Non-Christians and Heaven

[Sirach2]

That was a play on words, calling it a search engine. My point was that you rely heavily on Denzinger, or is it perhaps that you pick up these quotes from others and repeat them? Whatever. It doesn’t matter.

Why did you oppose PJM’s point then, as being “very difficult to reconcile?”

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Pius X was right to oppose this. Note the key words in blue. The Church does not change the deposit of faith handed down; but She does teach according to Dei Verbum 8, promulgated in the V-II Council, that …

…For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her

I was under the assumption that the fullness of truth was realized with the death of the last apostle…

Wasn’t divine truth fully realized when Christ taught the apostles and left them with the deposit of faith? Can the truth be any fuller after Christ Himself reveled it to the apostles?

Please reconcile…

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

That was a play on words, calling it a search engine. My point was that you rely heavily on Denzinger, or is it perhaps that you pick up these quotes from others and repeat them? Whatever. It doesn’t matter.

Why did you oppose PJM’s point then, as being “very difficult to reconcile?”

I believe that I’ve only quoted from Denzinger’s book twice… The rest come from the Popes and Councils themselves.

Is it not difficult to reconcile? Pope Eugene IV was not the only Pope to condemn the muslim faith.

God Bless

 

[Sirach2]

I was under the assumption that the fullness of truth was realized with the death of the last apostle…

Agreed - God’s Revelation is complete. How we grow in our understanding as Catholics, under the teaching authority entrusted to the Church, is not complete. There will be deeper levels of knowing the meaning of God’s truth. St. Paul reminds us that when he was a child, he thought as a child … you know the rest. Jesus told his apostles that there were many things they were not ready for, but when the Spirit comes, He will remind them of Jesus’ teachings — and these may be at a much deeper level than they knew during their walk with Christ, but were unable to take them in.

If you want to disbelieve a Vatican II document, promulgated with full papal Authority as was Dei Verbum, I’m afraid once again, we will come to a standstill. I hope that is not the case and that congenial discussions can go forward for our mutual understanding of our faith.

 

[Tradycja]

Agreed - God’s Revelation is complete. How we grow in our understanding as Catholics, under the teaching authority entrusted to the Church, is not complete. There will be deeper levels of knowing the meaning of God’s truth.

**Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: **“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[Denzinger 1800]

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

**Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: **“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[Denzinger 1800]

 

[Sirach2]

… and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.

It was not necessary to shout, for I am well familiar with this quote. The problem is that your theology stopped with Pius IX. No one would disagree with the statement, provided you clarify that there will not be a RECESSION from MEANING; i.e., a change in essence. The statement does not in any way imply that there CANNOT be further understanding.

 

[AnneElliot]

It was in the Deposit of Faith, but the Church didn’t understand well enough to definitively declare that the Immaculate Conception was indeed truth. That’s, in essence, what an ex cathedra statement or a Conciliar decree is – a proclamation that now we now with infallible certainty that such and such a doctrine is part of the Deposit of Faith.

You miss the point.

We aren’t going to be “adding on” to our understanding of the Immaculate Conception, are we? Do you think the Church is going to come out with a nuance on the Immaculate Conception while the lay faithful tout it’s not a backing away from the original Dogma, it’s only a “deeper understanding”?

 

[Tradycja]

It was not necessary to shout, for I am well familiar with this quote. The problem is that your theology stopped with Pius IX. No one would disagree with the statement, provided you clarify that there will not be a RECESSION from MEANING; i.e., a change in essence. The statement does not in any way imply that there CANNOT be further understanding.

If the Church has proclaimed that there is no salvation outside of it, and people are saying that there IS in fact salvation outside of it, this is an essential change.

 

[Sirach2]

For the record, I note that you slipped in the wording “ex cathedra” to make your point more solemn. However, this is NOT an “ex cathedra” statement, although it does carry the weight of infallibility due to the council being ecumenical.

Let’s once again look at the entire context surrounding the well publicized quote:

1. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].

We know this is section is speaking about Revelation, and as such, it is stated perfectly in #13 that God has revealed it without the ability of human intelligence to know it. Coming from God Himself, it must be safeguarded - in tact - for all ages.

Section 14 says exactly what Dei Verbum of recent council declared, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom is encouraged to vigorously flourish (heavy words!) – yet maintain the same sense and meaning.

Nowhere does this exclude further development of understanding Revelation, provided it does not CHANGE the meaning.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

If the Church has proclaimed that there is no salvation outside of it, and people are saying that there IS in fact salvation outside of it, this is an essential change.

I have to agree on this point… This would essentially change the doctrine.

 

[Sirach2]

If the Church has proclaimed that there is no salvation outside of it, and people are saying that there IS in fact salvation outside of it, this is an essential change.

You are mixing apples and oranges. You cited a quote that addressed the Church’s preservation of Divine Revelation, and apply it to EENS to justify your belief. I showed in my last post that this quote is the same teaching as Vatican II.

I don’t want to get into this debate again because it is ceaseless time spent in futility, since there can be no dialogue without an open mind. If you want to read the objections presented on the errors of EENS, I suggest you read the last arguments from David Joseph in the Invincible Ignorance thread.

 

[AnneElliot]

If you want to read the objections presented on the errors of EENS, I suggest you read the last arguments from David Joseph in the Invincible Ignorance thread.

I thought you were Catholic? Dogma does not have errors. Dogma is a solemn truth.

And, for the record, David Joseph cut and pasted from another person’s personal website.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

For the record, I note that you slipped in the wording “ex cathedra” to make your point more solemn. However, this is NOT an “ex cathedra” statement, although it does carry the weight of infallibility due to the council being ecumenical.

What is your proof that the statement is not ex cathedra?

God Bless

 

[AnneElliot]

This is all very easy to clear up…

If this statement is true (which it is)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam

and a person becomes subject to the Pope through sacramental Baptism
“The Church exercises jurisdiction over nobody who has not previously entered the Church through the gates of Baptism” Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance (Session XIV), chapter 2

Then it is clear that a person must at least be a baptized member of the Catholic Church to be saved.
(They must also be a Catholic who dies in a state of grace, etc.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino

 

[JMJ_coder]

I was under the assumption that the fullness of truth was realized with the death of the last apostle…

Wasn’t divine truth fully realized when Christ taught the apostles and left them with the deposit of faith? Can the truth be any fuller after Christ Himself reveled it to the apostles?

Please reconcile…

God Bless

Public revelation ending with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John – but, just because we’re in full possession of the Deposit of Faith in it’s entirety doesn’t mean we immediately understand everything in it or all that it implies.

Think about it this way, I give you a sudoku puzzle. The puzzle is there in its entirety, but not every number is crystal clear. It takes time to analyze and contemplate to be able to fill in all the holes. Sometimes, getting one piece of the puzzle immediately implies other necessary conditions, or maybe something could be one or the other and we need another part answered first to be certain of which choice is the correct one. Filling in the holes doesn’t change the puzzle, but the puzzle becomes more clear and from the outside may even look different (because of the holes being filled).

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Public revelation ending with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John – but, just because we’re in full possession of the Deposit of Faith in it’s entirety doesn’t mean we immediately understand everything in it or all that it implies.

Think about it this way, I give you a sudoku puzzle. The puzzle is there in its entirety, but not every number is crystal clear. It takes time to analyze and contemplate to be able to fill in all the holes. Sometimes, getting one piece of the puzzle immediately implies other necessary conditions, or maybe something could be one or the other and we need another part answered first to be certain of which choice is the correct one. Filling in the holes doesn’t change the puzzle, but the puzzle becomes more clear and from the outside may even look different (because of the holes being filled).

Please explain what wasn’t or isn’t clear about the prior teachings of EENS… I have a hard time believing that 7+ Popes and Councils have clearly defined EENS, yet what they defined wasn’t clear enough.

God Bless

 

[JMJ_coder]

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[Denzinger 1800]

First, this may be nit-picking, but that would not be an “ex cathedra” statement by Pope Blessed Pius IX, but a Conciliar document from the First Vatican Council.

Second, I can’t find that in that chapter of the document – could you provide more citation (maybe a paragraph number)?

 

[JMJ_coder]

You miss the point.

We aren’t going to be “adding on” to our understanding of the Immaculate Conception, are we? Do you think the Church is going to come out with a nuance on the Immaculate Conception while the lay faithful tout it’s not a backing away from the original Dogma, it’s only a “deeper understanding”?

I don’t know – I can’t predict the future. If I could, I’d be a very rich man.

But, our understanding of the Immaculate Conception was definitely fuzzy until the late Middle Ages. It wasn’t until Duns Scotus presented us with a new way to look at it (i.e., the merits of our Redemption being applied to Mary before her birth) that our current understanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception began to take definitive form.

 

[JMJ_coder]

If the Church has proclaimed that there is no salvation outside of it, and people are saying that there IS in fact salvation outside of it, this is an essential change.

Please show where the Church has taught that there is salvation OUTSIDE of the Church?