How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

[DJim]

If you mean: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.

Napad–who gets to determine the meaning of that phrase, you or the living Magisterium of the Church?

Are you familiar with this line: “…For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.”

It’s from Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis…in which Pope Pius XIIalso said:

“But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

So, if there was ever any disagreement as to how rigidly or how loosely one is to interpret the issue of membership in the Church, then guess what? Pope Pius XII tells us that the living Magisterium gets to settle the matter.

So, when the Pope promulgated the Decree on Ecumenism from Vatican II, any “dispute” regarding how to interpret these membership issues was resolved --the question is no longer open to discussion…at least according to His Holiness Pope Pius XII who defends the authority of the living Magisterium…

I’ll deal with your Vatican I quote interpretation asap.

DJim

 

[DJim]

From the First Vatican Council:

1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema

Napad–I hate to be the one who points this out to you, but the First Vatican Council anathematizes what you are now doing: You are now saying that it is possible a sense has been assigned to a dogma propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church “understood.”

You’re saying it is possible–and Vatican One says it’s impossible. Now, I realize that, ironically, you don’t like what you perceive to be the “new” teaching, but by virtue of the fact that you are trying to point out an inconsistency in the Magisterium and its teaching, you are placing yourself under the anathema of Vatican I, it would seem, since, Vatican One teaches that it’s not possible for this to happen, and you are saying that it has happened…

I find that to be very intriguing…

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].

Well, since Vatican One teaches infallibly that it’s not possible for such an abandonment to occur (see my first quote), then we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief…right?

DJim

 

[napad]

Napad–who gets to determine the meaning of that phrase, you or the living Magisterium of the Church?

Are you familiar with this line: “…For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.”

It’s from Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis…in which Pope Pius XIIalso said:

“But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

So, if there was ever any disagreement as to how rigidly or how loosely one is to interpret the issue of membership in the Church, then guess what? Pope Pius XII tells us that the living Magisterium gets to settle the matter.

So, when the Pope promulgated the Decree on Ecumenism from Vatican II, any “dispute” regarding how to interpret these membership issues was resolved --the question is no longer open to discussion…at least according to His Holiness Pope Pius XII who defends the authority of the living Magisterium…

I’ll deal with your Vatican I quote interpretation asap.

DJim

I agree that we need to obey the living magesterium but it has not clearified this issue in recent times only made it murky

I made no interpertation.
When you thought I wrote it it was clear to you but when you realized it was Pius XII it all of the sudden became an interpretation.

Well the living magesterium has approved the 2 Feenyite orders so we can at least agree that it is still an open question and not as cut and dry as some may think.

Pius XII same Encyclical par 21:**
But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure.
Indeed the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.” **

 

[DJim]

I agree that we need to obey the living magesterium but it has not clearified this issue in recent times only made it murky

Perhaps you missed the fact that your view of the issue runs contrary to the teaching of Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism???

You said baptized non-Catholics are not part of the Mystical Body of Christ–the living Magisterium says differently…

I made no interpertation.
When you thought I wrote it it was clear to you but when you realized it was Pius XII it all of the sudden became an interpretation.

I never once thought you wrote what Pius wrote–I’m quite comfortable saying that Pius’s words are being interpreted incorrectly by you.

Well the living magesterium has approved the 2 Feenyite orders so we can at least agree that it is still an open question and not as cut and dry as some may think.

The Diocese of Worcester is not the “living magisterium”–its bishop is rather part of that living magisterium–the appearance of these orders on their web site is intriguing, but by no means determinative regarding the doctrinal question at hand.

I do hope you’re not too shocked by the Vatican One “anathema”…

DJim

 

[napad]

From the First Vatican Council:

Napad–I hate to be the one who points this out to you, but the First Vatican Council anathematizes what you are now doing: You are now saying that it is possible a sense has been assigned to a dogma propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church “understood.”

You’re saying it is possible–and Vatican One says it’s impossible. Now, I realize that, ironically, you don’t like what you perceive to be the “new” teaching, but by virtue of the fact that you are trying to point out an inconsistency in the Magisterium and its teaching, you are placing yourself under the anathema of Vatican I, it would seem, since, Vatican One teaches that it’s not possible for this to happen, and you are saying that it has happened…

I find that to be very intriguing…

Well, since Vatican One teaches infallibly that it’s not possible for such an abandonment to occur (see my first quote), then we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief…right?

DJim

Typical tactic of those who are losing an augument to try to frame the others position in the exact oposite position one is defending.
This thread started with a challenge. Historically can anyone show that the Florence definition excluding pagans jews, heritics and schismatics from salvation unless they join the Church. Was understood the way most Catholics understand it today: “pagans , jews heritics and schismatics can be saved in their religion as long as they are ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church”

This challenge has not been answered because it can’t be. This is a dogma never to be interpreted only accepted or rejected.

 

[bobzills]

Napad–I hate to be the one who points this out to you, but the First Vatican Council anathematizes what you are now doing: You are now saying that it is possible a sense has been assigned to a dogma propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church “understood.”

You’re saying it is possible–and Vatican One says it’s impossible.

What is meant by the phrase “development of doctrine”?
I notice that Catholic teaching has changed (or developed) on other points. For example, at one time the creed did not have the filioque. Then at about 700 AD it did contain this phrase in Spain, and later on in the Western Church. However, now it is permitted for the Eastern Catholics not to have this term in their creed. For another example, at one time, torture was permitted to extract confessions. However, the present teaching is against the use of torture to extract confessions. In the past, Catholic priests held slaves, but the present teaching is opposed to enslaving people. Etc. Previously, only rather serious reasons were allowed for a marriage to be annulled. However, according to the present teaching, just about anyone can get a marriage annulment for the most trivial of reasons. Previously, it was considered wrong to have clowns or dancing girls or Mariachi bands at the altar during Mass, but now it is allowed. So it looks like the Catholic teaching has developed or changed on several points.

 

[batteddy]

The heresy of Feeney was to apply the external forum to the internal forum. In a sense, to try to put limits and requirements on God. Objectively, it is true that without the Church, one cannot be saved. Even that water baptism is absolutely required of us for salvation. There are no other revealed means. HOWEVER, we know that God is not limited by the means He has established. Objectively, publically, in the “external forum”…there is only one barque of salvation, and this the public dogma that must be proclaimed. Feeney went too far by insisting that it was not merely a requirement for US to join the Church, but as if it was a requirement of God that we had to join the Church in order for Him to save us. Obviously, God isn’t limited in such a way, and there is good reason to have hope that, in his subjective dealings with them, he does save them through other means such as if they are unculpably ignorant, have desire even implicit, or die a martyr and are “baptized by blood”.

BUT, the opposite heresy is too often pushed today. The heresy too often held by Catholics today is to apply the hopes of the internal forum to the external forum. To act as if hope for others is a dogma of the faith, as if the means of their salvation are practically Revealed, as if it is part of what the Church should proclaim that they can be saved. In a sense, to try to remove or lessen the requirements on us. Of course, as said, God isn’t bound by the sacraments, and we can have hope that, subjectively dealing with individuals, in the “internal forum,” he saves them if they are not personally culpable. BUT, this is not Revealed. It is not a Truth of the public forum. It is private hope and theological speculation, NOT a dogma. The dogma is that, objectively, water baptism and communion with the Catholic Church is absolutely required for salvation. WE are absolutely required to do that to be saved. Sure, God isn’t required to do that to save us…but that goes without saying. We should not water down the dogma when proclaimed in the external forum, with these personal matters of the internal forum.

 

[DJim]

Typical tactic of those who are losing an augument to try to frame the others position in the exact oposite position one is defending.

This isn’t a tactic at all. It’s an infallible canon of the Church. Isn’t it?

Do you disagree with the plain meaning of the Canon I quoted? Why so?

The words are quite clear. Let’s look again:

1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time,

Vatican One is clearly saying that “if anyone at any time says it’s possible that…”

given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church

“…knowledge will advance such that some new sense will be added to a dogma taught by the Church…”

which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema

“…such that something different from the previous understanding is taught: let him be condemned.”

Napad, I’m doing a lousy job of trying to paraphrase this, largely because the original is so absolutely clear in meaning that I can do no better than the original…

Face it, you are doing exactly what this canon says is anathema. It’s not a “tactic” to point this out. I’m doing you a favor…

If I am wrong on this, please show me how my “interpretation” doesn’t match the clear teaching of Vatican I…

This thread started with a challenge. Historically can anyone show that the Florence definition excluding pagans jews, heritics and schismatics from salvation unless they join the Church. Was understood the way most Catholics understand it today: “pagans , jews heritics and schismatics can be saved in their religion as long as they are ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church”

Yes, and that challenge was met quite long ago.

This challenge has not been answered because it can’t be. This is a dogma never to be interpreted only accepted or rejected

The development of doctrine–and the living Magisterium–both disagree with you. The living Magisterium says that the quoted dogmas are being taught correctly in the Church today.

DJim

 

[DJim]

Bat teddy:

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut…For everyone’s edification:

Here is the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on this topic (Lumen Gentium 16):

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.

Anyone have a problem with that?

DJim

 

[batteddy]

Anyone have a problem with that?

Sort of, yes.

It isn’t “wrong”…an ecumenical council couldn’t be wrong, and what this paragraph says is true.

BUT it is not what the Church is supposed to be talking about publically. And it isn’t exactly “infallible” because it is not a proper subject of infallibility. At least not positive infallibility, whose subject is Revealed truths in the deposit of faith. It is protected by “negative infallibility” inasmuch as it can’t be heresy, but it is not a subject of positive infallibility, which is publically revealed truths of the deposit of faith (which this isnt)…

The idea that non-Catholics could possibly be saved through unrevealed means, that God is not limited by the requirements He put on us…is obvious, and true.

But it is not a subject of Revelation. It is not a public matter, not in the deposit of faith. It is private hope in the internal forum.

The Church really wasn’t supposed to be talking about this. It is outside Her sphere. The Church’s job was not to talk about possible exceptions and stuff as if they were Revealed or dogma, but to declare in the external forum the Revealed truth that people are absolutely required to be baptized and be in communion with the Catholic Church for salvation.

Anything else…really isn’t our businness, isn’t really within the Church’s sphere. At that point it becomes a private matter between the individual and God, in the internal forum. Not a matter of Revelation to be publically proclaimed by the Church.

It isn’t wrong…but it isn’t a subject of Revelation, so I don’t really see why the Church keeps pushing it like it is.

The statement, “Outside the Church, there is no Salvation” is dogma. Period. Unqualified. Infallible. A Publically Revealed Truth.

The qualification seen invariably with it these days, “…but God obviously isn’t limited by the requirements He put on us, so privately we can have good hope He saves the unculpaple through unrevealed means…” is not the subject of dogma or infallibility. It is true, but an unnecessary qualification exactly because it is a private, subjective matter between the individual and God. It is not part of the objective, absolute truths that the Church was set up to proclaim.

It is private theological speculation, private hope, which while possible…is not a subject of revelation. I think it’s true, I have very good hope for all the unculpably ignorant. But it is not the subject of supernatural Faith, it could never be the subject of “credenda” or “tenenda”…so declaring it definitively like that…is misleading and unnecessary, and really none of the magisterium’s business…which is supposed to be publically Revealed objective truths in the external forum…not possible subjective exceptions in the internal forum, which only serve to confuse people and weaken the teaching.

 

[mgrfin]

Napad:

This is from the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism:

Do you accept this decree as infallibly true?

DJim

I accept the statement as true, but as for infallible truth, I am not in a rush to say it is infallibly true.
Certain non-Catholics may be called Christian, and have a certain nexus to the Catholic Church; but, to say that they are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, I would say not. Only full, sacramental, doctrinal union will bring that about.

Pray that all may be one.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

Napad:

This is from the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism:

Do you accept this decree as infallibly true?

DJim

 

[mgrfin]

Perhaps you missed the fact that your view of the issue runs contrary to the teaching of Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism???

You said baptized non-Catholics are not part of the Mystical Body of Christ–the living Magisterium says differently…

DJim

I sorry to disagree. I know in the spirit of Ecumenism and Vatican 2, we speak of unity with our non-catholic brothers.

However, they are not part of the Catholic Church, nor are they part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I had to get in the game of quoting encyclicals at one another, especially where the ‘one another’ turn out to members of the Catholic Church.

However, the Encyclical letter of Pius XII “Mystici Corporis” was clear on this matter:

“22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

We have to come up with better terminolgy to understand what was being said in Vatican 2 Decree on Ecumenism.

Pray that all may be one.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[DJim]

Sort of, yes.

It isn’t “wrong”…an ecumenical council couldn’t be wrong, and what this paragraph says is true.

Bat teddy, pay close attention here–above you say there is no way for this decree to be wrong. BUT… then you say:

BUT it is not what the Church is supposed to be talking about publically. … It is protected by “negative infallibility” inasmuch as it can’t be heresy, but it is not a subject of positive infallibility, which is publically revealed truths of the deposit of faith (which this isnt)…

In this next paragraph you are saying that it’s not exactly “infallible” which means then–no question–that the decree could be wrong.

Exactly what are you saying here–either it’s possible the decree is wrong, or it’s not. Please tell me–is it possible the decree is wrong?

Regarding your assessment of the “subject” (or object really) of infallibility, you are in correct–the Church can infallibly teach upon matters intrinsically connected to the deposit of faith that may not be themselves part of the deposit of faith. Example: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis–reserving priesthood for men only.

Further, since when do we get to decide what the Roman Catholic Magisterium should or shouldn’t teach publicly? This is clearly in the realm of faith and morals and is clearly connected intrinsically with the deposit of faith.

The idea that non-Catholics could possibly be saved through unrevealed means, that God is not limited by the requirements He put on us…is obvious, and true.

Then you agree with the Decree and with the statement that baptized who are not visibly “Roman Catholic” are part of the Mystical Body of Christ?

But it is not a subject of Revelation. It is not a public matter, not in the deposit of faith. It is private hope in the internal forum.

Maybe according to you, but not according the living Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church…

The Church really wasn’t supposed to be talking about this. It is outside Her sphere. The Church’s job was not to talk about possible exceptions and stuff as if they were Revealed or dogma,…

Where is it publicy revealed to us that the Church “really wasn’t supposed to be talking about this”??? Where in the Deposit of Faith do we learn that someone other than the Magisterium gets to decide what the Magisterium should teach?

Anything else…really isn’t our businness, isn’t really within the Church’s sphere. At that point it becomes a private matter between the individual and God, in the internal forum. Not a matter of Revelation to be publically proclaimed by the Church.

Are you really trying to assert that the Church can NOT publicly teach the possibility of salvation through extraordinary means even though it’s, as you say, so “obvious” to be true??? That the Church can’t teach the “obvious” in faith/morals???

The statement, “Outside the Church, there is no Salvation” is dogma. Period. Unqualified. Infallible. A Publically Revealed Truth.

This is where your point fails completely, btw. You are asserting this as dogma and part of the deposit of faith–on what basis? Well, because it’s been taught infallibly by the Magisterium.

But then you assert that when the Magisterium later teaches on the same topic (salvation in relation to the Church), it’s not “supposed” to be teaching anything about it. It’s a major Catch-22: If the Magisterium could and did teach infallibly on it in the first place, then it can (and does) teach infallibly on it in the second place. If you say it can’t now, then you admit it couldn’t then…

It is true, but an unnecessary qualification exactly because it is a private, subjective matter between the individual and God. It is not part of the objective, absolute truths that the Church was set up to proclaim.

Prove that statement from the Deposit of Faith, please…

But it is not the subject of supernatural Faith, it could never be the subject of “credenda” or “tenenda”…so declaring it definitively like that…is misleading and unnecessary, and really none of the magisterium’s business…which is supposed to be publically Revealed objective truths in the external forum…not possible subjective exceptions in the internal forum, which only serve to confuse people and weaken the teaching.

You know, I have to be honest with you–

“Bat teddy has spoken; the matter is closed” does NOT have the same pleasant ring to it that “Rome has spoken…” has…



If you really believe according to your replies, you’ve got some major problems to overcome. Like actually proving your case…

…And choosing whether Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism is infallible or not. You seem to want it both ways…

DJim

 

[DJim]

I accept the statement as true, but as for infallible truth, I am not in a rush to say it is infallibly true.
Certain non-Catholics may be called Christian, and have a certain nexus to the Catholic Church; but, to say that they are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, I would say not. Only full, sacramental, doctrinal union will bring that about.

Mgrfin, I am suffering from the same inability to understand your assessment as I had with Bat teddy:

Can you please define the terms “true” and “infallibly true” as you use them above?

Every time I define them, the come up sounding exactly the same. I can’t figure out a way for something that is a “true statement” to be made somehow more “true” by calling it infallible. Likewise I can’t see how something that is “true” is less true than an infallible statement…

Now, as to your denial of what you call a “true” statement–why on earth would you make the claim that something is “true” but then in the same sentence say you disagree with it?

The Decree says: “all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ.” To be “incorporated into Christ” is to be a member of His Mystical Body. But this is exactly what you are saying is not true.

Therefore you are claiming all at the same time that you accept this statement as “true” while stating in the next breath that it’s NOT true.

Can you be more clear?

Is the statement–specifically that which I quote above–true or not?

DJim

PS–yes, this is all quite thread-related–it’s the very question that prompted the thread in the first place…

 

[DJim]

Showing the continuity from “Mystici Corporis” to the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism (and thus by extension to statements like that of the Council of Florence) is rather easy. Or at least it was for His Holiness Pope John Paul the Great, in “Ut Unum Sint”:

By God’s grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.

Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.

To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. …

1. The same Dogmatic Constitution listed at length “the elements of sanctification and truth” which in various ways are present and operative beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: “For there are many who honour Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and of action, and who show a true religious zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by Baptism, through which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and receive other sacraments within their own Churches or Ecclesial Communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist, and cultivate devotion towards the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise, we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also he gives his gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with his sanctifying power. Some indeed he has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd”.15

The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.16 Truth demands that all this be recognized.

The bottom line is this: Within Pope Pius XII’s straightforward statement regarding “those who have been baptized and profess the true faith” is the basis for membership in the Church that includes those “imperfectly” in communion with her.

Pius XII would never negate or diminish the true power and effects of the Sacrament of Baptism validly administered. These effects are “ex opere operato”–accomplished by the very “doing” of the act.

The Church–including Pius XII–has always infallibly taught that Baptism BY ITSELF “incorporates us into the Body of Christ.”

Period. Would anyone care to disagree with me on this?

Not only that, but Pius XII had no problem with infant baptism, and no problem stating that infants were members of the Church despite their inability to personally “profess the true faith”.

Any disagreement?

And, as these are the most ancient of teachings in the Church, his encyclical “Mystici Corporis” could not add or change anything to this doctrine, since the Church has infallibly taught that what has always been believed by the Church regarding such dogmas must be maintained for all time.

Therefore, Pius XII could not place any additional conditions upon Church “membership” than what the Church has always taught, which is that Baptism alone incorporates one into the Body of Christ.

Thus, as taught in the Decree on Ecumenism–infallibly–all those properly baptized are part of the Body of Christ. Period.

However, the Decree points out that those who are baptized who do not practice the true faith fully have an “imperfect” communion with the Church–the elements of truth they do possess are what sustains the communion, but it is made imperfect by being only partial.

Now, once our separated brothers and sisters begin consciously to reject communion with the Catholic Church, we enter the realm Pius really was speaking of–in which lack of professing the “true faith” becomes more determinative than our baptismal status is.

It’s really simple. Baptism creates the “default” setting of a person being a member of the Church.

Then it’s up to such a person to become responsible for whether that “default” setting remains or is altered.

That’s why there is no disparity between Pius, Vatican II, John Paul II, and, yes, even the Council of Florence’s teaching that started this thread…

DJim

 

[batteddy]

In this next paragraph you are saying that it’s not exactly “infallible” which means then–no question–that the decree could be wrong.

No. It means that it isn’t a subject of Revelation, it isn’t a subject of supernatural Faith.

The statement 1+1=2 is not exactly “infallible”…that doesn’t mean it “could” be wrong.

Further, since when do we get to decide what the Roman Catholic Magisterium should or shouldn’t teach publicly? This is clearly in the realm of faith and morals and is clearly connected intrinsically with the deposit of faith.

But this is all speculation. The fact is…we don’t know what God does to those outside the Church. He didn’t tell us, because the Church’s job was not to reassure people about what God might do privately in his subjective dealings with individuals…but to proclaim the publically revealed dogmas about the objective requirements put on mankind.

Are you really trying to assert that the Church can NOT publicly teach the possibility of salvation through extraordinary means even though it’s, as you say, so “obvious” to be true??? That the Church can’t teach the “obvious” in faith/morals???

Here’s an example from the other side of the equation that may help you see what I mean:

For a long time, Limbo was considered the “obvious” theological conclusion about the fate of the innocent unbaptized.

But the magisterium itself…remained silent.

Because they knew that it was inappropriate for them to talk about this issue. It is the Church’s job to proclaim the publically revealed absolute requirement of baptism…not to speculate over what God might do extraordinarily in his private dealings with individuals.

Some Popes may choose to speculate about means whereby people could be saved extraordinarily, which is why Trent doesn’t exclude the possibility of Desire for Baptism, or they started talking about “invincible ignorance” in the 19th century. But none of this is Revealed. It is not a matter of Faith or morals. It is God’s bussiness, if He wanted to Reveal with certainty the means by which He saves non-Catholics…He would have Revealed it.

If you say it can’t now, then you admit it couldn’t then…

No. Because EENS is a dogma of the Church, publically revealed. That is a subject of faith and public teaching. The second time, speaking on modifying and qualifying this statement, they were talking about something not publically revealed, a private matter between God and the individual.

Pius X said the following was condemned in his syllabus of errors:

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

This alone proves that such modifications are not to be considered dogma or obligatory in the same way that EENS is.

He condemns the teaching that “good hope is to be entertained” for them.

Now, good hope MAY be entertained for them…but to say it “is to be” as if it is required, just isn’t true.

I do have good hope, but I would never tell anyone that they “should” or that the Church has said it “is to be” done and so they must.

No, I think it makes sense, but I don’t think it is something revealed.

Again, the statement couldn’t be “wrong” but that doesnt make it “right”. That God “can” save them…is obvious and simply a statement of his omnipotence, but it isn’t particularly revealed in an explicit or positive manner and is rather unnecessary to say.

However, to extrapolate this “can” to some sort of “does” is dangerous. To say that God ever does save them through extraordinary means (of course he “can”)…is going into something private and not Revealed.

It would be like declaring a given individual to be in Hell…it just isn’t within the Church’s sphere.

We may have good hope they are saved, I do. But to say that hope “is to be” entertained, as if one must entertain it, as if it is obligatory, as if one “ought to” entertain it…is wrong. It is unrevealed. Their salvation, and our hope for it, is not a question of the external forum. It is a private, subjective matter.

 

[mgrfin]

Mgrfin, I am suffering from the same inability to understand your assessment as I had with Bat teddy:

Can you please define the terms “true” and “infallibly true” as you use them above?

Every time I define them, the come up sounding exactly the same. I can’t figure out a way for something that is a “true statement” to be made somehow more “true” by calling it infallible. Likewise I can’t see how something that is “true” is less true than an infallible statement…

Now, as to your denial of what you call a “true” statement–why on earth would you make the claim that something is “true” but then in the same sentence say you disagree with it?

The Decree says: “all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ.” To be “incorporated into Christ” is to be a member of His Mystical Body. But this is exactly what you are saying is not true.

Therefore you are claiming all at the same time that you accept this statement as “true” while stating in the next breath that it’s NOT true.

Can you be more clear?

Is the statement–specifically that which I quote above–true or not?

DJim

PS–yes, this is all quite thread-related–it’s the very question that prompted the thread in the first place…

I have four documents in front of me:

1. Mystici Corporis of Pius XII
2. Lumen Gentium - Vatican 2
3. Unitatis Redintegratio - Vatican 2
4. Dominus Jesus - Cong. DF and Benedict XVI

I’m going to try to reconcile the definition of Church and “Extra Ecclesiam…” relating to these documents, a big task.
As for truth…within the teaching Magisterium of the Church there is what has been defined for us, that which we must believe, and that true which is common teaching of the Church which is developing truth, opened to contrary opinion.
Yes, the Church teaches different levels of truth. Take as an example, Limbo.
We have what theologians call “indirect object” of infallibility. Then we have ‘dogmatic facts’, which concern such information as is necessary for our knowledge if our belief in dogma itself is to be safeguarded. Then there are ‘theological conclusions’, sometimes called ‘truths virutally revealed’. These are things deduced from divine revelation.
Later.

peace
mgrfin

 

[DJim]

No. It means that it isn’t a subject of Revelation, it isn’t a subject of supernatural Faith.

The statement 1+1=2 is not exactly “infallible”…that doesn’t mean it “could” be wrong.

I believe that you have mistaken notion of the meaning of “infallibility”. Actually, the statement 1+1= 2 IS exactly infallible. No question–it will always be true. That is what “infallibility” means.

In any case, you are incorrect to assert that this topic is off limits to the Magisterium because it’s “internal forum”. The Magisterium is competent to teach regarding both internal forum and external forum. Your reasoning is erroneous and not backed up by anything from the deposit of faith itself or from the Magisterium…

But this is all speculation. The fact is…we don’t know what God does to those outside the Church.

In making that statement, you are assuming what you haven’t proven–that all those not visibly Catholic are “outside the Church.” This the problem. It is exactly the business of the Magisterium to tell us who is and who is not a member of the Church. That’s what this teaching is about–it’s not about judging individual souls.

He didn’t tell us, because the Church’s job was not to reassure people about what God might do privately in his subjective dealings with individuals…but to proclaim the publically revealed dogmas about the objective requirements put on mankind.

You have already made clear that the Church can teach infallibly teach who is a member of the Church. That’s what this is all about…

For a long time, Limbo was considered the “obvious” theological conclusion about the fate of the innocent unbaptized.

But this is not a matter of “theological opinion”–it’s a matter of WHO is in the Church and who is NOT–that’s the stuff the Magisterium decides, not us…

No. Because EENS is a dogma of the Church, publically revealed. That is a subject of faith and public teaching.

You are simply wrong on this–the teaching of Vatican II on this issue is also publicly revealed dogma, the subject of faith and public teaching.

This alone proves that such modifications are not to be considered dogma or obligatory in the same way that EENS is.

So you are among the ranks who are choosing to believe that the Magisterium has stopped teaching continuously the same thing on this issue? In that case, your view falls under the anathema of Vatican One, doesn’t it?

Again, the statement couldn’t be “wrong” but that doesnt make it “right”.

??? a statement that can’t be “wrong” isn’t necessarily right??? I have no idea what you mean by this. Can anyone else help translate this?

However, to extrapolate this “can” to some sort of “does” is dangerous. To say that God ever does save them through extraordinary means (of course he “can”)…is going into something private and not Revealed.

The Church does NOT teach that God specifically saves anyone (other than canonized saints of course). Your point is rather moot.

Again, this is not rocket science. And the bottom line is, you don’t get to decide whether the Magisterium is teaching continuously or not. The Magisterium does.

And the Magisterium has rather clear Canon from Vatican One to back that up…

DJim

 

[DJim]

I have four documents in front of me:

1. Mystici Corporis of Pius XII
2. Lumen Gentium - Vatican 2
3. Unitatis Redintegratio - Vatican 2
4. Dominus Jesus - Cong. DF and Benedict XVI

I’m going to try to reconcile the definition of Church and “Extra Ecclesiam…” relating to these documents, a big task.
As for truth…within the teaching Magisterium of the Church there is what has been defined for us, that which we must believe, and that true which is common teaching of the Church which is developing truth, opened to contrary opinion.
Yes, the Church teaches different levels of truth. Take as an example, Limbo.
We have what theologians call “indirect object” of infallibility. Then we have ‘dogmatic facts’, which concern such information as is necessary for our knowledge if our belief in dogma itself is to be safeguarded. Then there are ‘theological conclusions’, sometimes called ‘truths virutally revealed’. These are things deduced from divine revelation.
Later.

peace
mgrfin

Conciliar decrees and dogmatic constitutions are generally counted upon to teach the unadulterated truth.

And they do. Including those from the Second Vatican Council.

I might also suggest that you add to your list the great encyclical by Pope John Paul II, “Ut Unum Sint.” It deals rather directly with the same topic…

No errors in that one either…

DJim