How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

[Filiuscanimaris]

The conditions for Infallibilty are only three:

The Pope invokes His supreme Authority as Peter’s Successor

He speaks to the whole Church

He defines a matter of Faith or Morals.

 

[DJim]

No the link was certainly no accident, after reading the material there I found it to be quite logical and charitable, certainly not anti-catholic.
If you have a problem with it thats fine, but what gives you the right to dictate to people what they can or can not read?

Surely people have a right to see other peoples views and come up with their own conclusion? Or are you on your own little crusade against peoples ‘freedom of religion’ - which is supported in Vatican II?..
What would Ben XVI say?

Then you are absolutely worthy of the denunciation I have offered regarding the link you cited. You are promoting the sedevacantist agenda, and people shouldn’t be fooled into thinking your motives are otherwise.

I have NO problem, in fact none at all, blowing the house of cards that is this “monastery” out of the water when it comes to its hate-filled, insidious, profoundly ANTI-Catholic, sedevacantist views.

I just wanted to give folks fair warning that this “source” of yours is, in my experience, the worst web site I’ve ever encountered when it comes to the display of the most basic hallmark of the Christian believer–charity.

Look as you might, but you will not find so much as a shred of decency, charity, or authentic Catholicism at that location.

Now that I’ve made myself perfect clear, I invite you to whatever charitable dialogue you’d like to have.

What is it precisely that you wish to contribute to this thread? Something more than sedevacantism, I’d hope.

Or, start another thread on the topic of your choice, and you will find that those who use these forums exercise signficant charity in their approach.

Unlike your source material…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Im not sure what are 'flawed interpretations of “Mystici Corporis”. Having grown up with Pius XII, at the time, we all thought his letter was magnificient.

I would quite agree–it is magnificent. The “flawed interpretation” involves adding a layer to what is required for Church membership rather than viewing his writing in the context of the clear teaching on Baptism.

It adds a lot of weight to a definition of the Mystical Body of Christ:

But, according to Vatican One, Mystici Corporis cannot break continuity with what the Church always has taught–in this case, the Church teaches that Baptism alone makes one a member of this Mystical Body of Christ. Pius’ document must be read through that lens.

quote: Mystici Corporis:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith,

Since there are several obvious exceptions to this as a rule (baptized infants, martyred catechumens, etc.), Pius would appear to be stating that the “norm” for membership is baptism coupled with profession of true faith by those capable of professing it. In this way, this phrase can be understood in harmony with the Church’s strict and clear teaching that baptism by itself makes one a “default” member of the Church.

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.

Here he refers to those who have separated themselves from the unity of the Body–consciously–as well as those who have been penalized by the Church (excommunicated, interdicted, etc.)

“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]

One Baptism–which is why all baptisms properly performed–even if administerd by an atheist who intends to do what the Church intends in Baptism–are valid.

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]

Those baptized who willfully and consciously reject the Church are in this category, but not those who don’t willfully and consciously reject the Church…

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.

True–those who have made a choice against faith and Church are, practically speaking, “severed” members, no longer united with the Body or the Spirit.

The reall interpretation problem is with “profess the true faith”–it can’t properly be interpreted to mean that you must be “visibly Catholic” to be a member of the Church, because the Church’s constant teaching on Baptism contradicts this concept.

DJim

 

[DJim]

The canons quoted only state that baptism, properly administered, have the effect they signify. The canons of Session 7, regarding Baptism say nothing of membership in the Church of the Mystical Boy of Christ.

Well, if Trent isn’t “working” for you, let’s just go straight to Florence, shall we? Appropriate enough, given the thread started there:

General Council of Florence, decree for the Armenians (1439)–ironically, this too is in the form of a papal bull of Pope Eugene!:

“Among all the sacraments holy baptism holds the first place because it is the gateway to the spiritual life; by it we are made members of Christ and belong to his body, the Church…”

The Church is the congregation of all baptised person united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

Yes, and one becomes a member through Baptism according to Pope Eugene and the Council of Florence.

Since Baptism, according to the ruling of Christ, is the gateway to the Church, a person becomes a member of the Church on receiving this sacrament. (Including infants).

Amen.

To remain a real member of the Church after Baptism, a person must profess the one true faith, and must not withdraw from the unity of the body of the Church in schism or heresy or be excommunicated by legitimate authority because of serious sins.

Amen again. We finally seem to be saying the same thing–that our separated brothers and sisters are united to us through Baptism, in an “imperfect” communion brought about by the wounds to unity that exist as a result of the schism and heresy of the Protestant Reformers.

Anyone who does not willfully reject the true faith or willfully withdraw from unity are counted as members of the Church, regardless of whether they are “visibly Catholic.”

I presume you agree?

DJim

 

[mgrfin]

No the link was certainly no accident, after reading the material there I found it to be quite logical and charitable, certainly not anti-catholic.
If you have a problem with it thats fine, but what gives you the right to dictate to people what they can or can not read?

For those interested it is here:
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

Surely people have a right to see other peoples views and come up with their own conclusion? Or are you on your own little crusade against peoples ‘freedom of religion’ - which is supported in Vatican II?..
What would Ben XVI say?

Sure, no one has a right to tell others what to read and not to read, or what opinions to hold.

However, this is a heretical/schismatic site which is referenced, and it is the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’.

Read it if you want, but the intent is to mislead people. Bro. Dimond, O.S.B. is a fraud.

We have a right to warn people of such fraud. Vatican II granted people ‘freedom of relgion’. I thought that was the U.S. Constitution.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[Filiuscanimaris]

Sure, no one has a right to tell others what to read and not to read, or what opinions to hold.

Thus says one of the previous posters.

The Church of the past was not of this opinion, even if a few of its prelates say otherwise these days. In fact, quite the opposite has been the position of the Church. Otherwise, why did it say anathema to those who did not hold its views.

And why does it have the sanction of excommunication, even in this “enlightened” age?

 

[DJim]

Not exactly on topic, but the penalty of excommunication comes via the authority of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps this thread has served its purpose.

We can say with certainty that the Church has never changed its teaching in the area of salvation and Church membership.

We can say with certainty that what is taught in Vatican II and afterward is continuous with “Mystici Corporis”, is continuous with all Magisterial teaching prior to it (e.g. Trent), and is, most importantly, able to be reconciled as continuous with what is taught in the Council of Florence.

Ironic, isn’t it, that the same Council of Florence infallibly declares that Baptism makes one a member of the Church while also decreeing what it did about those who are culpably separated from the Church…

And we learned a whole lot about the errors of Fr. Feeney (in the realm of disobedience and interpretation of doctrine) and those who hold his views.

Are we done now?

DJim

 

[napad]

I dont think we are done.

I have not seen any evidence for answering the first post’s questions:
Please keep answers focused on why this document fails the criteria Vatican I laid out for infallibility. If you believe Eugene’s quote does not conflict with modern Catholic teaching then please provide a quote of a contemporary to Eugene IV that shows people at that time did not take Eugene literally and did believe that Jews, Pagans and Schismatics may have a chance to get into heaven. Perhaps Eugene himself clarified, but doubtful.

Therefore there are two ways to answer:

1. Show beyond reasonable doubt **why Cantate Domino is not infallible. **
2. Provide a quote by a contemporary of Eugene IV or himself that shows people were not misled and instead did believe Jews, Pagans and Schismatics have a chance to get into Heaven.

Maybe I missed it were is the evidence that the Church didn’t take **Cantate Domino **literally at that time?

 

[richwmiller]

This goes to the heart of the non-Catholic question: Can the Catholic Church be trusted to teach correctly?

If the Church produces papers (encyclicals, bulls, council documents) that seem to say these things how is a normally intelligent person to sort through them and understand the Church’s teaching?

 

[bobzills]

We can say with certainty that the Church has never changed its teaching in the area of salvation and Church membership.

Has the teaching changed with regards to unbaptised babies? At one time, it was taught that unbaptised babies go to a place in hell, but now it is taught differently, that there is hope of salvation.

 

[mgrfin]

Has the teaching changed with regards to unbaptised babies? At one time, it was taught that unbaptised babies go to a place in hell, but now it is taught differently, that there is hope of salvation.

Whoever taught that unbaptised babies go to a place in hell? Was that a teaching of the Catholic Church? I understand the Scholastics have taught that infants dying without baptism experience no sense of pain in the afterlife. I am not aware of any theologian of worth teaching that such infants go to ‘hell’.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

peace,

mgrfin

 

[thistle]

Has the teaching changed with regards to unbaptised babies? At one time, it was taught that unbaptised babies go to a place in hell, but now it is taught differently, that there is hope of salvation.

That’s not correct. The Church has never said unbaptised babies go to Hell. Please site your source.

 

[bobzills]

Whoever taught that unbaptised babies go to a place in hell? Was that a teaching of the Catholic Church? I understand the Scholastics have taught that infants dying without baptism experience no sense of pain in the afterlife. I am not aware of any theologian of worth teaching that such infants go to ‘hell’.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

peace,

mgrfin

Sure. See the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned…’
and
“Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty.”

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
They are in hell because they are denied the vision of God.

 

[Filiuscanimaris]

That’s not correct. The Church has never said unbaptised babies go to Hell. Please cite your source.

In a loose sense, any place after death not Heaven is Hell. But Hell is in most peoples’ usage now only for the “Hell of the Damned”. Limbo is not that.

As all Catholics of over 60 would know, Limbo is a state where the unbaptised infants are. They are ineligible for Heaven as they are still in the state of Original Sin. But, since they have committed no Mortal Sins, ie those which cause the spiritual and thus real death of the soul, they cannot go to Hell of Damned. That after death, only Heaven can provide the vision of God, and there is really nothing else to see of any consequence, these not so fortunate souls are in a state of natural happiness without the sight of God.

This perfectly reasonable teaching has never been defined as a Doctrine of the Church. Why not? For no cogent reason that I can see. Perhaps it is because it has not been found to be implicit in “The Deposit of Faith”, that is what was given to the Apostles to teach, as Revelation ceased after the Death of St John.

The teaching solves many difficulties, and seems to create none.

If it is not true, what happens to the unbaptised? They go nowhere. And that nowhere could well use the name of Limbo, so we are back where we started.

That they go to Hell of Damned would not be just. That they go to Heaven is contrary to the sayings of Christ requiring Baptism of Water and the Holy Ghost.

The only alternative is some kind of a test given by Christ at the Particular Judgment. And there seems to be no foundation in Scripture or the Tradition of the Apostles to support that hypothesis that I am aware of.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . 2) Provide a quote by a contemporary of Eugene IV or himself that shows people were not misled and instead did believe Jews, Pagans and Schismatics have a chance to get into Heaven.

Maybe I missed it were is the evidence that the Church didn’t take **Cantate Domino **literally at that time?

We are required to take it literally as Catholics. It isn’t just a papal bull that is at stake, it is also the affirmation of it by the Council of Florence. We are also required accept what the Church has taught both before and after the Council of Florence. If anybody is going to try and determine what the council meant literally by this statement, it must be done so in light of everything else the Catholic Church teaches. It appears that you have decided to do this apart from the entire deposit of faith.

I have one question for you. Actually I have quite a few, but I ask you only one so that there can’t be any possibility that you miss it. Here it is: In view of your literal interpretation of this statement from the Council of Florence: is a child raised in the Jewish faith who has just attained the age of reason and accepts everything taught to him, and who dies immediately thereafter, who has never heard of Jesus Christ or the Catholic Church; is that child damned to hell?

We will now see how well you really understand what your Church teaches and has always taught about salvation.

 

[mgrfin]

Sure. See the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned…’
and
“Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty.”

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
They are in hell because they are denied the vision of God.

I think you ought to read that article again.

 

[convert101]

I read the first 9 pages of this thread and have now stayed up way too late. I have to admit that the evidence put forward by those answering Kaste have been very convincing, but I understand where Kaste is coming from. (I may have also missed several crucial steps between pages 10 thru 20whatever.) Correct me if I’m wrong:

Kaste,

1. you do not agree with the ‘notion’ that there is anything but hell and heaven. (You’re protestant, I assume, so this is most likely your inherited position.)
2. you recognize that the term, and feel that the idea of invincible ignorance is a relatively new concept in Catholic theological/philosophical thinking
3. this makes you distrust the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Here’s my quick answer to these three things and then some musings and then you can return to your regularly scheduled apologetics network.

1. if you don’t believe in limbo or purgatory, then how could you ever hope to understand the Catholic “understanding” of this doctrine? It’s not possible. It’s like trying to fit a square thought into a round brain.
2. I think you are trying to objectively analyze (which is wise) the Church, admitedly with better than normal knowledge, but without seeming to grasp the interconnectedness of Church doctrine. What kept impressing me was that you would acknowledge two seemingly contrary quotes by the same author, St. Aquinas in particular, but maybe not realize that in order for that person to be able to speak both of those statements, they would have to believe that both were reconcilable. And also, why would a Church who claims divinely inspired ‘rightness’ EVER go back on something once decreed? That’s theological suicide!
   If something was stated in the past then the modern Magestarium, who undoubtedly has a full collective knowledge, not only of all Church and probably Christendom related documents, dogmatic and otherwise, and also of the events and circumstances surrounding those documents, from throughout Church history, has an enormous advantage. All they have to do is not contradict themselves! What everyone has been saying is that we understand perfectly well how the document from the Council of Florence is not later contradicted. Call it a divine loophole if you want. But the Church has always taught that is can and must grow to understand the fullness of the Deposit of Faith over time.
   In this way the Blessed Mother could be declared the theotokos in 431, the rosary was handed down in about 1215 (not in its complete form) the immaculate conception came in the 1830’s, didn’t it, and the docrtine of the Assumption came in 1950! (I’ve probably missed a few as well. As I said, it’s soooo late.) Christains in 431 in Ephesus were definitely already celebrating her assumption as a church there was dedicated to it very early on, but it probably wasn’t even taught in other locations. In some ways it was a local tradition.

3)Still, like many have said, we trust the Church’s teaching because she, and only she, has the authority to teach. Oddly enough, after five years of intensive study and of fighting it tooth and nail (the results of which are not shown at itheir best at 2am) I became Catholic because I accepted that God gave His authority to Christ who gave it to His apostles. Honestly, if the apostles then decided to pass on that authority, and all evidence shows they did, then it still resides somewhere specific…somewhere that has this objective authority and the promise that WHATEVER is decided by them will be rectified in heaven (by God). (I always thought it was funny to think of a pope officially decreeing that it was pertinent to our salvation to wear bright pink footy pajamas with purple pok-a-dots on Fridays for penance for the Lord’s crucifiction. Of course, we have no such luck and Catholics are sadly footy pajama-less. But wouldn’t that be an extremely bizaar sort of statement of our faith!!!)

Okay, 2am is doing something to me. I apologize for waisting valuable debating time by interjecting my sleep-deprived brains musings into intellegent discussions. But it really seemed to me to be very dizzyingly circular in the first place anyways. Regardless, St. Augustine said, “We must first believe in order to understand.” It sounds wierd, but I have found it to be so true. Good luck and God bless.

 

[richwmiller]

Has the teaching changed with regards to unbaptized babies? At one time, it was taught that unbaptized babies go to a place in hell, but now it is taught differently, that there is hope of salvation.

Not true, limbo was a **theory **not a teaching. In religion class, this was probably never made clear nor understood.

 

[Harsalter]

Has the teaching changed with regards to unbaptised babies? At one time, it was taught that unbaptised babies go to a place in hell, but now it is taught differently, that there is hope of salvation.

What? When? Where?

Please…

This is one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum. Once, the church therorized that unbaptised babies went to limbo, but now the church just assumes unbaptised bies will have the full mercy of God. But if parents do not have their babies baptised, they will answer for this.

 

[Harsalter]

(You’re protestant, I assume, so this is most likely your inherited position.)

You said it all right there! Most protestants inherit their faith and do no investigation on their own for the truth. Others aren’t as innocent such as protestant ministers who discover the truth but do not convert for financial reasons, these will indeed suffer the wrath of God.

But whoever senses that there is more to the Christian faith than what is taught in their particular denomination (denomination being a sect outside the true Church) is** required to search for the truth**. To not do this risks damnation.