Is There A Difference Between Not Being Saved and Being Damned?

[kmcarl56]

What do you mean by “pay homage to a man” in the above?

Why should the direct way be the only channel of God’s grace? Throughout salvation history God has used men, and woman, to be his instruments of grace.

What I meant by saying “pay homage to a man,” is considering the Pope as the infallible personage of Christ on earth. Most protestants feel that the Pope is not infallible, that he is just a man who loves the Lord, presides over the Church, and makes sure that the Church remains in alignment with God’s commands.

My point to the OP is that no one here on earth has the authority to judge whether someone is saved/damned or not. Only God knows that. An individual knows, or can find out, if what they have done, or how they have lived their life, is in accordance to God’s commands to us. It is difficult for anyone to follow all of God’s commands to us (over 400) all of the time. We are sinners, every one of us.

I didn’t mean to insult you or deny you the right to worship and praise God in your own way, I am simply speaking from my own heart and what I have been taught since childhood. I love the Pope as any Christian should.

Thank you for your insightful message. I am learning a great deal every day.



May God be with you!

 

[Subcontrary]

SubC,

The problem with your syllogism, which as it is, is correct, is that it has insufficient premises. Invincible ignorance must be taken into account.

Your premises can be derived from Boniface’s declaration, although indirectly, in my opinion.

To me, Boniface says:

“Absolutely, from the necessity of salvation, all human beings are subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

This leaves out the additional needed premises of knowledge of this subjection, and the person’s assent of his will to this authority. Also whether a person has been diligent in informing his conscience in this matter. The statement itself implies that resistance to this authority is grave matter. But knowledge and assent are left hanging. Also the Church’s constant teaching of invincible ignorance, or its equivalent, must be added to the premises.

If you add the premise of knowledge, and lack of assent, you arrive at your premises.

Which would then be acceptable and lead to the conclusion that you give.

BTW did you note that your translation given in your posts differs from that of the website you link to in post 9?
Why did you change it? Did you get your own translation from a different website? If so, may I have a link to it?
Thanks

[Also, in regard to the other posters accepting the translation as given, well, I’m different., I like to see the actual translations, having seen manglings of Latin translations in the past…and will relinquish my own when I am given sufficient reason. I haven’t been given enough…yet.]

peace
steve

The translation I had been using, “Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.” is from “The Unam Sanctam ‘Problem’ resolved,” which I linked to in the original post. I suppose that resolution is faulty as well, being a resolution arrived at from an incorrect translation. It’s frustrating to think how certain people can be that they’ve resolved some seeming problem even when they haven’t. From Aelred’s certainty to the certainty in the link in this post, to your certainty, I feel like I’m justified in being uncertain.

I think your interpretation could be written:

“Because salvation is necessary, all humans are subject to the pope.”
Or
“All humans are subject to the pope because salvation is necessary.”
Or
“If salvation is necessary, then all humans are subject to the pope.”

These are not very straightforward sentences to me, as opposed to the incorrect translation meaning simply, “No human who does not submit to the pope may be saved.”

I don’t really even understand what Boniface was trying to say if you are not yourself incorrect. Humans are subject to the pope because salvation is necessary? Could you possibly write a few more wordings of your interpretation?

 

[thenobes]

The translation I had been using, “Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.” is from “The Unam Sanctam ‘Problem’ resolved,” which I linked to in the original post. I suppose that resolution is faulty as well, being a resolution arrived at from an incorrect translation. It’s frustrating to think how certain people can be that they’ve resolved some seeming problem even when they haven’t. From Aelred’s certainty to the certainty in the link in this post, to your certainty, I feel like I’m justified in being uncertain.

I think your interpretation could be written:

“Because salvation is necessary, all humans are subject to the pope.”
Or
“All humans are subject to the pope because salvation is necessary.”
Or
“If salvation is necessary, then all humans are subject to the pope.”

These are not very straightforward sentences to me, as opposed to the incorrect translation meaning simply, “No human who does not submit to the pope may be saved.”

I don’t really even understand what Boniface was trying to say if you are not yourself incorrect. Humans are subject to the pope because salvation is necessary? Could you possibly write a few more wordings of your interpretation?

You know, I do believe that my interpretation is slightly off. My problem is with salutis, which is genitive case (possessive) and doesn’t seem to fit as a modifier of necesitatas. I believe it may instead be a modifier of the double dative infinitive clause “all human beings are subject to the roman pontiff” used as a gerundive. Thus the condition given there in that gerundive is “of salvation” not “for salvation”. Thus subjection does not lead to salvation: it is part and parcel of salvation.

(I will say more later. This is a pda with limited editing facility).

peace
steve

 

[Subcontrary]

You know, I do believe that my interpretation is slightly off. My problem is with salutis, which is genitive case (possessive) and doesn’t seem to fit as a modifier of necesitatas. I believe it may instead be a modifier of the double dative infinitive clause “all human beings are subject to the roman pontiff” used as a gerundive. Thus the condition given there in that gerundive is “of salvation” not “for salvation”. Thus subjection does not lead to salvation: it is part and parcel of salvation.

(I will say more later. This is a pda with limited editing facility).

peace
steve

I would ask you what the difference in meaning is between “necessary for salvation,” and “from the necessity of salvation.”

I would also ask what the bad translation, “Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff,” looks like in Latin.

I would also ask you to compare these A and B translations, which one is more accurate, which one means what, whether you have better a translation than either, etc:

1. “Quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis.” (From Contra Errores Graecorum, part 2, chapter 38)

A. “That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.” (dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38)
B. “That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is from the necessity of salvation.”

2. “Ergo restituere ablatum non est de necessitate salutis.” (from Summa Theologica, “Restitution,” article 2)

A. “Therefore it is not necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken from another.” (newadvent.org/summa/3062.htm)
B. “Therefore to restore what one has taken from another is not from the necessity of salvation.”

3. “Cum igitur servare iustitiam sit de necessitate salutis, consequens est quod restituere id quod iniuste ablatum est alicui, sit de necessitate salutis.” (Ibid.)

A. “Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly.” (Ibid.)
B. “Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is from the necessity of salvation, it follows that to restore what has been taken unjustly is from the necessity of salvation.”

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Let me interject for a second. The principal question of translation is the meaning of “de necessitate.” It is not appropriate to follow the translation to the letter if it is not a translation to the letter. If we are going to split hairs over the meaning of the words, we have to pin down precisely what the words say.

First, let me point out that the actual construction is not “all humans absolutely must be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” That would be, “Oportet omnem humanem creaturam subesse Romano Pontifici,” or maybe something like “Necesse est omni humani creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici.” I will try to give a more literal reading according to my ability.

“Furthermore, for every human creature, we declare, state, define and pronounce that being under the Roman Pontiff is entirely (de necessitate salutis) of [a?] necessity of salvation.”

That is the underlying structure. The only thing obscure to me is how “de necessitate salutis” should be taken. What is the meaning of “de” and what kind of genitive is “salutis?” Here is one possibility: “de necessitate” can be used to indicate that something is logically necessary. Then we have, “… [subesse etc.] is, by necessity, a matter of salvation.” If this is so, then the statement is asserting that submission to the Pope is a matter of the Faith and not an optional allegiance. Another interpretation is something like above ("… is out of a necessity pertaining to salvation"). However the construction is interpreted, that is the more or less the structure and intended meaning. Submission to the Pope is an article of the Faith.

With that in mind, the original statement seems much less strict than the usual translation if interpreted absolutely to the letter. You cannot simply contrapose the statement to say, “everyone who is not in visible communion with the Pope is certainly damned.” Even if "est de necessitate " is an idiom meaning "is a necessary condition for " (I would like to see some other examples of this construction), any statement must be read not according to the letter (which is a collection of arbitrary symbols) but to the spirit (which is the meaning the author intends), for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks for digging up those samples, Subcontrary. It seems that this is a stock expression after all in this style of Latin. I would affirm, from my own judgment, that this is a weak expression, and I think the uses in St. Thomas affirm what Thenobes was trying to say, even if he was mistaken linguistically. Although behaving according to natural morality is necessary, there are circumstances that can lessen culpability (e.g. ignorance). For example, if someone takes up an item that belongs to another without realizing it, they should not be held accountable if it were not out of gross negligence on his part. Similarly, there may be circumstances that diminish culpability for not “being under” (however this is interpreted) the Roman Pontiff.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You know, I do believe that my interpretation is slightly off. My problem is with salutis, which is genitive case (possessive) and doesn’t seem to fit as a modifier of necesitatas. I believe it may instead be a modifier of the double dative infinitive clause “all human beings are subject to the roman pontiff” used as a gerundive. Thus the condition given there in that gerundive is “of salvation” not “for salvation”. Thus subjection does not lead to salvation: it is part and parcel of salvation.

Some quick grammatical points.

Thenobes, the statement is not a double dative. “Romano Pontifici” is just the object of “subesse.”

There’s no gerundive phrase because there’s no gerundive (-nd-) word.

It could be translated “the need for salvation” as an objective genitive, although this is clearly not the sense. The “necessity” means what salvation needs.

 

[thenobes]

I would ask you what the difference in meaning is between “necessary for salvation,” and “from the necessity of salvation.”

Actually, you are right. “Necessary for salvation” and “from a need of (possessed by) salvation” mean the same thing.

I would also ask what the bad translation, “Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff,” looks like in Latin.

Since I don’t dispute “necessary for salvation” anymore, I can only compliment you on you finding those passages which caused me to rethink that phrase.

In addition, I would have to say that “salvation of all human beings” is also an acceptable restatement of the raw translation.

However, I still have not convinced myself of the equivalence of “be subject to” to “submit to”.

In fact “subesse” appears to imply that it is a level of authority that must be respected, and not the the person holding the office of Pope alone. I believe that “to be placed under,” means “to submit to the Pope according to the authority granted him” and so one needs to define this authority and just how it interacts with the needs of salvation.

So, in summary, I think subesse emphasizes that this need for salvation must be in accord with previous stated needs of salvation, as derived by the authority of the church.

peace
Steve

 

[benjohnson]

I just wanted to add how I interpret the sentence, “It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.”

This way of looking at salvation is repeated in Lumen Gentium “Whoever refuses to enter or does not remain in the Roman Catholic Church cannot be saved”

And while I do enjoy making our Catholic friend squirm a bit about this - we have to keep in mind that they do acknowledge that an imperfect submission or imperfect communion can also lead to salvation in extraordinary circumstances.

What our Catholic friends are describing here in Lumen Gentium and other teaching documents is salvation under ordinary circumstances - this is how under regular circumstances you would enter the Catholic church in full communion and begin your faith journey, hopefully leading to salvation.

Now, I certainly don’t think they’re correct, but you have to take into account that there are other Catholic teachings that try to ‘soften the blow’ of this rather strident teaching.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Okay, so you are saying two things, I think:

1. “The requirement holds for all human beings, regardless of whether they are aware of the requirement or not.”

By this I think you mean “all human beings are required to submit to the pope before they can be saved.”

1. “if they were honestly ignorant of this fact they would not be morally culpable for the transgression.”

By this I think you mean “not all human beings are required to submit to the pope before they can be saved.” Have I erred so far?

Of these two syllogisms, are either sound? Why or why not? Does one better capture your viewpoint than the other? Do you disagree with any premises?

P1. All humans are required to submit to the pope before they can be saved.
P2. Person X, an Amazonian who has never heard of the pope, is a human.
C. Hence, Person X, an Amazonian who has never heard of the pope, is required to submit to the pope before he can be saved.

P1. No human who has never heard of the pope is required to submit to the pope before they can be saved.
P2. Person X is an Amazonian who has never heard of the pope.
C. Hence, Person X is not required to submit to the pope before he can be saved.

This syllogism results in the one below:

P1: Person X is not required to submit to the pope before he can be saved.
P2. Person X is a human.
C. Some humans are not required to submit to the pope before they can be saved.

I can’t reconcile

1. “All humans are required to submit to the pope before they can be saved”
2. “Some humans are not required to submit to the pope before they can be saved.”

Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I can’t figure out whether you believe all humans must submit to the pope before they can be saved, or if some are exempt. Is it both, somehow?

I have not asserted either your point one or your point two, so I reject your syllogism. I thought I had already made clear that at the very least I for one interpret this “necessity” as a moral or legal requirement for salvation not some kind of ultimate logical necessity for salvation.

I feel like I keep repeating myself here, but I’ll try again. Your hypothetical Amazonian (provided he lives during the age of the Church) as a member of the human race which has been redeemed by Christ has obligation to enter the Church, and that in turn requires submission to the Pope. However, if he has never heard of the Catholic Church much less of the Pope he obviously cannot be held responsible for not having fulfilled this requirement, and we may hope for his salvation.