Perfidious Non-Catholics?

[notself]

Bubba, Raphinal,

Catholics appear to live in a constant state of confusion over what the Church teaches at any given time. It is much like trying to understand the US tax code.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Bubba, Raphinal,

Catholics appear to live in a constant state of confusion over what the Church teaches at any given time. It is much like trying to understand the US tax code.

They’re not confused as to the teaching. They are confused as to why they should get out of their own way and accept the truth as taught.

That’s why ongoing catechesis is required. Constant conversion is what being a Catholic is all about.

:shamrock2:

 

[MarcoPolo]

Let me help clarify what is a heretic, as there seems to be some misunderstanding.

In order to be culpable of heresy, one must be aware of the trueness of the Catholic faith from which they depart doctrinally. Traditionally, you can see a good definition from Thomas Aquinas:

The heretical tenets may be adhered to from involuntary causes: inculpable ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas. In none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore, one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely subjective or material.
In other words, if you are honest in not understanding the Catholic faith as the true faith, you are not guilty of heresy.

Also from Catholic Answers:
A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
So if you honestly don’t recognize the Catholic Church as THE Church in the first place, you cannot be guilty of heresy against it.

 

[notself]

They’re not confused as to the teaching. They are confused as to why they should get out of their own way and accept the truth as taught.

That’s why ongoing catechesis is required. Constant conversion is what being a Catholic is all about.

:shamrock2:

Buddhism is all about constant practice.

 

[ralphinal]

Bubba, Raphinal,

Catholics appear to live in a constant state of confusion over what the Church teaches at any given time. It is much like trying to understand the US tax code.

Any time a Catholic is confused, they should consult the CCC.

It is just that simple.

However, as humans, they decide that they are right no matter what.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Let me be perfectly frank: I’m having a real hard time squaring that circle. I’ve read the Catechism before and never gave it much thought until I saw Eugene’s quote.

Since the Pope here does not specify all the methods by which one can be joined to the Catholic Church, I see no circle to be squared.

In fact, if you read all of Cantate Domino, you will see the context of your quotation placed in contrast with salvation through the Old Covenant, like circumcision, or sacrifice to pagan gods. It is this what is meant by Jews or pagans trying to be saved in means other than Christ. Also given are a number of examples, by name, of heretics who have abandoned the faith. The Church teaches the same today as did Eugene IV.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Since the Pope here does not specify all the methods by which one can be joined to the Catholic Church, I see no circle to be squared.

Pope Eugine does not seem to be saying anything like, “unless I am mistaken about who is joined”. He seems to be listing who is not joined and then allowing for conversion before death. (If he were allowing joining without conversion he would not have needed to add “before the end of their lives” since presumably Jews are Jewish already.)

In fact, if you read all of Cantate Domino, you will see the context of your quotation placed in contrast with salvation through the Old Covenant, like circumcision, or sacrifice to pagan gods. It is this what is meant by Jews or pagans.

Please elaborate on this. I didn’t find what you were referring to in the document or didn’t understand your point here.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Pope Eugene IV was speaking to an audience in need of motivation to be Catholic, and he used the common tactic of “us versus them”…But he didn’t tell the whole truth, because what they needed to hear was the simple fact that if they LEAVE the Church they will be damned.

I don’t discount the historical context, though he predated the Prostestant Reformation so I’m not sure what the crisis was at the time.

 

[Binary]

So, basically, the argument is that he was mistaken in his (apparent) belief that Jews were going to hell because he did not take account of the fact that they are mysteriously joined to the Church already (having nothing to do with anything they do during their lives to move toward the Church)?

That does seem a stretch.

Not exactly. Doctrine gets added on to as time goes by. I’m saying that back then, Catholics were unaware of the baptisms of blood and desire as mechanisms of grace.

I don’t think that these mechanisms are incomprehensibly mysterious. People who seek Truth seek God. People who move towards Truth move towards God. People who strive to serve Good strive to serve God, whether they have a different name for God, or even if they have never heard of Him.

Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, pagans, etc. who are all seeking to serve a goodness higher than their own wants and desires are, at a fundamental level, united in purpose. Non-catholics may find the statement condescending, but they may very well be Catholic (by virtue of their desire to do good) without being aware of it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Not exactly. Doctrine gets added on to as time goes by. I’m saying that back then, Catholics were unaware of the baptisms of blood and desire as mechanisms of grace.

So how was this discovered? What is the theological basis of it? (And if it’s well founded, why can’t the Church just say, Eugene was mistaken.)

I don’t think that these mechanisms are incomprehensibly mysterious. People who seek Truth seek God. People who move towards Truth move towards God. People who strive to serve Good strive to serve God, whether they have a different name for God, or even if they have never heard of him.
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, pagans, etc. who are all seeking to serve a goodness higher than their own wants and desires are, at a fundamental level, united in purpose. Non-catholics may find the statement condescending, but they may very well be Catholic (by virtue of their desire to do good) without being aware of it.

This is a wonderful, ecuminical ideal. I genuinely hope that it is true and I am proud that the CC is thinking in this direction. So don’t get me wrong, I’m not wishing for Jews to go to hell.

But it does seem like a revision of doctrine.

 

[Wonderboo]

So I’ll admit, I’m a bit confused, not by the answer I"m going to give, I’m good with that, but by a lot of what is being said. That being the case, I’m just going to try and answer the question as it was first asked and hope I"m being helpful:

Until Vatican One the Pope did not have what we have come to call Papal Infallibility. Yes, when the Pope spoke people listened but it was more from the point of view of either a king telling you to jump or your dad giving advice, neither is religiously binding at the end of the day. Councils of the Church, the ecumenical kind, are the ones who’s teachings can be claimed infallible. Therefore, in 1441 the pope did not speak infallibly in the truest understanding so Vatican Two’s teachings can still be understood to be the truth.
The question then is why did the Pope say those things, and all the usual answers apply, context. The pope wanted to rally people to the Church for any number of reasons, good and bad and yes he used his authority to do that. However, when we go and study papal and church teachings, this is not one of those things you must believe… Vatican Two on the other hand…

Hoped I helped

 

[Binary]

So how was this discovered? What is the theological basis of it? (And if it’s well founded, why can’t the Church just say, Eugene was mistaken.)

This is a wonderful, ecuminical ideal. I genuinely hope that it is true and I am proud that the CC is thinking in this direction. So don’t get me wrong, I’m not wishing for Jews to go to hell.

But it does seem like a revision of doctrine.

The general answer of where it came from is Karl Rahner. He’s the one who came up with the phrase “anonymous Christian,” and it was an idea that had a huge impact on Vatican 2. I don’t know if he wrote a book about it, so I can’t explain more about the theological basis for it.

Yes, on the surface it does seem like a revision of doctrine. I’ll give an example that hopefully is analogous to this situation.

Suppose a group of people are on a sidewalk at a red light at an intersection. Suppose also that opposing traffic is very heavy, that red lights last for a very long time, and that none of the people on the sidewalk have seen an intersection before. One of them says “Nobody can cross through this intersection without being struck, unless the flow of traffic stops.” Sometime later, another member of the group finds the “push here to cross” button, and presses it. The flow of traffic stops, and the people cross.

Now, the initial statement made is still correct, but people who have seen an intersection would find it a strange thing to say. And so we, looking back across hundreds of years at this pope’s statement, find no factual fault in it, but still said in an odd language, given what we know now.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The general answer of where it came from is Karl Rahner. He’s the one who came up with the phrase “anonymous Christian,” and it was an idea that had a huge impact on Vatican 2. I don’t know if he wrote a book about it, so I can’t explain more about the theological basis for it.

This is new to me but I can certainly see where VatII drew on it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

Yes, on the surface it does seem like a revision of doctrine. I’ll give an example that hopefully is analogous to this situation…
Now, the initial statement made is still correct, but people who have seen an intersection would find it a strange thing to say. And so we, looking back across hundreds of years at this pope’s statement, find no factual fault in it, but still said in an odd language, given what we know now.

And…

Until Vatican One the Pope did not have what we have come to call Papal Infallibility. …However, when we go and study papal and church teachings, this is not one of those things you must believe… Vatican Two on the other hand…

Ok, I’m not 100% satisfied but I can see that the truth is probably somewhere in there…somewhere. Maybe Pope Eugene said something which was factually true, though not in the way that he thought it was, or else he was not speaking infallibly. Either way, we should let VatII supercede the apparant narrow doctrine that Pope Eugine set forward.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Buddhism is all about constant practice.

Buddhism is all about constant practice of the (generally) wrong things.

Why practice the wrong things, when they simply get you to the wrong place?

But then, we’re talking about “perfidious” non-Catholics, and not about simply deluded oblivion seekers. If you’re certain you’ve got your necessary “invincible ignorance” in your pocket, best of luck with that, since knowing what “invincible ignorance” means most likely means you haven’t got it, in your pocket of anywhere else.

:shamrock2:

 

[notself]

Buddhism is all about constant practice of the (generally) wrong things.

Why practice the wrong things, when they simply get you to the wrong place?

But then, we’re talking about “perfidious” non-Catholics, and not about simply deluded oblivion seekers. If you’re certain you’ve got your necessary “invincible ignorance” in your pocket, best of luck with that, since knowing what “invincible ignorance” means most likely means you haven’t got it, in your pocket of anywhere else.

:shamrock2:

I appologize for upsetting you. It was not my intent.

 

[Wonderboo]

This is new to me but I can certainly see where VatII drew on it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

And…

Ok, I’m not 100% satisfied but I can see that the truth is probably somewhere in there…somewhere. Maybe Pope Eugene said something which was factually true, though not in the way that he thought it was, or else he was not speaking infallibly. Either way, we should let VatII supercede the apparant narrow doctrine that Pope Eugine set forward.

So not to muddy the point even more but I feel it must be said and you take it or leave it :
The fact of Church teaching, when one weeds out the politics, not always easy to do I know, has always been that one need not be Roman Catholic to go to heaven. The problem is that for longer then not the Church has been political and so one must wade through the politics. This is one of those times when I feel we can safely say that Pope Eugine was being political.
Allow me the plug:
This is why it is so fundamentally important that one understands history (that is not to say that anyone here is dumb or clueless or anything like that) so that one can put it in its proper context. I applaud you for asking the question and trying to find the answer and I hope we’ve all helped or at least served to prove that historically and even in the Church’s theology the answer is hardly as clear as we’d like

 

[Eugene_v]

It bears pointing out that just being wrong or mistaken does not make you a heretic–a Baptized person who is wrong, but not a heretic is still united to the Church. There has to be a spirit of obstinant resistance or neglect of truth. It also bears pointing out, although it may be obvious, that simply being ignorant does not make one automatically saved.

This implies that the preson is a "heretic’ because of Ignorance, which makes them what is commonly called “Material Heretics” in that they do not occur Excommunication, but Material Heresy requires the person be willing to change his/her mind when their falsehood is pointed out to them.

 

[GKC]

The general answer of where it came from is Karl Rahner. He’s the one who came up with the phrase “anonymous Christian,” and it was an idea that had a huge impact on Vatican 2. I don’t know if he wrote a book about it, so I can’t explain more about the theological basis for it.

Yes, on the surface it does seem like a revision of doctrine. I’ll give an example that hopefully is analogous to this situation.

Suppose a group of people are on a sidewalk at a red light at an intersection. Suppose also that opposing traffic is very heavy, that red lights last for a very long time, and that none of the people on the sidewalk have seen an intersection before. One of them says “Nobody can cross through this intersection without being struck, unless the flow of traffic stops.” Sometime later, another member of the group finds the “push here to cross” button, and presses it. The flow of traffic stops, and the people cross.

Now, the initial statement made is still correct, but people who have seen an intersection would find it a strange thing to say. And so we, looking back across hundreds of years at this pope’s statement, find no factual fault in it, but still said in an odd language, given what we know now.

The idea can also be found, in a slightly different form, in Lewis’ THE LAST BATTLE.

GKC

 

[Genesis315]

A similar idea can be found in the revelations given to St. Bridget of Sweden in the 1300s (approved by Pope Boniface IX). In a couple of them Christ speaks of those Jews and even pagans who, in good faith, desire to serve Him with charity, willing to live according to the truth if only they knew it. He calls them “secret Christians.”

Now, as a private revelation it is not enough to establish dogma, but at the most it confirms it and at the least it is evidence of acceptable belief in that time period.

 

[Eugene_v]

Okay friends, I believe I can quickly answer this:

What I posted by Pope Eugene IV is the longtime teaching of the Church. This is going to be a long post of quotes so bear with me:
(NOTE: I am only quoting Popes and, maybe, Councils, because this is a Church matter not scriptural)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non‐exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“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.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non‐exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra:
“This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra:
“This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

This is 8 Popes and 6 Councils that all say you must be Catholic to be saved. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

Not for Jews, not for Hindu’s, not for Muslims, and not for Protestants. They all reject Christ, either in all of his teachings or what He says in Matthew 16:

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

And if you still do not believe me, here is the teaching, specifically, of the Council of Trent (which, as we know, took place just about the time of the Protestant Revolute):

The Council of Trent
Article IX, Part I.
Issued by order of Pope Pius V
Resource: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed09.htm

" The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic; that is, universal. And justly is she called Catholic, because, as St. Augustine says, she is diffused by the splendour of one faith from the rising to the setting sun."

Unlike states of human institution, or the sects of heretics, she is not confined to any one country or class of men, but embraces within the amplitude of her love all mankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or freemen, male or female. Therefore it is written: Thou . . . hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us to our God a kingdom. Speaking of the Church, David says: Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession; and also, I will be mindful of Rahab and of Babylon knowing me; and man is born in her.

Moreover to this Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time; all of whom are founded and raised upon the one cornerstone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near and to them that are far.

She is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood… This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church. "

I dearly hope this helps all of you, for confusion is the work of the Devil.

GOD BLESS ALL

Chester Eugene Taylor,
“Eugene_V_”