as do the Protestants. Also your description of an “absolute” (formal?) heretic is another example of something we do not find in the early church, or at least the early church does not seem to give hope to the other kind of heretic: the mild/ignorant/informal heretic.

DJim,

I do not see why you think Eugene’s quote must include Jews before Christ’s time. For obviously Jews were the chosen people, so he would not condemn the chosen people. But since Christ came, it is known that many Jews rejected him, so much that “Jews” as almost a complete people-group were known to reject Christ. This is obviously who Eugene is speaking to, not those Jews of the Old testament. The Jews during Eugene’s time (along with the Eastern Orthodox) rejected the Roman Bishop. Eugene is damning these people. This is the context.

Now you say Invincible Ignorance is not possible if you are a schismatic or heretic, because by their very definition the schismatic and heretic know what they are doing by rejecting the Roman Bishop. I don’t have to remind you that the Catholic Church labeled Protestants as heretics and Eastern Orthodox as schismatics. So these are not covered by Invincible Ignorance. So what happens to them? If you believe this doesn’t apply to “formal” Schismatics or heretics, then please show that the Church taught and understood the distinction back then.

If these Schismatics and heretics are saved, it is not because Invincible Ignorance, it is because in some mysterious way they are joined to the Church, perhaps by their good will?
I will address this with Tdgesq.

Tdgesq,

1. You are right, Augustine is not speaking about people before Christ.

Augustine says when heretics baptise, it is still valid. This is affirmed by Trent. So although the schismatic Donatists were not in communion with Rome, they are still in some mysterious way joined to the Church, at least with their baptism.

I can buy this, but Eugene doesn’t. He clearly says schismatics go to hell. What else are schismatics than those like the Donatists and Orthodox? Eugene is clearly at odds with Augustine.

1. You quote Aquinas. But this quote even states “If they are damned” when referring to the ignorant, which is to say Aquinas is doubtful the ignorant are saved.
2. You also say that those before Christ were saved because of ignorance. However I do not see any Fathers affirming this. Instead they suggest those before Christ were saved because they followed the Logos. So Socrates was saved not because he was ignorant of Christ, as were practically all Greeks, but because he lived a life seeking Truth. The quotes Gabriel777 provided affirm this as the reason the Fathers allowed salvation for those that came before Christ.

Now your point that it would be absurd if this type of salvific means (following the Logos gets one into heaven) was suddenly stopped the moment Christ came is well taken. Therefore though I disagree that it is due to ignorance, that people are saved, I believe ignorance is factored in as an ingredient, but the chief cause for salvation for “those outside the Church” is whether or not they followed the Logos written on their hearts. Therefore when the Fathers taught that those who followed the Logos could be hoped to have gained salvation, we can assume that teaching extends into the post-Christ era as well, provided one is ignorant of Truth. Can we agree on this?

Even so, if this is what can pass for being “joined to the Church” to use Eugene’s own words, then why does Eugene still condemn schismatics, heretics and Jews, unless they submit themselves to Rome? They are obviously not joined to the Church.

Wouldn’t it be easier to deny Eugene’s strict interpretation of “No salvation outside the Church” infallibility?

Kaste

 

[DJim]

Kaste–

Here are the unchangeable facts:

1. The Church taught infallibly in 1442.
2. The Church teaches infallibly today.
3. In both times, the Church teaches correctly.
4. There are no contradictions in or reversals of infallible teaching.
5. As the Church moves forward, it continually grows in its understanding of what it teaches.

You seem to have trouble agreeing with these unchangeable facts. I have attempted to provide a basis for you to reconsider your objections. Now I can only conclude that all I have left to offer you is prayer, which I will do.

Sincerly,

DJim

PS: It would sure be nice if you stopped calling the teaching “Eugene’s” text–the text is a teaching from a Council and not directly from a pope…and lest we all forget, the verbatim text in question originates with Fulgentius of Ruspe…

 

[bobzills]

Kaste–

Here are the unchangeable facts:

1. The Church taught infallibly in 1442.
2. The Church teaches infallibly today.
3. In both times, the Church teaches correctly.
4. There are no contradictions in or reversals of infallible teaching.
5. As the Church moves forward, it continually grows in its understanding of what it teaches.

…

Not everything that the Church teaches is infallible. And there is disagreement on what is or what is not covered by infallibility. for example, there are arguments both ways as to whether or not artificial contraception has been infallibly condemned. Some theologians say yes, others say no as far as infallibility of humanae Vitae is concerned. Still, even if it were not an infallible document, Catholics are obliged to believe it is wrong to use ABC, since it is convered by the ordinary magisterium of the Church. For an example of a teaching which has changed, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated in 1054 in a letter by Cardinal Cerularius. In the letter among the reasons given for the excommuncation was that the Greeks had omitted the filioque from the creed. However, it is not taught today that this is a problem. So the teaching on this important issue of the filioque has changed in modern times, as have many other teachings changed.

 

[bobzills]

In regard to pagans and Jews, if you concede that pagans and Jews who are absolutely separated from the Church by time may be saved, then please explain why you have trouble conceding that pagans and Jews who are absolutely separated from the Church by ignorance may also be saved.

DJim

That’s easy. There was no Catholic Church before the birth of Christ,. There was ignorance before the birth of Christ.

 

[DJim]

Bobzills wrote:

Not everything that the Church teaches is infallible.

Straw man–I never said it was.

And there is disagreement on what is or what is not covered by infallibility. for example, there are arguments both ways as to whether or not artificial contraception has been infallibly condemned.

It’s not up to the faithful or theologians to decide what is or is not infallible–so it’s not appropriate to characterize the theological discussion of such texts as “disagreement” as though any authority whatsoever is involved in this…the faithful are bound to believe all that the magisterium teaches, infallible or not. Theological argument on any level does not excuse disobedience to the Church…

For an example of a teaching which has changed, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated in 1054 in a letter by Cardinal Cerularius. In the letter among the reasons given for the excommuncation was that the Greeks had omitted the filioque from the creed. However, it is not taught today that this is a problem. So the teaching on this important issue of the filioque has changed in modern times, as have many other teachings changed.

Straw man again–a letter of excommunication is a matter of Church discipline and is obviously not an infallible teaching.

Further, the inclusion or omission of the “filioque” is not an infallible teaching either, nor representative of a change in teaching. Creeds are expressions of faith, not faith itself. The Nicene Creed did NOT change what we believe about the Incarnation by adding “God from God, light from light, true God from true God” to its expression of faith, even though the Apostle’s Creed did not use that language. BOTH are true expressions.

So too is it a true expression to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. He does (or do you deny He does?) And it is also a true expression to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. He does (or do you deny He does?).

As can be easily shown, if you deny the truth of the “filioque”, your argument is with Scripture not with the Roman Catholic Church…

DJim

 

[DJim]

That’s easy. There was no Catholic Church before the birth of Christ,. There was ignorance before the birth of Christ.

Exactly the point–there was ignorance of the Church before Christ via the impenetrable barrier of time.

There is ignorance of the Church AFTER Christ, via the partially impenetrable barrier of space.

Any critic who claims that the Magisterium puts impossible burdens upon people–but ONLY those people the critic himself says the burden exists upon–is no longer worth the time or energy to refute.

You should, before God, admit the truth–the example of conciliar infallibility that began this thread is absolutely consistent with modern Catholic belief.

DJim

PS: the more I reflect on it, it is actually a barrier of time in both cases, since in both cases the souls involved run out of time before being able to convincingly hear the Gospel preached to them…

 

[Popeurri]

Kaste,

And regarding the thief question, I’m willing but hesitant to entertain a solution that relies on the interpretation of “paradise”. This may be just as good or better than relying on the Trinitarian dogma that Christ is God, but it seems to me that the problem is solved enough by knowing that Christ is God. Paradise is obviously not the netherworld or hell, which is where Christ descended.

Christ is God – but Christ is not God the Holy Spirit. I’m not convinced of the solution you presented to the apparent contradiction. Your solution as presented seems a huge stretch: Christ is joined to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is in paradise on the day of his death, therefore Christ is in paradise on the day of his death, therefore the Good Thief is in paradise on the day of his death. I don’t think that works.

You state that the problem is solved by “knowing that Christ is God.” Yes, I would agree, but that is not a solution, that is more a priori belief that Christ will not contradict himself than anything. If you were to fully work out a solution I think an outsider would say it is not as simple as you think it is.

Apparent contradictions in scripture are not limited here obviously. I could go on and on and on. Leviticus for example states that “the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you.” (Levi 11:6). Cud is regurgitated grass or shrubbery. This appears to be a clear factual error in scripture. Rabbits simply don’t chew cud – never have.

Furthermore, it appears that a sin under the Old Law was established because of this apparent factual error. A non-Christian might say this is a great reason to throw out the divine inspiration of the scriptures. How can God not know that rabbits don’t chew cud? Why would God say eating a rabbit is a sin for a reason that simply is not true?

I’m certain the remedy to this dilemma is not as easy as resolving other phenomenological questions about science, creation, and the solar system that exist elsewhere in scripture. I’m confident an answer exists and that it may be relatively short, but I’m not confident it is easier to accept than a proper exegesis of Eugene’s writing and other apparent contradictions in the magisterium. I would say it is only easier for you to accept because of your a priori acceptance of the authority of scripture and your a priori rejection of the authority of the magisterium.

You also note:

My intent is not to argue over Scripture, but to see if the early Church Fathers believed what you are saying. If they did, I would expect we would see some more quotes regarding salvation for heretics, pagans and Jews. You do say that you are uncertain that those before Christ are in an identical situation with those that came after Christ.

I probably confused the point in my prior post. My point that the two situations (pre and post Christ) are not identical does not concede the essential point: the NT authors and the Early Church agree there is one way to salvation – the law of Christ. The NT goes on and on in citing David, Abraham, Noah, Rahab, Phineas, and others as examples of how Christians can be saved today. Those figures would be irrelevant examples to Christians today unless they actually believed my point. So it is more logical to hold that when the ECFs cite OT verses and figures describing salvation that those verses are relevant to both pre and post Christ just as when Paul cites those verses.

It is worth noting that Tdesq’s quote from Aquinas references this idea of continuity of salvation between pre and post Christ.

The thrust of my point is this. Your argument that the early Church and the Church today makes a distinction on how one is saved pre and post Christ is based on a flawed presupposition. Because you take the position that people were in fact saved differently before Christ and after Christ, you are importing that opinion onto all the ECFs. My argument is that your presupposition needs to be established before using it as a bulwark in your argument. I simply don’t see how you established that point.

 

[Popeurri]

Kaste,

You note elsewhere in relation to the ECFs belief in salvation amongst those outside of the visible Church:

If they did, I would expect we would see some more quotes regarding salvation for heretics, pagans and Jews

I’m not sure if it is relevant how many quotes need to be assembled. I’ve seen a number of them on this thread, however, you through them out because of a flawed presupposition. So we may be at an impasse until you can demonstrate the soundness of the foundational principles of your argument.

I believe tdesq’s earlier citation of St. Augustine is still relevant. So it is worth requoting:

Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity.

I’m not sure how this verse can be rendered moot when you say it simply supports baptism of desire not invincible ignorance as described by the Church in the 19th century.

It seems like you have a misunderstanding of what the Church believes when it uses the term inculpable ignorance. My point here is to note that Baptism of Desire as espoused by Augustine and the Church Fathers is in full conformity with the Church’s concept of inculpable ignorance.

Pius actually wrote “It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."

Pius IX didn’t say that one is saved because he is inculpably ignorant. He simply noted that one is not damned because of inculpable ignorance. Between the two is a world of difference. Pius IX, the Church today, and the Church in Paul’s time and in the time of the ECFs, notes simply that inculpable ignorance will not damn someone. A person can be damned when they are inculpably ignorant, however, he is not damned because of that ignorance. This is inconformity with the concept of baptism of desire.

The idea that inculpable ignorance actively saves and is a means of salvation is a misinterpretation. These were misinterpretations immediately after Pius IX wrote Singulari Quidem. To this Pius IX said:

“**we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."

It’s worth also giving another explanation of tdesq’s quote of Justin the Martyr:

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious.

You rejected this quote because it “specifically pertained to those before Christ came.” I think it is more logical to argue that Justin believes his point pertains in his age just as it does in the age before Christ.

You see, Justin’s quote is in conformity with Romans 2 which describes how the gentiles are a law unto themselves. It is critical to note the underlying argument when Justin says “ those who lived reasonably are Christians.” It is more unreasonable than reasonable to infer from Justin’s writing that those who live today in the same situation as the Greeks and barbarians of his day are not Christians. To read too much into his use of the past-tense would have us believe that Justin is in disagreement with Paul. While this is a possible position, it is not, in my mind, reasonable given Justin’s close proximity to Paul – both of whom where martyred in Rome. It is also not reasonable in light of Augustine’s similar views centuries later.

When taken in proper context, Eugene, Augustine, Justin, Pius IX and Vatican II’s teaching on salvation among non-Christians does illustrate a healthy development in doctrine.

 

[Kaste]

Popeurri,

Many good points. I have been carefully reading the latest posts with much consideration.

But for now, let me say this:

I am entertaining the argument that quotes speaking about those good men before Christ having a chance to be saved also pertains to those good men after Christ.

However I find it very very suspicious that we see so many seemingly exclusivist “No salvation outside the Church” quotes when referring to those who came after Christ: Schismatics, heretics, Jews and Pagans who still refused to embrace Christianity let alone the Catholic Church.

Surely men back then had plenty of time to think and write about what happens to those who do not accept Christianity or the bishop of Rome. And it seems they did consider this and came out with strict and exclusivist salvation theories. Where are the papal and magisterial writings that show a touch of hope for Jews and heretics?

If this is what passes for doctrinal development I am simply shocked. It does not take 1800 years to come to the conclusion that maybe Jews, Schismatics and heretics may actually get into heaven. Or if it does then the Church’s infallibility is virtually useless, and even harmful because it lead to so much confusion on what is and what is not infallible teaching.

Augustine did mention schismatics’ baptism is valid, but he still calls them enemies of unity, and it seems the baptism is only valid in the sense that if the “heretic” or “schismatic” comes back in communion with the Bishop of Rome, there is no need to re-baptize. So it seems Augustine, rather than pointing out that “heretics” and “schismatics” get to heaven because of their own baptism, he is making the point that they simply just do not need to be rebaptised when entering communion with the Roman See.

I suppose, Popeurri, I would ask you this:

Did Eugene and the Magisterium write Cantate Domino knowing that, well, really Jews, schismatics, heretics and pagans actually might be able to still get to heaven if they die in their same state of mind?

Thanks for your good points. I appreciate the discussion.

Kaste

 

[tdgesq]

Tdgesq,

1. You are right, Augustine is not speaking about people before Christ.

Augustine says when heretics baptise, it is still valid. This is affirmed by Trent. So although the schismatic Donatists were not in communion with Rome, they are still in some mysterious way joined to the Church, at least with their baptism.

Right, Augustine here is making the distinction between the heart and body of the one Church. There is an invisible component to the Church, what was later termed the mystical body of Christ, and there is a visible component, the structured institutional church. Two components of the same Church. Notice how much emphasis Augustine places on the first component; going so far as to say that those in the visible body but outside of the heart are called enemies of unity.

I can buy this, but Eugene doesn’t. He clearly says schismatics go to hell. What else are schismatics than those like the Donatists and Orthodox? Eugene is clearly at odds with Augustine.

Not this again! This is not what Florence states, it states:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives;

Florence states that schismatics can be joined to the Catholic Church in some way before death. What Florence and Eugene don’t define is how this can happen. You admitted this earlier here:

Eugene doesn’t have to define how one is “joined to the Church” when every other previous Roman teaching never mentions anything but the very strict exclusivist interpretation

I then demonstrated that the Fathers did not have the kind of exclusive interpretation of how one could be joined to the Church that you suggested.

1. You quote Aquinas. But this quote even states “If they are damned” when referring to the ignorant, which is to say Aquinas is doubtful the ignorant are saved.

But you left out a relevant portion of that quote:

If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief.

I do not see this statement from Aquinas as saying that he reckons unbelievers as damned. If they are damned it is because of some other sin that follows from their disbelief. And remember the quote I provided earlier where Aquinas allows for an implicit faith for those who are ignorant of Christ’s message.

1. You also say that those before Christ were saved because of ignorance. However I do not see any Fathers affirming this. Instead they suggest those before Christ were saved because they followed the Logos. So Socrates was saved not because he was ignorant of Christ, as were practically all Greeks, but because he lived a life seeking Truth.

No I do not say that they were saved because of ignorance. I say that they can be saved in spite of their ignorance. Aquinas and the other Fathers make it evident that at least an implicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Those men who are ignorant of Christ’s message must accept and follow the Word that has been given to them.

Now your point that it would be absurd if this type of salvific means (following the Logos gets one into heaven) was suddenly stopped the moment Christ came is well taken. Therefore though I disagree that it is due to ignorance, that people are saved, I believe ignorance is factored in as an ingredient, but the chief cause for salvation for “those outside the Church” is whether or not they followed the Logos written on their hearts. Therefore when the Fathers taught that those who followed the Logos could be hoped to have gained salvation, we can assume that teaching extends into the post-Christ era as well, provided one is ignorant of Truth. Can we agree on this?

I agree with you, but I want to clarify a couple of things. The ingredient of ignorance is just the state in which these people find themselves. In itself it has no saving power. It is the acceptance of those truths written on the heart and the subsequent adherence to them.

 

[tdgesq]

Even so, if this is what can pass for being “joined to the Church” to use Eugene’s own words, then why does Eugene still condemn schismatics, heretics and Jews, unless they submit themselves to Rome? They are obviously not joined to the Church.

It wasn’t just Eugene that held this, it was also the numerous bishops that attended that council and voted in favor of the decree. It is a fact that true schismatics and formal heretics (the Jews and pagans would potentially fit under one or the other [or both] of these categories) would as such be outside of the Church and therefore would not be saved, absent some kind of conversion before death.

The schismatics and heretics to which Florence refers are those who are truly Jews, Pagans, Eastern Orthodox, etc. It is only those that exercise their will in opposition to the truths of which they are not ignorant. These are the true schismatics and formal heretics as opposed to those who might be termed a Jew or a Pagan or a Coptic because they are found within schismatic groups or are material heretics. Don’t believe me? The distinction is provided here: newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_I

For your contrary interpretation to work, Eugene and the bishops of Florence would knowingly have to reject the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas on ignorance and implicit faith. They would also have to have meant to reject the distinction between formal and material heresy (another doctrine of Aquinas), which also means they would have to reject the necessity of the will to be a heretic or a schismatic, which also means that they would have to reject the necessity of the will to commit sin. There is no indication that Florence intended to throw out multiple doctrines of the Catholic Church that are taught both before and after it.

 

[Popeurri]

Kaste,

Did Eugene and the Magisterium write Cantate Domino knowing that, well, really Jews, schismatics, heretics and pagans actually might be able to still get to heaven if they die in their same state of mind?

Eugene and the Magisterium proclaimed that Jews, schismatics, heretics, and pagans who are in a formal state of heresy are all damned. This is clear by there statements.

It is reasonable (and I would posit absolutely true) that Eugene/Florence hold that a Jew, schismatic, or heretic in material heresy may or may not be damned or saved. Why? Ultimately, if any are saved, it is only because of their unity with the Church. Therefore, they are Christian in the way Justin Martyr would state. In so far as they are implicitly Christian, they are not Jews, schismatics, or heretics in the formal sense.

I believe the major interpretive problem between us stems from the fact that Protestants (largely) assert a total break from scholasticism and philosophy – dismissing it all as sophistry.

Let me try to explain:

Aquinas would point out that a person can be fat and skinny simultaneously without there being any contradiction. They just can’t be fat and skinny simultaneously in the same way. Compared to a starving Ethiopian, one may be fat. Compared to a sumo wrestler one may be skinny. At different times one may place emphasis on different points. If I place emphasis at one point in time on one attribute, this does not mean I reject the prior attribute. I simply am not speaking to it at that time.

Eugene/Florence is placing emphasis on a factual point: all Jews, Pagans, Heretics, etc. do go to hell, in so far as they are outside of the Church. Their silence on the other point (how one becomes joined to the Church), does not mean they reject the idea that one might be joined to the Church in an invisible manner.

You might argue that this is one way of interpreting the text, but not, in your opinion the best. I would argue that I am asserting the precision of the magisterium and the Holy Spirit’s work in protecting it.

Scripture argues for its own precision. In Galatians 3:16 Paul notes, “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds, ‘as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” Paul argues for a theological truth on the basis of a singular verses plural noun.

Certainly, in light of the above, you would not hold that it is unreasonable for me to assert precision in interpreting the magisterium?

I have more thoughts relating to your objection about the relevance of the magisterium in light of how easily it seems that it can be misinterpreted. This is a great question and I will think about an adequate response. But since I have to tend to my duties as a father and husband, I’ll have to type them up later

 

[bobzills]

Eugene/Florence is placing emphasis on a factual point: all Jews, Pagans, Heretics, etc. do go to hell, in so far as they are outside of the Church.

This is not what is taught today.