D
- Status
U
Usagi
Guest
Yes, it is.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” remains Catholic dogma. You’ll notice it tends to put non-Catholics in an uproar whenever a modern pope mentions this fact, as Pope Benedict did recently.
The change has been in the understanding of what “outside” or “inside” the Church entails, and that there might be different degrees of “outsideness/insideness” that are not strictly connected to formal membership in the Catholic Church.
Was that same understanding possessed in the days of Pope Eugene and the Council Fathers at Florence? It seems unlikely to me, though some of the cited quotations about pre-Christian Jews and the connection even heretics may have to the true Church through their valid sacraments could be seen as laying a foundation for later development. Obviously, Kaste is not presently convinced this is so.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
A comparison to the changed understanding of the fate of unbaptized infants might be helpful here, since it has been in the news lately with recent statements on the question of Limbo.
Augustine, wanting to safeguard the truths of original sin and the necessity of sacramental baptism, concluded that unbaptized infants are damned to Hell. I’m sure he didn’t take any pleasure in that conclusion, but it was the only one he felt he could make without denying a truth of the Faith. Subsequently, the Church often took Augustine’s thinking as read, though if I understand correctly, the specific idea of infant damnation was never dogmatized.
Later Catholic thinkers, perhaps believing that Augustine’s conclusion ignored the equally-or-more-important truths of God’s perfect Justice and infinite Love, sought an alternative solution to the problem of unbaptized infants. Believing that Heaven was still not a viable destination for such souls, they conjectured the existence of limbus infantum, the nature of which seems to have varied with different opinions, from a nearly-painless top level of Hell (as Kaste has asserted) to a sort of runner-up to Heaven, offering perfect natural happiness lacking only in the Beatific Vision. (The latter condition might still be technically considered to exist “in Hell,” since the Beatific Vision is lacking, and the souls there would indeed be infinitely less happy than the blessed in Heaven; but given that they would be as happy as anyone has ever been here on Earth, their condition isn’t exactly Hell as it is popularly understood.)
Still more recently (culminating just this year), Catholic thinkers and writers have wondered if the Limbo notion is still selling God’s love and mercy short. It’s now said that Limbo as a halfway state is no longer needed, and that we may believe that the souls of unbaptized innocents may achieve Heaven through God’s mercy, though it is improper to assert that we know they go to Heaven.
Over time, this represents an almost complete about-face in terms of the most likely fate of unbaptized infants – yet all these positions represent attempts to safeguard the same unchanging truths. Augustine emphasizes the truth that only an act of God can make us fit for Heaven, and that that act is normally mediated through Christian baptism. Modern thinkers deny neither of these truths, but emphasize God’s love to conclude that, since it’s God Who has to take action to save us in the first place, He may well act outside the framework he has set up for our use.
I would argue that much the same development has occurred with respect to the potential salvation of adult non-Catholics. The modern teaching does not deny that one must be part of the Catholic Church to be saved; rather, it embraces a wider understanding of what it means to be “part of the Church.” Today, there are many outside the strict boundaries of the Catholic Church who embrace a sizable portion of Christian truth, and the wounds of separation are no longer so fresh. Many are brought up in what Catholics consider incomplete forms of Christianity, without the understanding to qualify as formal heretics or schismatics. While the ideal is still for everyone to be a card-carrying Catholic, it is reasonable to ask whether God might not make Augustine’s distinction between “inside in heart” and “inside in body.” Hence the importance of considering whether a person would be Catholic if he or she knew that to be God’s will – a knowledge that was taken for granted in Pope Eugene’s time but can be no longer.
Now, the modern understanding can still be stretched and abused until it does outright contradict dogma. For example, some have taken the modern understanding to mean that all paths are equally valid, and that one is saved by being a “good” pagan or Jew or Protestant or whatever. That is most certainly not Catholic teaching. Everyone who is saved is saved by Christ, acting through His one and only Church. If those who are not formally Catholic are saved, it is in spite of their unwitting adherence to other beliefs, not because of it. Now, there are elements of truth in other faiths, and we say that people may be saved to the extent that they follow the light/truth available to them – but that is not to say that there is a pagan or Jewish path to salvation independent of Christianity, nor even other Christian paths independent of Catholicism. “Following the light one is given” is more of an indication (given God’s omniscient knowledge of the inner workings of a particular person’s mind) that one does recognize the Truth, and would embrace the rest of it were it presented to one.
Usagi
Augustine, wanting to safeguard the truths of original sin and the necessity of sacramental baptism, concluded that unbaptized infants are damned to Hell. I’m sure he didn’t take any pleasure in that conclusion, but it was the only one he felt he could make without denying a truth of the Faith. Subsequently, the Church often took Augustine’s thinking as read, though if I understand correctly, the specific idea of infant damnation was never dogmatized.
Later Catholic thinkers, perhaps believing that Augustine’s conclusion ignored the equally-or-more-important truths of God’s perfect Justice and infinite Love, sought an alternative solution to the problem of unbaptized infants. Believing that Heaven was still not a viable destination for such souls, they conjectured the existence of limbus infantum, the nature of which seems to have varied with different opinions, from a nearly-painless top level of Hell (as Kaste has asserted) to a sort of runner-up to Heaven, offering perfect natural happiness lacking only in the Beatific Vision. (The latter condition might still be technically considered to exist “in Hell,” since the Beatific Vision is lacking, and the souls there would indeed be infinitely less happy than the blessed in Heaven; but given that they would be as happy as anyone has ever been here on Earth, their condition isn’t exactly Hell as it is popularly understood.)
Still more recently (culminating just this year), Catholic thinkers and writers have wondered if the Limbo notion is still selling God’s love and mercy short. It’s now said that Limbo as a halfway state is no longer needed, and that we may believe that the souls of unbaptized innocents may achieve Heaven through God’s mercy, though it is improper to assert that we know they go to Heaven.
Over time, this represents an almost complete about-face in terms of the most likely fate of unbaptized infants – yet all these positions represent attempts to safeguard the same unchanging truths. Augustine emphasizes the truth that only an act of God can make us fit for Heaven, and that that act is normally mediated through Christian baptism. Modern thinkers deny neither of these truths, but emphasize God’s love to conclude that, since it’s God Who has to take action to save us in the first place, He may well act outside the framework he has set up for our use.
I would argue that much the same development has occurred with respect to the potential salvation of adult non-Catholics. The modern teaching does not deny that one must be part of the Catholic Church to be saved; rather, it embraces a wider understanding of what it means to be “part of the Church.” Today, there are many outside the strict boundaries of the Catholic Church who embrace a sizable portion of Christian truth, and the wounds of separation are no longer so fresh. Many are brought up in what Catholics consider incomplete forms of Christianity, without the understanding to qualify as formal heretics or schismatics. While the ideal is still for everyone to be a card-carrying Catholic, it is reasonable to ask whether God might not make Augustine’s distinction between “inside in heart” and “inside in body.” Hence the importance of considering whether a person would be Catholic if he or she knew that to be God’s will – a knowledge that was taken for granted in Pope Eugene’s time but can be no longer.
Now, the modern understanding can still be stretched and abused until it does outright contradict dogma. For example, some have taken the modern understanding to mean that all paths are equally valid, and that one is saved by being a “good” pagan or Jew or Protestant or whatever. That is most certainly not Catholic teaching. Everyone who is saved is saved by Christ, acting through His one and only Church. If those who are not formally Catholic are saved, it is in spite of their unwitting adherence to other beliefs, not because of it. Now, there are elements of truth in other faiths, and we say that people may be saved to the extent that they follow the light/truth available to them – but that is not to say that there is a pagan or Jewish path to salvation independent of Christianity, nor even other Christian paths independent of Catholicism. “Following the light one is given” is more of an indication (given God’s omniscient knowledge of the inner workings of a particular person’s mind) that one does recognize the Truth, and would embrace the rest of it were it presented to one.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
If you are referring to the phrase “papal bull,” that is the term for a particular kind of solemn papal document, not an insult.
Usagi
P
Popeurri
Guest
Usagi,
I just wanted to make sure your good statements were not misread.
For example, after Nicea, a Catholic in 385 AD may not have immediately seized on the wording of Ephesus, Constantinople I, Nicea II, or Constantinople II. However, each council developed the one Trinitarian position more deeply.
I just wanted to make sure your good statements were not misread.
The critical point to note here is that the question of unbaptized infants has never been formally determined by the Church. Limbo is and has always been theological theory with proponents and opponents within the Church. I know you recognize this, but I just want to make this clear for the purposes of this discussion.
This is an opinion I would not be willing to accept, but I recognize the position. I will reference my earlier posts in this matter. I would agree in your citation of doctrinal development – doctrinal development does not mean that the doctrine as currently held was articulated in the same way hundreds or thousands of years earlier. Furthermore, if you were to word a modern phrasing of a developed doctrine to a Catholic 500 years ago, he or she may not immediately identify with it (however, since I lack a time machine – this would all have to be speculation).
For example, after Nicea, a Catholic in 385 AD may not have immediately seized on the wording of Ephesus, Constantinople I, Nicea II, or Constantinople II. However, each council developed the one Trinitarian position more deeply.
P
Popeurri
Guest
Kaste,
You bring up a great question and I hope my response is found somewhat adequate:
However, it should be no dramatic surprise that this question isn’t more formally defined until much later. Other similar questions were not defined until much later – questions involving the Trinity, the number of sacraments, the number of inspired books, Marian doctrines, etc.
At any rate, it’s perfectly in keeping with the concept of the magisterium that the Church at certain times throughout history places more emphasis on one end of the doctrinally permissible spectrum rather than another – this prerogative is in keeping with the Church’s pastoral or prudential judgment.
For example, Vatican II chooses to take conciliatory language toward Muslims to foster an atmosphere of dialogue. This did not change the fact that the Muslims are, by definition, still infidels. However, that language in the 20th century did not appear pastorally productive. Yet, in the 11th century it did seem quite pastorally appropriate considering Muslims had conquered, at that point, nearly half of the Christian world. Neither position is incorrect. They are different expressions of the Church’s idea of itself and its relation to the world.
Now, there is no protection or doctrine which holds that the Church will make the best pastoral decision at the best times. Therefore, that’s why a good Catholic can say that he or she does not agree that a particular pastoral (a non-infallible) decision is made in the best way. A Catholic simply needs to recognize the authority of the Church to make a given pastoral decision.
Now it’s been pointed out that if you do indeed buy this argument that it, in fact, still renders the magisterium moot. I certainly see and empathize with how one can come to this conclusion.
However, I think you will see that this argument does not hold water.
The first thing that must be pointed out is a problem inherent to all language. Most words and phrases are open to interpretation – including, to an extant, the magisterium’s words and phrases. This does not, as the linguists might argue, mean that a word means anything or nothing at all. It’s just that a word can mean several things.
A Protestant might quickly say “Aha. So, your magisterium is, in the end, no better than a position which holds that Christian Truth is determined by me and my bible alone with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” Or perhaps a Protestant would say something similar but more intellectually potent.
This would be a fair critique if the magisterium lacked a living component. Because the magisterium is a living entity unlike scripture – i.e. it is alive in the current Pope and the college of bishops – it can actually defend itself. The scriptures cannot jump up and come to life and demand a clarification. Yet the magisterium can.
For example, Pope Benedict just recently found it necessary to write a document to reiterating the Church’s belief in its relation to other religions in a way that was no less true, but pastorally effective in the 21st century. This touched on many issues relevant to this discussion. It seems like the world-wide media didn’t miss the exclusivistic points of the pope’s document.
You see, the magisterium has the ability to rectify any interpretive problem through a further clarification or definition, which is in conformity with prior statements. It’s possible the magisterium may not go about this in the best pastoral way.
For example, it took eight centuries and seven ecumenical councils to come to a nearly airtight definition of the Trinity. Talk about problems with language and interpreting the magisterium!
(Continue in next post)
You bring up a great question and I hope my response is found somewhat adequate:
First, I think the argument has been made that very early on in the Church’s existence (going back to the OT in fact) the position that perhaps “Jews, schismatics, and heretics may actually get into heaven" only insofar as they are inside the Church, was held with some variance by members of the Church hierarchy since extremely early on – (Paul seems to hold this position in Romans 2 and I will stand by the other referenced verses in this thread).
However, it should be no dramatic surprise that this question isn’t more formally defined until much later. Other similar questions were not defined until much later – questions involving the Trinity, the number of sacraments, the number of inspired books, Marian doctrines, etc.
At any rate, it’s perfectly in keeping with the concept of the magisterium that the Church at certain times throughout history places more emphasis on one end of the doctrinally permissible spectrum rather than another – this prerogative is in keeping with the Church’s pastoral or prudential judgment.
For example, Vatican II chooses to take conciliatory language toward Muslims to foster an atmosphere of dialogue. This did not change the fact that the Muslims are, by definition, still infidels. However, that language in the 20th century did not appear pastorally productive. Yet, in the 11th century it did seem quite pastorally appropriate considering Muslims had conquered, at that point, nearly half of the Christian world. Neither position is incorrect. They are different expressions of the Church’s idea of itself and its relation to the world.
Now, there is no protection or doctrine which holds that the Church will make the best pastoral decision at the best times. Therefore, that’s why a good Catholic can say that he or she does not agree that a particular pastoral (a non-infallible) decision is made in the best way. A Catholic simply needs to recognize the authority of the Church to make a given pastoral decision.
Now it’s been pointed out that if you do indeed buy this argument that it, in fact, still renders the magisterium moot. I certainly see and empathize with how one can come to this conclusion.
However, I think you will see that this argument does not hold water.
The first thing that must be pointed out is a problem inherent to all language. Most words and phrases are open to interpretation – including, to an extant, the magisterium’s words and phrases. This does not, as the linguists might argue, mean that a word means anything or nothing at all. It’s just that a word can mean several things.
A Protestant might quickly say “Aha. So, your magisterium is, in the end, no better than a position which holds that Christian Truth is determined by me and my bible alone with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” Or perhaps a Protestant would say something similar but more intellectually potent.
This would be a fair critique if the magisterium lacked a living component. Because the magisterium is a living entity unlike scripture – i.e. it is alive in the current Pope and the college of bishops – it can actually defend itself. The scriptures cannot jump up and come to life and demand a clarification. Yet the magisterium can.
For example, Pope Benedict just recently found it necessary to write a document to reiterating the Church’s belief in its relation to other religions in a way that was no less true, but pastorally effective in the 21st century. This touched on many issues relevant to this discussion. It seems like the world-wide media didn’t miss the exclusivistic points of the pope’s document.
You see, the magisterium has the ability to rectify any interpretive problem through a further clarification or definition, which is in conformity with prior statements. It’s possible the magisterium may not go about this in the best pastoral way.
For example, it took eight centuries and seven ecumenical councils to come to a nearly airtight definition of the Trinity. Talk about problems with language and interpreting the magisterium!
(Continue in next post)
P
Popeurri
Guest
Does this reality render, as you seem to assert, the magisterium moot? I don’t think you can make that conclusion.
When the problem becomes significant, the magisterium makes a clarification. This is done throuch encyclicals, Councils, and the application of the ordinary magisterium. This is something that the scriptures alone cannot do.
The analogy is often made that the magisterium is similar to the Supreme Court. This is a decent analogy. Particular rulings by the court can be exploited and taken out of context. Does this make the Supreme Court’s authority moot? Of course not – it simply means the Supreme Court (a living institution) must make a further clarification and definition in a future ruling. This continues until the question at hand is settled by the Court.
The magisterium functions in a similar way.
When the problem becomes significant, the magisterium makes a clarification. This is done throuch encyclicals, Councils, and the application of the ordinary magisterium. This is something that the scriptures alone cannot do.
The analogy is often made that the magisterium is similar to the Supreme Court. This is a decent analogy. Particular rulings by the court can be exploited and taken out of context. Does this make the Supreme Court’s authority moot? Of course not – it simply means the Supreme Court (a living institution) must make a further clarification and definition in a future ruling. This continues until the question at hand is settled by the Court.
The magisterium functions in a similar way.
B
bobzills
Guest
There appear to be two different teachings: 1) and 2):
1.a
b. 1864 “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”
According to the Cathechism of St Pius X, the following are the sins against the Holy Ghost:
(i) Despairing of being saved;
(ii) Presuming on being saved without merit;
(iii) Opposing the known truth;
(iv) Envying another’s graces;
(v) Obstinately remaining in sin;
(vi) Final impenitence.
2. a. “God’s grace reaches all people and his providence embraces all.”
b. While helping the world and receiving many benefits from it, the Church has a single intention: that God’s kingdom may come, and that the salvation of the whole human race may come to pass.
c. 1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ.
D
DJim
Guest
Since when is “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” the equivalent of “sins” against the Holy Spirit???
NOT interchangeable terms.
DJim
NOT interchangeable terms.
DJim
B
bobzills
Guest
Please see St. Thomas, who apparently equates the two under certain circumstances. For example, in ST II-II Q 14:
OF BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST (FOUR ARTICLES)
- Whether blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost is the same as the sin committed through certain malice?..
…
But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin “against the Father”; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin “against the Son”; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (FS, Question [78], Articles [1],3), it is a sin “against the Holy Ghost.”
P
Popeurri
Guest
Bobzilla,
In short, no. There are not two separate teachings between the paraphrase you quoted from me and the extensive quote from the Roman Catechism.
It should be noted for a deadly sin to properly exist there have to be three pre-conditions met: 1) the act itself must constitute grave matter. 2) the individual must freely choose it. 3) the individual must know the act is wrong. So, I again don’t see any problem.
I’m certainly not the smartest guy, so I’m probably missing entirely your point.
Furthermore, I think this is only tangentially related to the topic of Eugene’s papal bull. While a good question, you might consider starting a new thread and debating this point.
I would like to stick to this point specifically.
In short, no. There are not two separate teachings between the paraphrase you quoted from me and the extensive quote from the Roman Catechism.
It should be noted for a deadly sin to properly exist there have to be three pre-conditions met: 1) the act itself must constitute grave matter. 2) the individual must freely choose it. 3) the individual must know the act is wrong. So, I again don’t see any problem.
I’m certainly not the smartest guy, so I’m probably missing entirely your point.
Furthermore, I think this is only tangentially related to the topic of Eugene’s papal bull. While a good question, you might consider starting a new thread and debating this point.
I would like to stick to this point specifically.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Please see St. Thomas, ST II-II, Q. 14, Art. 4:
Secondly, this may be understood to refer to the guilt: thus a disease is said to be incurable in respect of the nature of the disease, which removes whatever might be a means of cure, as when it takes away the power of nature, or causes loathing for food and medicine, although God is able to cure such a disease. So too, the sin against the Holy Ghost is said to be unpardonable, by reason of its nature, in so far as it removes those things which are a means towards the pardon of sins. This does not, however, close the way of forgiveness and healing to an all-powerful and merciful God, Who, sometimes, by a miracle, so to speak, restores spiritual health to such men.
Please quote all of the relevant portions of CCC 1864:
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
Please quote all of the relevant provisions of the Catechism of St Pius X:
*7 Q: Why are these sins specially said to be against the Holy Ghost?
A: These sins are specially said to be against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through pure malice, which is contrary to goodness, the special attribute of the Holy Ghost. *
Despite this being wildly off-topic, how do these contradict each other again? Bobzills, this is the third time on this thread I’ve seen you go out of your way to try and demonstrate that the Church has somehow contradicted herself over time. And each time you’ve been wrong. Considering that your profile says you are Catholic, what exactly is going on with you?
K
Keikiolu
Guest
And that lays Kaste to waste in this matter.Kaste,
Quote:
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
Hopefully, though doubtfully, Kaste has at least learned a Catholic understanding, if not having been convinced of it.
Excellent job, Pop…!!
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
Kaste
Guest
In all these posts one thing is clear: the meaning of “being joined to the Church” is key.
Catholics will never say Boniface VIII or Eugene IV did not speak infallibly when they spoke in very harsh terms regarding Salvation outside the Church.
Throwing out rigorous quotes like these due to a technicality with Vatican I’s criteria, seems doubtful.
So to be a good Catholic, one must accept them as infallible truths, rather than errors.
Now DJim has pointed out that Eugene IV repeating what St. Fugentius of Ruspe said much earlier on.
And here is the problem I have with this whole thing.
We can search for quotes that show some Fathers leaning towards a broad interpretation, and we have, though very few and ambiguous. But even if we find some, to use Catholic word flexibility consistently, we would have to be unsure of even these Father’s seemingly broad interpretations. Because if we can take something like what Fulgentius wrote and peddle it to mean something completely different than what it appears, then we can and should do the same for broad passages. This puts people in a confused and uncertain state of mind, especially when the Magisterium practices this.
Saying one thing but meaning another is a most charitable description of the Magisterium during these tough spots. It does seem much more reasonable to believe that the Magisterium did follow imperfect Fathers’ conclusions on certain things, at certain times.
Do we know what we are asking?
We are asking man to put reason under faith in the Magisterium.
Now unless you are Catholic, that is very very hard to do, especially knowing that the Magisterium is just a group of people guided by the Spirit, just as is any Christian denomination that respects tradition, reason and Scripture.
Let me go back to Eugene’s quote: “…and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the 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 he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Now these are very strong words.
Augustine also says similar things that one can sing to Jesus, pray, and even say “haleluja” but not be in the Church.
Jesus does say, not all those who said, “Lord, Lord” will get into Heaven, so these verses do seem to imply that some who call themselves Christians are still not in the Church."
But it seems like being in or out of the Church has everything to do with how God judges our hearts not what visible body we belong to. Many non-Catholics are simply just not convinced that that Church is what it claims to be. I am skeptical myself.
Furthermore it does seem like Augustine, Fulgentius and Eugene really meant what their words convey. For if one sheds his blood as a martyr for Jesus, that would indicate he is a true believer or at least be in the “invincible ignorant” category. But none of these exclusivist Fathers believed this mattered. Nor does Eugene. This seems to be a deathblow to any idea of the “invincible ignorance” concept being around since the beginning.
Kaste
Catholics will never say Boniface VIII or Eugene IV did not speak infallibly when they spoke in very harsh terms regarding Salvation outside the Church.
Throwing out rigorous quotes like these due to a technicality with Vatican I’s criteria, seems doubtful.
So to be a good Catholic, one must accept them as infallible truths, rather than errors.
Now DJim has pointed out that Eugene IV repeating what St. Fugentius of Ruspe said much earlier on.
And here is the problem I have with this whole thing.
We can search for quotes that show some Fathers leaning towards a broad interpretation, and we have, though very few and ambiguous. But even if we find some, to use Catholic word flexibility consistently, we would have to be unsure of even these Father’s seemingly broad interpretations. Because if we can take something like what Fulgentius wrote and peddle it to mean something completely different than what it appears, then we can and should do the same for broad passages. This puts people in a confused and uncertain state of mind, especially when the Magisterium practices this.
Saying one thing but meaning another is a most charitable description of the Magisterium during these tough spots. It does seem much more reasonable to believe that the Magisterium did follow imperfect Fathers’ conclusions on certain things, at certain times.
Do we know what we are asking?
We are asking man to put reason under faith in the Magisterium.
Now unless you are Catholic, that is very very hard to do, especially knowing that the Magisterium is just a group of people guided by the Spirit, just as is any Christian denomination that respects tradition, reason and Scripture.
Let me go back to Eugene’s quote: “…and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the 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 he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Now these are very strong words.
Augustine also says similar things that one can sing to Jesus, pray, and even say “haleluja” but not be in the Church.
Jesus does say, not all those who said, “Lord, Lord” will get into Heaven, so these verses do seem to imply that some who call themselves Christians are still not in the Church."
But it seems like being in or out of the Church has everything to do with how God judges our hearts not what visible body we belong to. Many non-Catholics are simply just not convinced that that Church is what it claims to be. I am skeptical myself.
Furthermore it does seem like Augustine, Fulgentius and Eugene really meant what their words convey. For if one sheds his blood as a martyr for Jesus, that would indicate he is a true believer or at least be in the “invincible ignorant” category. But none of these exclusivist Fathers believed this mattered. Nor does Eugene. This seems to be a deathblow to any idea of the “invincible ignorance” concept being around since the beginning.
Kaste
D
DJim
Guest
Kaste–
We are only traveling in circles on this–go back and read through the thread and try to see the main point–the Church has not changed its teaching on this.
The concept of “invincible” ignorance is at the very heart of the most ancient concept that not all those who came before Christ are damned. You even acknowledge they are not–why? Because they had no chance to hear and understand the Gospel.
Those who came before Christ ran out of time–those who came after Christ but were never able, through no fault of their own, to hear the Gospel ALSO run out of time.
Yet they may all be saved…
DJim
We are only traveling in circles on this–go back and read through the thread and try to see the main point–the Church has not changed its teaching on this.
The concept of “invincible” ignorance is at the very heart of the most ancient concept that not all those who came before Christ are damned. You even acknowledge they are not–why? Because they had no chance to hear and understand the Gospel.
Those who came before Christ ran out of time–those who came after Christ but were never able, through no fault of their own, to hear the Gospel ALSO run out of time.
Yet they may all be saved…
DJim
B
bobzills
Guest
My reading of your post #185, convinces me that you are smart enough. I thought that was an excellent explanation that you gave there.
In any case, I still beleive that some teachings have changed, although it can be argued that this is within the parameters that you have mentioned in your post.
P
Popeurri
Guest
Kaste,
I’m a bit disappointed in that response. Of course, I’m not disappointed in the conclusion – I would respectfully disagree. However, I am disappointed with how you get there.
You acknowledge at the beginning:
Yet, you assume an exclusivistic and narrow understanding of the Church where it benefits your position.
Then you go on to explain that you believe the Church contradicts itself because “if we can take something like what Fulgentius wrote and peddle it to mean something completely different than what it appears, then we can and should do the same for broad passages.”
I think this point is a claim of victory without having addressed the substantive issues described in the last three pages of the thread.
There is no mention of the following problems to the Protestant view:
Furthermore, I would posit that there is also a misunderstanding of what doctrinal development is. You may have already read this, but a quick hit on the subject is here:
catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp
If I had a time machine and went back to the early 3rd century – I would bet that most members of the Church hierarchy (as well as the laity) would describe the trinity in terms that could be easily mistaken for heresy. In fact, this very reality happened to fathers of the early church councils.
When those folks were alive to defend themselves, they would clarify their points to illustrate their orthodox position. This didn’t mean they changed their points, they just further defined their points so as to clear up a prior confusion.
In 250 AD before any Church council, would the laity, each bishop or the bishop of Rome be able to explain that Christ had a fully human will and a fully divine will to the satisfaction of a 20th century Protestant scholar? Would many explain the Trinity in terms we would consider heretical now, however, how often is a precise reading necessary to see that their position was consistent with the orthodox position.
Verily, many skilled Mormon apologists lift texts from orthodox ECFs from this time period and argue this very same way. I think it is likely that the question of Christ’s two wills was not fully thought or understood even by the twelve. Does all this mean the Church “made up” or “changed” its teachings on the Trinity? Certainly not. The Church grew in a deeper understanding of its teachings.
It appears to me that you believe doctrinal development meant that any teaching as currently held by the Church was held and proclaimed in precisely the same manner at all times throughout Church history. This position would not be doctrinal development.
(continue in next post)
I’m a bit disappointed in that response. Of course, I’m not disappointed in the conclusion – I would respectfully disagree. However, I am disappointed with how you get there.
You acknowledge at the beginning:
This is key to understanding any statement regarding salvation.
Yet, you assume an exclusivistic and narrow understanding of the Church where it benefits your position.
Then you go on to explain that you believe the Church contradicts itself because “if we can take something like what Fulgentius wrote and peddle it to mean something completely different than what it appears, then we can and should do the same for broad passages.”
I think this point is a claim of victory without having addressed the substantive issues described in the last three pages of the thread.
There is no mention of the following problems to the Protestant view:
- Protestant a priori acceptance of scripture leads them to give the benefit of the doubt to scripture despite massive difficulties within Holy Writ at times. Protestants seem to make the same arguments that a non-Christian would make directed at scripture, but they direct the arguments at the magisterium. Yet, no recognition of this contradiction was sufficiently explored. Ultimately, the Protestant reasons for rejecting the magisterium should be applied to scripture. This would “prove” the scriptures to have error and thus Christianity a lie.
- Catholics appeal to precision within the magisterium in a way that is not dissimilar to Protestant and Catholic shared appeal to precision in scripture.
- The fact that Eugene IV is living 200 years after Aquinas was classically educated –thus an appeal to Thomistic reasoning on his word usage is not a difficult stretch.
- Your assertion that the verses cited in the fathers are few and too ambiguous seems unsubstantiated – unless one takes your difficult conclusion that all references to OT and pre-Christ humans is entirely irrelevant in this discussion.
Furthermore, I would posit that there is also a misunderstanding of what doctrinal development is. You may have already read this, but a quick hit on the subject is here:
catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp
If I had a time machine and went back to the early 3rd century – I would bet that most members of the Church hierarchy (as well as the laity) would describe the trinity in terms that could be easily mistaken for heresy. In fact, this very reality happened to fathers of the early church councils.
When those folks were alive to defend themselves, they would clarify their points to illustrate their orthodox position. This didn’t mean they changed their points, they just further defined their points so as to clear up a prior confusion.
In 250 AD before any Church council, would the laity, each bishop or the bishop of Rome be able to explain that Christ had a fully human will and a fully divine will to the satisfaction of a 20th century Protestant scholar? Would many explain the Trinity in terms we would consider heretical now, however, how often is a precise reading necessary to see that their position was consistent with the orthodox position.
Verily, many skilled Mormon apologists lift texts from orthodox ECFs from this time period and argue this very same way. I think it is likely that the question of Christ’s two wills was not fully thought or understood even by the twelve. Does all this mean the Church “made up” or “changed” its teachings on the Trinity? Certainly not. The Church grew in a deeper understanding of its teachings.
It appears to me that you believe doctrinal development meant that any teaching as currently held by the Church was held and proclaimed in precisely the same manner at all times throughout Church history. This position would not be doctrinal development.
(continue in next post)
P
Popeurri
Guest
(continued from last post)
Doctrinal development means that the Church really does deepen in understanding of a given teaching as it is meditates upon them over the centuries – such that we come to an even more profound understanding.
Furthermore, at different times and in different time periods, it is necessary to place emphasis on one theological point without contradicting another. For example, Augustine places emphasis at one point in his life on predestination in his teachings on salvation. At another point in his life he places more emphasis on free will. It could be easily thought that Augustine was a bundle of contradiction. Yet in his Retractions, Augustine points out that he holds to both positions without contradiction.
Hence a more precise reading was necessary.
Elsewhere you state that:
You make a thoughtful point that I can empathize with:
Doctrinal development means that the Church really does deepen in understanding of a given teaching as it is meditates upon them over the centuries – such that we come to an even more profound understanding.
Furthermore, at different times and in different time periods, it is necessary to place emphasis on one theological point without contradicting another. For example, Augustine places emphasis at one point in his life on predestination in his teachings on salvation. At another point in his life he places more emphasis on free will. It could be easily thought that Augustine was a bundle of contradiction. Yet in his Retractions, Augustine points out that he holds to both positions without contradiction.
Hence a more precise reading was necessary.
Elsewhere you state that:
This point seems to answer itself. Christ points out over and over again that only those who persevere to the end will be saved. Thus, it should be no surprise that Eugene points out consistent with these facts that an individual who appears to be martyred may not actually be martyred. After all, according to the gospels, many who cast out demons in Christ’s name will not be saved.
You make a thoughtful point that I can empathize with:
The point I want to draw out is that you state that it doesn’t matter “what visible body we belong to.” This is a great and critical point in any Catholic-Protestant dialogue. This is a good point for me to pause this discussion. Because it is late for me and I have an early flight out tomorrow – I want to give this assertion the time and thought it deserves.
P
Popeurri
Guest
Sorry for the long hiatus. I wanted to give a crack at a response to your good and thoughtful point. In my last post I quoted you and then commented:
If those outside of the visible Church can be saved, then what is the point of evangelizing them? This seems relevant to your quote above. This point could be tweeked: Ultimately, if God judges what’s in our heart, what good is it to be part of the correct visible Church?
Kreeft and Tacelli answer by way of analogy. And then I will try to tie this into the conversation at hand:
Imagine a mother who sees his 3 year old playing in the kitchen. She had used the stove and turned it off but wasn’t sure if the stove had cooled. She sees the child run to put his hand on the stove.
Does the mother not act quickly to stop the child from burning himself simply because she knows that he has the chance of not burning himself horribly?
Of course not. The fact that she knows the child may get burned is enough to spring her into action.
Kreeft and Tacelli’s point is that the Church is like this mother. Mother Church runs to prevent someone from “getting burned” despite not knowing whether or not that individual will actually burn.
To add to this point, the individual outside of the visible Church is actually deficient in a number of key areas. These deficiencies increase the likelihood or uncertainty of “getting burned.” I list a few areas, but these are certainly not all of them:
Thus, he or she who remains outside the visible Church is in a precarious position indeed. While it is possible that God will judge their hearts to be in comformity to his law, it is still true that this individual is very similar to the 3 year old who is running to put his hand on the stove.
I want to paraphrase an analogy Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli use in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics.
If those outside of the visible Church can be saved, then what is the point of evangelizing them? This seems relevant to your quote above. This point could be tweeked: Ultimately, if God judges what’s in our heart, what good is it to be part of the correct visible Church?
Kreeft and Tacelli answer by way of analogy. And then I will try to tie this into the conversation at hand:
Imagine a mother who sees his 3 year old playing in the kitchen. She had used the stove and turned it off but wasn’t sure if the stove had cooled. She sees the child run to put his hand on the stove.
Does the mother not act quickly to stop the child from burning himself simply because she knows that he has the chance of not burning himself horribly?
Of course not. The fact that she knows the child may get burned is enough to spring her into action.
Kreeft and Tacelli’s point is that the Church is like this mother. Mother Church runs to prevent someone from “getting burned” despite not knowing whether or not that individual will actually burn.
To add to this point, the individual outside of the visible Church is actually deficient in a number of key areas. These deficiencies increase the likelihood or uncertainty of “getting burned.” I list a few areas, but these are certainly not all of them:
- He or she lacks a normative means to remove deadly sin.
- He or she may not have the will to repent of those deadly sins based on his or her theological error.
- If the Catholic Church is correct that unrepentant deadly sin leads to damnation, the individual outside of visible unity with the church lacks access to most, if not all, of the sacraments. The sacraments, the Catholic Church would argue, are the biggest normative means by which God provides saving grace – grace which enables the individual to avoid such sins.
- The Catholic Church would argue he or she who is outside of the visible Church lacks access to objective Christian truth. This means his or her current beliefs can, to cite Romans 2, create “conflicting thoughts (that) accuse or perhaps excuse them.” Obviously, this is very true of non-Christian religions (belief in human sacrifice by the Aztecs, rejection of the notion of repentance by Moslems). It is the Catholic argument that many Protestant doctrines, if practiced, actually do great violence to the individual. Doctrines such as eternal security (causes the individual to not be on guard from deadly sins), rejection of the sacraments as vehicles of grace, rejection of a priesthood and apostolic succession, antinomianism (leads one to believe they can do anything and be saved), and even strange modern beliefs such as the word faith movement (leads many into despair and death).
Thus, he or she who remains outside the visible Church is in a precarious position indeed. While it is possible that God will judge their hearts to be in comformity to his law, it is still true that this individual is very similar to the 3 year old who is running to put his hand on the stove.
N
napad
Guest
I think you are right that this is the main problem for most Catholis today. I have read and studied this subject quite a bit and I can find no other way than taking the quote in question literaly. My reason is that a DEFINITION is just that, a DEFINITION. Definitions are not interperted they are the expression of truth in a direct form.
There is a more important definition quote IMO that may not seem so at first sight.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
To be subject to the Roman Pontiff means baptism. Every Human creature would cover a lot of people.
This was an excellent point
- Status