Rome cannot "judge" infallibly?

[Kaste]

The biggest problem protestants have with Catholics are the array of historical meanspirited damning papal pronouncements against Protestants.

Here’s a case in point a protestant poster (TrumpetCall) pointed out:

The problem though is the offense Protestants take at Vatican 1 which categorically stated in their definition of Matt 16, that the fullness of primacy and jurisdiction over the entire church militant was immediately placed on Peter, and everyone from that point on was to be subject to the bishop of Rome, and ,“this is the teaching of the catholic truth, which no one can deny without loss of faith and SALVATION”. So in other words, who cares if the RCC pats Protestants on the head saying we may hold to the interpretion that Christ built his church on Peter’s faith-----when in the next breath they hand us a bouquet of roses and consign us to hell.

This is a very fair reaction to the Vatican’s vitriol and hateful language towards Protestants. The solution it seems is to quit the sophistries and man up and say Rome erred, but that these awful errant judgments are not definitions of faith and so by their very nature are not covered under the “faith and morals” criteria for infallibility.

The question: Is Rome always stepping outside its infallible arena when it pretends to judge those who do not submit to its teachings to be outside salvation?

(and please just a yes or no with accompanying reasons. Please no “re-interpreting” or “developing” the rigorist language of the 19th century Vatican. Create another thread for that.)

Thanks,

K

 

[NHInsider]

No. (Statements built around “always” are always wrong . . .)

 

[Lead_Me_Home]

You are completely missing the historical context. In the beginning the only Protestants, were heretics who knowingly rejected and left the Church. The Protestants of today are seen as the separated brethren, because many of them have been separated from the Church through no fault of their own. So YES, the Papacy is correct and infallible.

The same mistake is made when it comes to the unbaptized. In the15th century the only people in Christendom who were not Baptized were heretics who rejected the Church, not people who were never instructed on the meaning and necessity of the Sacrament of baptism.

 

[Spencerian]

The biggest problem protestants have with Catholics are the array of historical meanspirited damning papal pronouncements against Protestants.

Here’s a case in point a protestant poster (TrumpetCall) pointed out:

This is a very fair reaction to the Vatican’s vitriol and hateful language towards Protestants. The solution it seems is to quit the sophistries and man up and say Rome erred, but that these awful errant judgments are not definitions of faith and so by their very nature are not covered under the “faith and morals” criteria for infallibility.

The question: Is Rome always stepping outside its infallible arena when it pretends to judge those who do not submit to its teachings to be outside salvation?

(and please just a yes or no with accompanying reasons. Please no “re-interpreting” or “developing” the rigorist language of the 19th century Vatican. Create another thread for that.)

Thanks,

K

Hi, Kaste.

It is not possible to answer the question you gave with a simple “yes” or “no” because it has several significant flaws (particularly its attempt to beg the question, like the trick question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”), and is more than just a bit on the uncharitable side.

The Church–the institution created by Christ–has and is always guided by the Holy Spirit, which guides the institution infallibly. The people who comprise the Church, from the popes on down, are just as much sinners as the rest of us. But the Holy Spirit uses time to keep the Church right where Christ put it, like subtle adjustments on a steering wheel of a car going properly down a lane.

Now, put yourself in the Catholic’s place. You, as the supreme shepherd of the only existing practice of Christianity, suddenly discovers in the 1500s what you can only interpret as schismatic–a separate teaching of Christianity that doesn’t jibe with what you as pope were entrusted to teach.

Further, as Christ said in John 14:6, “No one comes to the Father but through Me.” So, as the vicar of Christ, you must follow His words and conclude that the people who have separated are in mortal jeopardy.

And that’s what the Church upholds then and to this day, with one important clarification from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: While Catholics believe that no one can be granted salvation except through Christ (not “Rome”, as your post implied), the Church does recognize that salvation is most possible to many outside of the Church’s membership in ways it does not know.

As a follower of Christ, salvation is not guaranteed but is promised to all Christians.

It would be appreciated if you give specific historical sources where a Pope has officially said ex cathedra that all those not Catholic are going to hell. I’m sure there is no such document. The pope has no authority to make such a statement because it is not supported in Sacred Tradition or Scripture, and therefore it could never be stated.

 

[neophyte]

…This is a very fair reaction to the Vatican’s vitriol and hateful language towards Protestants.

You sound exactly like those who say it’s vitriolic and hateful to call homosexual acts sinful.

…The solution it seems is to quit the sophistries and man up and say Rome erred,…

Rome did not err.

 

[Kaste]

Hi Spencerian,

Of course it’s a bit uncharitable to bring it up, but it needs to be brought up. Let’s not pretend we are above the rougher questions. Rome needs to fess up and call a Vatican III to enlighten Catholics to the fact that Rome does err and has erred quite a bit in the past–that would be a good first step. What is really ‘uncharitable’ though is the language the Vatican used against Protestants. Not only was it hateful but also wrong. There is salvation to those who refuse universal authority to the Pope.

Rome did not err.

Oh it most certainly did.

But getting back to the original question: Can Rome invoke infallibility when it judges non-Catholics to be damned? Or is this not covered under “faith and morals”?

K

 

[davidv]

Hi Spencerian,

Of course it’s a bit uncharitable to bring it up, but it needs to be brought up. Let’s not pretend we are above the rougher questions. Rome needs to fess up and call a Vatican III to enlighten Catholics to the fact that Rome does err and has erred quite a bit in the past–that would be a good first step. What is really ‘uncharitable’ though is the language the Vatican used against Protestants. Not only was it hateful but also wrong. There is salvation to those who refuse universal authority to the Pope.

Oh it most certainly did.

But getting back to the original question: Can Rome invoke infallibility when it judges non-Catholics to be damned? Or is this not covered under “faith and morals”?

K

The question in bold is an invalid question, for it presumes as fact something the is false.

By the way, Rome is the secular capital of Italy. As such it cannot Judge anything “infallibly”.

 

[Kaste]

The question in bold is an invalid question, for it presumes as fact something the is false.

ok, let’s not put clever syllogisms of the logicians ahead of reason here.

Basic fact is that Vatican said those who reject Pope as having universal authority and jurisdiction cannot have salvation.

This is error. Plain and simple.
C’mon guys I’m kind of on your side, if only you would just admit the faults…good heavens!
See this is exactly why we need a Vatican III, to force people to man up and admit the faults.

K

 

[chris_molter]

Basic fact is that Vatican said those who reject Pope as having universal authority and jurisdiction cannot have salvation.

K

No… the “Vatican” (let’s try to be specific and say the documents of Vatican I) is referring to CATHOLICS who reject the Pope as having universal authority etc. Which is correct. Those Catholics are rejecting an article of the faith which places them outside the Church (assuming full knowledge and consent of the will).

Those born into Protestantism are not guilty of the sin of schism as they were not Catholic to begin with. They are not under the canonical penalties described above since they are not Catholics.

So, no, the Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants go to hell just because they are Protestants.

Also, the idea that the Church will call a council and suddenly declare that the Catholic Church is no longer the Catholic Church is… well… laughable. Much like the dissenting Catholics who expect Vatican III to declare gay marriage and abortion are fine and dandy.

 

[Kaste]

Chris, interesting proposed solution you offer, but unfortunately it’s not true. Vatican has declared anyone who doesn’t recognize the Pope to have universal jurisdiction to be outside salvation. He was not talking about only Catholics. If you read Vatican One’s third session you will see this. Also Boniface VIII and Eugene IV both say Orthodox are outside Church.

Let’s get back to the original question though, please.

If a Pope pronounced non-Roman Catholics damned or outside the Church: even if his statement had all the trappings of an infallibility: Solemn declaration, given at a General Council, given to whole Church, even intended by the Pope himself to be dogma, it still would not be infallible because it does not fall under the realm of “faith and morals”. It is an arrived judgment, not a definition of faith. And so such a papal pronouncement would be no more infallible than one cloaked in similar infallible trappings, on, say, the topic of semi-conductors.

On this specific question, do people agree or disagree?

Thanks,

K

 

[MarcoPolo]

Basic fact is that Vatican said those who reject Pope as having universal authority and jurisdiction cannot have salvation.

This is error. Plain and simple.

No, it isn’t. Many Protestants deny what they incorrectly understand as the Papacy, not the actual concept of the Papacy. Many reject the former. Those who reject the latter are openly rejecting a teaching of the Spirit, and no, you can’t reject Christ’s truth knowingly and expect to be saved.

 

[chris_molter]

Chris, interesting proposed solution you offer, but unfortunately it’s not true. Vatican has declared anyone who doesn’t recognize the Pope to have universal jurisdiction to be outside salvation. He was not talking about only Catholics. If you read Vatican One’s third session you will see this. Also Boniface VIII and Eugene IV both say Orthodox are outside Church.

Thanks,

K

Well, leaving the issue of the Orthodox alone, since they are a very different animal than either the original Protestants or their descendants, I think this question of whom the documents of Vatican I address and how that pertains to our current ecclesial situation (separated brethren and all that jazz) is germane to your other question. To claim that “it’s not true” flies in the face of almost all Catholic commentary I’ve ever read re: EENS. What you’re claiming is that the Church holds to Feeneyism, which, quite the opposite, it condemned.

 

[neophyte]

ok, let’s not put clever syllogisms of the logicians ahead of reason here…

Let’s not put logic ahead of reason?

I had suspected that you prefer your own reasoning to actual logic; it’s nice to know I was right.