How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

[Reformed_Rob]

Hi Kaste,

This is a great topic, and I’m glad the moderators have allowed it to continue like they have.

Ok, The whole paragraph you cite from Pope Eugene IV is a passage that was originally written by St. Fulgentius, in his book “On Faith, to Peter.”

Do you think that the Pope and or the Council meant to pull the original author’s (St. Fulgentius) words out of context? St. Fulgentius also wrote just a few pages earlier in his book:

“From the moment when our Savior said: “unless one is born again from water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God,” no one can enter the kingdom of heaven nor receive eternal life without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, without baptism, shed their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church” - On Faith, To Peter, 3, 41

So right there, St. Fulgentius who was the original author of the text used in Cantate Domino, admits to what we know of as “Baptism of Blood.”

Interesting…

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Not only that, but the Council of Florence, mentions Baptism of Desire, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching on it…

As for children, because of the danger of death, which can happen often, since no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism, by which they are delivered from the domination of the devil and adopted as children of God, this Council warns that one ought not to delay the sacred Baptism for 40 or 80 days or another time according to certain customs, but it should be conferred as soon as fittingly possible
Council of Florence, Denzinger, 712

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches…and you’ll see the exact terminology used, which should not be taken as a coincidence:

Summa, Book 3, Q. 68, art. 3
I answer that, in this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First…for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.
On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism. And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time.

In examining issues such as this, you are doing the right thing in asking Catholics for explanation of seeming irregularities.

May God bless you as you continue your research.

 

[bobzills]

Not only that, but the Council of Florence, mentions Baptism of Desire, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching on it.

But a Jew may not desire Baptism, and similarly for a Buddhist or Hindu.

 

[mgrfin]

The quotes on this post from Kaste come from a flagrantly anti-Catholic site, Evangelicals.org., one of many on the Internet that spend their time and energy vehemently attacking the Church and her doctrines.

Forums like this is perfect for this. We are like sitting ducks, and these folks who call themselves Christian run in and out attacking, like a pack of dogs.

First off, keep in mind that the Papacy has used the doctrine of Infallibility about three times in 2,000 years: Definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (1853); Definition that Mary was completely, physically taken up to heaven, incorruptible (the Assumption - 1950), and Papal Infallibility itself (1870).
Despite what Kaste claims, Eugenius did not use the strongest language to let us know he was defining the issues in Cantate Domino as a doctrine of the faith, that he was speaking Ex Cathedra, on behalf of all the Faithful, a doctrine concerning faith and morals and that we all knew he was, from reading and hearing it.

Vatican Council, #1, in July, 1870 defined Papal Infallibiltity:
Sess4, Chap 4, #9: Quote:
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

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

Kaste is challenging us to go back to the 15th Century to find out what Eugenius’ contemporaries had to say about this papal bull.

The Council of Florence was pestered by pests and plagues; the main issue was the Filoque, not Papal Infallibility, as in the case of Vatican I. The Bull was directed at the Jacobites, and not the whole Church.

I don’t know the Mission statement of our site, but I am sure we welcome non-catholics who honestly seek answers to questions about our Faith. We can spot the others who attack, and who ask for preposterous proofs, like asking someone from the 15th century what they thought, or reading into a Papal Bull that it was the strongest possible declaration of teaching a doctring re: faith and morals, which it wasn’t, that the Holy Father was teaching ex cathedra which he wasn’t.

I am sure that my faith, and that of other Catholic visitors to our site is not so weak that we are disheartened by such questioning, and we can easily recognize good faith seeking for answers to questions.

mgrfin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

But a Jew may not desire Baptism, and similarly for a Buddhist or Hindu.

This may be covered by Invincible Ignorance, depending on the circumstances.

 

[napad]

Reformed Rob
Your points dont seem to follow. Just becuase a Church Father or a Church doctor use a term also used by the Church doesn’t mean we take the whole of that docotor or father. The church is selective in what it uses Scotis was full of heresy and mistakes but he got the immaculate conception right., While Aquinas got it wrong.
Father are not infallable nor doctors only what is defined is infallable. And if the church says in the quote mentioned:
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." does this sound an acceptance of the baptism of blood you say ?

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Reformed Rob
And if the church says in the quote mentioned:
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." does this sound an acceptance of the baptism of blood you say ?

Well you tell me, are you going to leave the Church because there is a problem that you cannot understand without accepting it on faith until you resolve the question to your satisfaction?

For me, it’s pretty simple. I am a convert to the Catholic faith, and I professed in an oath before God to believe that ALL the Catholic Church teaches is from God. So when I read in the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4:

…and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration , or a desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”

And then more recently in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1258:

"The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

The indelible mark on your soul will not de facto save you. There can be priests who are both Baptized and Confirmed, and they still end up in Hell. They would have received 3 indelible marks on their soul!

When you elevate the importance of the physical aspects of the Sacrament over the spiritual fruits of the Sacrament, you miss the point of what the physical aspects are supposed to teach us.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Reformed Rob
Your points dont seem to follow. Just becuase a Church Father or a Church doctor use a term also used by the Church doesn’t mean we take the whole of that docotor or father.

I’m sorry, I thought that Church Fathers and Doctors who were Saints were an accepted source. Especially when what they teach is what the Church uses to support what it teaches authoritatively.

I’m not trying to be difficuly, I’m just confused. We talk about how important Church authority, Councils, and Fathers are, and then when there seems to be a disagreement, some people seem to be ready to throw in the towel after just a year or so of trying to understand.

 

[napad]

Well you tell me, are you going to leave the Church because there is a problem that you cannot understand without accepting it on faith until you resolve the question to your satisfaction?

Would you accept that only Catholics are saved?

For me, it’s pretty simple. I am a convert to the Catholic faith, and I professed in an oath before God to believe that ALL the Catholic Church teaches is from God. So when I read in the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4:
…and **this translation **

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Reformed Rob:

Well you tell me, are you going to leave the Church because there is a problem that you cannot understand without accepting it on faith until you resolve the question to your satisfaction?

napad:

Would you accept that only Catholics are saved?

How does this answer Bob’s question?

napad:

But if you accept that baptism of desire as real baptism then trent says doesnt make sense:
“If anyone shall say **that real and natural water **is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost” (John 3:5) are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema”

Baptism of desire is not a metaphor.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Would you accept that only Catholics are saved?

 

[mgrfin]

On this subject about salvation inside and outside the Church, I get the feeling that some time in the future, the Church is moving to some form of defined dogma regarding salvation ‘extra Ecclesiam’. What that dogma will say, I don’t know, but I suspect that in order to be saved there has to be some connection to the true Church. All who are saved, are through the merits of the Catholic Church.

mgrfin

 

[napad]

How does this answer Bob’s question?

He understood and I admire his honesty of where he found the truth. I am in a simular search but am not convinced that the Church can wiggle out of the strict reading.

Baptism of desire is not a metaphor.

Baptism is with real and natural water. BOD is LIKE it in that it gives sanctifying grace but as Bob pointed out it doesn’t give the mark and without the mark BOD can only be a metaphor.
Webster:
Metaphor
figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

 

[mgrfin]

It’s not a Papal Bull, it’s from an ecumenical Council, the Council of Florence.

It is an infallible dogma of the Church, but one that must be understood how the Church understands it.
UNQUOTE]

Just to set the record straight: The document of Eugene IV IS a Papal Bull. Like enclyclicals of the pope, a papal bull is distinguished by the first words in Latin.

In this case, Cantate Domino (Sing to the Lord…), is a papal bull. Cf. www.catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

It does not fulfill the requirements of Papal Infallibility, as defined in Vatican I. Eugene had his own problems and did not sneak in a side issue making it an infallible dogma. It conforms to previous statements about “outside the church there is no salvation’, meaning 'no one can be saved without sanctifying grace, and the Catholic Church alone is the divinely established means by which grace is brought to the world and the full fruits of Our Lord’s Redemption are applied to men.” Balt Catechism No.3
#166.

Also, “outside of the Church there is no salvation” means that those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, or, knowing it, refuse to join it, cannot be saved. Balt Cate No. 3, # 167

Also, I wish to correct my citation of the name of the non-catholic site which was Kaste’s inspiration for his post: www.evangelicaloutreach.org
mgrfin

 

[bobzills]

Also, “outside of the Church there is no salvation” means that those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, or, knowing it, refuse to join it, cannot be saved.

Could you give an example of someone who through his own grave fault does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church?

 

[mgrfin]

To Bobzills.

In answer to you question:

This is a direct quote from the Baltimore Catechism No 3, with an Imprimatur from Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York. (Therefore it qualifies as ‘common teaching’ of the Church).

Let me restate what is in the Catechism:
“When we say “Outside the Church there is no salvation” we mean that those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, or knowing it, refuses to join it, cannot be saved”.

It is an interesting statement, written by a logician I assume.

If we say first that Outside the Church there is no salvation for one who knows that the Church is the true Church, and refuses to join it. That is clear, logical and covers most situations, that is, the person knows the Church is the true Church and refuses to join it.

The opposite, so that the truth is totally covered for all instances, says Outside the Church there is no salvation for those who through their own grave fault do not know the Catholic Church and refuse to join it.

You want an example. Take a prominent Protestant minister, who, because of pride, or a fear of recrimination does not undertake a study of the Catholic Church to determine if the Church is the true church. Having neglected this important obligation on his part because of his pride, he fails to ascertain that the Catholic Church is the one true church.

What happens before God is something I will not say, since only God can judge. But he will have to answer for this omission.

When this subject is researched nowadays, the first quotes we come up with are from “Lumen Gentium” of Vatican II, which comes after the publication of Baltimore Catechism No. 3.

However, Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching, whether it is 1948 or 1968 or 1068.

Hopes this answers your question.
mgrfin

 

[DJim]

Just to set the record straight: The document of Eugene IV IS a Papal Bull. Like enclyclicals of the pope, a papal bull is distinguished by the first words in Latin.

The record is a bit trickier than this–this is a decision of the Council of Florence. Such decisions, too, are referred to by their first words.

It is my recollection that this conciliar decision was promulgated via the “bull” model, since all council decisions aren’t promulgated unless the Pope approves them…

The point is that this is not strictly speaking even a candidate for an exercise of personal papal infallibility since it is a conciliar teaching…

DJim

 

[bobzills]

You want an example. Take a prominent Protestant minister, who, because of pride, or a fear of recrimination does not undertake a study of the Catholic Church to determine if the Church is the true church. Having neglected this important obligation on his part because of his pride, he fails to ascertain that the Catholic Church is the one true church.

I suspect that this is extremely rare or non-existent. Most people have other obligations and other things to do and simply don’t have the time to conduct a study of different religions.

 

[napad]

To Bobzills.

In answer to you question:

This is a direct quote from the Baltimore Catechism No 3, with an Imprimatur from Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York. (Therefore it qualifies as ‘common teaching’ of the Church).

Let me restate what is in the Catechism:
“When we say “Outside the Church there is no salvation” we mean that those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, or knowing it, refuses to join it, cannot be saved”.

It is an interesting statement, written by a logician I assume.

If we say first that Outside the Church there is no salvation for one who knows that the Church is the true Church, and refuses to join it. That is clear, logical and covers most situations, that is, the person knows the Church is the true Church and refuses to join it.

The opposite, so that the truth is totally covered for all instances, says Outside the Church there is no salvation for those who through their own grave fault do not know the Catholic Church and refuse to join it.

You want an example. Take a prominent Protestant minister, who, because of pride, or a fear of recrimination does not undertake a study of the Catholic Church to determine if the Church is the true church. Having neglected this important obligation on his part because of his pride, he fails to ascertain that the Catholic Church is the one true church.

What happens before God is something I will not say, since only God can judge. But he will have to answer for this omission.

When this subject is researched nowadays, the first quotes we come up with are from “Lumen Gentium” of Vatican II, which comes after the publication of Baltimore Catechism No. 3.

However, Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching, whether it is 1948 or 1968 or 1068.

Hopes this answers your question.
mgrfin

Sorry any catechism is not authoritive in their own right. Even CCC only repeats what is clearly held by councils and the general theological oppinion. The same catechism accepted limbo believe. If one accepts limbo one must accept a strict understanding on the neccesity of membership in the Church for salvation.

 

[napad]

Genesis315;2458071:

It’s not a Papal Bull, it’s from an ecumenical Council, the Council of Florence.

It is an infallible dogma of the Church, but one that must be understood how the Church understands it.
UNQUOTE]

Just to set the record straight: The document of Eugene IV IS a Papal Bull. Like enclyclicals of the pope, a papal bull is distinguished by the first words in Latin.

In this case, Cantate Domino (Sing to the Lord…), is a papal bull. Cf. www.catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

It does not fulfill the requirements of Papal Infallibility, as defined in Vatican I. Eugene had his own problems and did not sneak in a side issue making it an infallible dogma. It conforms to previous statements about “outside the church there is no salvation’, meaning 'no one can be saved without sanctifying grace, and the Catholic Church alone is the divinely established means by which grace is brought to the world and the full fruits of Our Lord’s Redemption are applied to men.” Balt Catechism No.3
#166.

Also, “outside of the Church there is no salvation” means that those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, or, knowing it, refuse to join it, cannot be saved. Balt Cate No. 3, # 167

Also, I wish to correct my citation of the name of the non-catholic site which was Kaste’s inspiration for his post: www.evangelicaloutreach.org
mgrfin

I think it is irrelivant who is putting out the information. The only important thing is it true or not.

The church (small c, not the official Church Teaching) has changed its teaching it is not necessary to be a member of the Church to be saved. It is held widely but there is the problem of 3 not 1 not 2 but 3 infallable statements pointing to the strict understanding of membership in the Church being necessary. Not to count the numerous saints. This whole question has to be addressed by another official infallable Church teaching which will make 4 times the Church will have to clearify this doctrine.

Did you know there are 2 rreligious orders who are approved of by the Church that hold the Feenyite position? So it isnt as open and shut as one may think.