My difficulty with the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter BillTBC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BillTBC

Guest
I do not think I can accept that the Church is what it claims to be. The reason why is because of Unam Sanctam. You all know it, and I know it’s been discussed here. But your answers haven’t satisfied me. There have been two responses that I usually read 1) it’s not infallible 2) it doesn’t mean what most people think it means.

First, is it infallible?

Jimmy Akin clarifies infallibility at:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

He says, “Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)”

The last sentence of the Bull 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.” According to Akin, this signifies an infallible statement. Condition #3 (that it requires a definition) is met. Let’s look at the rest:

#1) Is it Pastoral? The document is a pastoral document being written to King Philip of France.
#2) Is it on faith or morals? The subject matter is of gravest importance to faith
#4) Is it universal? The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The Bull is universal in character.” It is clear, especially in referencing the state of the Greeks, that he is intending to bind everyone.

I see no reason whatsoever to deny that this document -or at the very least, the last line- is infallible.

Others say that it does not mean what I think it means: that one must literally submit to the pope to have salvation.

The typical argument I hear is that the pope is saying that in the end, all will be Catholic by the time they get into heaven, and that non-Catholic Christians are still subject to the Pope, even if they don’t realize it, just as a man might be subject to the king of Poland even if he has no idea who this king is. But that interpretation is a stretch and is in no way supported by the document.

We can learn the real meaning of the infallible statement by looking earlier in the document where it is written, “Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’”

Here the pope clearly says that those who do not submit themselves to the pope are not a part of Christ’s flock. Those who are not a part of Christ’s flock (i.e. non-Catholics) have no share in salvation. I see no way this can be reconciled to Vatican II which says that the Holy Spirit moves in the “separated brethren” of the flock.
 
Before answering, let me just stress that you need to be willing to accept answers before you will find them satisfying. That doesn’t mean you have to be willing to accept weak or falacious answers, but that you have to be open enough to recognize answers that are sufficient, or even supersufficient. I think that each and every one of us has experienced a situation in life where we clearly weren’t willing to accept the truth in an answer, and so we rejected it as false, only later to realize that we really were just closed off to it and that it was correct. I don’t mean this about theology or religion only; I am referring to life in general.

So make sure you’re ready or willing to hear an response that is true. If you aren’t, it won’t matter how good the answer is. I’d recommend you take a moment to pray before you read this, or anything else, to have an open heart and mind - say a really sincere prayer, submitting to God in whatever judgment He gives you, and recognize the possibility - not even probability, just possibility - that what is being suggested is valid. Now you probably won’t do this; most people who read this sort of thing don’t. But if you want to truly find God - wherever He is and whatever He has to say, then do it. It takes 30 seconds and can lead to an eternity of benefit.

Now, it sounds as though you may have read my piece on the subject. If you haven’t, here it is:
Lazerlike42 said:
Here is what I had written about Boniface VIII. I wrote this an awfully long time ago, so it could probably be tidied up. I did tidy it up a little, but I’m tremendously exhausted right now so who knows how it ended up. Note that I was only focusing on Protestants when I wrote this, but I could change it around to fit any non-Catholic.

I wrote it in reference to Boniface’s statement: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” If you were referring to something else, sorry, my bad.

The Church teaches the following:
  1. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church - various places
  2. It is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation - Unam Sanctum
  3. Protestants can be saved because though it is imperfect, they do have a communion with the Catholic Church - various places
There is no contradiction amongst these.

The question that seems to be raised is, how can Protestants be saved if they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff? The answer is they can’t. There is something very important to note here.

The Roman Pontiff is the leader of the Catholic Church. By definition, all those who are in the Catholic Church are subject to the Roman Pontiff, just like all those who are citizens of England are subject to the Queen, even if for some reason they never become aware that they are in fact her subjects or even mistakenly think they are not. Remember - there is one baptism, which baptizes people into one body of Christ, and that one body of Christ is the Catholic Church, which is subject to the Roman Pontiff. Any person who has been baptized is a member of the body of Christ and by the very fact that he is, is subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if he doesn’t know it. A 3 year old baptized Catholic is a member of the body of Christ even though he has no idea he is subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Now people can either stay in the body of Christ or leave it, and once they have left it they can return. They leave the body by committing mortal sin, and they return by repentance. Mortal sin requires 3 things: 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge, and 3) full consent of the will.

Now a Protestant who gains the knowledge that he be Catholic and chooses not to commits mortal sin, and ceases to be a living member of the body. In fact, he ceases to be a member at all insofar as he is rejecting the Church with the knowledge of its veracity. Now a Protestant who never gains the knowledge of the Church’s truth remains a living member of the body, barring some mortal sin which would cause him to be a dead member of the body. Either way, he remains subject to the Roman Pontiff even if though doesn’t know it.

If a Protestant does become aware at some point that the Catholic Church is God’s true Church, he will do one of two things. He will either obey, which will involve becoming Catholic, or he will refuse to obey. If he refuses to obey, he will be committing a sin of grave matter with the necessary knowledge and presumably with full consent of the will. Therefore, he ceases to be a living member of the body, and because he has rejected the Church altogether, he ceases to be a member at all. He is no longer be subject to the Roman Pontiff because he is outside of the body. If he repents of this sin, he will join the Church and make himself once more to the Roman Pontiff.

So what it comes down to is that all Protestants who know of the truth of the Catholic Church are outside of the body and cannot be saved, whereas all Protestants who do not know of the truth may still be members of the body, which is the Church, and since the Church is subject to the Roman Pontiff, so are these Protestants, even if they don’t know it.
Click to expand...
 
Now, let me add something that may be of help. Your problem is your understanding of what Boniface meant when he wrote this. The key to consider is, what was believed at the time of Boniface? The answer is that it was the thinking of thelogians, St. Thomas Aquinas being one example, that the very sort of principle I am referring to applied. Aquinas, writing about the time of Boniface VIII, taught that even non-Christians could be saved without visible requirements such as baptism:
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that “some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit.” Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
Click to expand...
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Click to expand...
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.” - - Summa Theologica, III, 68, 2
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent confirmed this teaching.

Quotations could be multiplied.

Yet even if they couldn’t, there still wouldn’t be any problem here. Unam Sanctum does not rule out the possibility of an invisible membership in the Church, nor does it teach that visible membership is required. It simply doesn’t say that, and there’s simply no way for us to accurately judge that this is what Boniface had in mind. He didn’t leave much behind to show us such a thing. What has been left behind is the general teaching that was present in the Church and the Fathers that a person could be saved without a visible baptism into the Church, and it’s taking a tremendous leap to suggest that Boniface was unaware of or ignored this teaching. We can’t ignore the context of Catholic thought at the time in this way.

Furthermore, there’s no question that theological thought and understanding develops. There is nothing wrong with the Church revealing some thing today which gives a deeper understanding of a teaching from centuries past, so long as there is no contradiction. This occured in the early history of the Church. Christological teachings developed over time. Things can be found in the Council of Chalcedon that had not been taught at Nicaea, but they did not contradict so there was no problem. It is a matter of trusting the Holy Spirit to guide our words so as not to deny some truth that we have not yet come to understand.

For example, it is generally accepted that we do not understand the Nicene Creed according to the thought of the councils before Chalcedon. Gregory of Nazianzus held that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the Father, and tried to get others to declare this was so. They followed Gregory of Nyssa in rejecting the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit in favor of a more ambiguous formula. Today, virtually all Christians understand the Creed in the manner of Gregory of Nazianzus, even though that was not the intention of those who developed it. This is just one example of the development of doctrine. The Holy Spirit guides the Councils and the popes, and while the fallen nature of humanity does not permit that the fullness of truth is always declared explicitly, He does protect make sure that it is never contradicted so that further development might bring it’s full recognition about.

Augustine and Vincent of Lerins, two very significant early Church fathers, essentially teach as such in their works. See this page for a few quotes from them.

Yet this doesn’t appear to be the case at all. Unam Sanctum was written in the greater context of Church teaching, the teaching of several fathers, and a general theological consensus that a person could be saved without in fact being baptized into the Church. It is required that we read these items in that context. Thus, when they say a person must be a member of the Church, the possibility of invisible membership seems not only to be permissible, but even required unless we are going to reject the historical context. In other words, Boniface didn’t believe in an only visible membership in the Church, so why on earth would he pen a bull that taught one?

Peace and God bless
 
I don’t see where there is a difference in Unam sanctam and the belief generally held by most Christians that one comes to God only through Christ. If, as I find in the Word of God, Christ established the Catholic Church, and the keys of the Kingdom were given to Peter and passed down to his successors, then it follows logically that the shepherd of the Church that Christ founded is the Pope and those who reject him in that position of authority, do so at the risk of opposing what Christ established, which makes no sense whatever for a believer.

The fact that the errant new winds of doctrines that sprouted some 500 years ago and do not agree with the Word of God itself, the verifiable writings of the early church fathers, or the 1500 years of Christian teachings prior to their errant arrival is IMO just further evidence of the need to get the facts and decide for oneself just who is really preaching a different gospel.

Me…I’ll hang with Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Pope.
 
40.png
lazerlike42:
Here is what I had written about Boniface VIII. I wrote this an awfully long time ago, so it could probably be tidied up. I did tidy it up a little, but I’m tremendously exhausted right now so who knows how it ended up. Note that I was only focusing on Protestants when I wrote this, but I could change it around to fit any non-Catholic.

I wrote it in reference to Boniface’s statement: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” If you were referring to something else, sorry, my bad.

The Church teaches the following:
  1. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church - various places
  2. It is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation - Unam Sanctum
  3. Protestants can be saved because though it is imperfect, they do have a communion with the Catholic Church - various places
There is no contradiction amongst these.

The question that seems to be raised is, how can Protestants be saved if they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff? The answer is they can’t. There is something very important to note here.

The Roman Pontiff is the leader of the Catholic Church. By definition, all those who are in the Catholic Church are subject to the Roman Pontiff, just like all those who are citizens of England are subject to the Queen, even if for some reason they never become aware that they are in fact her subjects or even mistakenly think they are not. Remember - there is one baptism, which baptizes people into one body of Christ, and that one body of Christ is the Catholic Church, which is subject to the Roman Pontiff. Any person who has been baptized is a member of the body of Christ and by the very fact that he is, is subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if he doesn’t know it. A 3 year old baptized Catholic is a member of the body of Christ even though he has no idea he is subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Now people can either stay in the body of Christ or leave it, and once they have left it they can return. They leave the body by committing mortal sin, and they return by repentance. Mortal sin requires 3 things: 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge, and 3) full consent of the will.

Now a Protestant who gains the knowledge that he be Catholic and chooses not to commits mortal sin, and ceases to be a living member of the body. In fact, he ceases to be a member at all insofar as he is rejecting the Church with the knowledge of its veracity. Now a Protestant who never gains the knowledge of the Church’s truth remains a living member of the body, barring some mortal sin which would cause him to be a dead member of the body. Either way, he remains subject to the Roman Pontiff even if though doesn’t know it.

If a Protestant does become aware at some point that the Catholic Church is God’s true Church, he will do one of two things. He will either obey, which will involve becoming Catholic, or he will refuse to obey. If he refuses to obey, he will be committing a sin of grave matter with the necessary knowledge and presumably with full consent of the will. Therefore, he ceases to be a living member of the body, and because he has rejected the Church altogether, he ceases to be a member at all. He is no longer be subject to the Roman Pontiff because he is outside of the body. If he repents of this sin, he will join the Church and make himself once more to the Roman Pontiff.

So what it comes down to is that all Protestants who know of the truth of the Catholic Church are outside of the body and cannot be saved, whereas all Protestants who do not know of the truth may still be members of the body, which is the Church, and since the Church is subject to the Roman Pontiff, so are these Protestants, even if they don’t know it.
Click to expand...
LazerLike42,

Thank you for posting this. This is what I have read on the forums before.

Let it be known that I did pray before reading your post. The thought of the Catholic Church not being the one true church distresses me greatly. I do not know where I would go from here. I feel like I am drifting aimlessly on a ship for which my anchor has been cut off. As a result, I am entirely at the mercy of He who makes the wind blow!

My difficulty with your response comes from the line of Unam Sanctam that says, “Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’”

It follows then that anyone who denies that they are subject to the Pope is not a member of Christ’s flock, and thus not a Christian. I’ll admit that young children who have not yet reached the age of wisdom, or those who are unaware of the presence of the Catholic Church, or who do not have an adequate concept of it, do not necessarily fall into this category. But under normal circumstances, the average Protestant who is aware of the Catholic Church and its general teachings (which I think most Protestants are, even if it is a bit skewed at times) falls under those who are not Christians.

You yourself almost say this, but when a Protestant reaches this point is unclear. You almost want to limit it to those few who accept the church’s authority, but do not join for whatever reason (eg: do not want to split up family). But Unam Sanctam wants to be more general than that. It says that anyone who is knowledgeable of the church as claiming to be the Church of Christ, but refuses to submit to it, is not a Christian. This would apply to most educated, adult non-Catholics today.
 
Finally, to be sure, my complaint is not that the church is saying “Oh, that means that X, Y, and Z are all going to hell but they’re such good people!” but that the force and idea is much different than the notion of “separated brethren” of Vatican II for whom the Holy Spirit is still active.
 
Bill,

I think there are reallly two keys. First of all, I stress the thought that was present at the time the bull was issued. If you want, I can spend some time digging around and find other quotes from his time or before - just not tonight, for probably obvious reasons :). When he was writing, he understood the concept of people unknowingly belonging to the Church.

It was unambiguous that those baptized outside of the Church were made members of it. It was also relatively clear that baptism in voto, that is, in desire, existed. It was also understood that mortal sin must be voluntary. Our modern 3 conditions for mortal sin date at least back to the canon law of the 1000s or 1100s. Take a look at Aquinas’ teaching on voluntariness in the Summa to see this elaborated somewhat thoroughly.

So it was undeniable to a person of Boniface’s time that a person could be saved without declaring allegience to the Pope. Someone could be baptized by heretics and never voluntarily reject the Catholic Church - an act which would indeed require a person to know it was the Church of God he was rejecting. A person could receive an in voto baptism and not voluntarily reject the Church. They knew this back then. If Boniface wanted to reject this, he would have done it explicitly.

You also have to recognize the context in which Boniface was writing. He was dealing with Greeks who were in a much better position to recognize the truth of the Church. In fact, a great many of them did recognize the authority of the pope, but were in schism over other matters, such as the Filioque. It may even help to look at it in the context of today, where the Eastern Orthodox generally recognize the Pope’s headship of the Church but do not recognize his jurisdiction over them. Such a teaching could be offered today to the Eastern Orthodox by the Pope. “You recognize my role, and if you want to be saved, you must be subject to me.”

The particular section you quoted reads to me like a figure of speech. I don’t mean a loose figure of speech, mind you - that is, I don’t mean it’s a flowerly statement with no real meaning. I mean it could be expressed in the midst of an argument, like this:

“If you’re not going to submit to the shepard, then you’d have to say you’re not in Christ’s flock, wouldn’t you, since there is only one sheepfold?”

It reads to me like an argument, almost like a rhetorical question, not a definitive declaration. The statement, " we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" is clearly a definitive statement of something. It’s a teaching. Not everything in a papal encyclical - even by today’s standards - is a teaching. I’m not talking about infallibility, I’m just talking about teaching. Read Deus Caritas Est, and you’ll find that the vast majority of it constitutes remarks, arguments, evidence, and trains of thought. What the pope actually teaches in it could be listed in a few bullet points. That doesn’t mean we can reject everything else in Deus Caritas Est, which I know is the line of thinking you’re having problem with, because we do have to submit to all that the Pope puts forth. What I’m saying it means is that a lot of what he is saying is the background for what he’s actually teaching us, rather than the teaching itself.

So when I read Unam Sanctam, I read the one, clear, definitive statement, but then I read the passage you provided and it comes across to me much more like the pope is pleading, arguing, or supporting his points. His ultimate point is, “If you won’t submit to the pope, you can’t be saved.” He doesn’t intend to rule out the various gnitty-gritty aspects of the theology behind it all. He doesn’t intend to say that every human being that is saved has to openly profess subjection to the pope; he couldn’t or he’d be denying Church teaching that existed in his own time. He doesn’t mean to reject the mystical aspect of the body of Christ that was later elaborated on much more explicitly than in earlier times. He means, “There’s one flock, the pope is the head of the flock, if you want to be in that flock you have to submit to him.”

Peace and God bless
 
Lazerlike42 said:
Bill,

I think there are reallly two keys. First of all, I stress the thought that was present at the time the bull was issued. If you want, I can spend some time digging around and find other quotes from his time or before - just not tonight, for probably obvious reasons . When he was writing, he understood the concept of people unknowingly belonging to the Church.

It was unambiguous that those baptized outside of the Church were made members of it. It was also relatively clear that baptism in voto, that is, in desire, existed. It was also understood that mortal sin must be voluntary. Our modern 3 conditions for mortal sin date at least back to the canon law of the 1000s or 1100s. Take a look at Aquinas’ teaching on voluntariness in the Summa to see this elaborated somewhat thoroughly.

So it was undeniable to a person of Boniface’s time that a person could be saved without declaring allegience to the Pope. Someone could be baptized by heretics and never voluntarily reject the Catholic Church - an act which would indeed require a person to know it was the Church of God he was rejecting. A person could receive an in voto baptism and not voluntarily reject the Church. They knew this back then. If Boniface wanted to reject this, he would have done it explicitly.

You also have to recognize the context in which Boniface was writing. He was dealing with Greeks who were in a much better position to recognize the truth of the Church. In fact, a great many of them did recognize the authority of the pope, but were in schism over other matters, such as the Filioque. It may even help to look at it in the context of today, where the Eastern Orthodox generally recognize the Pope’s headship of the Church but do not recognize his jurisdiction over them. Such a teaching could be offered today to the Eastern Orthodox by the Pope. “You recognize my role, and if you want to be saved, you must be subject to me.”

The particular section you quoted reads to me like a figure of speech. I don’t mean a loose figure of speech, mind you - that is, I don’t mean it’s a flowerly statement with no real meaning. I mean it could be expressed in the midst of an argument, like this:

“If you’re not going to submit to the shepard, then you’d have to say you’re not in Christ’s flock, wouldn’t you, since there is only one sheepfold?”

It reads to me like an argument, almost like a rhetorical question, not a definitive declaration. The statement, " we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" is clearly a definitive statement of something. It’s a teaching. Not everything in a papal encyclical - even by today’s standards - is a teaching. I’m not talking about infallibility, I’m just talking about teaching. Read Deus Caritas Est, and you’ll find that the vast majority of it constitutes remarks, arguments, evidence, and trains of thought. What the pope actually teaches in it could be listed in a few bullet points. That doesn’t mean we can reject everything else in Deus Caritas Est, which I know is the line of thinking you’re having problem with, because we do have to submit to all that the Pope puts forth. What I’m saying it means is that a lot of what he is saying is the background for what he’s actually teaching us, rather than the teaching itself.

So when I read Unam Sanctam, I read the one, clear, definitive statement, but then I read the passage you provided and it comes across to me much more like the pope is pleading, arguing, or supporting his points. His ultimate point is, “If you won’t submit to the pope, you can’t be saved.” He doesn’t intend to rule out the various gnitty-gritty aspects of the theology behind it all. He doesn’t intend to say that every human being that is saved has to openly profess subjection to the pope; he couldn’t or he’d be denying Church teaching that existed in his own time. He doesn’t mean to reject the mystical aspect of the body of Christ that was later elaborated on much more explicitly than in earlier times. He means, “There’s one flock, the pope is the head of the flock, if you want to be in that flock you have to submit to him.”

Peace and God bless
Click to expand...
I would appreciate any context you can put this in. Note two different ways we are approaching this problem. You are saying “He doesn’t intend to say that literally every human being must submit to the pope to be saved, for he would then be denying the teaching of the church.” Whereas I am saying, “He is intending to say that (infallibly), and he is denying the teaching of the church, therefore the church is not infallible.”

When I read your response, it seems too inconsistent. You acknowledge that he is saying that everyone must submit to the pope, but then you say that he doesn’t literally mean that. I’ll grant that this only implies those who can submit. But that would only apply to a small number of people. The vast majority of Christian communities would not properly be considered Christian.

I do not see any reason to think that the statement about the Greeks is merely rhetorical. He enunciates the Catholic position then explains the consequences of it for the Greeks. If it were simply rhetorical, he would have phrased it like, “But those Greeks say that there is one flock, and in acknowledging Scripture they acknowledge that Peter is the steward of Christ’s flock, thus if the do not submit to Peter, they do not submit to Christ.” Rather, he says “There IS one flock of Christ headed by Peter, and those Greeks and others who refuse to submit to Peter also refuse to submit to Christ.”
 
Hey Bill!

I hope this helps…

The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches,
there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: (1) infidels, (2) heretics and schismatics, and (3) excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
Click to expand...
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church.
Click to expand...
The current Catechism teaches, together with Unam Sanctam, that “schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089).

But it also clarifies that “one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church” (CCC 818).

When you compare what these two catechisms say on this point, do you see that they are in perfect agreement on this issue? I was actually surprised when I saw how perfectly they harmonized. What do you think?
 
Pete Holter:
Hey Bill!

I hope this helps…

The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches,
Code: 
 Quote:
                there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: (1) infidels, (2) heretics and schismatics, and (3) excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. ***Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted.*** It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church.
The current Catechism teaches, together with Unam Sanctam, that “schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089).

But it also clarifies that “one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church” (CCC 818).

When you compare what these two catechisms say on this point, do you see that they are in perfect agreement on this issue? I was actually surprised when I saw how perfectly they harmonized. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this resolves the problem. The Tredentine catechism says that schismatics are cut off from the Church as deserters. As deserters, they have no share in any benefits, but likewise, they can still be punished.

Then the CCC clarifies what is meant by a schismatic: anyone who refuses to accept the authority of the Pope. So far so good. But then it says that those who are brought up in a schismatic community are not schismatics.

Well, either they’re 1) infidels, 2) schismatics, 3) excommunicants, or 4) full-fledged Catholics.

They’re not #1 if they’ve been baptised. They’re not #3 and certainly not #4. So we’re left with #2. Per our comments earlier, perhaps those unaware of the claims of the Catholic Church are #4. But at some point, most Protestants are going to say “No, I’m not a subject of the Pope. I’m Lutheran/Baptist/Anglican/Methodist/etc.” That would make them a schismatic, and thus cut off from the Church and not Christians, per Unam Sanctam.
 
As for the “no exceptions” language of Unam Sanctam and Florence, I think that this has to be understood in terms of balancing, on the one hand, what is necessary for salvation, with, on the one hand, the Church’s teaching on invincible ignorance.

Necessary for Salvation:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53).

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam).

Non-imputation on Account of Ignorance:
"And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’ " (Luke 23:34).

"Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now that you say, “We see,” your guilt remains’ " (John 9:41)

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin” (John 15:22).

“But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim. 1:13).
 
Pete_Holter said:
As for the “no exceptions” language of Unam Sanctam and Florence, I think that this has to be understood in terms of balancing, on the one hand, what is necessary for salvation, with, on the one hand, the Church’s teaching on invincible ignorance.

Necessary for Salvation:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53).

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam).

Non-imputation on Account of Ignorance:
"And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’ " (Luke 23:34).

"Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now that you say, “We see,” your guilt remains’ " (John 9:41)

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin” (John 15:22).

“But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim. 1:13).
Click to expand...
As I’ve said in my previous posts, I can accept the idea of ignorance as being forgivable. The question is when one ceaes to be ignorant.

I assert that Unam Sanctam says that one ceases to be ignorant when he makes the decision not to submit to the pope, whereas V2 and the CCC say that one ceases to be ignorant only when one accepts the truths of the Catholic Church yet does not convert. Therein lies the problem.

(Florence is another problem altogether, which I didn’t want to get into here. The fact that it claims that even if one shed’s blood for Christ it is to no avail is most problematic, for then even “baptism by blood” seems nullified. One who is not baptized is an infidel and outside the Church. If one is outside the Church, not even shedding blood for Christ can save that person. Yet baptism by blood is an extraordinary form of baptism which consists the shedding of blood for Christ. Thus there is no baptism by blood)
 
BillTBC said:
But at some point, most Protestants are going to say “No, I’m not a subject of the Pope. I’m Lutheran/Baptist/Anglican/Methodist/etc.” That would make them a schismatic, and thus cut off from the Church and not Christians, per Unam Sanctam.
Click to expand...
I agree, but only if they know what they’re rejecting, and what they don’t know about the Catholic Church, they don’t know through no fault of their own.

What helped me was to see that a schismatic and/or heretic is only culpable insofar as he’s made the active choice to be one or the other. He has to be offered the true alternative so that he may choose for or against it in order to choose against it and then fall under the condemnation. And that’s what Trent was saying. In order to be schismatic or heretical, you had to choose it. You cannot be a deserter unless you’ve deserted. You cannot refuse submission to the Pope unless you are offered submission to the Pope as a possibility.

This is why the teaching of the Church seems to have changed: the historical circumstances have changed. A person brought up in a Protestant community did not choose this against Christ, but rather loves Christ on account of this. I think that current Church teaching does a pretty good job of taking account of the current historical situation in formulating what it has always held to be true.

Taking all of this into consideration, I think that the Church holds that I am schismatic. I think that the Roman Catholic Church might be founded by Christ. I am in serious doubt over this. I may be on my way to hell right now. It is a difficult place to be.

So, with all this in mind, I think that your assertion is true. Maybe I have some things wrong. Let me know what you think!

God bless you!
 
There’s a lot of info. on here, but in simple terms, if I understand the problem correctly…isn’t the fact that all salvation is through the Church for those who know it or not totally reconcilable with the phrase “all are subject to the Pope”? It just means that through the Catholic Church salvation is brought to the world. Do I understand the issue correctly?
 
You are reading more into the words than are there. The text says “be subject to”, but you have transformed that to “submit to”. That’s simply not a valid substitution. One can be subject to an authority without submitting to that authority.

To give an example, a child might be born in the USA and thus be an American citizen, subject to American law. But that child might have been brought to another country and raised not knowing that he is subject to American law. That is, he does not submit to American law. (and please, let’s not discuss the exact extent and form of such subjection in the case I’ve invented - that’s not the point). That’s pretty close to the situation most non-Catholic Christians find themselves in. And then, of course, there are the ones in open rebellion.
 
Hey Bill!

When does someone become culpable? I think that Acts 10 is extremely helpful. Or not. 🙂

"At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, ‘Cornelius.’ And he stared at him in terror and said, ‘What is it, Lord?’ And he said to him, ‘Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God’ " (1-4).

Here we see that God is pleased with Cornelius.

When Peter arrives, he says to him and his household, “you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” (Acts 10:37-38).

What is amazing here is that Cornelius knew many things about Jesus, and yet God does not seem to have held him accountable for not seeking to join His Church.

From this, I think it is safe to say the same thing about some non-Catholic Christians today. They know a number of things about the Catholic Church. But it may only be a piece of information here and there. And they may still be inculpably ignorant of the necessity of full membership in the Roman Catholic Church for their salvation.

So when do they become culpable? I don’t know. 🙂 All I can say is that at some point, they do.

Did that help? :o
 
I want to clarify more precisely what I see is the problem. Let’s consider 5 people who are all brought up in a Protestant tradition:

Person #1 has never heard of the Catholic Church.

Person #2 knows of the Catholic Church, knows of the Pope, but is unaware that Catholics make special claims about him.

Person #3 knows of the Catholic Church and knows general claims about the Pope, eg. that he has special authority. This person is probably your average educated adult Protestant/Orthodox Christian in America and Europe. This person, even implicitly, has said “No, I’m not a Catholic; I am not subject to the pope.”

Person #4 knows well of the Catholic Church’s claims, but does not accept them. This is your average well-educated Protestant minister who probably has friends who are Catholic clergymen.

Person #5 knows and accepts the authority of the Pope, but does not convert. He might say, “If I convert, my father will disown me. So I will not convert until his death in order to preserve family unity.”

Without a doubt, person #5 is condemned in all cases, and person #1 would not be condemned. Likewise, neither would person #2 be condemned, for he does not know enough to actually reject being subject to the pope.

Now, what Unam Sanctam says in relation to the Greeks is regarding those who do not acknowledge being subject to the Pope. In this case, #4 would be condemned, and likely #3 as well. For they are the "Greeks or others [who] should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ As for what VociMike said, the person he mentioned would fall under #1 or #2 and would not be condemned, but it does not address #3 and #4.

So here comes the problem. Based off of what I’ve read in the Catechism, the documents of Vatican II, Principles on Ecumenism, etc. and based on the attitude of recent popes and bishops, I cannot conclude that either #3 or #4 would be condemned, but only #5.

If that is true, then that is a significant change. Significant at least for those two sets of people!

To be shown that there is not a contradiction, I need to show why A) #3 and #4 are condemned by the Church today, or B) #3 and #4 are NOT condemned by Unam Sanctam.

Pete, your exegesis is a good reason to believe what we hear the Church saying today, but it doesn’t resolve the problem presented above.

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Bill,

The real issue is not whether people know of the claims of the Church, but over whether they are voluntarily rejecting them. I use the term voluntary because it is a theological concept that was understood at the time of Pope Boniface VIII.

For a person to do something voluntarily, he has to know what he is doing, and he also has to do it willingly - to intend to do it. Meaning to do something is simple and isn’t really the issue here. Obviously if I trip over a rock and hit you in the face, I didn’t hit you voluntarily, because I didn’t mean to. The real issue is over whether a person knows what he is doing.

For a person to do something voluntarily, he must do it with a sufficient understanding of the act. In other words, he must not only know what the act itself is, but know the things which modify the act and give it its full character. If they do not know the full character of the act, then they cannot do it voluntarily, unless the are personally responsible for not knowing that character. If they do not know the full character of the act and they are not responsible for their deficiency of knowledge, then they cannot do it voluntarily, unless it is the case that they would do it anyways even if they knew the character.

Now that’s sortof a mouthfull, so let me give an example to explain the situation.

A man likes to shoot at an old barn in the woods for fun, and so one afternoon he heads out into the forest to the barn. It happens that this time, a homeless man is in the barn. Lots of things can happen at this point. Ignoring those situations in which the homeless man is not shot:


  1. *]The man can just start shooting at the barn and kill the homeless man. In this case, the killing of the homeless man would have some extent of voluntariness to it, because it is the man’s own fault he did not know that there was a man inside.
    *]The man might check the barn first, but the homeless man may hide, fearing discovery by someone. Thus, the man does not know there is a homeless man inside, but if he did, he would not shoot. When he shoots him, it will be entirely involuntary on his part
    *]The man might check the barn first, but the homeless man may hide, fearing discovery. Thus, the man does not know there is a homeless man inside. However - even though the thought doesn’t even cross his mind - this particular fellow actually hates the homeless, and so if he knew that the man was in there, he’d shoot anyways and pass it off as an accident. If he shoots the homeless man, it will be voluntary on his part, because he would have done it anyways.

    For scenario #2, there is even a further distinction to be made. The man will have some degree of voluntariness for having shot the homeless man, as I said, but also some for the more serious sin of shooting a man who is homeless (as opposed to the regular, non-homeless variety). However, the degree of voluntariness for shooting a homeless man would probably be less than that of shooting simply a man, because it’s even a further removed possibility. In other words, a person clearly ought to check for people before firing shots, but should he check for a homeless person specifically? Shooting such a person “accidentally” would be voluntary if it is the shooter’s fault he doesn’t know he’s there, but it’s less the shooter’s fault for not knowing there’s a homeless person there.

    So persons #3 and #4 are clearly rejecting the Church, but the question is, how much do they really understand their act? Do they think that they are just rejecting yet another denomination claiming to be the true Church, or do they think it is the true Church of Christ? Is it their own fault they don’t know, because they failed to really look into it, or because they didn’t look into it with an open heart? Or, is it not their fault that they don’t know the truth of the Church’s claims? For example, perhaps the person learned all about Catholicism for 15 years in his anti-Catholic Sunday school classes and thinks he knows all about it. Or, perhaps the person did look into the Church but got his information from who he did not know was a poorly educated priest who was unable to give him convincing evidence. Or, perhaps he is simply not smart enough to understand all the evidence. Finally, would the person accept the Church if he did know it was true, or is he like person #5 and, if he recognized the truth of the Church, would rejecct it anyways?

    These are the factors around which the question turns. The “post-Vatican II Church” would not teach that a person who had, by that definition, voluntarily rejected the Church would be saved. So for example, if a Protestant rejected the Church without ever investigating it or ever having any reason to think he oughtn’t to, then he wouldn’t be saved. On the other hand, if a Protestant rejected the Church but did so because he was convinced by 15 years of Sunday school that the Church was the whore of Babylon, then perhaps he would be.

    Now this concept of voluntariness was present in the time of Boniface. St. Thomas Aquinas presents it, for example, in the Summa. This is the backdrop to Boniface’s bull. He is presenting it within the theological context of the time, so he certainly would accept the possiblity of some Greek rejecting the Church involuntarily. Now Bill, you’ve already said obviously children don’t count, but that’s the perfect proof that Boniface didn’t mean for his statement to be taken in a pharisaically-strict way, and that he recognized the voluntary/involuntary discussion. If we take Unam Sanctam without considering the aspect of voluntariness, then even children baptized in Constantinople would be condemned, and the history of the Church has very explicit rejections of that idea.

    Peace and God bless!
 
Lazerlike42 said:
the question is, how much do they really understand their act? Do they think that they are just rejecting yet another denomination claiming to be the true Church, or do they think it is the true Church of Christ?
Click to expand...
This is correct.

Bill, I think your interpretation of the quote “necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” is incorrect. It is a way of saying salvation is through the Catholic Church, identified as the one lead by the Bishop of Rome. *Lumen Gentium *explains that no one is saved apart from Christ, who’s body is the Church (specified in *Unam Sanctam *as the one over which is the Roman Pontiff).

Catechism #846-848 specifically deals with this issue of the more ancient wording, addressing earlier language that sounded like a person literally and consciously had to be a member of the Catholic Church. I see no problem here. I understand the wording may be awkward when comparing 14th century language idioms to 21st century, but as I explained here, they are all saying the same thing. One must understand salvation is through Christ, and the Church which is His body.
 
I just have a simple comment and question.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the prereqs for infallibility is that whatever is being stated infallibly must coincide with the sense of the faithful. Now, if the Pope came out tomorrow and said that the Holy Spirit was not part of the Trinity and said it invoking apostolic authority, that wouldn’t be valid because it opposes a belief that hast been common to Catholics for pretty much the duration of the Church’s existence. I’m fairly certain that the Pope can only declare infallible what has either been implicitly or explicitly believed by the majority of apostolic Christians throughout Church history. And normally he only has to do this when heresy is threatening something.

Now my question is this: hypothetically speaking, if Bill is correct and the document does seem to mean something which contradicts the sense of the faithful, is the document to be held as infallible? Would it not fall under the same category as the Pope declaring the Holy Spirit not to be divine? I’m just wondering - this is a really interesting discussion and has brought up a lot of great questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top