Perfidious Non-Catholics?

[Dauphin]

There’s alot of confusion on this thread.

The teaching quoted by the OP (Cantate Domino, from the 11th Session of the Council of Florence) is infallible, because it forms part of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.

Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, states:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith."* (n. 25)

Clearly, the statement contained in the first post is an exercise of this Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It expounds something which has always been present in the deposit of faith and has been taught and believed universally since apostolic times. It would be a falsification of history to suggest that there was anything short of unanimity on this doctrine on the part of the Church’s Bishops at the Council of Florence. There is no doubt whatsoever concerning the infallibility of this teaching.

Since it forms part of the Church’s Infallible Magisterium, this means that it is irreformable. It cannot be superceded by any subsequent act of the Magisterium.

Another misunderstanding that begs correction is the idea that pagans, animists, atheists etc. could be saved if they laboured under invincible ignorance. This is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the Church, which states that the existence of God is knowable with certainty from reason alone and is a belief necessary for salvation.

People innocently ignorant Catholic doctrine can be saved if they acknowledge the one God, obey the Natural Law which He has inscribed on the conscience of each man, and do whatever is within their capacity to follow His will. Such people will receive a baptism of desire and be implicitly united to the Catholic Church.

 

[NonCatholic]

Corrections to previous post - ran out of editing time.

Well, you’re absolutely wrong. Mormons know “with certainty” that their religion is true and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. **This is the problem with religions that have revelation and traditions outside of Scripture - opens up a nasty can of worms…doesn’t it?**Muslims know “with certainty” that Islam is the only true religion and that Mohammad was the greatest and last prophet. Another good example of revelation way outside of Scripture.

Your “certainty” means nothing. **I wish you could experience this great joy, a blessing from the Lord! **Furthermore, you are committing the sin of presumption by presuming that you are going to heaven, **No such thing - did you make that up?**instead of obeying all the commands of Christ and His Apostles No one will be in Heaven by that standard, have you ever studied the Beatitudes? - you just condemned the whole world including yourself - no thanks-not for me.–including being part of the one, true Catholic Church - **why would I want to do that; I already belong to the body of believers, the true church - founded on the day of Pentecost…praise God! **founded by Him–and “working out your salvation with fear and trembling” **This is in reference to sanctification - the work of God - not man. **like St. Paul said.

Either I’m correct and you are wrong…that’s also a possibility… I can show from Scripture my position on certainty…your position would be impossible to show from Scripture. I am a Christian, with a personal Savior named Jesus Christ. Who is it that saves you? I invite you to the Lord Jesus, the only Savior who takes away the sin of all those who repent of their sins and turn to Him in meekness and humility and ask Him into your heart.

God bless you!

 

[notself]

**If the CCC is to be rejected, the logic that allows that is powerless to hinder others rejecing other Catholic documents as equally inadequate. This leads to the fragmentation of the Church & its faith into as many secticules as there are men to find its authentic teaching not to their liking. A refusal of the CCC as what it is, a teaching document of the CC, is inadvisable in the extreme; it leads to one inconsistency after another. So it is far better in the long run, though often very painful, to live with difficulties; but life is like that. **

I joined this board because the beliefs of others regarding religion are very interesting to me. One learns more about how an individual thinks on religious boards then on any other type of board. I did not expect to find that Catholics as a whole are so divided on what they think as Catholics. I did not expect to see the inconsistencies in teachings and beliefs that I see here.

As much as I enjoy discussing religion, there is an undertone of real anger and even disgust between the posters here. I truly mean no disrespect when I say this. I think this One True Church concept is driving everyone a little nuts because everyone has a different idea of what the Church teaches. Because each person wants to conform to the truth, anyone who disagrees is somehow perfidious, apostate, heretical, wrong, damned. There are even Catholics on this board that believe there has been no valid pope since Pius X.

These divisions between Catholics show up in my family’s parish. There is a significant group of people who are teaching religious classes to their children because they feel the nuns and priests do not teach correctly. What is happening in a religion where the members do not even trust their ordained members?

I don’t remember it being this way when I was a Catholic. Has it always been this way or has it fractured in the past 40 or so years? I left around the time of Vatican II.

 

[Dauphin]

I joined this board because the beliefs of others regarding religion are very interesting to me. One learns more about how an individual thinks on religious boards then on any other type of board. I did not expect to find that Catholics as a whole are so divided on what they think as Catholics. I did not expect to see the inconsistencies in teachings and beliefs that I see here.

Boards of this sort tend to attract dissidents who are looking for an argument, and who are particularly passionate about their point of view; it would be wrong to expect it to mirror the general Catholic population.

The Catholic teaching is objective and clear for anyone who cares to investigate it (if anything, the Church is often accused of defining things too clearly, and not leaving much room for mystery). Matters of discipline, however, are generally open to debate among Catholics.

Catholics are permitted to exercise critical thought, as long as their questions and criticisms are designed to arrive at and submit to the genuine teaching.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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:

As recently as the 1950s, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical (Mystici Corporis) where he warned against those who turn the doctrine of No Salvation outside the Catholic Church into a “meaningless formula”. And those who do try to put a “spin” on this doctrine like most of the posters here do turn it into a mere meaningless formula!..There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church–and yes, that means exactly what it looks like.

Since it forms part of the Church’s Infallible Magisterium, this means that it is irreformable. It cannot be superceded by any subsequent act of the Magisterium.

So is it your contention that the post-Vatican II Church teaching on this subject is in error?

 

[Dauphin]

So is it your contention that the post-Vatican II Church teaching on this subject is in error?

Of course not! The Church’s modern teaching may have a different flavour, but it is simply a re-iteration of the Church’s perennial teaching.

You won’t find the modern catechism saying that heretics, schismatics, pagans, or Jews can be saved. It simply emphasizes and repeats the constant teaching that those innocently ignorant of Catholic doctrine can be saved if they acknowledge God and do His will within the best of their knowledge, thus receiving a baptism of desire and being united to the Church implicitly.

People who see a contradiction are most often those who want to see one, or who have previously been given the false impression that the Church has officially “revised” her doctrine.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You won’t find the modern catechism saying that heretics, schismatics, pagans, or Jews can be saved. It simply emphasizes and repeats the constant teaching that those innocently ignorant of Catholic doctrine can be saved if they acknowledge God and do His will within the best of their knowledge, thus receiving a baptism of desire and being united to the Church implicitly

Never mind everything else, for the moment, these two sentences seem to contradict each other. If, say, a Jew acknowledges God and does God’s will within the best of his knowledge (as any good Jew would) then he receives his “baptism of desire” and that mysteriously implicit union with the Church. Thus modern catechism is saying that a Jew can be saved. And why shouldn’t this work for Protestants too?

(And, for the sake of clarity, let’s just say “saved” means avoiding hell allowing for the possibility of time in purgatory.)

 

[notself]

Boards of this sort tend to attract dissidents who are looking for an argument, and who are particularly passionate about their point of view; it would be wrong to expect it to mirror the general Catholic population.

The Catholic teaching is objective and clear for anyone who cares to investigate it (if anything, the Church is often accused of defining things too clearly, and not leaving much room for mystery). Matters of discipline, however, are generally open to debate among Catholics.

Catholics are permitted to exercise critical thought, as long as their questions and criticisms are designed to arrive at and submit to the genuine teaching.

This thread is about the core of Catholic Dogma. Other threads dispute whether the Popes since Pious X are actually valid. There are serious disputes. The disputes in the parish my family attends that are just as serious.

I am not criticizing the Church. I am merely stating what I see and read.

 

[Dauphin]

Never mind everything else, for the moment, these two sentences seem to contradict each other. If, say, a Jew acknowledges God and does God’s will within the best of his knowledge (as any good Jew would) then he receives his “baptism of desire” and that mysteriously implicit union with the Church. Thus modern catechism is saying that a Jew can be saved. And why shouldn’t this work for Protestants too?

(And, for the sake of clarity, let’s just say “saved” means avoiding hell allowing for the possibility of time in purgatory.)

In saying “Jews cannot be saved”, the Council of Florence does not mean “no person of the Jewish race can be saved”. This would be an absurd interpretation, since it would mean that the Apostles were not saved.

Instead, what the Council of Florence is referring to is Jews who have rejected the new covenant and adhere to the old, still awaiting the Messiah.

If a someone of the Jewish race were to exist in innocent ignorance of Christ and His Church, then they could certainly be saved. There’s nothing “mysterious” about their union with the Church - it’s simply implicit. You must understand that this applies only to the innocently ignorant, not to the culpably ignorant or those who are aware of Christian revelation.

Another thing which is key to understand is that no heretic or schismatic can be saved. These are two fixed points you can be sure of which have been dogmatically defined. A heretic who thinks he’s doing God’s will doesn’t receive the “mysterious baptism of desire”. It applies only to the innocently ignorant.

 

[Dauphin]

This thread is about the core of Catholic Dogma.

Sure, but we are in the Non-Catholic area to be fair. This teaching always manages to get non-Catholics irate.

Other threads dispute whether the Popes since Pious X are actually valid.

You won’t find many of these, even on traditionalist forums. For example, Fisheaters.com bans discussion of the topic. They’re the smallest of minorities even within the traditional movement.

Most sedevacantists, by the way, reject the Popes Since Pius XII, not Pius X. Some will accept John XXIII who followed him, and some even reject Pius XII himself because of his Holy Week reforms. It’s very complex and absurd.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In saying “Jews cannot be saved”, the Council of Florence does not mean “no person of the Jewish race can be saved”. This would be an absurd interpretation, since it would mean that the Apostles were not saved. Instead, what the Council of Florence is referring to is Jews who have rejected the new covenant and adhere to the old, still awaiting the Messiah.

Right, I think we all understand here that by “Jews” we mean people who have rejected the new covenant and adhere to the old, still awaiting the Messiah and do not mean Catholic Jews (or even Jews who have a heart attack on their way to conversion).

If a someone of the Jewish race were to exist in innocent ignorance of Christ and His Church, then they could certainly be saved.

I doubt any person in western society can be said to be ignorant of Jesus but even most Catholics would have trouble quoting CCC chapter and verse.

There’s nothing “mysterious” about their union with the Church - it’s simply implicit.

Well, it’s an odd formulation to say that someone is in union by virtue of their ignorance of the thing they are in union with.

 

[Dauphin]

Right, I think we all understand here that by “Jews” we mean people who have rejected the new covenant and adhere to the old, still awaiting the Messiah and do not mean Catholic Jews (or even Jews who have a heart attack on their way to conversion).

Good. Then where’s the problem?

I doubt any person in western society can be said to be ignorant of Jesus but even most Catholics would have trouble quoting CCC chapter and verse.

In Western Society, it’s likely that the number of innocently ignorant would be very small.

Where confusion enters into this is when Catholics (with good intentions) attempt to expand the definition of “innocently ignorant” to all Protestants and Orthodox Christians who have any misconceptions about the Catholic faith. Needless to say, this goes far beyond what the Church has taught.

Some even say that atheists and pagans can be saved if innocently ignorant, as if God isn’t knowable from reason and belief in Him is unnecessary for salvation!

Well, it’s an odd formulation to say that someone is in union by virtue of their ignorance of the thing they are in union with.

They key is that, being moved by the grace of God, they would enter into an explicit communion with the Church if they could. If the truth were revealed to them and this didn’t happen, then it would be evidence that the person was never in an implicit communion.

It is not by virtue of their ignorance that they are in implicit communion, but by the grace of God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There’s alot of confusion on this thread.

The teaching quoted by the OP (Cantate Domino, from the 11th Session of the Council of Florence) is infallible, because it forms part of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.

Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, states:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith."* (n. 25)

Clearly, the statement contained in the first post is an exercise of this Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It expounds something which has always been present in the deposit of faith and has been taught and believed universally since apostolic times. It would be a falsification of history to suggest that there was anything short of unanimity on this doctrine on the part of the Church’s Bishops at the Council of Florence. There is no doubt whatsoever concerning the infallibility of this teaching.

Since it forms part of the Church’s Infallible Magisterium, this means that it is irreformable. It cannot be superceded by any subsequent act of the Magisterium.

Another misunderstanding that begs correction is the idea that pagans, animists, atheists etc. could be saved if they laboured under invincible ignorance. This is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the Church, which states that the existence of God is knowable with certainty from reason alone and is a belief necessary for salvation.

People innocently ignorant Catholic doctrine can be saved if they acknowledge the one God, obey the Natural Law which He has inscribed on the conscience of each man, and do whatever is within their capacity to follow His will. Such people will receive a baptism of desire and be implicitly united to the Catholic Church.

However, it is not the most recent teaching on the subject - it can’t trump the teaching of Pius IX in 1863, or that of V2 or of JP2. Or of the CCC.​

---

**FWIW, some of what you say in your post was much more fully developed after Florence than before - we can’t attribute to the Fathers at Florence (Eugenius IV included) all that we now believe or take for granted. **

 

[Dauphin]

However, it is not the most recent teaching on the subject - it can’t trump the teaching of Pius IX in 1863, or that of V2 or of JP2. Or of the CCC.​

---

Nobody needs to trump anyone here. It’s all perfectly reconcilable.

**

FWIW, some of what you say in your post was much more fully developed after Florence than before - we can’t attribute to the Fathers at Florence (Eugenius IV included) all that we now believe or take for granted.

**

The idea of baptism of desire far predates the Council of Florence. Even if we were to say that the teaching of the Catechism is newly defined, we can’t imply that what Florence said is somehow contradicted by it. It’s scandalous to set up one teaching document of the Church in opposition to another.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I joined this board because the beliefs of others regarding religion are very interesting to me. One learns more about how an individual thinks on religious boards then on any other type of board. I did not expect to find that Catholics as a whole are so divided on what they think as Catholics. I did not expect to see the inconsistencies in teachings and beliefs that I see here.

As much as I enjoy discussing religion, there is an undertone of real anger and even disgust between the posters here. I truly mean no disrespect when I say this. I think this One True Church concept is driving everyone a little nuts because everyone has a different idea of what the Church teaches. Because each person wants to conform to the truth, anyone who disagrees is somehow perfidious, apostate, heretical, wrong, damned. There are even Catholics on this board that believe there has been no valid pope since Pius X.

These divisions between Catholics show up in my family’s parish. There is a significant group of people who are teaching religious classes to their children because they feel the nuns and priests do not teach correctly. What is happening in a religion where the members do not even trust their ordained members?

**An excellent question, & a very shaming one too. My guess: it goes back to the clericalisation of the laity & the laification of the clergy after V2. So one now has the remarkable spectacle of laity who read a lot of the stuff that previously only the clergy would have read: moral theology, liturgy, canon law, Biblical exegesis. I think a “lay clericalism” is being formed - & side by side with it, a “Catholic Congregationalism”. And also, a sort of “Catholic Fundamentalism”. Fundamentalism is very anti-clerical; & a significant expression of this is its loathing of theologians; it has doctrines - but not a theology. Catholicism by contrast is a highly theological form of faith; it has been Fundamentalist in certain ways in the recent past, but in some crucial ways it thinks very differently from Fundamentalism - for example, it does not shut God up in the first century or so. Catholic Fundamentalism tends to shut him up in the Patristic era, which is actually a classically Anglican position. So the situation is full of ironies. **​

I don’t remember it being this way when I was a Catholic. Has it always been this way or has it fractured in the past 40 or so years? I left around the time of Vatican II.

It’s not new - merely more visible, thanks **to technology. The growth of an educated laity has had some curious results. The Ratzinger Report (1984) has something to say about this. **​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Right, I think we all understand here that by “Jews” we mean people who have rejected the new covenant and adhere to the old, still awaiting the Messiah and do not mean Catholic Jews (or even Jews who have a heart attack on their way to conversion).

I doubt any person in western society can be said to be ignorant of Jesus but even most Catholics would have trouble quoting CCC chapter and verse.

**Knowing about Christ is completely different from having justifying faith in Him. A lot of people have very sketchy ideas about Him - someone who thinks He was a good man unlucky enough to a come to a nasty end is quite capable of being ignorant of Him for all practical purposes. Having knowledge about Him can very well be a form of practical ignorance of Him - odd as that sounds, perhaps. IMO the best course is to leave all this to God, Who alone knows the hearts of men, & is more merciful than men are apt to be. If our own hearts are so perplexing to us, how can we know the states of the hearts of others whom we have not even met ? **​

Well, it’s an odd formulation to say that someone is in union by virtue of their ignorance of the thing they are in union with.

 

[notself]

## It’s not new - merely more visible, thanks **to technology. The growth of an educated laity has had some curious results. The Ratzinger Report (1984) has something to say about this. **​

It is very visible in my family’s parish. This group numbers about 100-200 adults in a parish of about 2000. The most conservative within this group do not approve of modern dress. The women and girls of this most conservative group tend to dress like Mennonites with dresses to the floor and scarf like caps on their heads in Church although some wear the caps all the time. They believe in a 6000 year old earth and home school their children. One of them told my grand-nephew that one cannot be a good Christian and go to public school. I don’t think the internet plays a big part in their lives; most of them have TV’s but use them only for DVDs. They do read all of the books and documents you mention and have very strong opinions.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nobody needs to trump anyone here. It’s all perfectly reconcilable.

I didn’t suggest otherwise Some do, however. (BTW, I hope the formatting is correct.)​

**

Dauphin:

The idea of baptism of desire far predates the Council of Florence. Even if we were to say that the teaching of the Catechism is newly defined, we can’t imply that what Florence said is somehow contradicted by it. It’s scandalous to set up one teaching document of the Church in opposition to another

**.

 

[NonCatholic]

So is it your contention that the post-Vatican II Church teaching on this subject is in error?

Just an FYI - this is a banned topic - I know I was once warned about it recently. But being you all are Catholic’s and I am not, then it may not apply. However, this is a topic I am interested in knowing more about because I have an Uncle that is from the “Latin rite”?.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In Western Society, it’s likely that the number of innocently ignorant would be very small.

Yes, this was my point: If innocently ignorant means exactly never having heard of Jesus or anything of the gospel then we can omit this from consideration.

Now I have not kept tight track of what each individual here has argued but I am under the impression that you are arguing that both being joined (in some fashion) and being innocent are required, as opposed to either/or.

Hence…

They key is that, being moved by the grace of God, they would enter into an explicit communion with the Church if they could. If the truth were revealed to them and this didn’t happen, then it would be evidence that the person was never in an implicit communion. It is not by virtue of their ignorance that they are in implicit communion, but by the grace of God.

This is not the first time I’ve heard this argument, it sounds very much like Calvinist predetermination. God chooses who will be saved and circumstances dictate how that salvation is expressed here on earth. Absent access to the Church, they are merely implicity joined. Strange.