Invincible Ignorance....

  • Thread starter Thread starter SGT_ROCK_33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now for Pope Boniface VIII:
We are compelled, our faith urging us, to believe and to hold—and we do firmly believe and simply confess—that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins; her Spouse proclaiming it in the canticles, “My dove, my undefiled is but one, she is the choice one of her that bore her”; which represents one mystical body, of which body the head is Christ, but of Christ, God.
If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only. This authority, moreover, even though it is given to man and exercised through man, is not human but rather divine, being given by divine lips to Peter and founded on a rock for him and his successors through Christ Himself whom He has confessed; the Lord Himself saying to Peter: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind,” etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordination of God, unless he makes believe, like the Manichean, that there are two beginnings. This we consider false and heretical, since by the testimony of Moses, not “in the beginnings,” but “in the beginning” God created the heavens and the earth.

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Notice that in this writing Pope Boniface mentions the Greeks (a mention of what we now know as the Greek Orthodox Church). He writes that they specifically rejected papal authority, when they said “If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only.” It says the Greeks and others specifically refused to submit to papal authority. What is implied here is that they have heard the message of the gospel and rejected the fact that Peter and his successors had authority over all of the Church. The Greeks (and others who are put in the same category of those who knowingly rejected the Pope’s authority) thus knowingly rejected this authority. They refuse to be one in the one sheepfold intended. Thus, there is no excuse for this. Therefore, for these people who have heard the message and rejected the Pope’s authority, the only way that they can be saved is by accepting this papal authority. So in keeping with this, when they have heard the message, the only way that they can be saved is by coming into the Church that Christ established and submit to this papal authority. That is the background for the de fide definition. That is in tune with the current teaching that when one has heard the message of the gospel and the authority of the Pope over the Church, one must be submissive to this authority to achieve salvation.

There is no mention in this decree of those who have not heard the message of papal authority. Pope Boniface does not say, “If they have not heard the message of the gospel and papal authority they cannot be saved.”

Another question is, how could one submit to the Pope to achieve salvation? It is indeed possible that one can be submissive to God (and his vicar, the Pope) without knowing of the necessity of this submission. An analogy may show this point. For example, during the Colonial times, Great Britain owned vast amounts of empires in Asia and Africa. All the people who lived in those areas were indeed truly under the authority of Great Britain; however, if one went into the bushes of Asia or Africa, there were probably people who did not know about the authority of Great Britain, and did not know that they had to submit to it. In a sense, they were submissive to Great Britain without knowing of the need to. If once they learned of the necessity of being submissive to the colonial rule of Great Britain, they would then become submissive when they knew they had to. However, if they learned of this authority and rejected this authority, they cut themselves off. In the same way, the Pope truly has authority over all the earth; nevertheless, there are some who do not know or have seriously studied that indeed he has this authority. However, they submit to whatever grace that Christ has given them, and they can achieve salvation; nevertheless, if they have truly heard the message of the full gospel (which includes papal authority), and they refuse to submit to this authority (like the Greeks or other) in Pope Boniface’s decree, the people very well cut themselves off from salvation, just as the Pope mentioned. No one who has truly heard this message and knowingly rejects this truth for whatever reason can be saved.
 
No… He defined recession and stated his opinion. Others have stated their opinion that adding to a dogma essentially changes it. Which, is what I happen to believe as well.

God Bless
Neither of you can both be right. Either it does or it doesn’t. This is an issue of fact, not opinion. “Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla” is an example of an opinion, as there are those who disagree, but it’s neither a right or wrong statement.
 
Now I’d like to address certain definitions of “extra ecclesia nulla salus” by the Church.

Let’s begin with Pope Innocent III’s statement:
The first part of this decree is about what Catholics believe. Note that in this first decree there is absolutely no mention of those who have never heard the message of the gospel. The Pope does not say, for those who have never heard the message, they cannot be saved. The actual presumption in his writing is that the people who are reading this know who the Pope is, and that he is the head of Christendom. Those who are outside of the Catholic Church of their own volition are no doubt condemned. That is consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches today. In this decree we also see the mention of baptism and the Eucharist. It is in fact a de fide definition that one does not need to eat the Eucharist for salvation (baptized babies who die before the age of reasons achieve salvation even if they do not partake of the Eucharist).

In relation to baptism only seven years prior to this decree, this same Pope Innocent III wrote in 1208 AD:

We see that the Pope shows that one who is so desperate for baptism he tries to baptize himself, but is unable to have someone baptize him before he dies, would rush to his heavenly home before he is baptized! 'Nuff said.

I realize that you have quoted from Denzinger, but what are the specific sources that you are citing from Pope Innocent III?

God Bless
 
Finally we have Pope Eugene IV:
Besides it anathematizes the madness of the Manichaeans, who have established two first principles, one of the visible, and another of the invisible; and they have said that there is one God of the New Testament, another God of the Old Testament.
It, moreover, anathematizes, execrates, and condemns every heresy that suggests contrary things. And first it condemns Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and all similar blasphemers, who, being unable to accept the personal union of humanity with the Word, denied that our Lord Jesus Christ was true God, proclaiming Him pure man who was called divine man by reason of a greater participation in divine grace, which He had received by merit of a more holy life. It anathematizes also Manichaeus with his followers, who, thinking vainly that the Son of God had assumed not a true but an ephemeral body, entirely do away with the truth of the humanity in Christ. And also Valentinus who asserts that the Son of God took nothing from the Virgin Mary, but assumed a heavenly body and passed through the womb of the Virgin just as water flows and runs through an aqueduct. Arius also, who asserted that the body assumed from the Virgin lacked a soul, and would have the Godhead in place of the soul. Also Apollinaris, who, understanding that there was no true humanity if in Christ the soul is denied as giving the body form, posited only a sensitive soul, but held that the Godhead of the Word took the place of a rational soul. It also anathematizes Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who assert that humanity was united with the Son of God through grace, and hence there are two persons in Christ, just as they confess that there are two natures, since they were unable to understand that the union of humanity with the Word was hypostatic, and so refused to accept the subsistence of God. For according to this blasphemy, the Word was not made flesh, but the Word through grace lived in the flesh; that is, He was made not the Son of God, but rather the Son of God lived in man. It anathematizes also, execrates, and condemns Eutyches the archimandrite; since he believed according to the blasphemy of Nestorius that the truth of the Incarnation is excluded, and therefore it is fitting that humanity was so united to the Word of God that the person of the Godhead and of humanity were one and the same and also, he could not grasp the unity of person as long as a plurality of natures existed, just as he established that there was one person of the Godhead and humanity in Christ, so he asserted that there was one nature, meaning that before the union there was a duality of natures, but in the assumption they passed over into one nature, with the greatest blasphemy and impiety granting either that humanity was turned into Godhead, or Godhead into humanity. It also anathematizes, execrates, and condemns Macarius of Antioch and all who hold similar views; although he had a correct understanding of the duality of natures and the unity of person, yet he erred greatly concerning the operations of Christ when he said that in Christ there was one operation and one will on the part of both natures. All these, together with their heresies, the Holy Roman Church anathematizes, affirming that there are two wills and two operations in Christ.
Code:
The most Holy Roman Church firmly  believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the  Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and  schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go  into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,  unless before death they are joined with Her; 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.
 
We notice in the background the mention of various heresies that have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic Faith. All of these heresies mentioned had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophysites) were anathematized. All these sects had heard the message but refused to enter the Church despite that fact. Also, notice at the end, it says that those who** shed their blood for Christ **will not be saved unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed cannot be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel.
In the same breath, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc. This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ's gospel. It is not talking about those who have not mentioned the gospel. The ones that these decrees are mentioning are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they cannot be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, "Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved." Rather, after hearing the full gospel, they had rejected it, so anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.). They are thus condemned unless they physically become members of the Church. **This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now. **
 
Neither of you can both be right. Either it does or it doesn’t. This is an issue of fact, not opinion. “Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla” is an example of an opinion, as there are those who disagree, but it’s neither a right or wrong statement.
It does.
 
I realize that you have quoted from Denzinger, but what are the specific sources that you are citing from Pope Innocent III?

God Bless
My bad.

The source comes from the 4th Lateran Council (1215).

As for the other 2 decrees, they come from Pope Boniface VIII’s bull *Unam Sanctam *(1302) and Pope Eugene IV’s bull *Cantate Domino *(1441), respectively.
 
My bad.

The source comes from the 4th Lateran Council (1215).

As for the other 2 decrees, they come from Pope Boniface VIII’s bull *Unam Sanctam *(1302) and Pope Eugene IV’s bull *Cantate Domino *(1441), respectively.
10-4, good sources my friend.

I see your argument. But again, as I have cited the same statements, NONE of them teach the exception of the invincably ignorant. As a matter of fact, the statements you cite specifically exclude that argument.

More tomorrow…

God Bless
 
10-4, good sources my friend.

I see your argument. But again, as I have cited the same statements, NONE of them teach the exception of the invincably ignorant. As a matter of fact, the statements you cite specifically exclude that argument.

More tomorrow…

God Bless
No, they do not exclude that argument. Just because the statements don’t come right out and address the issue of invincible ignorance doesn’t mean they teach against it. Church teaching has not changed, but you apparently don’t see that what you think the Church has always taught isn’t exactly the same as what it has ACTUALLY always taught. The Church is the sole interpreter of its teachings, not us. If we claim to be able to interpret Sacred Tradition for ourselves, we’re really no different from Protestants who claim to be able to interpret the Bible for themselves.
 
I apologize; I didn’t think to cite it, but my previous posts were basically taken from matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html

I hadn’t read forum rules thoroughly; I should have linked to that all along instead of regurgitating the material from it. Mea maxima culpa! 😊
 
No, they do not exclude that argument. Just because the statements don’t come right out and address the issue of invincible ignorance doesn’t mean they teach against it.
The argument from silence is a terrible one to make in this case.
 
I apologize; I didn’t think to cite it, but my previous posts were basically taken from matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html

I hadn’t read forum rules thoroughly; I should have linked to that all along instead of regurgitating the material from it. Mea maxima culpa! 😊
No worries… I wasn’t looking for a link. Rather I was looking at the context and specific documents. I get most of my information from papalencyclicals.net. They have a wealth of information, directly from the Popes and Councils, with excellent references and translations. You can download pretty much whatever you want there. Denzinger is also an excellent source, but difficult to cut and paste as you have to hand type everything from his book, unless you have it in e-form.

God Bless
 
The argument from silence is a terrible one to make in this case.
This is an excellent point. If they wanted to include the theory, they would have specifically included it. The silence says a lot…

God Bless
 
I apologize; I didn’t think to cite it, but my previous posts were basically taken from matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html

I hadn’t read forum rules thoroughly; I should have linked to that all along instead of regurgitating the material from it. Mea maxima culpa! 😊
I would use caution when approacing this link as it is only an opinion based site. It seems as though the gentleman running the site is an apologetic, but only publishes his own opinions.

I would go to a more trustworthy source, such as the actual Popes and Councils. The Vatican’s website has good resources on papal encyclicals, homilies, speeches, etc. Papalencyclicals.net has a vast amount of encyclicals and has all the decrees and canons from every council.

Opinion based sites can be somewhat helpful, but I always try to get my information directly from the source. (As best as I can anyway)

God Bless
 
Sarge

Haven’t you learned by now that on CAF, whenever the pre-Vatican II documents are contradicted by the post-Vatican II documents, the pre-VII documents are always “not infallible”?:rolleyes::cool:

Get with the program!!!
 
=Lormar;6661775]PJM
Are you talking about the evolution of doctrine in the sense that it has to be updated from time to time to accommodate the times?
As a general rule; NO.

But there are ocassionaly times when such is warranted. Rare, but they can happen.

In this case the pronounced defintion was prior to the Protestant Revoluation. Many millions of souls were and are put at risk.

God, being God is morally obligated by Divnie Nature to offer sufficient grace for everyones possible salvation.

The further one gets from the times of Luther, Calvin Ect., the **less cupable **are those who are being raised in these errant faiths.

Just as Scripture is learned from “hearing” [Rm. 10:17, Lk.11:28, Acts 8:30] these folks are learning from being taught ERRORS.

Having been with the Forum for several years now, it seems evident that the Same God who administers GRACE; similarly allocates Wisdom, Understanding and Faith, to whom it pleases Him. The near universal lack of understanding of what the Bible actually say’s and means, seems to give evidence that God; for reasons ONLY God understands; limits these gifts to Protestants in general, making there salvation all the more difficult.

Love and prayers,
 
Having read through all of this, along with your interpretations that run counter to the Church I’m still somewhat confused as to what your exact point is here.
  • Are you denying that Baptisms of Blood or Desire can be salvific?
  • Are you supporting the Feeney position as it appears? If not, how is what you’re saying and implying different?
  • Are you suggesting that the Church is teaching error since it definitely teaches that Baptisms of Blood and Desire can be salvific?
I am just at a loss as to what you’re looking for, or if you’re actually looking for anything at all beyond to create doubt by misinterpreting the older documents by implying a need to prove a negative. :confused:
 
Sarge

Haven’t you learned by now that on CAF, whenever the pre-Vatican II documents are contradicted by the post-Vatican II documents, the pre-VII documents are always “not infallible”?:rolleyes::cool:

Get with the program!!!
My bad…

God Bless
 
God, being God is morally obligated by Divnie Nature to offer sufficient grace for everyones possible salvation.
Can you explain this further? … so that I make sure I understand you fully before I reply to this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top