My difficulty with the Church

[BillTBC]

Anathema was an ecclesiastical penalty. The judgment of particular souls is left to God.

Of course, but that’s not the type of judgment I’m talking about.

The Greek Orthodox who reject the Pope explicitly are an example of those who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff, in the sense Boniface meant. The comment about them leaving the “flock of Christ” was meant to signify a loss of salvation. My point is that the Pope doesn’t imply that their Christian baptism is revoked. There is no reason to conclude that the bull defines doctrinally that the Orthodox are not Christians.

But is this position compatible with Vatican II? That’s what I’m not convinced of.

A person martyred for a heresy is not martyred for Christ. Christ brought one faith, and anyone who rejects it and is martyred for another faith is martyred in vain. Such martyrdom would not be in good faith. This is what the Council of Florence taught.

Let’s consider two non-Catholics: Jack Chick and Billy Graham (with apologies to Billy Graham for ever comparing him to Chick). Both of them reject the authority of the pope. I suspect Graham knows full well the Church’s claims. Jack Chick might be ignorant, but it is most definitely a willful ignorance.

Now suppose both of these men are abducted by Muslim terrorists (with apologies to peaceful Muslims). The terrorists say to them, “If you reject Jesus as the Christ, and say that he was only a prophet, and that Muhammaed is God’s greatest prophet, we will spare your life. If you refuse to do this, we will kill you.” Suppose then that both Chick and Graham each say, “Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ, Redeemer of mankind, Destroyer of all evil, Bane of false prophets, chief among whom is Muhammed!”

The terrorists kill them. They are martyred for Christ. According to Florence, will they go to Heaven? According to Vatican II, will they go to Heaven? They are heretics, but they are martyred for Christ, not for their heresy.

 

[Dauphin]

But is this position compatible with Vatican II? That’s what I’m not convinced of.

If it’s not compatible with Vatican II, then Vatican II is a repudiation of Catholic teaching. I refuse to believe that. The Council simple took a rather confusing, positive approach.

Let’s consider two non-Catholics: Jack Chick and Billy Graham (with apologies to Billy Graham for ever comparing him to Chick). Both of them reject the authority of the pope. I suspect Graham knows full well the Church’s claims. Jack Chick might be ignorant, but it is most definitely a willful ignorance.

Now suppose both of these men are abducted by Muslim terrorists (with apologies to peaceful Muslims). The terrorists say to them, “If you reject Jesus as the Christ, and say that he was only a prophet, and that Muhammaed is God’s greatest prophet, we will spare your life. If you refuse to do this, we will kill you.” Suppose then that both Chick and Graham each say, “Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ, Redeemer of mankind, Destroyer of all evil, Bane of false prophets, chief among whom is Muhammed!”

The terrorists kill them. They are martyred for Christ. According to Florence, will they go to Heaven? According to Vatican II, will they go to Heaven? They are heretics, but they are martyred for Christ, not for their heresy.

Florence says that, unless they are reunited in faith to the Church before death, they cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council makes no such judgment, but does not contradict it.

There is only one faith for which a person may be martyred, and that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. It is impossible, however, to know what work the Holy Spirit would do within the hearts of these gentlemen as they are giving up their lives. Martyrdom is something divine; it’s a seemingly irrational act not of this world - a gift of the grace of God. If it is true martyrdom, then God will not only give them the grace to value eternal life over their temporal lives, but He will also miraculously grant them the Catholic faith.

 

[Rup]

Bill this really has been a great thread and I have a lot of people in 2 parishes discussing this topic. Bill, taken at face value I do agree that I see contradictions. I prayed for an answer that would reconcile the statement of the pope to the truth of Gods saving grace which I was taught in R.C.I.A. and truely believed before converting. Let me run this by you and tell me what you think. Everyone that I talked to didn’t believe that statement. I was listening to Father Corapi sunday and even HE said (talking about many of his non-catholic minister friends) “MAKE NO MISTAKE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE CHURCH” that was his point. But how do we reconcile that statement with the popes. In answer to my prayer it was revealed to me. As I am in the Father and the Father is in me we are one as I am with the Church. This is my body. The Church then is one with Christ no matter what they call themselves. they all fall under the same universal umbrella. Even those people who have never heard of Christ but live holy and virtueous lives are reckened unto righteousness because God has granted them the grace to do so .So the are saved by the grace of God even though they don’t know it. The pope should have clarified his statement so as to not cause so much confusion. The problem that I have is that whenever men attain absolute power it seem absolute coruption soon follows. I just hope he made that statement with Christ in mind and not himself or his authority because that , in my opinion would be a contradiction to the spirit of love and mercy that Christ himself taught us. Please correct me if I’m wrong but htere has been only two infallible dogmas by the pope, The Imaculate Conception and the Assumption. All else are subject to adjustment or change. Because I do see the contradiction.

 

[Dauphin]

Bill this really has been a great thread and I have a lot of people in 2 parishes discussing this topic. Bill, taken at face value I do agree that I see contradictions. I prayed for an answer that would reconcile the statement of the pope to the truth of Gods saving grace which I was taught in R.C.I.A. and truely believed before converting. Let me run this by you and tell me what you think. Everyone that I talked to didn’t believe that statement. I was listening to Father Corapi sunday and even HE said (talking about many of his non-catholic minister friends) “MAKE NO MISTAKE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE CHURCH” that was his point. But how do we reconcile that statement with the popes. In answer to my prayer it was revealed to me. As I am in the Father and the Father is in me we are one as I am with the Church. This is my body. The Church then is one with Christ no matter what they call themselves. they all fall under the same universal umbrella. Even those people who have never heard of Christ but live holy and virtueous lives are reckened unto righteousness because God has granted them the grace to do so .So the are saved by the grace of God even though they don’t know it. The pope should have clarified his statement so as to not cause so much confusion. The problem that I have is that whenever men attain absolute power it seem absolute coruption soon follows. I just hope he made that statement with Christ in mind and not himself or his authority because that , in my opinion would be a contradiction to the spirit of love and mercy that Christ himself taught us. Please correct me if I’m wrong but htere has been only two infallible dogmas by the pope, The Imaculate Conception and the Assumption. All else are subject to adjustment or change. Because I do see the contradiction.

No. Whenever the Pope has made a statement under the conditions set down by the First Vatican Council, that statement is infallible. It has happened on more than two occasions. Unam Sanctam was one of those occasions.

I think your answer unnecessarily complicates the doctrine; it’s extremely clear. Popes and Councils have repeatedly defined, and given an infallible character, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This means that unless a person holds Catholic faith in its entirety, with full submission to the Roman Pontiff, they cannot be saved. If one is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, but responds the the grace of God to the best of their ability and gives implicit assent to the teachings of the Church, while receiving the grace of baptism, they can be saved.

This is the only answer that is reconcilable both with the dogmatic definitions of the Church and the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. This teaching is not contrary to the Spirit of the gospel and the love of Christ; it is central to it. It is divine revelation, and must be held definitively by all Catholics.

 

[fhansen]

Bill this really has been a great thread and I have a lot of people in 2 parishes discussing this topic. Bill, taken at face value I do agree that I see contradictions. I prayed for an answer that would reconcile the statement of the pope to the truth of Gods saving grace which I was taught in R.C.I.A. and truely believed before converting. Let me run this by you and tell me what you think. Everyone that I talked to didn’t believe that statement. I was listening to Father Corapi sunday and even HE said (talking about many of his non-catholic minister friends) “MAKE NO MISTAKE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE CHURCH” that was his point. But how do we reconcile that statement with the popes. In answer to my prayer it was revealed to me. As I am in the Father and the Father is in me we are one as I am with the Church. This is my body. The Church then is one with Christ no matter what they call themselves. they all fall under the same universal umbrella. Even those people who have never heard of Christ but live holy and virtueous lives are reckened unto righteousness because God has granted them the grace to do so .So the are saved by the grace of God even though they don’t know it. The pope should have clarified his statement so as to not cause so much confusion. The problem that I have is that whenever men attain absolute power it seem absolute coruption soon follows. I just hope he made that statement with Christ in mind and not himself or his authority because that , in my opinion would be a contradiction to the spirit of love and mercy that Christ himself taught us. Please correct me if I’m wrong but htere has been only two infallible dogmas by the pope, The Imaculate Conception and the Assumption. All else are subject to adjustment or change. Because I do see the contradiction.

What Father Corapi meant echoes the teaching of Vat II. By “Church” he means the Catholic Church. In the case of Protestants, the Church refers to them as “separated brethren”-part of the one true Church because that is where they started from-but separated from that Church and ignorant of her role as the sole ark of salvation given to man by God.

 

[Rup]

What Father Corapi meant echoes the teaching of Vat II. By “Church” he means the Catholic Church. In the case of Protestants, the Church refers to them as “separated brethren”-part of the one true Church because that is where they started from-but separated from that Church and ignorant of her role as the sole ark of salvation given to man by God.

Do you really think the church has the authority to restrict God in his salvation plan to reach out to all mankind by any means he sees fit.If you believe in your heart and confess with your lips that Jesus is lord you shall be saved ( period ) . I don’t believe salvation is granted to us by the church it is granted to us by the grace of God. The church didn’t die for my sins Jesus did and by the shedding of his blood. The church is the vessel through which Gods grace and mercy is revealed and distributed through the sacraments. The church can do nothing without Christ. Christ is the way the truth and the life. The church owes everything to Christ and shouldn’t try and take credit for something it didn’t do. Salvation is Gods providence. The church is the pillar of truth but Jesus is the truth. As I read these threads I’m getting this picture of the church self interpreting scripture to give itself authority over things it might not have the authority to do. Does the power to bind and loosen give the church the authority to grant salvation. Giving it to those it chooses, I hope not. I love the Catholic Church it is truly the fullness of the faith and brings me closer to God in the sacraments but am I missing something. Its starting to sound like the temple priests and the pharisees of Jesus’s time who believed that obedence to the law was the only way to salvation.

 

[Dauphin]

Do you really think the church has the authority to restrict God in his salvation plan to reach out to all mankind by any means he sees fit.If you believe in your heart and confess with your lips that Jesus is lord you shall be saved ( period ) . I don’t believe salvation is granted to us by the church it is granted to us by the grace of God. The church didn’t die for my sins Jesus did and by the shedding of his blood. The church is the vessel through which Gods grace and mercy is revealed and distributed through the sacraments. The church can do nothing without Christ. Christ is the way the truth and the life. The church owes everything to Christ and shouldn’t try and take credit for something it didn’t do. Salvation is Gods providence. The church is the pillar of truth but Jesus is the truth. As I read these threads I’m getting this picture of the church self interpreting scripture to give itself authority over things it might not have the authority to do. Does the power to bind and loosen give the church the authority to grant salvation. Giving it to those it chooses, I hope not. I love the Catholic Church it is truly the fullness of the faith and brings me closer to God in the sacraments but am I missing something. Its starting to sound like the temple priests and the pharisees of Jesus’s time who believed that obedence to the law was the only way to salvation.

The Church didn’t invent the doctrine of EENS. It is a dogma divinely revealed. It isn’t meant to exalt the Church, but instead to communicate the reality that the unity of faith and submission to the Pope is essential. Christ founded one Church and brought one faith, not thousands.

The Church has every authority to define this doctrine and every protection against error from the Holy Ghost. It is true that God can grant salvation in any way he chooses; He has chosen to grant it exclusively through the Catholic Church. We know this because it is what the Church dogmatically teaches, and it does no one any good to deny this and confirm others in error. One cannot be saved if they reject divine grace and refuse to accept the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith.

This is a doctrinal reality. You and I don’t have the authority to change it. It is the truth of God - for the glory of God, and anything that contradicts it is a deceptive invention of man - for the glory of man.

 

[fhansen]

Do you really think the church has the authority to restrict God in his salvation plan to reach out to all mankind by any means he sees fit.

I understand what you’re saying and, of course, only God saves, but the message of salvation comes to us thru the church and we wouldn’t even be able to hear it, and so believe, without her having been established for that purpose. So the question becomes what, exactly, is the message and who is proclaiming it correctly? Is it enough to say, “Jesus is Lord”? Who is Jesus and what does He expect of us? Is Jesus really God? Does He expect believers to be baptized in order to be saved? Is He really present in the Eucharist? Are we splitting hairs by focusing on these issues and does it matter so much what we believe? Protestants often disagree on these questions but if the answers to them and many others are “yes”, then would God really want new churches dividing from the historical one and later spinning off from each other, often over important doctrinal differences? Catholics believe that God is our authority and that He continues to guide His flock thru the church with a living and direct leadership. Protestants believe that God is the boss, too, of course, but the authority which they appeal to for answering questions or defining their beliefs is scripture, the meaning of which is often disagreed upon by very sincere people. So the Church’s’ position is that Protestants are our sisters and brothers in Christ by virtue of our shared love and faith in Him as well as a shared heritage and as such are Catholic in an imperfect way whether they even like Catholicism or not. The truth is one and the authority to know and teach that truth is not a bad thing-it’s a blessing we simply need to understand and cherish. Can God save any which way He wants? Of course. Did He nonetheless reveal Himself and His will to mankind and establish a church which will proclaim the truth until the end of time in spite of human or spiritual attempts to alter or destroy it? Yes, He did.

 

[Rup]

The Church didn’t invent the doctrine of EENS. It is a dogma divinely revealed. It isn’t meant to exalt the Church, but instead to communicate the reality that the unity of faith and submission to the Pope is essential. Christ founded one Church and brought one faith, not thousands.

The Church has every authority to define this doctrine and every protection against error from the Holy Ghost. It is true that God can grant salvation in any way he chooses; He has chosen to grant it exclusively through the Catholic Church. We know this because it is what the Church dogmatically teaches, and it does no one any good to deny this and confirm others in error. One cannot be saved if they reject divine grace and refuse to accept the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith.

This is a doctrinal reality. You and I don’t have the authority to change it. It is the truth of God - for the glory of God, and anything that contradicts it is a deceptive invention of man - for the glory of man.

The way you define dogmatic revelation is the church gives itself authority over anything because the church says so. Christ told Peter what ever you bind on earth it will bind in heaven and what you loosed will be loosed in heaven. Please tell me how the church interprets that into giving itself the power to grant salvation to only those who are catholic. ( I’m glad I’m catholic ) Can you see the confusion if the police have to police themselves and tell everyone that they are the only ones who can police them then go out and tell everyone they are the perfect police department and all their arrests are guaranteed guilty because they are the one true authority, people start questioning who gave them that authority. The police spokes person answers that the police board gave them the authority you start wondering who gave them the authority. I hope I’m not confusing you but can you see why the protestants reject that teaching. Throughout history whenever man has been given absolute authority absolute corruption always follows. That doesn’t give them the right to divide the church but you can see why they question the churches authority on some subjects such as who grants salvation. We grant salvation because we interpret it that way might make people question that interpretation. I have a hard time imagining someone who loves Jesus with all his or her heart follows his commandments to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself tries to live a virtueous life and then as they stand in front of Jesus at judgement they hear the words GUILTY YOU AREN’T A CATHOLIC. Don’t you?

 

[Dauphin]

The way you define dogmatic revelation is the church gives itself authority over anything because the church says so.

No. The Church received its authority from Christ.

Christ told Peter what ever you bind on earth it will bind in heaven and what you loosed will be loosed in heaven. Please tell me how the church interprets that into giving itself the power to grant salvation to only those who are catholic.

This is not how the Church interprets that. The keys refer to binding an loosing. A dogma, by definition, cannot be loosed. This passage doesn’t directly speak to the authority of the Church to define dogmas. It is “the gates of hell will never prevail against it” which is the important statement. The Church cannot err in a matter of faith or morals.

( I’m glad I’m catholic ) Can you see the confusion if the police have to police themselves and tell everyone that they are the only ones who can police them then go out and tell everyone they are the perfect police department and all their arrests are guaranteed guilty because they are the one true authority, people start questioning who gave them that authority.

In the case of the police, the people give them authority implicitly through their elected representatives. Luckily, the church isn’t a fallible human institution. We know by faith that it was given its authority by Christ, and whatever it defines as dogma must be true because Christ promised to preserve His Church from error.

The police spokes person answers that the police board gave them the authority you start wondering who gave them the authority. I hope I’m not confusing you but can you see why the protestants reject that teaching.

I don’t really see the argument here. It’s somewhat like the argument “who created God?”. In the end, we have to accept that God is the source of all authority, and He has given this authority to his Church, so that it may teach the truth.

Throughout history whenever man has been given absolute authority absolute corruption always follows.

Except in the case of the Church. The Church is a divine institution. It is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This is what Catholics believe.

That doesn’t give them the right to divide the church but you can see why they question the churches authority on some subjects such as who grants salvation.

God grants salvation. He has revealed to us, through His Church, what the requirements for salvation are.

We grant salvation because we interpret it that way might make people question that interpretation. I have a hard time imagining someone who loves Jesus with all his or her heart follows his commandments to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself tries to live a virtueous life and then as they stand in front of Jesus at judgement they hear the words GUILTY YOU AREN’T A CATHOLIC. Don’t you?

Yes, I have a* very* hard time imagining this scenario, because it simply isn’t possible.

Such a person would be a Catholic. If they respond to the grace of God and do their absolute best to serve Him and do His will, then they will be Catholic. They will give at least implicit assent to the teachings of the Church, because they are divine teachings.

You think that by inventing your own doctrine about salvation outside the Church, you’re being merciful and kind. In reality, you’re only helping to confuse people and lead them away from salvation. Confirming others in error is not an act of charity. Speaking the plain truth unashamedly is the most merciful act we can do, even if the truth is unpopular.

Here’s the truth:

There is no salvation outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[Nita]

Hi Bill,

It’s a little late to be joining in, but thought I’d share my way of understanding in hopes it will help you.

Regarding the salvation of individuals: our salvation is definitively decreed at the “time” of our final judgment. At that time, we will be made aware of our acts as regards their conformity or nonconformity with Our Lord’s truths and commands. He has made these known through His Church headed by the Pope. (Even the words Jesus Himself spoke come to us only through the Church and its leaders; Jesus didn’t write them for us.) The Pope is Our Lord’s representative/shepherd here on earth. His teaching is what Our Lord teaches. Hence, to be subject to the Pope is the same thing as being subject to Our Lord.

"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,…. (Unam Sanctam)

We all fail in to be perfectly subject to Our Lord’s will; we consciously sin, but there are also ways we err without being consiously aware of it. Even these “unconscious” failures will be revealed to us at our judgment. Before we can experience the fullness of salvation, those imperfect ways must change; **everything in us must become subject to Our Lord’s ways **- those ways **made known **to us on earth through His Church shepherded by the Pope. (Nothing becomes infallible teaching without the consent of the Pope.)

The most difficult line for me in Unam Sanctam is one you have noted before:

“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.” (Unam Sanctam)

Again, this is where it’s important to remember the “time” of salvation. At judgment, there will be no salvation for those who refuse to be subject to Our Lord, to accept His truth. We do not know the hearts of the Greeks, why they refuse to accept the papacy. We do know that at judgment the truth of the papacy will be revealed to them. Anyone whose heart is so hardened that they will refuse to accept that revelation as truth, will NOT enter heaven ---- lies will not be present in heaven and neither will rebellion. Those are the devil’s domain.

Nita

 

[Rup]

I understand what you’re saying and, of course, only God saves, but the message of salvation comes to us thru the church and we wouldn’t even be able to hear it, and so believe, without her having been established for that purpose. So the question becomes what, exactly, is the message and who is proclaiming it correctly? Is it enough to say, “Jesus is Lord”? Who is Jesus and what does He expect of us? Is Jesus really God? Does He expect believers to be baptized in order to be saved? Is He really present in the Eucharist? Are we splitting hairs by focusing on these issues and does it matter so much what we believe? Protestants often disagree on these questions but if the answers to them and many others are “yes”, then would God really want new churches dividing from the historical one and later spinning off from each other, often over important doctrinal differences? Catholics believe that God is our authority and that He continues to guide His flock thru the church with a living and direct leadership. Protestants believe that God is the boss, too, of course, but the authority which they appeal to for answering questions or defining their beliefs is scripture, the meaning of which is often disagreed upon by very sincere people. So the Church’s’ position is that Protestants are our sisters and brothers in Christ by virtue of our shared love and faith in Him as well as a shared heritage and as such are Catholic in an imperfect way whether they even like Catholicism or not. The truth is one and the authority to know and teach that truth is not a bad thing-it’s a blessing we simply need to understand and cherish. Can God save any which way He wants? Of course. Did He nonetheless reveal Himself and His will to mankind and establish a church which will proclaim the truth until the end of time in spite of human or spiritual attempts to alter or destroy it? Yes, He did.

I agree with everything you say, my question to you is do we owe our salvation to the church or to Christ. The answer to my prayer was this As I am one with my father and he is one with me so am I with the church. Like the Blessed Trinity they can’t ever be seperated. So would it be accurate to say we owe our salvation to the church BECAUSE it is one with Christ? If that is true the church needs to point that out to everyone instead of this elitist attitude of saying “whoever is saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ” I know that it is the church that lights the path and guides us to Christ who by his passion did save us so in THAT sense we do owe the church our salvation but to say that without Christ in the same sentence makes one think that the church is replacing Christ. Which for most christians is unthinkable. May Gods grace and peace be with all of you. Looking forward to reading your response.

 

[fhansen]

I agree with everything you say, my question to you is do we owe our salvation to the church or to Christ. The answer to my prayer was this As I am one with my father and he is one with me so am I with the church. Like the Blessed Trinity they can’t ever be seperated. So would it be accurate to say we owe our salvation to the church BECAUSE it is one with Christ? If that is true the church needs to point that out to everyone instead of this elitist attitude of saying “whoever is saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ” I know that it is the church that lights the path and guides us to Christ who by his passion did save us so in THAT sense we do owe the church our salvation but to say that without Christ in the same sentence makes one think that the church is replacing Christ. Which for most christians is unthinkable. May Gods grace and peace be with all of you. Looking forward to reading your response.

I guess my concept of the Church is pretty simple. She is the servant of the Lord-and His mouthpiece on earth. I see nothing elitist about being the vehicle of salvation-about delivering the “good news” to man. For me, there simply is no other church than the Catholic Church. And in the one sense she is Christ on earth-continuing the work of proclaiming His gospel as the original apostles did. I think you’re right that there has been and still exists an elitist attitude by some in the Church, but knowing Herself to be that one true Church which God established and the gates of hell won’t prevail against is not a matter of elitism or egocentrism but merely the recognition of the truth. But if the Church is not confidently reaching out in a spirit of love -and humility -and not fear-to a world that desperately needs Her message of God’s love and gift of eternal life, as well as His justice, then she is not at Her Catholic best or heeding Her own gospel to the extent that She should. We all fail that way at times. So, at any rate, for me the Church’s role is to lead us to God, not replace Him, and I believe this is how she perceives herself as well.

 

[Rup]

I guess my concept of the Church is pretty simple. She is the servant of the Lord-and His mouthpiece on earth. I see nothing elitist about being the vehicle of salvation-about delivering the “good news” to man. For me, there simply is no other church than the Catholic Church. And in the one sense she is Christ on earth-continuing the work of proclaiming His gospel as the original apostles did. I think you’re right that there has been and still exists an elitist attitude by some in the Church, but knowing Herself to be that one true Church which God established and the gates of hell won’t prevail against is not a matter of elitism or egocentrism but merely the recognition of the truth. But if the Church is not confidently reaching out in a spirit of love -and humility -and not fear-to a world that desperately needs Her message of God’s love and gift of eternal life, as well as His justice, then she is not at Her Catholic best or heeding Her own gospel to the extent that She should. We all fail that way at times. So, at any rate, for me the Church’s role is to lead us to God, not replace Him, and I believe this is how she perceives herself as well.

fhanson I couldn’t agree with you more. You just communicate it in a more loving manor than I would. It’s one of my weaknesses, I love the church and become very confrontational when defending her and sometimes the wording of her teachings translate a different picture in my head than what should be pictured. It is good for me to have rational people like yourself to help me understand those teachings in the light of truth. Thank you.

 

[fhansen]

The most difficult line for me in Unam Sanctam is one you have noted before:

Again, this is where it’s important to remember the “time” of salvation. At judgment, there will be no salvation for those who refuse to be subject to Our Lord, to accept His truth. We do not know the hearts of the Greeks, why they refuse to accept the papacy. We do know that at judgment the truth of the papacy will be revealed to them. Anyone whose heart is so hardened that they will refuse to accept that revelation as truth, will NOT enter heaven ---- lies will not be present in heaven and neither will rebellion. Those are the devil’s domain.

Nita

Of course the Church teaches that the Greeks referred to are still Catholic but are in schism due to their non-acceptance of the Bishop of Rome as the infallible head of the universal Church. As Roman Catholics, we believe that God established the Church with the Pope as its’ head for the purposes you’ve explained and the need for that office seems quite evident to me. I believe the quote in Unam Sanctum about the Greeks is Pope Boniface making a clear statement as to the CC’s position on the matter and the correct understanding of God’s intention which the Greeks, and everyone else for that matter, should come to realize. Obviously the Greek Church he was addressing disagreed and still does.

 

[David_Poem]

Quote the passage where he says they are not Christians

i think we are confusing religion withthe spirtual.I have no control over the pope.I need to work on my spirtually and not get blogged down .What good is this?The only thing i have control over is my reaction to it.Let the Pope say what he may thats his job.My job is to get ready to stand be for God when the time comes and I need Jesus on my side Help!

 

[David_Poem]

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.

Happy are those that see but still belive! If you have time for all this fog and gray matter,surounding yourself with some kind of write makes might.Then you have time to pray .There r so many things too pray for !

 

[fhansen]

fhanson I couldn’t agree with you more. You just communicate it in a more loving manor than I would. It’s one of my weaknesses, I love the church and become very confrontational when defending her and sometimes the wording of her teachings translate a different picture in my head than what should be pictured. It is good for me to have rational people like yourself to help me understand those teachings in the light of truth. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Rup. I’m sure not everyone agrees with my take on things but that’s the way I understand the matter.