Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

Now before you go claiming I’m a sedevacantist, a Pope has no superior, and hence cannot be judged for formal heresy or deposed for heresy except by a lawful judge, ie: a subsequent Pope, the College of Cardinals who decides to elect a new Pope, or the Bishops under the authority of an Ecumenical Council. In this case though, Pope John Paul II is not guilty of material heresy because he didn’t specify, but his statements are ambigious and have no doubt led many Catholics into error, such as yourself it seems.

.

My dear SemperFidelis,

The Holy Father cannot be judged for formal heresy or deposed for heresy, material, formal, manifest, whatever.

There is nothing in Canon Law which contemplates deposition of a Pope, nor considers that the Holy Father can be guilty of material heresy.

The Pope is the pope and we live with him, with his private and public understanding of morality and theology.

There is no process for a ‘lawful judge’ , i.e. the election of a new pope, nor does the law of the Church foresee or empower the College of Cardinals, or bishops under the authority of an Ecumenical Council to sit in judgement of heresy for a sitting pope.

A new pope can be elected only if the Pope dies, or resigns. He is the lawgiver. The Pope is over the law of the Catholic Church, and no one can act against him.

What you suggest is not in accordance with the Code of Canon Law. So, you cannot have a ‘sedevacantist’ situation occuring.

That is why that theory is not held by theologians. Not one theologian of note holds to a sedevacantist posiiton.

Only a sitting Pope has the authority to convoke an Ecumenical Council, which has no power, therefore, without his goverance.

The opinion of Robert Bellarmine that a pope can be a heretic and removed from the Seat of Peter I believe has been denied by the Church itself.

peace

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Dustinsdad:

Keep reading. And talk with an Orthodox fella or two…get into such discussions deeply and beyond the kneejerk reactions and you may, like I have, found it’s sort of like this on alot of issues (not all, but alot)…The Catholic says, "it is a part of the Apostolic Faith that this object is a square…you are bound to accept this!"The Orthodox replies, "I reject that that is a square, and I reject the Roman Church’s right to declare it as such! It is Apostolic Teaching that this is a geometric object with four sides of equal length!"The Catholic says, "We are saying the same thing."The Orthodox says, "I utterly deny that! Look at what you guys did to Constantinople!"I hope you get all that.

Many Eastern Catholics are the same.

 

[SFD]

The opinion of Robert Bellarmine that a pope can be a heretic and removed from the Seat of Peter I believe has been denied by the Church itself.

You believe wrongly. The very definition of heresy has been “denied by the Church”? This is ridiculous.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope * in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate *, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics.** And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics * are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.*"

Bellarmine’s doctrine on the membership of the Church is the basis for the presentation in Mystici Corporis. There, four requirements for membership are given:

1. Those who are baptized,
2. Who profess the Faith integrally,
3. Who submit to the lawful authority of the Pope and hierarchy in communion with him,
4. And who have not been excluded from the Church by excommunication.

Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized.

Heretics and excommunicates are two different categories. In the case of the former (and schismatics as well), they are excluded by their own actions; in the case of excommunicates, they are excluded by the Church’s judgment, in punishment of crimes committed.

SFD

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by SFD:

Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized.

Yet, according to the RCC, the Orthodox have true sacraments. They partake in the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. How can there be Christ and not the Church? For, as St. Ignatius says, where Christ is [in his mysteries] there is the Church. Orthodox, from the RCC perspective, are even allowed (for there is no objection) to commune at an RCC church. Open communion is mostly a Protestant thing, but it seems the RCC has opened communion to schismatics who are 99% of the same faith.

 

[mgrfin]

SFD

Dear SFD,

Yes, I am very aware of Pius XII’s encyclical letter, “Mystici Corporis”. I have quoted it several times on this website.

Your referral to it is irrelevant, for it does not take into account two main obstacles, both of which have come into existence since the lifetime of St. Robert Bellarmine, who stated that it was probable that the Holy Father could commit heresy.

The first of this is the current Code of Canon Law. Canon 751 defines the heresy and the penalty of excommunication attached to it. It is apparent today that to receive this penalty, from the cases that have been publicized, the individuals were forewarned of what would happen if they persisted. So in the case of Archbishop Lefebre, he was warned several times of his crime, and what the penalty attached, and this penalty was finally laid on him in the papal letter “Ecclesia Dei”. He had plenty of warning before he would be penalized for his schism.

Heresy is a crime in the external forum; it has nothing to do with the mortal sin of heresy, to which there is not penalty in canon law.

The Pope is the Lawgiver, and there are no canons which relate to him. The Code does not obligate the Holy Father. He is above the law; he can impose new obligations, and he can lift current obligations, on himself, and on others. The penalty attached to the Law relating to heresy is specially reserved to the Holy Father. Before the imposition the crime of heresy he could lift the penalty pertaining to himself.

Even though heresy’s penalty is ‘latae sententiae’, generally it has to be obstinate, so that implies that it is more ‘ferendae sententiae’ that is, it is imposed by the Holy See.

That’s the legal approach, but we have more important, the theological approach, which did not exist until 1870, and that is the definition of Infallibility given at the First Vatican Council.

If the Holy Father is infallible, and we say that he is under the conditions spelled out by the Council, how could he commit heresy? What he defines, when he defines it, is infallible by his definition. Whatever he believes and defines is infallible.

I do not believe like many on this site that there have been many dogmas infallibly defined by the Holy Father since the time of Peter. I believe only three dogmas, The Immaculate Conception, the doctrine of Infallibility, and the Assumption of Mary. Arguably, there may be a few more, but certainly no more than 10 since the time of Peter.

Some here believe that every document from the Holy Father, every encyclical, every Apostolic Letter, every Apostolic Bull, etc. is infallible. This is not true, and generally not held by theologians.

The article in Wikipedia on “Sedevacantism” and Robert Bellarmine states that what Robert held regarding the heresy of the Holy Father has been overruled by the Church, and that Sedevacantist appeals to Robert’s authority cannot be sustained.
I do not have any proof of this since I lack a library on Bellarmine to justify this criticism of Sedevacantism. Maybe others out there do.

The Holy Father cannot commit the crime of heresy as defined in the law of the Church, and cannot incur the penalty attached to put him outside of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is not possible. The whole theory is pure delusion.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

Yet, according to the RCC, the Orthodox have true sacraments. They partake in the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. How can there be Christ and not the Church? For, as St. Ignatius says, where Christ is [in his mysteries] there is the Church. Orthodox, from the RCC perspective, are even allowed (for there is no objection) to commune at an RCC church.

Same as with a protestant baptism - if the proper form, matter and intent is there - the Sacraments are valid by the promise and fidelity of Christ (2 Timothy 2:13 perhaps) - but illicit.

Open communion is mostly a Protestant thing, but it seems the RCC has opened communion to schismatics who are 99% of the same faith.

I’m not sure, but it must that the pope has determined that they have the same faith in the Eucharist as we, and I suppose in the ecumenical environment in which we live, the pope is assuming that most of these folks are not culpable for the actual sin of schism. That’s the only way I can figure it…for what it’s worth.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

I’m not sure, but it must that the pope has determined that they have the same faith in the Eucharist as we, and I suppose in the ecumenical environment in which we live, the pope is assuming that most of these folks are not culpable for the actual sin of schism. That’s the only way I can figure it…for what it’s worth.

DustinsDad

The Church discusses participation in three sacraments only with non-Catholics: penance, the Eucharist, and anointing of the Sick in canon 844. Baptism is not mentioned. Obviously in the case of emergency, baptism can be administered validly by anybody, and it is not a case of ‘liceity. Liceity does not apply to non-Catholics.

Otherwise, we are concerned with two main classes: Catholics receiving from non-Catholic ministers, and non-Catholics receiving these sacraments from Catholic ministers.

For Catholics: whenever necessity requires it, or true spiritual advantage it suggests it, and provided there is the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and the anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.

For non-Catholics: Catholic ministers administers the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of the Eastern churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such of their own accord and are properly disposed.

Also, in the case of death, or grave necessity, the same is true, if non-Catholics who cannot approach their own minister and who seek such on their own accord provided they manifest Catholic faith and are properly disposed.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

I’m not sure what this has to do with my post, but I’ll respond anyway.

The Church discusses participation in three sacraments only with non-Catholics: penance, the Eucharist, and anointing of the Sick in canon 844. Baptism is not mentioned. Obviously in the case of emergency, baptism can be administered validly by anybody, and it is not a case of ‘liceity.

If the proper form, matter and intent are not present, the baptism is invalid - such as in the case of Mormon baptism.

If any one of these three things are not present, the Sacrament is invalid.

The Orthodox, in contrast to protestant and other non-Catholic sects, still have a valid Eucharist because form, matter and intent all still remain. If this were not the case, the possibility of receiving Communion at a Catholic Church would not even be up for discussion.

Liceity does not apply to non-Catholics.

Which is why they can be said to be not licit - that is, they are not “authorized, sanctioned by, or governed by the legitimate authority”; Such Sacraments, even when valid, should take place within Holy Mother Church since they properly belong to Her, were entrusted to Her by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mgrfin:

For non-Catholics: Catholic ministers administers the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of the Eastern churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such of their own accord and are properly disposed.

You do well in summarizing the Vatican II teaching. It’s a very pastoral approach. But the matter where I do not understand…

Originally Posted by Dustinsdad:

I’m not sure, but it must that the pope has determined that they have the same faith in the Eucharist as we,

It’s not simply a matter of having the same faith in the Eucharist. Partaking in the Eucharist is a corporate act, one in which the the partaker identifies with the community and its beliefs. When one communes, one is showing agreement with all the beliefs of the community. It may seem like a good plan to build better relations with the Orthodox by allowing them to partake in the Catholic Eucharist, but I believe this is the wrong approach. The Eucharist should be the victory seal of full communion already established rather than the means of attaining to that full communion.

Well, I’ll stop ranting and leave this thread.

 

[TMC]

I ask, because I hesitate to make a blanket statement that salvation ‘requires’ good works. Because a lot of people might not be able to perform good works.

I think that among the severely disabled, there are good works…

As a matter of dogma, however, I would say that the necessity of good works is like the necessity of Baptism, that is, an objective necessity incumbant upon all who have knowledge and freedom. In other words, the authentic meaning of the doctrine “Good works are necessary for salvation” is “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). Works are just as necessary for salvation as faith itself.

At the risk of thread drift, I think that issue of whether ‘works’ are required or only ‘faith’ is the product of a false dichotomy between faith and works. Faith without works is dead, because true faith and true works are inseparable. I think this is what Jesus meant when he said “Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.” Matt 7:16-18. He is not just saying that you can tell if someone has faith by looking at what they do, he is saying that good works are part of the essence of what a faithful person is. Humans (especially Westerners IMO) are always trying to split things up. Faith from works, professional life from personal, and so forth. But like a fig tree, people are unified wholes, and the faithful are faithful. Hanging figs on a thorn tree doesn’t make it a fig tree, and a real fig tree can’t help but make figs. There is no seperation - we are Christ’s or we are not. The bedridden’s good works may be limited to being kind to her care givers. Someone else may build houses. The point is that we cannot pretend there is some seperation between our external, practical, day to day lives as workers and citizens, and an inner spiritual life of faith. We have one life, and its either Christian or not, no halfsies.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s not simply a matter of having the same faith in the Eucharist. Partaking in the Eucharist is a corporate act, one in which the the partaker identifies with the community and its beliefs. When one communes, one is showing agreement with all the beliefs of the community. It may seem like a good plan to build better relations with the Orthodox by allowing them to partake in the Catholic Eucharist, but I believe this is the wrong approach. The Eucharist should be the victory seal of full communion already established rather than the means of attaining to that full communion.

Well, I’ll stop ranting and leave this thread.

So does allowing the Orthodox to receive communion mean that the anathemas against certain beliefs that the orthodox reject have been lifted? Or is this just a policy to allow non-catholics to receive sacraments from Catholic priests when one of their own priests isn’t available? Or are they truly considered to be in communion?

 

[Just_a_Thought]

This is the best you’ve got? Go try reading verses 2 Cor 3:14-16, Heb. 7:18-19, Heb. 8:7-8, Heb. 10:9, Gal 3:10-11, Gal 5:3-4.

These passages - taken together - confirm everything that I am saying, namely, the Old Covenant is only unrevoked and salvific for those Jews who do not yet know the Gospel of Christ or the necessity of belonging to his Church. The natural law is only sufficient until the promulgation of the law and the law only until the promulgation of the Gospel. Truth must be accepted when it is made known.

And Bishop Challoner’s notes on Roman 11:29

I don’t care about these commentaries since my opinion is completely founded upon the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium, next to which the opinion of this bishop or that priest is completely meaningless.

Where do either of these verses actually state the Old Covenant is not revoked?

It is a logical correlate of the verses.

Major Premise: The Old Covenant was a gift from God.
Minor Premise: The gifts of God are irrevocable.
Conclusion: The Old Covenant is irrevocable.

Major Premise: The Old Covenant is the teaching content of the law and the prophets.
Minor Premise: Jesus Christ did not come to revoke the teaching content of the law and the prophets.
Conclusion: Jesus Christ did not come to revoke the Old Covenant.

Even if the verses did, where do they specifically state the Covenant they are referring to is the Mosaic?

Moses was a prophet and the (human) giver of the law. Matthew 5:17 most definitely applies to him. The Mosaic Covenant - if we are to acknowledge this hypothesis of “separate covenants” given to Abraham, Moses and David - was nevertheless a gift of God and therefore irrevocable according to Roman 11:29.

Perhaps it was referring to the Abrahamic Covenant, or the Davidic, which were in fact not revoked. Answer: they don’t, a liberal interpretation of these verses has set in, and people misinterpret them to satisy an agenda, ie: claim that Jews have a seperate, saving covenant, apart from Christ and his Church (so called “dual-covenant theology.”)

This is a straw man. I affirm no “dual covenant theology.” It is a question of a strict interpretation of Hebrews. The Old becomes obsolete when the New is made known.

God makes four promises in the Mosaic Covenant:

• To bless Israel as His special treasure, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests
• To protect Israel and give them victory over all their enemies
• To lead Israel to the land He had promised to Abraham, and grant them possession of it
• And to prosper Israel in their land

…a selective reading of the Pentateuch, but okay…

God did not repent of his gifts. He kept the promises he made above. God did however warn the Jews that if they did not keep his commandments he would curse the Jews who broke his Laws(Mosaic Covenant) in Deuteronomy 28:15, and bless those who kept his commanments in Deuteronomy 28:1. Hence the Old Covenant and its promises, and hence its Law, were conditional on the actions of the Jews. The Old Covenant was transitory and was never intended to be permanent or eternal, and Cardinal Ratzinger states as much in his book Many Religions, One Covenant:
I didn’t say it was permanent or eternal. I said the Old becomes obsolete only when the New is made known. According to Jesus Christ, for his authority, this means that the Old Covenant will have some value until the end of history (Matthew 10:23)

Until you stop swinging at the shadows of what you consider “liberal theology” and deal with what I’m saying, our conversation will not be fruitful.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

At the risk of thread drift, I think that issue of whether ‘works’ are required or only ‘faith’ is the product of a false dichotomy between faith and works. Faith without works is dead, because true faith and true works are inseparable. I think this is what Jesus meant when he said “Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.” Matt 7:16-18. He is not just saying that you can tell if someone has faith by looking at what they do, he is saying that good works are part of the essence of what a faithful person is. Humans (especially Westerners IMO) are always trying to split things up. Faith from works, professional life from personal, and so forth. But like a fig tree, people are unified wholes, and the faithful are faithful. Hanging figs on a thorn tree doesn’t make it a fig tree, and a real fig tree can’t help but make figs. There is no seperation - we are Christ’s or we are not. The bedridden’s good works may be limited to being kind to her care givers. Someone else may build houses. The point is that we cannot pretend there is some seperation between our external, practical, day to day lives as workers and citizens, and an inner spiritual life of faith. We have one life, and its either Christian or not, no halfsies.

Yes, but we can go even further. Faith is itself a response of belief to God’s revelation, it is an action that involves the mind, heart and will. Faith is a work. Likewise faith is, in some sense, what makes works good. Separating faith from works is kind of like separating lungs from breathing or engines from automobiles.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Even though heresy’s penalty is ‘latae sententiae’, generally it has to be obstinate, so that implies that it is more ‘ferendae sententiae’ that is, it is imposed by the Holy See.

No. It has nothing to do with ‘ferendae sententiae.’ The excommunication itself happens at the moment of the act, but lawful action can only be taken against the person after the act has been juridically established. According the canons of both codes (1917 and 1983), the person must be confronted with his error by a competent ecclesiastical authority and he must then persist in his error.

The key distinction here is excommunicati vitiandi versus excommunicati tolerati. All ‘ferendae sententiae’ offenders are excommunicati vitiandi, but only those ‘latae sententiae’ offenders, whose offense has been lawfully and publicly recognized by the competent ecclesiastical authority are excommunicati vitiandi.

All other ‘latae sententiae’ offenders are excommunicati tolerati. Therefore, on grounds of canon law (never minding the theological implications), a pope could only lose office if 1) his offense, committed before being elected pope, was lawfully and publicly recognized by a party with ecclesiastical authority over him, or 2) once elected, he were to publish a recognition of excommunication against himself. The sedevacantist position is that each man, woman and child passing judgment based on what seems true to him. They turn the Church into a lawless anarchy.

 

[DustinsDad]

These passages - taken together - confirm everything that I am saying, namely, the Old Covenant is only unrevoked and salvific for those Jews who do not yet know the Gospel of Christ or the necessity of belonging to his Church. The natural law is only sufficient until the promulgation of the law and the law only until the promulgation of the Gospel. Truth must be accepted when it is made known.

And it has been made known…
Acts 2:14
But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words…

Acts 2:21-25
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved…

Acts 2:36-41
Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls…

I don’t care about these commentaries since my opinion is completely founded upon the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium, next to which the opinion of this bishop or that priest is completely meaningless.

Then you must accept that outside the Church, there is no Salvation.

It is a logical correlate of the verses.

Major Premise: The Old Covenant was a gift from God.
Minor Premise: The gifts of God are irrevocable.
Conclusion: The Old Covenant is irrevocable.

Major Premise: The Old Covenant is the teaching content of the law and the prophets.
Minor Premise: Jesus Christ did not come to revoke the teaching content of the law and the prophets.
Conclusion: Jesus Christ did not come to revoke the Old Covenant.

And the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New. If one is saved by the Old Covenant, it is because the Old Covenant brings them into acceptance of the New Covenant - the Church.

I didn’t say it was permanent or eternal. I said the Old becomes obsolete only when the New is made known.

And it has been. Anyone in a state of iculpable ingorance/rejection of the Church might be saved by possibly being united to the Spirit of the Church while not being visibly united to our eyes. But this goes for non-Jews and non-Catholics.
Acts 17:30-31
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead.
Bottom line is it makes no sense to couch the language of the Church as if we are speaking to people not culpable for their ignorance, since it is by speaking to them that their culpability for ignorance and rejection becomes all the more manifest.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Just_a_Thought]

You assume too much. Which Covenant was he referring to? There are many Covenants referred to as the “Old Covenant.”

If you read the documents of the Church, the Old Covenant begins with Abraham and is subsequently renewed and deepened. What document divides these into separate covenants?

More often than not, it usually does refer to the Mosaic Covenant, but it can very well refer to the Abrahamic, Davidic, etc. Pope John Paul II doesn’t clarify.

In citing Romans 11:29, John Paul certainly refers to Moses as well as to Abraham and David.

Let’s say for instance though, he did state the Old Covenant in his address referred to the Mosaic Covenant. What authority does this address carry?

Ordinary, universal Magisterium. He is interpreting interpreting Scripture in a matter pertaining to faith and morals.

Was it published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Yep.

Does it in any way meet the requirement for an Infallible statement? No it does not. What does this mean then?

Your answer is contained in Chapter 3 of Pastor Aeternus. The faithful are bound to submit to the Pope not only in infallible matters, but whenever he exercises his office.

IF, Pope John Paul II actually intended for this statement to refer to the Mosaic Covenant, then he would be a material heretic, due to the teachings of several Councils and several Popes.

Nope. When interpreted correctly, there is no contradiction.

Now before you go claiming I’m a sedevacantist, a Pope has no superior, and hence cannot be judged for formal heresy or deposed for heresy except by a lawful judge, ie: a subsequent Pope, the College of Cardinals who decides to elect a new Pope, or the Bishops under the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

You are not a sedevacantist, but I would remind you that none of these authorities would be able to lawfully establish obstinacy, which is essential to the Church’s definition of heresy.

In this case though, Pope John Paul II is not guilty of material heresy because he didn’t specify, but his statements are ambigious and have no doubt led many Catholics into error, such as yourself it seems.

I sincerely appreciate your charitable language and disposition, but you are wrong in your interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and the pope’s statement. I don’t mean that sarcastically. I appreciate it when people who disagree assume the best of the other person.

Precise language is the key here. Yes, a Jew can be saved if he is invincibly ignorant of the True Faith and has no stains of mortal sin on his soul at the time of death. However, his soul is joined to the Catholic Church, and hence is saved through the Catholic Church, not the Mosaic Covenant (Judaism).

This is a false dichotomy. He can be saved through the Catholic Church and by the “elements of sanctification” contained in the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant can not of itself save him.

Never said it could.

It can help him live a life that will in effect, allow him to receive Baptism of Desire and be saved, but it is the Catholic Church that will save him.

Bingo. It can help him live a life that will allow him to receive baptismal grace. In saying this, you are admitting that it plays some causal role in his sanctification.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Bingo. It can help him live a life that will allow him to receive baptismal grace. In saying this, you are admitting that it plays some causal role in his sanctification.

And this is true only insofar as the person is inculpable for their ignorance and/or rejection.

When we use this language in ecumenical activities and public documents, they nullify themselves because a non-Catholic, by the act of reading the documents of the Church and talking with the Church, they are having the gospel preached to them, and therefore, they then become culpable for any subsequent rejection of Christ’s Church. As you said earlier, and I quote, “The Old becomes obsolete when the New is made known.” and also “Truth must be accepted when it is made known.”

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Just_a_Thought]

And it has been made known…
Acts 2:14
But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words…

Acts 2:21-25
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved…

Acts 2:36-41
Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls…

Yep, historically it has been made known at least since Pentecost, arguably since Christ’s baptism, when God said publicly, “This is my beloved Son”. At that moment, the Old Covenant was objectively superceded: “In many and various ways, God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

But it will only be known universally at the end of time, when “every knee will bend and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord” (Philippians 2ish) and “God will be all in all” (1 Cor 15ish). This means that the Old Covenant is obsolete (among those Jews who, on some level, understand the truth of the Gospel) and not obsolete (among those who do not). This is why the Old Covenant is always in the process of becoming obsolete (Heb 8:13) without ever being fully obsolete: “The Church will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes” (Matthew 10ish).

Then you must accept that outside the Church, there is no Salvation.

Naturally. The Church was present in God’s work of creation and throughout the unfolding history of the Old Testament. This is why those who are still spiritually stuck in the first dispensation (natural law) and the second (Judaism) can be saved. Once a person becomes aware of the truth of the third disposition, he cannot go back. The “salvific elements” of natural law and Judaism will have no value for him. He needs something that provides grace not “ex ignorantia invincibili” but “ex opera operato.” Seven somethings actually.

And the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New. If one is saved by the Old Covenant, it is because the Old Covenant brings them into acceptance of the New Covenant - the Church.

Quite right. “In Vetere Novum lateat et in Novo Vetus pateat.”

And it has been. Anyone in a state of iculpable ingorance/rejection of the Church might be saved by possibly being united to the Spirit of the Church while not being visibly united to our eyes. But this goes for non-Jews and non-Catholics.

Yes, but the elements of sanctification in the Old Covenant are superior to the elements of sanctification in non-Christian religions. Likewise, however, they are inferior to the elements of sanctification in schismatic and heretical Christian religions. In every case, each religion is objectively erroneous and unacceptable, but those who are invincibly ignorant of this can be saved in, through and by the mystical elements of the Church that are available to him.

Bottom line is it makes no sense to couch the language of the Church as if we are speaking to people not culpable for their ignorance, since it is by speaking to them that their culpability for ignorance and rejection becomes all the more manifest.

Well this is an error in prudence, not in doctrine. I have no quarrel with a disagreement with the pope in this regard. Nay, I share such an opinion (but, alas, God has not yet deigned to make me pope).

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Et cum spiritu tuo.

 

[SFD]

Dear SFD,

Yes, I am very aware of Pius XII’s encyclical letter, “Mystici Corporis”. I have quoted it several times on this website.

Your referral to it is irrelevant, for it does not take into account two main obstacles, both of which have come into existence since the lifetime of St. Robert Bellarmine

Mystici Corporis Christi is rather recent, mgrfin…why is it irrelevant?

, who stated that it was probable that the Holy Father could commit heresy.

He said this he “thought it impossible” for a pope to be a heretic as a private person…but he said this opinion was not theologically certain. What is certain is that heretics and schismatics are not members of the Church and cannot hold office in Her. This is true even before the judgment of the Church…and in the case of a pope, it is the SOLE REASON he may be deposed.

Heresy is a crime in the external forum; it has nothing to do with the mortal sin of heresy, to which there is not penalty in canon law.

Heresy is a sin against the Faith…it is a crime when it becomes public. Here is the CE:

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be 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 objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.

The Pope is the Lawgiver, and there are no canons which relate to him. The Code does not obligate the Holy Father. He is above the law; he can impose new obligations, and he can lift current obligations, on himself, and on others.

The pope is still subject to divine law…something you seem to forget. Look at the very definition of heresy…the CE explains it well enough.

The penalty attached to the Law relating to heresy is specially reserved to the Holy Father. Before the imposition the crime of heresy he could lift the penalty pertaining to himself.

How is a “crime” imposed on anyone? This doesn’t even make any sense.

That’s the legal approach, but we have more important, the theological approach, which did not exist until 1870, and that is the definition of Infallibility given at the First Vatican Council.

Infallibility was DEFINED in Vatican I…it was not CREATED there…it was always in existence.

If the Holy Father is infallible, and we say that he is under the conditions spelled out by the Council, how could he commit heresy? What he defines, when he defines it, is infallible by his definition. Whatever he believes and defines is infallible.

No one thinks a pope can teach heresy to the universal Church…of define a heretical doctrine.

I do not believe like many on this site that there have been many dogmas infallibly defined by the Holy Father since the time of Peter. I believe only three dogmas, The Immaculate Conception, the doctrine of Infallibility, and the Assumption of Mary. Arguably, there may be a few more, but certainly no more than 10 since the time of Peter.

A dogma is just a truth of the Faith…what you are saying here is ridiculous.

Some here believe that every document from the Holy Father, every encyclical, every Apostolic Letter, every Apostolic Bull, etc. is infallible. This is not true, and generally not held by theologians.

This is inexact, at best. There is not an exact formula for an ex catherdra pronouncement…I gave several examples of what the theologians teach.

The article in Wikipedia on “Sedevacantism” and Robert Bellarmine states that what Robert held regarding the heresy of the Holy Father has been overruled by the Church, and that Sedevacantist appeals to Robert’s authority cannot be sustained.
I do not have any proof of this since I lack a library on Bellarmine to justify this criticism of Sedevacantism. Maybe others out there do.

I gave you the quotes from De Romano Pontifice. Wikipedia???

The Holy Father cannot commit the crime of heresy as defined in the law of the Church, and cannot incur the penalty attached to put him outside of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is not possible. The whole theory is pure delusion

.
No, it is possible.

SFD

 

[Just_a_Thought]

And this is true only insofar as the person is inculpable for their ignorance and/or rejection.

When we use this language in ecumenical activities and public documents, they nullify themselves because a non-Catholic, by the act of reading the documents of the Church and talking with the Church, they are having the gospel preached to them, and therefore, they then become culpable for any subsequent rejection of Christ’s Church.

Yes, but only if…

1. They understand the truth being preached to them and still remain non-Catholic; or
2. They are culpable for not understanding through some hardness of heart…
   And both of these possibilities are beyond all human judgment. Let’s not forget Pope Pius IX’s timeless reminder: “Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bon joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

As you said earlier, and I quote, “The Old becomes obsolete when the New is made known.” and also “Truth must be accepted when it is made known.”

Yes, I stand by these statements. When this knowledge has been gained (or even, for culpable reasons, it is not gained), the Old is completely and forever obsolete for the person who has gained this knowledge. In union with Pio Nono, however I must insist that God alone is truly capable of rendering such a judgment about the acquisition and responsibility of knowledge. And he ain’t telling.