M
mattwcu
Guest
Did I not say…
?
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
Actually you said it requires an act of perfect contrition, which may or may not be true. However your smug attitude speaks volumes. You must not be a convert, as it does not seem that you know any truly holy Protestants.
M
mattwcu
Guest
I never said “required”, and I think you know that. I mentioned they “may” make a perfect act of contrition. I have always maintained I did not know if Protestants are in heaven or not, and that we leave it up to God. You did. You somehow know and have not shown how you are certain. As you have said:
cwbetts: (Post #11)
cwbetts: (Post #11)
mattwcu: (Post #12)
Regarding your ad hominem attacks against me, I will not respond. This conversation, for my part, is over. I mean it this time.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
If someone is suggesting that I said that anything designated as a “papal bull” is automatically infallible, that person either made a grave mistaken or is intentionally distorting what I said.
The Holy Father speaks in many different “ways”: encyclicals, bulls, apostolic letters, etc.
Being ANY one of them does not make what was said “infallible”. Infallibility relies on a formula.
The biggest “uproar” about infallibility concerned the Apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The vast majority of theologians believe that letter was infallible. I agree as well, because JPII was very careful in how he worded it.
Infallibility is all in the choice of the words used when the Pope’s statement is issued.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis states in relevant part:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no
authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Vatican I defined “infallibility” as:
“. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance
promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility
with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed
in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such
definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
the Church.”
There are four tests of infallibility:
There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1)
intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a
matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” not only passes all four tests, but it is manifest
that the Pope deliberately phrased the teaching to ensure that this would
be obvious.
With respect to point 1: The pope clearly intends to teach something; in
fact, he intends to do so in such a way that “all doubt may be removed
regarding a matter of great importance”.
Point 2: The pope is teaching by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority;
he specifically alludes to that authority, “in virtue of my ministry of
confirming the brethren”–a reference to the precise passage which forms
the chief Scriptural basis of infallibility (Luke 22:32): “I have prayed
for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered,
you in your turn must strengthen your brothers.” This passage has no
meaning apart from the exercise of supreme authority, since it is only in
the exercise of this authority that the promise of Our Lord to Peter
applies.
Point 3: The subject in question is a matter of Faith; the Pope
deliberately states that it is not a matter of discipline, but rather “a
matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself.” The
divine constitution of the Church, of course, is the central mystery in the
continuation of Christ’s work on earth as well as the means through and by
which God brings men to salvation. What the Pope has “defined” as part of
the Catholic Faith is that the Church does not have the authority to ordain
women.
Point 4: The pope intends the teaching to bind the whole Church; this is
manifest when he says that “this judgment is to be definitively held by all
the Church’s faithful.”
I simply cannot read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as anything but infallible.
The Holy Father speaks in many different “ways”: encyclicals, bulls, apostolic letters, etc.
Being ANY one of them does not make what was said “infallible”. Infallibility relies on a formula.
The biggest “uproar” about infallibility concerned the Apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The vast majority of theologians believe that letter was infallible. I agree as well, because JPII was very careful in how he worded it.
Infallibility is all in the choice of the words used when the Pope’s statement is issued.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis states in relevant part:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no
authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Vatican I defined “infallibility” as:
“. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance
promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility
with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed
in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such
definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
the Church.”
There are four tests of infallibility:
There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1)
intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a
matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” not only passes all four tests, but it is manifest
that the Pope deliberately phrased the teaching to ensure that this would
be obvious.
With respect to point 1: The pope clearly intends to teach something; in
fact, he intends to do so in such a way that “all doubt may be removed
regarding a matter of great importance”.
Point 2: The pope is teaching by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority;
he specifically alludes to that authority, “in virtue of my ministry of
confirming the brethren”–a reference to the precise passage which forms
the chief Scriptural basis of infallibility (Luke 22:32): “I have prayed
for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered,
you in your turn must strengthen your brothers.” This passage has no
meaning apart from the exercise of supreme authority, since it is only in
the exercise of this authority that the promise of Our Lord to Peter
applies.
Point 3: The subject in question is a matter of Faith; the Pope
deliberately states that it is not a matter of discipline, but rather “a
matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself.” The
divine constitution of the Church, of course, is the central mystery in the
continuation of Christ’s work on earth as well as the means through and by
which God brings men to salvation. What the Pope has “defined” as part of
the Catholic Faith is that the Church does not have the authority to ordain
women.
Point 4: The pope intends the teaching to bind the whole Church; this is
manifest when he says that “this judgment is to be definitively held by all
the Church’s faithful.”
I simply cannot read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as anything but infallible.
L
LilyM
Guest
Let’s put it this way - while it’s entirely possible that non-Catholics can go to heaven, they certainly can’t and won’t be declared Saints by the Catholic church.
A canonisation is more than a declaration that someone is in heaven. It is also a declaration that they are, in effect, a worthy rolemodel for Catholics to follow (though, of course, not an infallibly perfect one).
For that reason no non-Catholic will ever be canonised, as of course saintly Catholics form much better rolemodels for the rest of us Catholics than even the most excellent non-Catholic could possibly do.
In a similar way, the best rolemodels for married people are other married people, for women are other women, for lawyers or doctors are other lawyers and doctors. So it would be better for a Catholic to look for rolemodels among canonised Catholics than non-Catholics.
A canonisation is more than a declaration that someone is in heaven. It is also a declaration that they are, in effect, a worthy rolemodel for Catholics to follow (though, of course, not an infallibly perfect one).
For that reason no non-Catholic will ever be canonised, as of course saintly Catholics form much better rolemodels for the rest of us Catholics than even the most excellent non-Catholic could possibly do.
In a similar way, the best rolemodels for married people are other married people, for women are other women, for lawyers or doctors are other lawyers and doctors. So it would be better for a Catholic to look for rolemodels among canonised Catholics than non-Catholics.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
LilyM,
I believe the closest anyone ever came to being worthy of sainthood was the Emperor Constantine the Great. He is actually considered a saint in many eastern and orthodox rites, but not in the Latin Rite Church.
As far as canonizations, those are the most frequently used infallible statements. ALL proclamations that a person is a saint, is, by definition, an infallable proclamation. That is the only instance where Christ’s Church on Earth makes a definitive statement about the state of one’s soul. And note that it is only in the positive sense - he or she IS in heaven.
The Church has never infallibly proclaimed that someone is in Hell.
I believe the closest anyone ever came to being worthy of sainthood was the Emperor Constantine the Great. He is actually considered a saint in many eastern and orthodox rites, but not in the Latin Rite Church.
As far as canonizations, those are the most frequently used infallible statements. ALL proclamations that a person is a saint, is, by definition, an infallable proclamation. That is the only instance where Christ’s Church on Earth makes a definitive statement about the state of one’s soul. And note that it is only in the positive sense - he or she IS in heaven.
The Church has never infallibly proclaimed that someone is in Hell.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
By the way,
I am reminded by a patch of dialogue in Braveheart that made me think about just this topic.
The “Magistrate Inquisitor” charges the Mel Gibson character (William Wallace) with treason, to which Wallace replies: “Never, in my whole life, have I ever sworn allegiance to him.”
The Royal Magistrate: “It matters not. He is your King.”
The bull Unam Sanctam is basically read in the same manner. Whether people like it or not, all salvation DOES come from the Catholic Church, whether they like it or not, for one simple reason: The Catholic Church is the depository of the FULL body of faith on Earth and the “keeper” of the keys to the gates of heaven.
So, whether one wants to admit it or not, all salvation DOES flow from the Catholic Church - some people just refuse to admit it. But their refusal does not change that fact.
The same with Unam Sanctam. That infallible proclamation can NEVER be changed because it stated a truth, and truths do not change.
I am reminded by a patch of dialogue in Braveheart that made me think about just this topic.
The “Magistrate Inquisitor” charges the Mel Gibson character (William Wallace) with treason, to which Wallace replies: “Never, in my whole life, have I ever sworn allegiance to him.”
The Royal Magistrate: “It matters not. He is your King.”
The bull Unam Sanctam is basically read in the same manner. Whether people like it or not, all salvation DOES come from the Catholic Church, whether they like it or not, for one simple reason: The Catholic Church is the depository of the FULL body of faith on Earth and the “keeper” of the keys to the gates of heaven.
So, whether one wants to admit it or not, all salvation DOES flow from the Catholic Church - some people just refuse to admit it. But their refusal does not change that fact.
The same with Unam Sanctam. That infallible proclamation can NEVER be changed because it stated a truth, and truths do not change.
L
LilyM
Guest
And … Emperor Constantine was Catholic, albeit he was only baptised shortly before his death. That was customary in those days among soldiers like him, by the way. Due to the reservations the Church had at the time about the morality of soldiering as a profession.
Great as he was, I think EVERY Saint is great, even the most obscure, since they enjoy the glories of Heaven. I just don’t see there being any hierarchy among them. :nope:
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I can appreciate your viewpoint, IOW, as mortals in the Church Militant, all Saints are on a level. However, in Heaven, as with the Angels, I suppose even the Saints enjoy a certain hierarchy, as Jesus Himself often spoke of the Least and Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. But it should not surprise us if the great in the Kingdom of Heaven were wretched nobodies on earth.
D
distracted
Guest
i frankly think that if any nonCatholic human living these days should be called a wannabe saint (meaning she is on her way) it would be Ann Coulter…
yeah, OK, start stoning me…
but she is walking in truth… She is very pro-life… and it seems to me that she really does see (as God does) that the life of the unborn is just as important as the life of the born… even more so if the born one is doing evil and deserves capital punishment… In other words, you don’t - as a true Christian - believe in the right of convicted serial murderers to live and yet support abortion…
She seems to love Truth…
yeah, OK, start stoning me…
but she is walking in truth… She is very pro-life… and it seems to me that she really does see (as God does) that the life of the unborn is just as important as the life of the born… even more so if the born one is doing evil and deserves capital punishment… In other words, you don’t - as a true Christian - believe in the right of convicted serial murderers to live and yet support abortion…
She seems to love Truth…
P
PJM
Guest
Friend, of course we can know that. Otherwisw we would be of the opinion that every non-Catholic since Luter has gone to hell. IMPOSSIBLE!
Love of truth is not necessarily all that would be necessary for sainthood.
D
distracted
Guest
Understood.
But then I have to wonder something.
If the fullness of truth can be found in the Catholic church, then how could someone live the truth outside of the church?
D
distracted
Guest
- we are all born with a conscience and nonCathlics can be saved… although it is VERY difficult and they are in Purg longer than C’s
- Ann Coulter’s father was Catholic…
D
distracted
Guest
also people are made in God’s image whether Catholic or not…
its just that man is also a fallen creature… so there is much in man that is not godly… so we need Jesus and only Catholics know Jesus as He really is… totally…
even so i think protestants who adhere to Jesus’ teachings and try to stay committed to Him… can be saved…
i just don’t think they have an excuse for rejecting, until death, theCatholic Church… unless they honestly believe it is not His Church… and i guess that’s possible… but in any case they have longer Purgatories…
its just that man is also a fallen creature… so there is much in man that is not godly… so we need Jesus and only Catholics know Jesus as He really is… totally…
even so i think protestants who adhere to Jesus’ teachings and try to stay committed to Him… can be saved…
i just don’t think they have an excuse for rejecting, until death, theCatholic Church… unless they honestly believe it is not His Church… and i guess that’s possible… but in any case they have longer Purgatories…
- Status