Salvation doctrine clarified

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJLake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DJLake

Guest
I have been reading the boards, and it seems that many Traditional Catholics hold to the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church as it was strictly understood, for example, by Pope Eugene IV:

*Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” *

The Church does not interpret the doctrine so severely in modern times, and I never could understand how a Traditional Catholic could defend the earlier understanding and believe in a just and loving God. I understand that a Fr. Feeney held and was condemned by the Church for his keeping with the earlier, narrow interpretation of the doctrine. I have no doubt in my mind and in my conscience that the Lord will not condemn an innocent person to hell, and I personally do not want to be associated as a Traditional Catholic with those who hold this position.

But the question is not which belief is true, but how does a Catholic defend the doctrine that Church teaching does not change when it did change on this vital issue. I’ve read other posts where people say it did not change but developed, so it will not be helpful to my understanding if similar comments are made here or if subsequent documents introducing the notion of invincible ignorance are quoted as I do not think a doctrine can develop into a reversal. It will also not be helpful to be told to accept both conflicting teachings out of respect for the Magisterium. I assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church, but I do not know what this means when the old and the new are in conflict. I suppose what I am hoping for is a “loophole” that would support the notion that the older teaching was not infallible or that if it was, it was only considered so to a particular audience at a particular time. Otherwise, I wouldn’t know how to be an apologist for papal infallibility or for the doctrine that Church teaching does not change.

Not only is it important to me to make sense of this issue personally, but as an apologist for the faith, it is necessary to be able to defend it.
 
The Holy (infallible) Council of Florence has a strong statement as well:

‎"Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." - The Council of Florence, Session 6 (July 6, 1439)

I believe that God can save anyone but, we have no evidence that God will act outside of what he has established. God can save a pagan but, we cannot know if he ever will choose to do so. 🙂
 
It didn’t *change *or develop. If it changed the Church wouldn’t be the Church anymore; and the buzzwords ‘development of doctrine’ is a novel way of trying to explain away false explanations of doctrine that have popped up in the documents of VII (when not read in light of tradition).

It is a condemned proposition that dogma ‘develops’ or is understood in a new way or should be reformulated. Hopefully someone can find the relevant citation I can’t ATM.

What was true then, remains true now no matter what somebody tells you after reading VII while ignoring and implicitly denigrating hundreds of years of tradition. Most convservatives now at least admit that there is no salvation outside the Church, but they’ve taken the very rare exception and tried to make it a rule - almost never can you find a discussion on EENS without someone chiming in “… but remember invincible ignorance” etc etc.

Don’t worry dude, your sense of the Catholic faith is doing it’s job. No reason to despair on this point. The Church remains the same; the innovators are the ones trying to change things.
 
Basilios said:
It didn’t *change *or develop. If it changed the Church wouldn’t be the Church anymore; and the buzzwords ‘development of doctrine’ is a novel way of trying to explain away false explanations of doctrine that have popped up in the documents of VII (when not read in light of tradition).

It is a condemned proposition that dogma ‘develops’ or is understood in a new way or should be reformulated. Hopefully someone can find the relevant citation I can’t ATM.

What was true then, remains true now no matter what somebody tells you after reading VII while ignoring and implicitly denigrating hundreds of years of tradition. Most convservatives now at least admit that there is no salvation outside the Church, but they’ve taken the very rare exception and tried to make it a rule - almost never can you find a discussion on EENS without someone chiming in “… but remember invincible ignorance” etc etc.

Don’t worry dude, your sense of the Catholic faith is doing it’s job. No reason to despair on this point. The Church remains the same; the innovators are the ones trying to change things.
Click to expand...
Would that make you a sede vacantist? How else do you reconcile assenting to one over another?
 
DJLake said:
The Church does not interpret the doctrine so severely in modern times, and I never could understand how a Traditional Catholic could defend the earlier understanding and believe in a just and loving God. I understand that a Fr. Feeney held and was condemned by the Church for his keeping with the earlier, narrow interpretation of the doctrine. I have no doubt in my mind and in my conscience that the Lord will not condemn an innocent person to hell, and I personally do not want to be associated as a Traditional Catholic with those who hold this position.

But the question is not which belief is true, but how does a Catholic defend the doctrine that Church teaching does not change when it did change on this vital issue. I’ve read other posts where people say it did not change but developed, so it will not be helpful to my understanding if similar comments are made here or if subsequent documents introducing the notion of invincible ignorance are quoted as I do not think a doctrine can develop into a reversal. It will also not be helpful to be told to accept both conflicting teachings out of respect for the Magisterium. I assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church, but I do not know what this means when the old and the new are in conflict. I suppose what I am hoping for is a “loophole” that would support the notion that the older teaching was not infallible or that if it was, it was only considered so to a particular audience at a particular time. Otherwise, I wouldn’t know how to be an apologist for papal infallibility or for the doctrine that Church teaching does not change.

Not only is it important to me to make sense of this issue personally, but as an apologist for the faith, it is necessary to be able to defend it.
Click to expand...
You tell me how it is possible to not hold the traditional position. And by that, I do not mean Fr. Feeny’s position, but that which has been taught by the Church consistently.

Vatican 1:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].
Canon 4.3 3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
 
DJLake said:
Would that make you a sede vacantist? How else do you reconcile assenting to one over another?
Click to expand...
Reading his comment, I didn’t arrive to the conclusion that he was a sedavacantist. How did you get that?

Anyways, you have brought up a good topic. I will read more about this, it is very interesting to me.
 
Basilios said:
It didn’t *change *or develop. If it changed the Church wouldn’t be the Church anymore; and the buzzwords ‘development of doctrine’ is a novel way of trying to explain away false explanations of doctrine that have popped up in the documents of VII (when not read in light of tradition).

It is a condemned proposition that dogma ‘develops’ or is understood in a new way or should be reformulated. Hopefully someone can find the relevant citation I can’t ATM.

What was true then, remains true now no matter what somebody tells you after reading VII while ignoring and implicitly denigrating hundreds of years of tradition. Most convservatives now at least admit that there is no salvation outside the Church, but they’ve taken the very rare exception and tried to make it a rule - almost never can you find a discussion on EENS without someone chiming in “… but remember invincible ignorance” etc etc.

Don’t worry dude, your sense of the Catholic faith is doing it’s job. No reason to despair on this point. The Church remains the same; the innovators are the ones trying to change things.
Click to expand...
This. If all people discuss is the potential exception to the rule, then it makes it seem like the rule has changed, when it actually has not. People will over-emphasize the potential exceptions in an attempt to change the tone of the discussion. It’s an emphasis, tone, thing, not a doctrinal thing. Invincible ignorance is real, but if it is all that is discussed or emphasized (and it usually is), then it seems like it covers everybody all the time, instead of being a potential exception.
 
DJLake said:
Would that make you a sede vacantist? How else do you reconcile assenting to one over another?
Click to expand...
No. I’m not sede or even SSPX. Just a traditional Catholic. Not sure why you think I should be sede based on what I said? I only mean to say that the doctrine hasn’t changed, and ‘development of doctrine’ is a phrase used by people to make dogma a bit softer while at the same time slapping every other council in the face.

What was true then, in the manner expressed then, remains true now and the expression is just as fitting. Only through the reading of these older documents, proclamations and canons can we understand the more modern ways of expressing the doctrine.
 
Its important to note that Fr. Feeney and company do take things too far as well and do not accurately reflect Sacred Tradition.
 
McCall1981 said:
This. If all people discuss is the potential exception to the rule, then it makes it seem like the rule has changed, when it actually has not. People will over-emphasize the potential exceptions in an attempt to change the tone of the discussion. It’s an emphasis, tone, thing, not a doctrinal thing. Invincible ignorance is real, but if it is all that is discussed or emphasized (and it usually is), then it seems like it covers everybody all the time, instead of being a potential exception.
Click to expand...
The dogmatic death of a thousand qualifications.
 
jwinch2 said:
You tell me how it is possible to not hold the traditional position. And by that, I do not mean Fr. Feeny’s position, but that which has been taught by the Church consistently.

Vatican 1:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].
Canon 4.3 3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I agree that it seems impossible to not hold the traditional position as it is so explicit! But how do you remain Catholic and hold the traditional position while assenting to a later opposing one?
 
DJLake said:
Would that make you a sede vacantist? How else do you reconcile assenting to one over another?
Click to expand...
I think the answer to this is that the different explanations of the doctrine don’t technically contradict each other, they just seem to contradict becasue of the distorted way the doctrine is presented now. Like I said, if you only discuss the exception, it distorts the perception of the rule itself. I think this distortion is intentional because people want to make the rule seem more PC.

So you don’t have to assent to one doctrine over another, because there is only one doctrine. If you read the modern explanations in light of the traditional explanations, they don’t contradict each other, as long as you keep in mind that modern explanantions are dwelling on/over-emphasizing/only discussing the exceptions, and are just ignoring (rather than contradicting) the rule.

It’s like the Church has a 100 page document explaining salvation, of which the last 1 page discusses the exceptions to the rule. All that gets presented is this one last page. By only presenting this one last page, it doesn’t invalidate or contradict the previous 99 pages, it just ignores them. Similarly, this one last page is perfectly valid and true, and fits with the rest of the book, it’s just not intended to be read by itself. It’s intended to be read along weith the rest of the book, and when it isn’t, the perception is skewed.
 
Basilios said:
No. I’m not sede or even SSPX. Just a traditional Catholic. Not sure why you think I should be sede based on what I said? I only mean to say that the doctrine hasn’t changed, and ‘development of doctrine’ is a phrase used by people to make dogma a bit softer while at the same time slapping every other council in the face.

What was true then, in the manner expressed then, remains true now and the expression is just as fitting. Only through the reading of these older documents, proclamations and canons can we understand the more modern ways of expressing the doctrine.
Click to expand...
I was asking because I am trying to understand how a Catholic can accept old and new teaching when they conflict, except to believe that one of them was not official since it was not proclaimed validly or by a valid pope.
 
McCall1981 said:
I think the answer to this is that the different explanations of the doctrine don’t technically contradict each other, they just seem to contradict becasue of the distorted way the doctrine is presented now. Like I said, if you only discuss the exception, it distorts the perception of the rule itself. I think this distortion is intentional because people want to make the rule seem more PC.

So you don’t have to assent to one doctrine over another, because there is only one doctrine. If you read the modern explanations in light of the traditional explanations, they don’t contradict each other, as long as you keep in mind that modern explanantions are dwelling on/over-emphasizing/only discussing the exceptions, and are just ignoring (rather than contradicting) the rule.
Click to expand...
The traditional documents make sure to explicitly state that there are no exceptions to the rule, not even someone who is a martyr and gives his very life for Christ will be saved. Unbaptized babies go to hell. There is no wiggle room in the traditional documents. That is why it seems impossible to reconcile them with the new interpretation which speaks of exceptions. So, while it is true that the tone and emphasis has changed, I am not convinced that the content has not changed when comparing the old and new documents.
 
One thing that strikes me about tradition is that at one time it was new and seen as radical!
 
DJLake said:
I was asking because I am trying to understand how a Catholic can accept old and new teaching when they conflict, except to believe that one of them was not official since it was not proclaimed validly or by a valid pope.
Click to expand...
Tell me exactly what changed, doctrinally? The Catechism reads:

CCC 846: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

What has changed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top