Papal infallibility simplified and explained

[mardukm]

No. This catechism which was published and circulated before being corrected was saying that the Jews are saved under the old covenant; an idea that is rejected by scripture and tradition.

That’s a pretty bold claim. Please cite where the old Catechism stated that. I want to see those words “the Jews are saved under the old covenant.”

That statement itself could be interpreted two ways:
(1) The Jews are saved THROUGH the old covenant"
(2) “The Jews who are under the old covenant are saved – if they follow the commandments of God in faith as it is known to them, and are invincibly ignorant of the Christian Faith.”

The first interpretation would be heterodox. The second is orthodox, and would align with what then-Cardinal Ratzinger stated.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[Tunesmith]

The first interpretation would be heterodox. The second is orthodox, and would align with what then-Cardinal Ratzinger stated.

Blessings,
Marduk.

Both are heterodox.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439,
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity… Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith,…

Hebrews 8:7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one, 8 but God found something wrong with his people when he said, “Look! The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a “new” covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 2:25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

 

[MilesVitae]

“Papal” infallibility is not some sort of magical gift, Abu. The Pope must make a serious effort to determine that he is not contradicting the infallible Faith of the sensus fidei nor the infallible teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium before he is even capable of pronouncing an ex cathedra decree. Without this necessary effort to ensure that he will not be contradicting the Faith of the Church, he will not have the charism of infallibility, because the charism of infallibility works ONLY throughout and with this effort that he must make… You seem to be under the false impression that “papal” infallibility is some sort of magical power - that the Pope can just decide unilaterally to make a dogma, and then God will magically make sure anything he writes will be free from error. That’s just not the way it works. and you need to stop misleading non-Catholics (and Catholics) and giving them false reasons to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Note what I have underlined. I understand that the Pope does not receive some kind of special revelation or inspiration and, as such, must do the necessary work to discern the truth before proclaiming it. However, the wording above suggests that, if the Pope did decide to unilaterally declare a new dogma, and not do what was necessary to discern the truth, then he wouldn’t be protected from error (and, as such, could proclaim error)…I’m assuming that’s not what you’re suggesting.
I know you believe (or at least did believe) that God would not permit the Pope to unilaterally proclaim a truth without the proper diligence, so as to preserve the constitution of the Church. Personally, I don’t see the necessity of that - after all, the charism of infallibility exists to preserve the teaching of the Church from error, not to ensure the diligence of the Pope and other bishops, imo.
In any case, I wanted to make sure your meaning above was clear.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Both are heterodox.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439,
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity… Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith,…

Hebrews 8:7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one, 8 but God found something wrong with his people when he said, “Look! The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a “new” covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 2:25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

You are just unbelievably wrong.

I get it. You don’t like the Catholic Church.

Fine.

But don’t come here and have catholic after catholic tell you no that’s not true and then argue with us.

You are understanding Catholic teaching wrong. So why dont you try to learn instead of argue.

And please don’t tout your elementary school catholic education as if that makes you a great theologian with more catholic knowledge than not just practicing Catholics but the popes themselves!

Let us help you figure this out with some real dialogue. And stop reading your preconceived ideas into the doctrines.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Both are heterodox.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439,
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity… Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith,…

Hebrews 8:7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one, 8 but God found something wrong with his people when he said, “Look! The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a “new” covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 2:25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

And again I say to you;

Of which you will dismiss.

The church teaches that there is no salvation outside the church.

God revealed one way.

But we don’t limit God to the standards he gives us.

He can do whatever he wants.

He obviously had a different plan before Christ as to salvation for the Jews.

How that relates to the Jewish people today is unknown. So we evangelize them as well as the rest of the world.

Again I ask, Why does the church evangelize if they believe that the gospel means nothing for salvation.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Tunesmith,

There are those who believe that people who have died (after Christ came and established the Great Commission) and have never heard the Gospel were never meant to hear the Gospel - thus they were damned.

To be honest, I was of that opinion a LONG time ago when I was not yet Catholic. But I eventually learned - while I was not yet Catholic nor even imagined I would be Catholic - that this is the Calvinist heresy of double predestination. So I could no longer, in good conscience, believe in such an idea. It was many years later that I learned about the idea of “invincible ignorance” when studying Catholicism,. Its Truth struck a deep chord in my heart. Even in the Old Testament, God Himself distinguished between sins that were done on purpose, and sins that were done inadvertently. The former were punishable by death, the latter not so.

The idea that non-Christians - who through no fault of their own never came to a belief in Christ, yet followed their God-given conscience throughout their lives - are hands down damned by God is unbiblical, The Catholic Church teaches that if such are saved, it is only because of the power of the Cross, which comes through no other agency but the Church that Christ Himself established to grant His salvation to the world.

Blessings,
Marduk

Both are heterodox.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439,
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity… Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith,…

Hebrews 8:7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one, 8 but God found something wrong with his people when he said, “Look! The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a “new” covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 2:25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

 

[Tunesmith]

You are understanding Catholic teaching wrong. So why dont you try to learn instead of argue.

I understand perfectly what the Catholic Church teaches and I agree completely. God can save whoever he wants to save. Those who don’t know the gospel are not held accountable for what they don’t know. What you don’t understand is that the Catholic Church didn’t always teach what it teaches today and it’s not your fault. You just don’t know. So I conclude that some of those popes from way back when were not infallible.
Here are some examples of what the church was teaching before Vatican II.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

Note what I have underlined…However, the wording above suggests that, if the Pope did decide to unilaterally declare a new dogma, and not do what was necessary to discern the truth, then he wouldn’t be protected from error (and, as such, could proclaim error)…I’m assuming that’s not what you’re suggesting.

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. Here’s what Pastor Aeternus teaches:
"However, the Roman Pontiffs on their part, according to the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the whole world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held…The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down…"

Note especially the clause “The reason for this is…” What does the “this” refer to in that clause? It is referring to nothing more nor less than what came before it (the blue portion). The Holy Spirit’s assistance (the charism of infallibility) is given in the Pope’s actions indicated in the blue portion above. The charism of infallibility is not some sort of magic that is done without the Pope doing anything. One has to understand that the charism of infallibility is a Grace. And like ALL Grace, its effectiveness for the Church is synergistic in nature.

I know you believe (or at least did believe) that God would not permit the Pope to unilaterally proclaim a truth without the proper diligence, so as to preserve the constitution of the Church. Personally, I don’t see the necessity of that - after all, the charism of infallibility exists to preserve the teaching of the Church from error, not to ensure the diligence of the Pope and other bishops, imo.

I am not sure what you are saying here. I agree wholeheartedly with the underlined portion above. But the infallible teaching of the Church comes to us through no other agency than the episcopal Magisterium (the laity are actively involved in the propagation of this infallible teaching, of course, but the infallible teaching office itself rests with the episcopal Magisterium). The teaching of the Church and the necessary corollaries to preserve it do not just drop out of the sky on stone tablets.

Your comments or criticisms would be appreciated.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MrSnaith]

I understand perfectly what the Catholic Church teaches and I agree completely. God can save whoever he wants to save. Those who don’t know the gospel are not held accountable for what they don’t know. What you don’t understand is that the Catholic Church didn’t always teach what it teaches today and it’s not your fault. You just don’t know. So I conclude that some of those popes from way back when were not infallible.
Here are some examples of what the church was teaching before Vatican II.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Regarding the quote from the Baltimore Catechism, the belief in a Limbo for unbaptized infants was never doctrinally defined. Indeed, it cannot be supported by Scripture, which states that in the end, there will be only heaven and hell.

Regarding both quotes from the Councils of Lyons II and Florence, both remain correct today. The Church maintains that baptism is still necessary for salvation. Thus, anyone who has committed mortal sin, the Church still teaches, upon death goes straightaway to Hell. Moreover, anyone who has not received baptism of any kind will go straightaway to hell. This is still taught by the Church today.

The only nuance to this is the question of infants who have not had the opportunity for baptism of any kind. The Church recognizes that salvation must be a choice. Anyone who chooses to commit mortal sin, and anyone who has not chosen baptism have chosen not to be saved. Without this choice being exercised, by no fault of their own, the Church has defined that we may hope in the mercy of God to prevail for such souls as these. What form that mercy takes, the Church does not define.

 

[mardukm]

You just don’t know. So I conclude that some of those popes from way back when were not infallible. Here are some examples of what the church was teaching before Vatican II.

With all due respect, the “you just don’t know” applies rather to you. The teaching on invincible ignorance was around long before Vatican 2. There were several prominent debates about it in the 19th century. For example, in 1863, Pope Pius IX wrote in an encyclical, “We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal light by the power of divine light and grace.”

And there are many other such statements from the Church during the Middle Ages (though not using the terms “invincible ignorance.” The Scholastics especially throughout the second millennium taught the principle of invincible ignorance. There are indeed also a few examples that tend towards a double predestinationist belief (such as St. Augustine), but on the whole, the Church has preserved the biblical teaching of invincible ignorance.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

This is not about invincible ignorance.

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

How do you know “in original sin alone” refers to infants here? These quotes state that those who are in original sin alone will go to the suffering of hell. The Baltimore Catechism, referring specifically to infants, says they are free from suffering.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear brother Miles,

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. Here’s what Pastor Aeternus teaches:
"However, the Roman Pontiffs on their part, according to the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the whole world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held…The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down…"

Note especially the clause “The reason for this is…” What does the “this” refer to in that clause? It is referring to nothing more nor less than what came before it (the blue portion). The Holy Spirit’s assistance (the charism of infallibility) is given in the Pope’s actions indicated in the blue portion above. The charism of infallibility is not some sort of magic that is done without the Pope doing anything. One has to understand that the charism of infallibility is a Grace. And like ALL Grace, its effectiveness for the Church is synergistic in nature.

I’m not suggesting the charism is some sort of magical property. It works with the free-will of man and within divine providence.
Do you believe that if a Pope one day unilaterally defined a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church in virtue of his office (i.e., the conditions laid out in PA), without having used the appropriate means of discerning the truth beforehand, that such a definition could be in error?

 

[Tunesmith]

And there are many other such statements from the Church during the Middle Ages (though not using the terms “invincible ignorance.” The Scholastics especially throughout the second millennium taught the principle of invincible ignorance.

Pope Eugene IV never got the message. He doesn’t even acknowledge baptism of desire.

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Pope Eugene IV never got the message. He doesn’t even acknowledge baptism of desire.

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

Tunesmith,

What you fail to realize is that the Catholic Church teaches today the same thing Florence teaches.

Ok. They do.

Now, Vatican 2 was a pastoral council. A council that said, let’s lighten up on the condemnations to hell and be pastoral. For in fact we do not know of all the ways of God, just what he has told us.

He has told us that there is one way to heaven. Through Christ and the Catholic Church, but culpability of individuals and knowledge of other ways of God are unknown.

So perhaps he can use other ways, perhaps not, but we can hope he does while trying to bring everyone into the ark of the church.

This message is entirely consistent.

The Baltimore Catechism is like a cliff notes Q and A. It’s not anywhere near dogmatic.

You also take quotes out of their right context.

Did you notice most of your quotes came before the 16th century? Why?

Not because the dogma changed but because something occurred at that time that caused the church to speculate on knew understanding. Their worldview changed.

The new world was discovered and the world was suddenly much bigger than Europe where literally everyone was aware of Christianity.

The church had to ask the question "What has happened to the souls if the millions of native Americans who have died over thousands of years? They had no chance whatsoever to hear of Christ.

And their answer. Same as before. Same as today: “There is no salvation that we know of outside the church so we must evangelize them. But let us hope that God uses other ways not revealed”.

With perhaps an added emphasis on the hope, since that was forefront.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

I’m not suggesting the charism is some sort of magical property. It works with the free-will of man and within divine providence. Do you believe that if a Pope one day unilaterally defined a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church in virtue of his office (i.e., the conditions laid out in PA), without having used the appropriate means of discerning the truth beforehand, that such a definition could be in error?

I admit I’m not entirely clear on what you are asking. Here’s what I see in the scenario you are proposing:

(A) You say that you are not suggesting that the charism of infallibility is a magical property. But it seems you are asking what would happen if the Pope did not act according to the portion of the historic Proem from Pastor Aeternus highlighted in blue in my previous post. Since you admit that infallibility is not inspiration or revelation, and are proposing that it consists of something different from the blue-highlighted portion in the quote, how can I not conclude you are suggesting it is indeed some sort of magical property? I mean, there are three options - (1) inspiration, (2) revelation, or (3) the diligent effort of the Pope to determine the agreement of the bishops. According to PA, the Holy Spirit’s aid consists of his assistance in (3). Apart from these, how do you suggest the Pope arrives at an ex cathedra decree? If it is not any of these, then I would have to conclude that the Pope could indeed fall into error in your scenario.

(B) Your scenario suggests the Pope acts unilaterally - by himself. But the definition of ex cathedra dictates that he cannot act by himself, because ex cathedra denotes that he is a member of the College as its head, never apart from the College. If he is acting unilaterally, he is acting separate from the College. This would violate the definition of ex cathedra, Hence, I would have to conclude that the Pope could indeed fall into error in your scenario.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MrSnaith]

Pope Eugene IV never got the message. He doesn’t even acknowledge baptism of desire.

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

The first part you’ve bolded “unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives” is answered by asserting that Jesus is the Church, and that through baptism of water, baptism of desire, or baptism of fire a person joins themselves to Christ, and thus to the Church.

The second bolded section, “even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ” is more difficult to resolve, until you realize that it is connected to the following conditional “unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”, which relates to the opening part of the statement, “It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics.”

The reference being made here to those who would die in the name of Christ, and yet still not find salvation, are those people who are heretics and/or schismatics, for they have not persevered in the bosom of the catholic church. Indeed, they have been baptised, and have since schismatized, and have therefore committed mortal sin. Only repentance, not baptism of any kind, brings these people back into the fold. In such, invincible ignorance does not apply.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Tunesmith,

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
"It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives;

You can’t go around quoting things bereft of their context. In other parts of the Decrees of Florence, it notes explicitly about the efforts of evangelizing Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians. This part you quoted obviously refers to those who have been evangelized and still refuse to believe. It is NOT referring to those who have never heard the Gospel through no fault of their own.

that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."

I’m not sure what importance you attach to the part you bolded, but I took the liberty of highlighting the parts of it you may have missed. This section is referring to those who LEAVE the Church. It’s not referring to those who are invincibly ignorant.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jon_S_1]

Pope Eugene IV never got the message. He doesn’t even acknowledge baptism of desire.

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

In order for you to prove that popes erred in dogma in the past you would need to show (regarding our current exchange).

A Pope who said or a council who said;

Salvation can be found outside the Catholic Church by means of “x y z”.

For example: the church has declared that salvation is not only found in its bounds but also Buddhist who devotedly commit their lives to the teaching of the Buddha WILL be saved.

Now good luck finding that.

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear brother Miles,

I admit I’m not entirely clear on what you are asking. Here’s what I see in the scenario you are proposing:

(A) You say that you are not suggesting that the charism of infallibility is a magical property. But it seems you are asking what would happen if the Pope did not act according to the portion of the historic Proem from Pastor Aeternus highlighted in blue in my previous post. Since you admit that infallibility is not inspiration or revelation, and are proposing that it consists of something different from the blue-highlighted portion in the quote, how can I not conclude you are suggesting it is indeed some sort of magical property? I mean, there are three options - (1) inspiration, (2) revelation, or (3) the diligent effort of the Pope to determine the agreement of the bishops. According to PA, the Holy Spirit’s aid consists of his assistance in (3). Apart from these, how do you suggest the Pope arrives at an ex cathedra decree? If it is not any of these, then I would have to conclude that the Pope could indeed fall into error in your scenario.

Pope “Nemo” wakes up and, in a fit of autocratic madness and Absolute Petrine delusion, decides he is going to make a dogmatic definition on faith and morals binding on the whole Church. He doesn’t bother to consult his brother bishops, or Scripture, or the Fathers or the theologians of the Church. If the assertion he intends to define is erroneous, then will or will not the Holy Spirit prevent him from making that definition?

I think the answer is obviously, “yes,” because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from dogmatically defining error. Do you agree, or do you think that the Holy Spirit only protects the Church from error if the Pope (in the case of an papal ex cathedra statement) is acting with due diligence? Do you think the Holy Spirit would protect the Church only from error on the part of a diligent Pope, but not from error on the part of a negligent Pope?

(B) Your scenario suggests the Pope acts unilaterally - by himself. But the definition of ex cathedra dictates that he cannot act by himself, because ex cathedra denotes that he is a member of the College as its head, never apart from the College. If he is acting unilaterally, he is acting separate from the College. This would violate the definition of ex cathedra, Hence, I would have to conclude that the Pope could indeed fall into error in your scenario.

Well, of course the Pope is supposed to act with his brother bishops - but that doesn’t mean an individual Pope always will. In theory a Pope could have Absolute Petrine delusions and think himself divinely inspired and try to define without determining the consensus of his brother bishops. If he does this, one of two things will happen: a) he will attempt to make a definition which happens to be true. In that case, I see no reason the Holy Spirit will prevent him. b) He will attempt to make a definition which happens to be false. In that case, the Holy Spirit will prevent him (in whatever way the Holy Spirit acts). The Pope doesn’t have the ability to trick the Holy Spirit into not protecting the Church from error by acting unilaterally.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Pope “Nemo” wakes up and, in a fit of autocratic madness and Absolute Petrine delusion, decides he is going to make a dogmatic definition on faith and morals binding on the whole Church. He doesn’t bother to consult his brother bishops, or Scripture, or the Fathers or the theologians of the Church. If the assertion he intends to define is erroneous, then will or will not the Holy Spirit prevent him from making that definition?

I think the answer is obviously, “yes,” because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from dogmatically defining error. Do you agree, or do you think that the Holy Spirit only protects the Church from error if the Pope (in the case of an papal ex cathedra statement) is acting with due diligence? Do you think the Holy Spirit would protect the Church only from error on the part of a diligent Pope, but not from error on the part of a negligent Pope?

Well, of course the Pope is supposed to act with his brother bishops - but that doesn’t mean an individual Pope always will. In theory a Pope could have Absolute Petrine delusions and think himself divinely inspired and try to define without determining the consensus of his brother bishops. If he does this, one of two things will happen: a) he will attempt to make a definition which happens to be true. In that case, I see no reason the Holy Spirit will prevent him. b) He will attempt to make a definition which happens to be false. In that case, the Holy Spirit will prevent him (in whatever way the Holy Spirit acts). The Pope doesn’t have the ability to trick the Holy Spirit into not protecting the Church from error by acting unilaterally.

It’s my opinion that the Holy Spirit protects the office. So some delusional idiot will be kept from occupying it.

Or.

As history has shown when a horrible pope got in the office.

The Holy Spirit protects the church by a lack of statements and dogmatic decrees.

It is really impossible for the pope to act unilaterally as he works under the 2000 yr tradition of the church. Even without consulting living bishops he has countless dead bishops and church doctors he is forced to consult before making his decree.

 

[Tunesmith]

The first part you’ve bolded “unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives” is answered by asserting that Jesus is the Church, and that through baptism of water, baptism of desire, or baptism of fire a person joins themselves to Christ, and thus to the Church.

I’m with you on that but the “Church” before Vatican II was specifically and only the Roman Catholic Church.
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943

1. [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
2. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
3. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos Jan. 6, 1928

1. [21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23]** it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: **whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
2. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

So when Pope Eugene IV says, “all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives” he is not talking about the church in the same way you are. He is saying if you’re not a Roman Catholic then you’re not in the church. Other popes have said the same thing. This new definition of “Church” comes from Vatican II. Pope Pius XII in 1943 did not consider non-Catholics as part of the Church.