Papal Infallibility

[Ron_Conte]

First, it is true that outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation, but only if the Church is understood in its broadest sense, to include all those who have received sanctifying grace by either a formal or mystical Baptism.

Second, those who reject the Catholic faith commit an objective mortal sin, but often this sin is not an actual mortal sin, and so they can still be saved. Those quotes are correct in that those who reject the Catholic faith with full culpability will not enter into life. But those quotes also failed to say that many reject the Catholic faith without the culpability of an actual mortal sin.

Third, the Catholic faith is ineffable. Even the Popes and Saints have not understood the full breadth and depth of the Faith, which is immeasurable. The statements that you quote are true when properly understood, just as many passages in Scripture are true when properly understood. You must be willing to seek a deeper understanding of the Faith, and unwilling to imagine that the Faith is nothing other than what you have so far understood.

Christ taught, in Matthew 25, that those who performed substantially selfless acts of love and mercy toward their neighbors (feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc.) would be saved. And yet those who were saved did not realize that they were being merciful to the least of Christ’s brothers. They did not realize this because many of them were not Christians. But they were saved because in their lives they imitated Christ even without realizing it.

Ron Conte

 

[USMC]

First, it is true that outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation, but only if the Church is understood in its broadest sense, to include all those who have received sanctifying grace by either a formal or mystical Baptism.

So now we have a new kind of baptism? “mystical Baptism”. Is that a doctrine that you made up? If not, please show me an official Church document that teaches it. Preferrably from St. Thomas who discussed virtually every known doctrine in his Summa.

Second, those who reject the Catholic faith commit an objective mortal sin, but often this sin is not an actual mortal sin, and so they can still be saved. Those quotes are correct in that those who reject the Catholic faith with full culpability will not enter into life. But those quotes also failed to say that many reject the Catholic faith without the culpability of an actual mortal sin.

How do you know that many who reject the Catholic faith do not commit a subjective mortal sin? That is something that God alone knows. We can only judge objectively, and objectively everyone who rejects the Catholic faith is a formal heretic.

Third, the Catholic faith is ineffable. Even the Popes and Saints have not understood the full breadth and depth of the Faith, which is immeasurable. The statements that you quote are true when properly understood, just as many passages in Scripture are true when properly understood. You must be willing to seek a deeper understanding of the Faith, and unwilling to imagine that the Faith is nothing other than what you have so far understood.

I don’t think you understand the Catholic faith. You seem to think that the Catholic faith is not something that has been revealed, but rather is a philosophical system capable of being perfected by human intelligence. That idea was explicitly condemned at the first Vatican Council.

**First Vatican Council: ** “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" (Ch. 4)

The meaning or understanding of doctrines cannot change, nor “evolve”. The teachings of the Church are never to be abandoned under the pretext of a more profound understanding.

Vatican I: "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. (Chapter 4)

Christ taught, in Matthew 25, that those who performed substantially selfless acts of love and mercy toward their neighbors (feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc.) would be saved. And yet those who were saved did not realize that they were being merciful to the least of Christ’s brothers. They did not realize this because many of them were not Christians. But they were saved because in their lives they imitated Christ even without realizing it.

You cannot reject one passage of scripture because of another. Matthew 25:31-46 does not nullify Matthew 18:17, nor any other passages. We are required to do good to others, but also to keep the commandments and submit to the doctrine that God has revealed.

The Protestants erred by teaching faith alone; you are erring by teaching works alone. You have stated that those without faith (Buddhists, Muslims, Jews) will generally be saved if they simply pray. That is to reject the teaching of the Church which states that without the Catholic faith no one is saved.

You are lost in the intellectual mist of liberalism, and you don’t even know it.

 

[kleary]

So then Billions, nay Trillions of people are going to hell then. The native americans prior to colonization went to hell, as did the Mayans.

A friend of mine in Japan is extremely offended by Christianity he said to me “Are you telling me that my people in Japan, and all their ancestors who were around long before any Bible was ever written are all going to hell?”

This doctrine really seems to make Catholicism out to be an ineffective method for salvation.

When Jesus died He Himself descended into the dead to free them and bring them to heaven way before the Bible was written so there is the answer. Yes Virginia, before Jesus everyone went to “hell” because Heaven wasn’t opened until He died. I was taught there were many levels of Hell, and one was “Jacob’s Bosom” where the good people who died went to.

And sadly yes, many many trillions of people are “going to hell”. We must constantly pray for them as Our Lady of Fatima asked us.

Ken

 

[Vigis]

This is a doctrine of the Church that I’m really iffy about. I don’t even know if it’s true. My friend told me that this doctrine comes from several things said by Jesus in the Bible. Anyway the thing that bothers me the most is the Infallible statement by Pope Eugene IV.

“All outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved.”
Eugene IV, D:714

I really need some light shed on this issue of mine, are all people outside of the Catholic Church really condemned?

People have misinterpreted the statement that “All outside the Catholic Church can not be saved”. Vatican II has clarified this very much. All Christians are of the body of Christ. The word catholic means “universal”. What the pope was actually saying was that no one outside the body of Christ can be saved. They can not be saved without Christ. Buddha, Allah, or Vishnu do not save people. Christ saves people. I hope this helps you to understand better. God speed.

 

[Vigis]

So then Billions, nay Trillions of people are going to hell then. The native americans prior to colonization went to hell, as did the Mayans.

A friend of mine in Japan is extremely offended by Christianity he said to me “Are you telling me that my people in Japan, and all their ancestors who were around long before any Bible was ever written are all going to hell?”

This doctrine really seems to make Catholicism out to be an ineffective method for salvation.

I am not quite sure if this applied before Christ came, but I do know that it has applied after he came. Read Romans 2. Saint Paul clearly tells us that people can recieve the law within their hearts informally. This involves the Holy Spirit. That means it is possible for a Buddhist to recieve the Holy Spirit and not be damned to Hell. Now then question arises, “But does not Jesus say that one must be baptisted by the water and the Spirit to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?” This is a good question. The only logical explanation I have for this is that if these certain people are baptised by the Spirit, but not by water then they go to Limbo. I know that I am making things more complicated, but if you need help in understanding me then I would be happy to do so. Limbo is not Hell, Heaven, or Purgatory. It is a place of eternal happiness, but it is not the Kingdom of Heaven. The Catholic Church or any other church that I know of have established if Limbo exists. The Catholic Church has not even established if it does not exist. But it has established that Buddhist who recieve the Holy Spirit etc. can recieve salvation. God speed.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So now we have a new kind of baptism? “mystical Baptism”. Is that a doctrine that you made up?

Mystical Baptism is any non-formal baptism, including, but not limited to, the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. This is a proposition of speculative theology, based on Scripture and the infinite mercy of God.

There are many theological errors among liberal Catholics. But there are also many theological errors among conservative Catholics. The idea that the Catholic faith is entirely known and understood, so that there are no new truths, implicit in the deposit of faith, to be discovered by faith and reason, is a false idea which reduces the ineffable Divine truths of the faith to a set of propositions each entirely knowable by the human mind.

In truth, the deposit of Faith is like a vast ocean of truth, and the entire Church on earth, including every Pope, Bishop, Saint, Doctor, and Father of the Church put together, has not reached to its full depth or breadth.

Everyone has ample opportunity in the life for sanctifying grace from God, even those who have rejected the Catholic faith, provided that their rejection of Catholicism, though an objective mortal sin, is still not an actual mortal sin. Also, even those guilty of rejecting Catholicism to the extent of an actual mortal sin might repent through a substantial selfless act of love and mercy toward others and so find sanctifying grace without becoming Catholic.

And as to formal heretics, most Catholics today are formal heretics, only they do not know it. Any of us might have believed something that is contrary to the true Catholic faith, through a misunderstanding that might even be partially culpable, yet we are still saved.

Only those heretics who are culpable to the extent of an actual mortal sin are among those who lose salvation, unless they repent. And their repentance may be implicit.

Ron Conte

 

[USMC]

Mystical Baptism is any non-formal baptism, including, but not limited to, the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. This is a proposition of speculative theology, based on Scripture and the infinite mercy of God.

But you didn’t answer my question: Did you make up “mystical baptism”? If not, provide a church document that teaches it. If there are none, then admit that you made it up.

The idea that the Catholic faith is entirely known and understood, so that there are no new truths, implicit in the deposit of faith, to be discovered by faith and reason, is a false idea which reduces the ineffable Divine truths of the faith to a set of propositions each entirely knowable by the human mind.

Once again. I don’t think you understand the Catholic faith. Certianly, true principles can be deduced, by applying the teachings of the Church; but no knew doctrines can ever be taught. The purpose of the Church, and the Pope, is not to revealed new doctrines, but to guard the deposit of faith (that body of doctrines) handed down from the apostles. That was explicitly taught at Vatican I:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: “For, the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

In truth, the deposit of Faith is like a vast ocean of truth, and the entire Church on earth, including every Pope, Bishop, Saint, Doctor, and Father of the Church put together, has not reached to its full depth or breadth.

Once again, this statement was condemned by Vatican I. The Catholic faith is that body of doctrine that was passed on by the apostles, not a system of belief that is to be perfected by human intelligence.

First Vatican Council: “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" (Ch. 4)

Everyone has ample opportunity in the life for sanctifying grace from God, **even those who have rejected the Catholic faith, **provided that their rejection of Catholicism, though an objective mortal sin, is still not an actual mortal sin.

Without the Catholic faith it is impossible to have sanctifying grace - “without faith it is impossible to please God”. And, needless to say, a person who rejects the Catholic faith does not have the Catholic faith.

And as to formal heretics, most Catholics today are formal heretics, only they do not know it.

Then they aren’t formal heretics. To be a formal heretic one has to knowingly reject a dogma. I agree most Catholics today are heretics, but probably not formal heretics (although many may be).

Any of us might have believed something that is contrary to the true Catholic faith, through a misunderstanding that might even be partially culpable, yet we are still saved.

You have prooved that by your above statements.

Only those heretics who are culpable to the extent of an actual mortal sin are among those who lose salvation, unless they repent. And their repentance may be implicit.

Ron Conte

Only those culpable of sin agianst faith are heretics, true. But without faith it is impossible to please God. Remember, we are not born into the world in the state of grace. To obtain the state of grace, the Catholic faith is necessary.

If a person is not guilty of formal heresy it does not follow that they are in the state of grace. That would only apply if we were born into this world justified, which we aren’t.

We unfortunately are not born into the world in a state of grace; the only way to attain it is to first obtain supernatural faith.

 

[Ron_Conte]

But you didn’t answer my question: Did you make up “mystical baptism”? If not, provide a church document that teaches it. If there are none, then admit that you made it up.

Mystical baptism is a term I use in my speculative theology. However, I am not the first to use this term. The idea, as I propose it, is my understanding of truths that I believe are implicit in the deposit of faith. I cannot truly say that I made up the idea, since I discern it from the deposit of faith. But it is my speculative theology.

Mystical baptism refers to all non-formal Baptisms, so it includes the Baptism of Blood and the Baptism of Desire, which has been taught by the Church.

You seem to suggest that all Church teachings are found in the documents of the Magisterium. In my opinion, there are many truths of the Faith not yet taught explicitly by the Magisterium, truths implicit in Tradition and Scripture.

Ron Conte

 

[USMC]

Mystical baptism is a term I use in my speculative theology. However, I am not the first to use this term. The idea, as I propose it, is my understanding of truths that I believe are implicit in the deposit of faith. I cannot truly say that I made up the idea, since I discern it from the deposit of faith. But it is my speculative theology.

Mystical baptism refers to all non-formal Baptisms, so it includes the Baptism of Blood and the Baptism of Desire, which has been taught by the Church.

You seem to suggest that all Church teachings are found in the documents of the Magisterium. In my opinion, there are many truths of the Faith not yet taught explicitly by the Magisterium, truths implicit in Tradition and Scripture.

Ron Conte

I know you don’t realize it, but you are on a very dangerous intellectual path. You seem to be seeking the unknown, or the implicit, while at the same time you reject the known and explicit.

You seem to be tempted by the desire for novelty, through an unchecked curiosity. Interestingly, this, combined with intellectual pride, is preciely what Pius X said was the cause of modernism. Have you ever read the encyclical pascendi by Pope St. Pius X? In it, he condemns the way of thinking of the modernimst, which, like your manner of thinking, is way too subjective, to the point of rejecting the objective. He said that modernism is the synthesis of all heresy, which it is. Modernism results in a denial of virtually all objective truth, based on an over emphasis on the subjective.

The truth taught by the Church is not enough for the modernists. Therefore, through pride they seek subtle implicit truths in the hope of gaining a knowledge that the Saints and Doctors did not possess.

It would be better for you to read the documents of the Council of Trent and allow them to form your faith. And also the enclyclical pascendi, so that you can see the errors of the modernists clearly condemned.

But, if you read pascendi, be sure to sit down in a quiet place and be prepared to read it very carefully and slowly. It is not the easiest encyclical to grasp, but it is quite good, and very timely.

 

[Alchemist]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

 

[USMC]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

I just read the link. Interestingly, the only quotes provided were those which allow for the exception to the general rule.

There are only three such statements available before the Council (that I am aware of), which teach of the “exception” due to invincible ignorance. He quoted two of them in the link.

On the contrary, there are literally hundreds that teach, not the exception, but the rule - that there is no salvation outside the Church - and he did not include one of them?

Why so much focus on the exception due to invincible ignorance, and absolutely no mention of the rule?

What if a person was to focus exclusively on ways in which abortion was not a mortal sin (a person was forced, they were too young to know it was wrong, etc.), and never mentioned that abortion was a mortal sin? It would result in a general watering down of the sin of abortion.

That is what we see today with the doctrine no salvation outside the Church. Sure, the Church has allowed for exceptions to teh general rule, but there has been so much focus on these exceptions that the rule itself is now flatly denied.

 

[Odell]

USMC

Does the bible not say that charity is a gift of the spirit. Than how can you not see the holy spirit in a Hindo who cares for the pore. That is God working threw the Hindo if they realize it or not. Now there is no salvation away from Jesus but where you find the spirit you find Jesus also. So how do you not see Jesus working threw that particular Hindo. How can someone be condemn but at the same time have Jesus working threw them. Also isnt faith a gift of the spirit? How can we judge someone who has not been given a gift from God yet?

Just some thoughts to consider.

 

[Vigis]

People have misinterpreted the statement that “All outside the Catholic Church can not be saved”. Vatican II has clarified this very much. All Christians are of the body of Christ. The word catholic means “universal”. What the pope was actually saying was that no one outside the body of Christ can be saved. They can not be saved without Christ. Buddha, Allah, or Vishnu do not save people. Christ saves people. I hope this helps you to understand better. God speed.

Have I not clearly explained this. The statement “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” is true, but misinterpreted. God speed.

 

[USMC]

USMC

Does the bible not say that charity is a gift of the spirit.

Actually, charity is another name for sanctifying grace. In other words, charity is not only a gift of the spirit, it is the Holy Spirit within us.

Than how can you not see the holy spirit in a Hindo who cares for the pore. That is God working threw the Hindo if they realize it or not.

Hindus may do thinks things that are called “charitible”, but they do not possess true charity (which is the indwelling Holy Spirit). Actually, Hindu’s don’t do many things that are charitable. Their false religion considers people with diseases or some other malady as a punishment from God, and tells them not to help such people. They allow them to rot on the streets… but that is beside the point.

Your point was this: God gives actual grace to all men, which prompts them to do good and avoid evil. If a person follows that actual grace, they are thereby obeying God. I think that was your point. Unfortately, following the movements of actual grace is not enough. To be saved a person must also, in addition to following the movements of actual grace, possess sanctifying grace, which Hindu’s, and members of other religions don’t have.

Now there is no salvation away from Jesus but where you find the spirit you find Jesus also. So how do you not see Jesus working threw that particular Hindo. How can someone be condemn but at the same time have Jesus working threw them. Also isnt faith a gift of the spirit? How can we judge someone who has not been given a gift from God yet?

Just some thoughts to consider.

I think I answer that last part above. Some people may indeed follow the movements of actual grace which God sends to all men; but simply following those graces, which even satanists receive, is not enough. To be saved, it is necessary to have sanctifying grace, which gives a supernatural life to the soul, not merely a movement to the will; and without the Catholic faith it is impossible to have sanctifying grace. The Catholic faith is called the “foundation” of the supernatural life. No foundation (faith), no grace.

What I have written is what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

To be saved, it is necessary to have sanctifying grace, which gives a supernatural life to the soul, not merely a movement to the will; and without the Catholic faith it is impossible to have sanctifying grace. The Catholic faith is called the “foundation” of the supernatural life. No foundation (faith), no grace.

What I have written is what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

I kind of hope that this is not the case otherwise you’d be the unhappy situation of contradicting Saint Paul’s teaching on the salvation of those outside the Church.

The fact is that people who have never experienced the grace of knowing the Catholic faith in their lives may be saved. So please, please, USMC, tone down the rhetoric and do not teach anything which contradicts the New Testament or you may be guilty, as Saint John says in his Epistle, “of bringing another message.”

My own Church, the Orthodox Church, follows the teaching of Saint Paul and he speaks about this matter:
“…for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
Romans 2:14-16

 

[amoxoxoma]

Not to hijack the thread… but I have a question about infallibility.

Are all the pronouncements of all the Councils of the Church considered infallible? What does the Church teach about this?

If so, will someone please explain to me Canon 3 from Lateran IV where secular authorities are admonished, under the threat of excommunication, to exterminate (or expel, depending on the translation) all heretics. piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm#On%20Heretics

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

How is this any more just than the Islamic law about death to apostates?

Also, what about Canons 68 and 69, which require special clothing for Jews and Saracens and deny public office to Jews.

 

[USMC]

I kind of hope that this is not the case otherwise you’d be the unhappy situation of contradicting Saint Paul’s teaching on the salvation of those outside the Church.

The fact is that people who have never experienced the grace of knowing the Catholic faith in their lives may be saved. So please, please, USMC, tone down the rhetoric and do not teach anything which contradicts the New Testament or you may be guilty, as Saint John says in his Epistle, “of bringing another message.”

My own Church, the Orthodox Church, follows the teaching of Saint Paul and he speaks about this matter:
“…for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
Romans 2:14-16

Indeed, we all have a conscience and all receive actual grace to help us discern right from wrong. However, obeying our conscience is not enough. Faith is necessary for salvation.

The good thing about being a Catholic is that we have more than just our fallible interpretation of the Bible to guide us. We also have the infallible declarations of the Pope and the infallible decrees of Councils. And the Council of Trent infallibly defined the verse in the Bible which says “without faith is it IMPOSSIBLE to please God”, to mean “without the Catholic Faith it is impossible to please God”.

This is nothing new, since even the Athanasian Creed from the 4th century reads, in part: "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".

And let us not forget the quote I provided earlier from Pope Gregory XVI:

Pope Gregory XVI: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholoc Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. … But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies” (Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832).

My “rhetoric” is what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, and defined as a dogma of the faith. Why don’t you stop pretending and admit it?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

My “rhetoric” is what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, and defined as a dogma of the faith. Why don’t you stop pretending and admit it?

Because all the modern Popes and 99% of Roman Catholics disagree with you.

You are holding to papal teachings which originated in the Medieval Ages and the modern Church has abandoned them (creatively reinterpreted them, if you prefer.) The programme has changed. The teaching has changed. I know that all of what you say was de fide in previous centuries but it isn’t now.

 

[USMC]

Not to hijack the thread… but I have a question about infallibility.

Are all the pronouncements of all the Councils of the Church considered infallible? What does the Church teach about this?

All doctrinal statements of a General Council, which have been ratified by the Pope, are infallible. This applies, however, only to the particular dogmatic decrees, which usually end with the words “let him be anathema”.

The disciplinary decrees which end in the words “let him be anathema”, since they are not dogmatic in nature, are reformable and not protected by infallibility.

If so, will someone please explain to me Canon 3 from Lateran IV where secular authorities are admonished, under the threat of excommunication, to exterminate (or expel, depending on the translation) all heretics. piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm#On%20Heretics

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

How is this any more just than the Islamic law about death to apostates?

Heresy is a serious offence against God. In the Catholic state, heresy was usually punished by death, just as our society sometimes punishes a murder by death. Whereas a murderer only kills the body, a heretic kills the soul. Therefore, much more appropriate is it to put a heretic to death to protect the innocent, than a murder who can only kill the body (that is almost word for word what St. Thomas says in the Summa).

Just as murder (which is a violation of the 5th commandment) is against the laws of our State, so to heresy (which is a violation of the 1st commandment) was against the law in a Catholic Country.

Also, what about Canons 68 and 69, which require special clothing for Jews and Saracens and deny public office to Jews.

These would certainly not be infallible since they are not dealing with a doctrinal matter.

 

[USMC]

"USMC:

My “rhetoric” is what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, and defined as a dogma of the faith. Why don’t you stop pretending and admit it?

Because all the **modern Popes **and 99% of Roman Catholics disagree with you.

You are holding to papal teachings which originated in the Medieval Ages and the modern Church has abandoned them (creatively reinterpreted them, if you prefer.) The programme has changed. The teaching has changed. I know that all of what you say was de fide in previous centuries but it isn’t now.

Let me requote your last sentence: “I know that all of what you say was de fide in previous centuries but it isn’t now”.

Thank you for your honesty. But the truth does not change, and de fide dogmas are irreformable.

This is what the First Vatican Council said about de fide pronouncements:

Vatican I: "Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable".

The de fide pronouncements of the Popes and councils ARE the Catholic faith. If most today reject them, either through ignorance or some other reason, that is their concern. God willing, I will hold to them till my dying day.

The only error in your post is that the teachings did not originate in the middle ages. They have been taught since the time Our Lord said “if he will not hear the Church, let him be a heathen”.

Here’s one quote from St. Augustine to back up that statement:

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

You said that modern Popes and 99% of Catholics have rejected the past de fide pronouncements. Without admitting that the modern Popes have indeed done that, I will just say that the fact that they have led you to believe they have shows why the Catholic Church is going through the crisis that it is.

I, on the other hand, care too much about you and everyone else to lie to you, or mislead you through flowery and ambiguous words. I will continue to believe and defend what the Church has always taught and defined as true, for the sake of the few who still care.