Salvation outside the church

[Just_a_Thought]

I didn’t say that this view was completely unanimous among the Early Church. Rome usually doesn’t define or clarify something, until some in the Church have an “issue” with said teaching, and when it is being challenged by several within the Church. St. Cyprian disagreed with the Pope of the time on this (Pope St. Stephen I). The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following on rebaptism:

You really need to look at the original letters, treatises and synods. The Catholic Encyclopedia is engaging in historical revisionism to fit its polemical position.

Throughout Cyprian’s works, he makes it clear that he is merely upholding the tradition of the Carthaginian church. As you read through the acts of the various synods held at Carthage, it is clear that the bishops assembled there were representing the long held positions of their various churches as well.

Please understand that I am not defending the doctrine of re-baptism, but only interested in the historical fact that there really wasn’t a consistently held Catholic doctrine or practice on the subject until the Donatist crisis had finished running its course. Your original post suggested to me that you believed it was as consistently and universally held by the Church as, say, the saving lordship of Jesus Christ.

 

[DustinsDad]

One person says it is a legitimate develpment of doctrine, another says it is a change in teaching. It is necessary to clarify it theologically and it appears that theologians differ on which is which.

What “it” are you talking about here???

…suppose it did not change and it was still in full and total effect. Then how do you explain the fact that when Pope Paul VI met with Patriarch Athenagoras, it was reported that both had lifted and declared null and void all the anathemas and excommunications declared one against the other.

Do you have the text of the declaration? Hard to comment on something unless one can actually look at it, until that times there’s a gazillion ways one can tackle such things.

Now if what you say was still in effect, how would this have been possible? Consider the fact that the Orthodox Church has a different teaching from the Catholic Church on the following issues:

Purgatory

Indulgences

Papal infallibility

Baptism by immersion versus sprinkling

the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God

Divorce

Statues

Venial versus mortal sin

and the list goes on.

And I also consider the fact that the Orthodox are still in schism, still cut off from Holy Mother Church.

If the teaching that you have quoted is still in effect, then why is it declared unilaterally that the anathemas and excommunications are no longer in effect?

Depends on the wording of the declaration you mention. Someone more skeptical than myself might say it’s just typical modern ecumania…a feel-good-ism gesture that really says nothing material. Again, I can’t really address it because you haven’t provided exactly what the declaration said.

I will say that it when anathemas are issued by the Church relating to doctrinal teachings (faith & morals), they are infallible and their meaning cannot be reversed or overturned, ever. The juridical penalty might be lifted, but the doctrinal definition remains so that a latae sentiae excommunication would still result from obstinately denying it.

This is hardly some radical traditionalist position. See this article from This Rock - here’s an excerpt:
…Catholic scholars have long recognized that when an ecumenical council applies this phrase to a doctrinal matter, then the matter is settled infallibly. (If a council applied the phrase to a disciplinary matter, then the matter would not be settled infallibly, since only matters of doctrine, not discipline, are subject to doctrinal definition.)

Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º), though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).
(Excerpt from Anethama by Jimmy Akin, This Rock magazine, 2000)
DustinsDad

 

[Citizenfitz]

I’ve been at Wikipedia for much of the day, researching the Huguenot Wars in France. Something very interesting soon became clear: Catholics who defend our Faith are called, “fanatics… persecutory… intolerant…” Protestants are characterized as, “staunch… devout… inspired… martyrs…” Not to mention the historical falsehoods one often finds at Wikipedia.

I’m trying to counter this but it’s a project that’s going to take a lot more than my efforts. I invite you guys to go to Wikipedia, do some poking around, and see for yourselves how Catholicism and Catholic history is (sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly) distorted.

I’d like to know your thoughts on this.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Your original post suggested to me that you believed it was as consistently and universally held by the Church as, say, the saving lordship of Jesus Christ.

Little was universally accepted in the Early times of the Church. For a time, most of the Catholic Church even denied Jesus was God. I admitted that it was not completely accepted as I cited the cases of St. Cyprian and the Council of Carthage. The Latin tradition mainly was not re-baptizing, several in the East, however did. As I stated the Popes or Councils usually don’t declare things until it is being challenged by a decent portion of the Church. Such was the case with St. Cyprian and the Council of Carthage. I don’t see the historical revisionism that you do in the Encyclopedia article. Pope St. Stephen I declared what in fact was Tradition here, and it contradicted what St. Cyprian thought was Tradition. This really isn’t any different from Old Catholics rejecting Papal Infallibility in the name of Tradition. If you’re Catholic today than you don’t believe what the Old Catholics claim is Tradition. The Pope at the time declared this was Tradition, as did St. Augustine, and so you know what - it’s Tradition, no matter what St. Cyprian said or thought on the matter. I don’t know what in my initial post you seemed to take such issue with. I said the Church recognized as valid those Baptisms outside the Church where the intention is to do what the Church does from the beginning of the Church. Well Pope St. Stephen was Pope from 254 to 257. Arianism hadn’t even reared its ugly yet. That’s pretty early on. I don’t know what more you want here. We all know the Faith didn’t drop down from the sky in its entirety in 33 A.D. This is pure Doctrinal Development, and it is Tradition. If we wen’t by your logic, then we could say Christ being God and being consubstantial with the Father was not completely Traditional and not universally accepted because a large portion of the Church denied it later on. This fact doesn’t make it any less Tradition that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father.

 

[bobzills]

So, this article written by lay-professors, not endorsed by the Church is somehow infallible, and has somehow changed the Dogmas of the Church on this subject? On top of that, where are their references to official documents of the Church which state something in agreement with their position?

It is obviously not infallible, since evern the ordinary magisterium of the Church is not infallible. I was speaking about people who are in good standing in the Church today, and are not regarded as being in any sense excommunicated from the Church.

 

[bobzills]

There is no confusion if you believe in the infallibility and indefectibility of Rome.

Is it not true that the excommunications and anathemas against the OIrthodox Church have been lifted? So how can it be true that a person is anathematised or excommunicated if he holds positions contrary to the Roman Catholic faith?

 

[bobzills]

I will say that it when anathemas are issued by the Church relating to doctrinal teachings (faith & morals), they are infallible and their meaning cannot be reversed or overturned, ever. ]

That’s funny, because Pope Paul VI did just what you say he couldn’t do. Please see the Vatican website:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html
“They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.”
And according to Pope Paul VI: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976…
Also, Eastern Orthodox Christians are allowed to receive Holy Communion in Roman Catholic Churches, although this is not encouraged or supported by the Orthodox side. And further, Eastern Orthodox, who desire to do so spontaneously, may go to confession to a Catholic priest when they do not have the possibility to confess easily to a priest of their own Church. See Guidebook of May 14, 1967; and La Documentation Catholique,., June 18, 1967

 

[SemperFidelis]

It is obviously not infallible, since evern the ordinary magisterium of the Church is not infallible. I was speaking about people who are in good standing in the Church today, and are not regarded as being in any sense excommunicated from the Church.

And this is one of pressing issues in the Church today. The Church has fallen into a state of laxity. Folks with beliefs clearly contrary to the perennial teachings of the Church are not disciplined. This gives lay people the idea that those beliefs are somehow not contrary to the Faith, and hence they can hold it. This happens because catechesis has been terrible since Vatican II. One should read the Councils and teachings of the Popes. Anything one finds contrary to these perennial teachings, should be completely discarded whether they have been condemned or not. It does not take someone with a Doctorate in Sacred Theology to know what the Church really teaches. Hold on to this and nothing else.

 

[SFD]

It is obviously not infallible, since even the ordinary magisterium of the Church is not infallible. I was speaking about people who are in good standing in the Church today, and are not regarded as being in any sense excommunicated from the Church.

This is incorrect. What is your source for this statement?

SFD

 

[SemperFidelis]

Is it not true that the excommunications and anathemas against the OIrthodox Church have been lifted? So how can it be true that a person is anathematised or excommunicated if he holds positions contrary to the Roman Catholic faith?

Just because the excommunications were lifted doesn’t mean they’re still not in schism. They refuse to submit to the authority of the Papacy, therefore they are still in schism.

 

[bobzills]

This is incorrect. What is your source for this statement?

SFD

I stand by this statement. See the code of canon law Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
Also see: THE CANONICAL SAFEGUARDING OF THE WORD OF GOD 1
by Jaime B. Achacoso, J.C.D.
3rd Category of truths: The third paragraph states: Moreover I adhere with submission
of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops
enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim
these teachings by a definitive act.17
Also see the article in the wikipedia on the magisterium:
"The ordinary magisterium includes non-infallible papal teachings, the teachings of individual bishops and groups of local bishops, and even concilar teachings which are not ratified by a solemn definition, even if these teachings take place within the context of an ecumenical council. (Catholic theologians and ecclesiastics generally agree that some councils made no such solemn judgments.)

The teachings of the ordinary magisterium are non-infallible. Such teachings are generally correct, as they are based on infallible Sacred Tradition, infallible Sacred Scripture, and the infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium. But some errors can be found within the ordinary teachings of the magisterium, and therefore, such teachings are reformable and revocable."

a) Meaning of Not Infallible. Since these teachings are not proposed definitively, they
do not enjoy the note of infallibility.

 

[bobzills]

Just because the excommunications were lifted doesn’t mean they’re still not in schism. They refuse to submit to the authority of the Papacy, therefore they are still in schism.

Sure.
The question I was addressing, was the one by DustinsDad who is saying something about excommunications or anathemas related to doctrinal teachings can’t be lifted. It looks like the excommunications against the Orthodox were lifted even though the Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in the following teachings of the Church:
Infalliblity of the Pope
Immaculate Conception of MAry
Divorce
Baptism allowed by sprinkling
filioque
Purgatory
Indulgences
Artificial Contraception
and the list goes on.

 

[DustinsDad]

That’s funny, because Pope Paul VI did just what you say he couldn’t do.

Not at all. I said -

“when anathemas are issued by the Church relating to doctrinal teachings (faith & morals), they are infallible and their meaning cannot be reversed or overturned, ever. The juridical penalty might be lifted, but the doctrinal definition remains so that a latae sentiae excommunication would still result from obstinately denying it.”

Pope Paul VI didn’t contradict any of what I said.

He states:Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.
…They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.
(Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul Vi and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I, cf paragraphs 2 & 3, 1965)

These were censures, disciplinary in nature and directed at individuals. Not an infallible faith & morals anathema declaration, and therefore not in contradiction to what I wrote (or the infallible faith & morals anathema declaration of the First Vatican Council).

DustinsDad

 

[bobzills]

NotThese were censures, disciplinary in nature and directed at individuals. Not an infallible faith & morals anathema declaration, and therefore not in contradiction to what I wrote (or the infallible faith & morals anathema declaration of the First Vatican Council).

DustinsDad

It is not clear that it was only disciplinary at the time since there were mentioned points of difference in faith, such as the filioque, in the excommunications. And according to Pope Paul VI: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976

 

[SemperFidelis]

Sure.
The question I was addressing, was the one by DustinsDad who is saying something about excommunications or anathemas related to doctrinal teachings can’t be lifted. It looks like the excommunications against the Orthodox were lifted even though the Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in the following teachings of the Church:
Infalliblity of the Pope
Immaculate Conception of MAry
Divorce
Baptism allowed by sprinkling
filioque
Purgatory
Indulgences
Artificial Contraception
and the list goes on.

The excommunications and anathemas being lifted doesn’t actually mean didly, and was really just a gesture of goodwill. As to the anathemas being lifted, that refers to the anathemas placed upon the schismatics during the actual time of the schism, in specific, the anathemas placed upon the Patriarch of Constantinople by Cardinal Humbert in 1054. It doesn’t relate in any way to anathemas that would apply to them, due to the Dogmatic teachings of later Ecumenical Councils. The anathemas that are in place from Ecumenical Councils that relate to Dogmatic teachings, no Pope can revoke, as they are infallible. Where the Orthodox reject a Dogmatic teaching of a Council where there is an anathema attached to it, it still applies to them, and no Pope can revoke this.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It is not clear that it was only disciplinary at the time since there were mentioned points of difference in faith, such as the filioque, in the excommunications. And according to Pope Paul VI: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976

Bob,
Have you read the canons of the pre-vatican II councils and how they use anathemas? Here’s an example of what he’s talking about, of an infallible anathema:

IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema.

Basically, most of the councils would make dogmatic declarations by anathemizing anyone who believed in such-and-such, thereby ruling out that belief as part of the faith. This is the kind of anathema that can’t be changed.

 

[bobzills]

These were censures, disciplinary in nature and directed at individuals.

In “A History of the Church in the Middle Ages”
By F. Donald Logan, we read, : “the legates did more than excommunicate Cerularius: they excommunicated all who supported his positions, some ritual, some theological. …the crucial theological issue concerned the filioque…” p. 117.

 

[bobzills]

The excommunications and anathemas being lifted doesn’t actually mean didly, and was really just a gesture of goodwill. As to the anathemas being lifted, that refers to the anathemas placed upon the schismatics during the actual time of the schism. It doesn’t relate in any way to anathemas that would apply to them, due to the Dogmatic teachings of later Ecumenical Councils. The anathemas that are in place from Ecumenical Councils that relate to Dogmatic teachings, no Pope can revoke, as they are infallible.

According to Pope Paul VI: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976.
Here are a few questions on this:
If i am reading you correctly, then in your opinion, the Orthodox are subject to anathemas that would apply to those who reject the filioque, papal infallibility, etc. How is this possible in the light of:

1. The statement of Paul VI that the anathemas have been lifted.
2. The fact that after the lifting of the anathemas, the Orthodox have been allowed to receive the Sacraments in a Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Just_a_Thought]

No, the Old Covenant is not or ever has been salvific (hence why the Old Testament Fathers had to wait in the Limbo of the Fathers for Jesus to come, so that they could go to heaven). The Jews that are saved are saved through the Catholic Church (they must be invincibly ignorant and free from mortal sin at the time of death), the one and only means of Salvation, not the Old Covenant.

Salvation requires faith and good works to be rendered to God during one’s lifetime. The natural law and the old covenant provide the ability to do this to those who do not know the Gospel. They are not thereby saved apart from the Gospel, rather they are saved by the Gospel which is present in creation and in the law through signs and types. You are therefore erecting a false dichotomy as if affirming the salvific character of the natural and old laws thereby detracts from the singularity of the Gospel.

You are incorrect.

There would only be contradiction between saying “Jews are saved through the Old Covenant” and “Jews are saved through the Church” if the Church did not exist in the Old Covenant. But, mystically speaking, it did and does exist wherever and to the extent that there is truth, goodness, justice or holiness. Where is Christ, there is the Church.

I strongly suggest that you read the documents of Vatican II again. Perhaps this time maybe you’ll see and understand what these documents actually say.

 

[bobzills]

Bob,
Have you read the canons of the pre-vatican II councils and how they use anathemas? Here’s an example of what he’s talking about, of an infallible anathema:

Basically, most of the councils would make dogmatic declarations by anathemizing anyone who believed in such-and-such, thereby ruling out that belief as part of the faith. This is the kind of anathema that can’t be changed.

Are the Orthodox still subject to those anathemas involving theological issues such as the filioque or papal infallibility or others?
According to Pope Paul VI: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976.