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

[Subcontrary]

In other words, is there ultimately any other afterlife besides salvation or damnation?

Unam Sanctam says, “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.”

I think this means that if a human being does not submit to the Roman Pontiff, then the salvation of that human being is absolutely not going to occur. Or, people who do not submit to the Roman Pontiff absolutely will not be saved. Is that a correct analysis of the sentence, or is it more subtle than that?

It seems like, according to ‘The Unam Sanctam “Problem” Resolved’ that one author is arguing that just because someone must submit to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, it does not follow that someone who does not submit to the Roman Pontiff is damned. I admit I didn’t read all of it, but what I did doesn’t seem to answer my curiosity.

What is the different between being damned and not being saved? If there is not one, can both of these possibilities co-exist:

1. A human must necessarily submit to the Roman Pontiff before being eligible for salvation.
2. A human does not necessarily have to submit to the Roman Pontiff before being eligible for salvation.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It is from damnation that a person is saved, in a sense. Damnation means being eternally deprived of the Beatific Vision and salvation means being able to enjoy the Beatific Vision. So no there is really no third option or intermediate eternal state.

As for submission to the Roman Pontiff, that requirement like all such things is subject to whether the individual is honestly aware of it.

 

[capablanca911]

In other words, is there ultimately any other afterlife besides salvation or damnation?

Unam Sanctam says, “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.”

I think this means that if a human being does not submit to the Roman Pontiff, then the salvation of that human being is absolutely not going to occur. Or, people who do not submit to the Roman Pontiff absolutely will not be saved. Is that a correct analysis of the sentence, or is it more subtle than that?

It seems like, according to ‘The Unam Sanctam “Problem” Resolved’ that one author is arguing that just because someone must submit to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, it does not follow that someone who does not submit to the Roman Pontiff is damned. I admit I didn’t read all of it, but what I did doesn’t seem to answer my curiosity.

What is the different between being damned and not being saved? If there is not one, can both of these possibilities co-exist:

1. A human must necessarily submit to the Roman Pontiff before being eligible for salvation.
2. A human does not necessarily have to submit to the Roman Pontiff before being eligible for salvation.

An analogy might help here.

Many ‘birthers’ submit to the President of the United States in their day to day lives (paying taxes, following laws, etc), depsite their assertion that he’s an unconstitutional usurper.

Or, another example. Christ is King over the whole world–even over people who don’t believe in him. They are still subject to Him regardless of their opinion of Him.

I think the Church has taken the ultimate position (and Unam Sanctum isn’t infallible) that if you know in your heart you should be Catholic, then being Catholic is a requirement for salvation. If you don’t know that fact in your heart, then it isn’t held against you. If you know the Gospel, then that’s your rule for salvation. If you only know the moral law, then that’s your rule for salvation. Feel free for any and all to chip in if I’m wrong on this point…

Your question touches upon another question: Is there damned, saved, and something else–limbo if you will.

Limbo is a theory. I suspect it will neither be denied nor affirmed in the West. (Though despite modern Eastern objections to it, I note it is part of the Synaxarion for Saturday before Meat-fare: johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/saturday-before-meatfare-saturday-of.html “We should also know that when baptized infants die, they enjoy the Paradise of delight, whereas those not illumined by Baptism and those born of pagans go neither to Paradise nor to Gehenna.”)

 

[TK421]

In a sense, it is because of the opportunity of salvation from sin that a person may become damned.

Although grace is something that is freely given and not entitled, it is also a gift that we can count on as just as surely as we can count on the laws of physics continuing to operate. It is a part of God’s divine nature as Love. Every sin and blasphemy that a person commits is going to be forgiven. These are - because of God’s divine nature; the grace of God and Christ’s redemptive act - temporary sins, and for temporary sins, God executes temporary punishment. We are given reconciliation from them and they do not become eternal. However, with final impenitence, a person is not contrite and does not yearn for forgiveness. They reject Christ, and because of that, they are not guilty of temporary sin, but guilty of eternal sin. And just as the Son was sent from the Father, so the apostles were sent from Christ. So if you reject the apostles, then you are rejecting Christ. All that remains to be seen is how culpable you were of such actions.

We can propose the hypothetical, “What if the Father did not send the Son to redeem us?” but that would be kind of like saying “What if God wasn’t God?” God is Love, He cannot change His mind, and the redemption of man was ordained from eternity.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

An analogy might help here.

Many ‘birthers’ submit to the President of the United States in their day to day lives (paying taxes, following laws, etc), depsite their assertion that he’s an unconstitutional usurper.

Or, another example. Christ is King over the whole world–even over people who don’t believe in him. They are still subject to Him regardless of their opinion of Him.

I think the Church has taken the ultimate position (and Unam Sanctum isn’t infallible) that if you know in your heart you should be Catholic, then being Catholic is a requirement for salvation. If you don’t know that fact in your heart, then it isn’t held against you. If you know the Gospel, then that’s your rule for salvation. If you only know the moral law, then that’s your rule for salvation. Feel free for any and all to chip in if I’m wrong on this point…

Your question touches upon another question: Is there damned, saved, and something else–limbo if you will.

Limbo is a theory. I suspect it will neither be denied nor affirmed in the West. (Though despite modern Eastern objections to it, I note it is part of the Synaxarion for Saturday before Meat-fare: johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/saturday-before-meatfare-saturday-of.html “We should also know that when baptized infants die, they enjoy the Paradise of delight, whereas those not illumined by Baptism and those born of pagans go neither to Paradise nor to Gehenna.”)

I’m confused by your analogies. I don’t see how either of them correspond to the case of a Christian or other person of good will living in ignorance of the necessity of submitting to the Roman Pontiff.

Your statement about the issue itself might not be that inaccurate, though I would lay the emphasis differently. The requirement, the rule, is in place for a person whether they are aware of it or not. It is just a matter of it not being just to punish a person for not following a rule that they honestly did not know about (for civil law we are forced to operate under a doctrine that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but this is not a good ultimate moral principle).

Also, Limbo is not an intermediate place or state between salvation and damnation. It is damnation, but damnation without any extra punishment added to it for personal sins. Because it is not as harsh as the rest of Hell theologians called it the “fringe” of Hell (the word limbo means “fringe.”) Personally I believe the theory of Limbo is valid in the hypothetical case of anyone who died in Original Sin but no with personal sin whatsoever. Whether anyone actually dies in this state is the real question. [Note: I’m talking about the Limbo of Infants here. The Limbo of the Fathers was a different, and as it turned out a temporary situation.]

 

[kmcarl56]

If all of this is true, then what about the thief on the cross next to Jesus who had never heard Him speak, who had never been baptized, and had done no good works in his life? Jesus took the thief with Him that very day just because he asked Jesus to.

I do not understand why I have to pay homage to a man, any man, to receive salvation from God. Isn’t that our gift from God, not a man?

I follow Christ, and worship God, so why do I have to have the Pope’s blessing, or a priest, cardinal, or bishop, or even an ordained minister? To me, the blessings I receive are straight from God, his gift to me for loving Him.

Please enlighten me.

 

[johnnyc176]

If all of this is true, then what about the thief on the cross next to Jesus who had never heard Him speak, who had never been baptized, and had done no good works in his life? Jesus took the thief with Him that very day just because he asked Jesus to.

I do not understand why I have to pay homage to a man, any man, to receive salvation from God. Isn’t that our gift from God, not a man?

I follow Christ, and worship God, so why do I have to have the Pope’s blessing, or a priest, cardinal, or bishop, or even an ordained minister? To me, the blessings I receive are straight from God, his gift to me for loving Him.

Please enlighten me.

Mathew 16:18-19

 

[davidv]

If all of this is true, then what about the thief on the cross next to Jesus who had never heard Him speak, who had never been baptized, and had done no good works in his life? Jesus took the thief with Him that very day just because he asked Jesus to.

I do not understand why I have to pay homage to a man, any man, to receive salvation from God. Isn’t that our gift from God, not a man?

I follow Christ, and worship God, so why do I have to have the Pope’s blessing, or a priest, cardinal, or bishop, or even an ordained minister? To me, the blessings I receive are straight from God, his gift to me for loving Him.

Please enlighten me.

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.

 

[Subcontrary]

As for submission to the Roman Pontiff, that requirement like all such things is subject to whether the individual is honestly aware of it.

That’s hard for me to swallow considering the language used: “…we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.” He didn’t say that “Only humans beings who are aware that there even is such a person count,” he said “all human beings.” Here is the text of the bull, just in case you can find some wiggle room.

(and Unam Sanctum isn’t infallible)

Someone in the document in the OP I linked to wrote “While the last sentence is the only infallible definition in the Bull, the first sentence has also been infallibly defined.” The last sentence is the one in the OP that starts, “Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary…”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

That’s hard for me to swallow considering the language used: “…we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.” He didn’t say that “Only humans beings who are aware that there even is such a person count,” he said “all human beings.” Here is the text of the bull, just in case you can find some wiggle room.

I’ve read Unam Sanctam, and I don’t think reviewing it will be necessary right now.

Really I am having trouble understanding your difficulty. It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff. Period. God will hold them morally accountable for the failure to do this only if they were sufficiently aware of this requirement to be morally culpable for breaking it. Period. There is no contradiction or even any serious tension here.

Edit: Oh, I think I see your problem now. You are interpreting “necessary” not in the sense of “required” but in the sense of a sort of logical necessity, as if (absurdly) salvation were inconceivable without submission to the Roman Pontiff. I would submit that by “absolutely necessary” the Pope meant “absolutely required/demanded.”

Someone in the document in the OP I linked to wrote “While the last sentence is the only infallible definition in the Bull, the first sentence has also been infallibly defined.” The last sentence is the one in the OP that starts, “Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary…”

It was also my understanding that this definition in Unam Sanctam was infallible, though I’m not completely sure if this is really the case.

 

[Subcontrary]

Really I am having trouble understanding your difficulty. It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff. Period. God will hold them morally accountable for the failure to do this only if they were sufficiently aware of this requirement to be morally culpable for breaking it. Period. There is no contradiction or even any serious tension here.

Edit: Oh, I think I see your problem now. You are interpreting “necessary” not in the sense of “required” but in the sense of a sort of logical necessity, as if (absurdly) salvation were inconceivable without submission to the Roman Pontiff. I would submit that by “absolutely necessary” the Pope meant “absolutely required/demanded.”

I’m sorry if I’m a little slow on the uptake, and for assuming you hadn’t read the bull: Would you say this is more what the pope meant?

“We declare, state and define that it is absolutely required for the salvation of human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff, but not all humans, just the ones who are sufficiently aware of this requirement to be morally culpable for breaking it.”

I guess I’m having trouble with these two facts both being true:

1. All humans are required to submit to the Roman Pontiff before they can be saved.
2. Humans who aren’t aware of the requirement are not required to submit to the Roman Pontiff before they can be saved.

The way I interpret the category “all human beings” includes human beings who are not sufficiently aware of this requirement to be morally culpable for breaking it. I can’t see how that group of human beings is not included in the category “all human beings.”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m sorry if I’m a little slow on the uptake, and for assuming you hadn’t read the bull: Would you say this is more what the pope meant?

“We declare, state and define that it is absolutely required for the salvation of human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff, but not all humans, just the ones who are sufficiently aware of this requirement to be morally culpable for breaking it.”

I guess I’m having trouble with these two facts both being true:

1. All humans are required to submit to the Roman Pontiff before they can be saved.
2. Humans who aren’t aware of the requirement are not required to submit to the Roman Pontiff before they can be saved.

The way I interpret the category “all human beings” includes human beings who are not sufficiently aware of this requirement to be morally culpable for breaking it. I can’t see how that group of human beings is not included in the category “all human beings.”

As I said I would indeed basically interpret “necessary” as “required.” But the requirement holds for all human beings, regardless of whether they are aware of the requirement or not. It’s the same with any moral law.

To take a much lesser example, all Catholics above a certain age are required to abstain from meat on Fridays of Lent. But let’s say an individual Catholic was unaware of this requirement or, more plausibly, was unaware that it was a Friday in Lent, and they ate meat. The requirement really did apply to them, but at the same time they are not morally culpable for not meeting this requirement because they were unaware that they were breaking it.

In that example, let me point out, the requirement only applies to people who are already Catholics, whereas this one applies to everyone. It is harder to find an analogy that would also apply to all humanity because apart from the call to become a Catholic Christian (part of which includes submission to the Roman Pontiff, hence this “necessity”) what is required of all humanity for salvation is keeping the natural moral law, which theoretically is known or at least knowable for everyone who has the use of reason. But let’s say that for whatever reason someone honestly does not know that something is immoral, say contraception (since it is now so accepted in our society and so few non-Catholics seem to grasp why it is wrong). In using contraception the person would still really be transgressing God’s law for them, but if they were honestly ignorant of this fact they would not be morally culpable for the transgression.

 

[Rete]

There are only the four last things. No in-between state. It’s frightening to think of the consequences of sin, and maybe that’s the point. Imagining alternative places might be a form of trying to assuage those fears rather than confront them.

 

[capablanca911]

Unam Sanctum is infallible? It’s a shame that wasn’t mentioned to silence the critics of Vatican I. Would have cut out a lot of debate…

 

[Subcontrary]

As I said I would indeed basically interpret “necessary” as “required.” But the requirement holds for all human beings, regardless of whether they are aware of the requirement or not. It’s the same with any moral law.

To take a much lesser example, all Catholics above a certain age are required to abstain from meat on Fridays of Lent. But let’s say an individual Catholic was unaware of this requirement or, more plausibly, was unaware that it was a Friday in Lent, and they ate meat. The requirement really did apply to them, but at the same time they are not morally culpable for not meeting this requirement because they were unaware that they were breaking it.

In that example, let me point out, the requirement only applies to people who are already Catholics, whereas this one applies to everyone. It is harder to find an analogy that would also apply to all humanity because apart from the call to become a Catholic Christian (part of which includes submission to the Roman Pontiff, hence this “necessity”) what is required of all humanity for salvation is keeping the natural moral law, which theoretically is known or at least knowable for everyone who has the use of reason. But let’s say that for whatever reason someone honestly does not know that something is immoral, say contraception (since it is now so accepted in our society and so few non-Catholics seem to grasp why it is wrong). In using contraception the person would still really be transgressing God’s law for them, but if they were honestly ignorant of this fact they would not be morally culpable for the transgression.

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?

 

[Subcontrary]

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 is probably the clearest yet that I can be. I utilized an AEE-II syllogism, which is called Modus Camestres, and I included Euler’s circles as well. Let me know if any of the premises are false.

http://s10.postimg.org/a1hzl6q09/pope.jpg

 

[thenobes]

In other words, is there ultimately any other afterlife besides salvation or damnation?

Unam Sanctam says, “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.”

I think this means that if a human being does not submit to the Roman Pontiff, then the salvation of that human being is absolutely not going to occur. Or, people who do not submit to the Roman Pontiff absolutely will not be saved. Is that a correct analysis of the sentence, or is it more subtle than that?

It seems like, according to ‘The Unam Sanctam “Problem” Resolved’ that one author is arguing that just because someone must submit to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, it does not follow that someone who does not submit to the Roman Pontiff is damned. I admit I didn’t read all of it, but what I did doesn’t seem to answer my curiosity.

What is the different between being damned and not being saved? If there is not one, can both of these possibilities co-exist:

1. A human must necessarily submit to the Roman Pontiff before being eligible for salvation.
2. A human does not necessarily have to submit to the Roman Pontiff before being eligible for salvation.

SubC,

Whoa!!

I checked out the website you mentioned in post # 9 of this thread and it says:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

while you say:

“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.”

.

Do you see the difference?

In the first it is the existence of salvation itself that is at stake, not necessarily that of any particular person. Without the guidance of the established temporal authority, salvation becomes unsure and can drift to whatever.

In Latin:

“Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis”

porro -furthermore
subesse -to be under
Romano Pontifici (dative) -to the Roman Pontiff (dative)

omni humanae creaturae (dative) -to all human creatures
declaramus, dicimus,
definimus et pronumciamus -we declare, state, define and pronounce,
omnino -entirely
esse - to be
de necessitate - from the necessity
salutis -of salvation

The double dative may be “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff as all human creatures”

so we have:

Furthermore we declare, state, define and pronounce, that being under to the Roman Pontiff as all human creatures are, is entirely from the necessity of salvation.

So it is the fact of salvation that makes us ipso facto under the Roman Pontiff.

If you fight that subjection without a good conscience in formation (with the possibility of invincible --for the moment— ignorance) you are indeed headed for disaster.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

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 is probably the clearest yet that I can be. I utilized an AEE-II syllogism, which is called Modus Camestres, and I included Euler’s circles as well. Let me know if any of the premises are false.

http://s10.postimg.org/a1hzl6q09/pope.jpg

SubC,

Your diagram is correctly drawn, but is based on an incorrect premise, an incorrect translation. Therefore its conclusion is wrong.

What the Pope means to say in Unam sanctam is that, entirely from the necessity of salvation, it is true that all human beings are subject to the Pope.

So whether you want to be, you know you are, or you believe you are, you are subject to the Roman Pontiff. Period.

Now there are degrees of culpability in the failure to follow through with one’s obligation to accept his subjection to the Pope. Thes would be based on the person’s current state of invincible ignorance. That is, the lack of knowledge which was not due to his lack of diligence in pursuing a good conscience.

peace
steve

 

[Subcontrary]

So do you mean premise 1

“All humans who are saved are humans who have submitted to the pope”

is false? If you don’t believe in people who have not submitted to the pope, then this cannot be false. Trivially all humans who are saved are humans who have submitted to the pope, like all humans who are saved are humans who were conceived. I assume you don’t object to premise 2, which is a tautology. This means that the conclusion is true, trivially.

Honestly I’m not sure what you object to about the conclusion “No human who has not submitted to the pope is a human who is saved.” Since you don’t apparently think there are any humans who have not submitted to the pope, then of course they aren’t saved. It’s like saying “No human who was not conceived is a human who is saved.”

I don’t feel like I’m getting consistent messages here. Aelred Minor didn’t have a problem understanding what you consider the wrong translation, and also apparently understood it perfectly. You also apparently understand it perfectly, even though the translation Aelred Minor understood perfectly was wrong. I’m not sure what to think of the bull at the moment.

I wish Boniface would just tell me what he meant. I bet he could settle this.

 

[thenobes]

So do you mean premise 1

“All humans who are saved are humans who have submitted to the pope”

is false? If you don’t believe in people who have not submitted to the pope, then this cannot be false. Trivially all humans who are saved are humans who have submitted to the pope, like all humans who are saved are humans who were conceived. I assume you don’t object to premise 2, which is a tautology. This means that the conclusion is true, trivially.

Honestly I’m not sure what you object to about the conclusion “No human who has not submitted to the pope is a human who is saved.” Since you don’t apparently think there are any humans who have not submitted to the pope, then of course they aren’t saved. It’s like saying “No human who was not conceived is a human who is saved.”

I don’t feel like I’m getting consistent messages here. Aelred Minor didn’t have a problem understanding what you consider the wrong translation, and also apparently understood it perfectly. You also apparently understand it perfectly, even though the translation Aelred Minor understood perfectly was wrong. I’m not sure what to think of the bull at the moment.

I wish Boniface would just tell me what he meant. I bet he could settle this.

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