Salvation outside the church

[Neil_Anthony]

This has nothing to do with that. I am speaking about my opposition to the proposition that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.

John XXII didn’t define anything about the saints having the beatific vision before the general Judgement. (Aparently he gave some sermons where he talked about it, but never defined it as the official teaching of the church). It wasn’t defined at all until the next pope defined it, so that belief of John XXII wasn’t actually something he expressed ex cathedra or defined formally. So there was no change in a defined dogma.

 

[SFD]

mgrfin:

So Cajetan rejects the view of Bellarmine, and you accept the view of Bellarmine. Why? Because he is a saint. Well, his view was cleaned up after his death, and before he was declared a doctor of the church.

Have you found the source for this yet, mgrfin?

SFD

 

[SFD]

This has nothing to do with that. I am speaking about my opposition to the proposition that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.

bobzills,

This is heretical. An infallible definition cannot be contradicted…by any Catholic for any reason.

Denz. # 1800 (1954 edition)

The Vatican Council I, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Chapter IV, Faith and Reason.

The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed.]

For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. “Therefore…let the understanding, the knowledge, and the wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding”[1]

[1] Instruction of St. Vincent of Lerin, n. 28 [ML 50, 668 (c. 23)].

The above deals with a “recession from that meaning”. The idea of a direct contradiction of defined doctrine is insanity, at best, and you should get this heretical idea out of your head immediately.

SFD

 

[bobzills]

bobzills,

This is heretical.

Well, let’s see what I said and what more than one poster here on CAF claims is heretical:” I am opposed to the proposition that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.”
But all that I am doing is to agree with the declaration made by Pope John XXII in in the papal encyclical Quia Quorundam: where he says that it is directly contrary to the truth for anyone to say:
“It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power,”
Please read the papal encyclical Quia Quorundam of His Holiness Pope John XXII.
I’ll give you the link to EWTN so that you can read it from there:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/QQUOR-E.HTM
“On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that “It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, " in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power," it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth.”

 

[DustinsDad]

My position has always been very simply that of endorsing what was said by Pope John XXII…

No, here’s your position, from post 587:

bobzills:

DustinsDad:

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.

First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3:
This was the teaching before, but this teaching has also been changed. Actually, other doctrines of the Catholic Church were changed even before Vatican II.

You now attempt to use Pope John XXIII to defend your positon - yet the very thing you reject - a clearly and explicitly and infallibly defined teaching of the First Vatican - was also, and here’s the kicker - something upheld and swore to by Pope John XXII himself in the Oath against Modernism:"…Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.
…I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.
May God help us to keep this oath until death. Pray for the Restoration to come.
(Anti-Modernist Oath)

Do you wish to recant your positon yet? Or shall we go on?

DustinsDad

 

[SFD]

Well, let’s see what I said and what more than one poster here on CAF claims is heretical:” I am opposed to the proposition that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.”
But all that I am doing is to agree with the declaration made by Pope John XXII in in the papal encyclical Quia Quorundam: where he says that it is directly contrary to the truth for anyone to say:
“It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power,”
Please read the papal encyclical Quia Quorundam of His Holiness Pope John XXII.
I’ll give you the link to EWTN so that you can read it from there:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/QQUOR-E.HTM
“On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that “It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, " in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power," it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth.”

bobzills,

You are reading this incorrectly. The power of the Keys…binding and loosing…does not mean that dogmas can be overturned by the power of “binding and loosing”. Pope John XXII was correcting those who were confusing “the key of binding and loosing” with some “key of knowledge”.

On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that “It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, " in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power," it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth. First, indeed following * these men, it is clear that the aforesaid assertors, who hold that the spiritual key is by no means knowledge, but a power of binding and loosing, by reckoning it to be knowledge, have erred.* In favor of which is the definition of the “key”, which is given by the doctors [of theology]: “The key is the special power of binding and loosing, with which the ecclesiastic as judge should receive the worthy into the Kingdom, and exclude the unworthy .” Likewise, since the keys, of which We speak, are conferred in the imposition of priestly orders, it is however well established that knowledge is not normally conferred upon the man ordained to the priesthood: wherefore, following [the argument of] these men, it seems that knowledge is not the key, but rather the ability to bind and loose should be said to be the key. Still following [the argument of] these men, they are evidently known to have erred, who reckon that one spiritual key is knowledge, and following [the argument of] these men, of which the authority to discern between [one] leper and another they assert to be a key, and the other [key is] the power of binding and loosing. **For they substitute, by means of keys of this kind concerning those things, which are of the faith, and other [things], the ability to define [a matter] by means of any constitution. However the keys, which are conferred in priestly orders, by no means extend themselves to such matters, because according to the aforementioned [assertions] simple priests would be able to issue a constitution, which is evidently false. *If however they maintain that those keys extend to the general authority, attributed to blessed Peter, and to his successors in the person of the same * in the entrusting of the pastoral office, by means of which it seems at least evident to themselves that they have conceded everything, without which one would be unable to exercise the care of the universal shepherd conveniently or exercise freely its office: besides it is clear that even they themselves have erred.

No section of this document is contained in Denzinger…yet the quote I gave you (Dz. #1800) from Vatican I is in Denzinger. Do you think the Fathers in Vatican I and Pope Pius IX did not know about QUIA QUORUNDAM of John XXII? Or are you just misreading it?

SFD

 

[bobzills]

bobzills,

You are reading this incorrectly. The power of the Keys…binding and loosing…does not mean that dogmas can be overturned by the power of “binding and loosing”. Pope John XXII was correcting those who were confusing “the key of binding and loosing” with some “key of knowledge”…
Or are you just misreading it?

SFD

Well, take a look at this quote:
" “It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, " in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power," it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth."
How do you interpret this statement.
Does this not say that he is condemning the idea that it is not licit for the succeeding popes to call into doubt those things which were defined in faith or morals…" ?

 

[SFD]

Well, take a look at this quote:
" “It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, " in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power," it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth."
How do you interpret this statement.
Does this not say that he is condemning the idea that it is not licit for the succeeding popes to call into doubt those things which were defined in faith or morals…" ?

No.

For they substitute, by means of keys of this kind concerning those things, which are of the faith, and other [things], the ability to define [a matter] by means of any constitution. However the keys, which are conferred in priestly orders, by no means extend themselves to such matters, because according to the aforementioned [assertions] simple priests would be able to issue a constitution, which is evidently false.

You are misreading this. That should be obvious when you look at the Vatican I Session III quote I provided.

Btw, since we are looking at John XXII, do you “agree” with this…which IS in Denzinger:

It (The Roman Church) teaches …] that the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately to hell, however, to be punished with different punishments and in different places.

Nequaquam sine dolore

John XXII
November 21, 1321

SFD

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here’s a different translation which is a lot easier to read:

humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wqq.html

I think the following shows that John XXII is differentiating between infallible statements of previous popes and disciplinary statements. If John XXII believes he is allowed to contradict anything a previous pope says, then why does he go to great lengths to show how he actually isn’t contradicting what most of them said, or in this case, to show that what he contradicts was not something that would make him a heretic?

[7] Again, those who attack these constitutions are said {perhibentur] to assert publicly that supreme pontiffs have condemned the pamphlet and statements of the masters who asserted that the said poverty and life of the said Brothers was not evangelical and apostolic, strictly prohibiting by apostolic letter anyone from presuming to assert contumaciously the foregoing [statements], or any of them, or to defend them in any way: providing that anyone presuming to the contrary should be regarded as contumacious, as a rebel against the Roman Church, and as a heretic.

To this we say that such an assertion is false. For it is not contained in the sentence above mentioned that anyone going against it should be regarded as a heretic. In this respect it contains indeed the following: “For we likewise {nihilominus} by the authority of this document strictly forbid anyone to presume to assert pertinaciously or to defend in any way the foregoing [statements], or any of them. But whoever presumes to do so, let him be regarded by all the faithful as contumacious and as a rebel against the Roman Church”. It was not added that he should be regarded as a heretic, as is clear in the text of the above sentence of condemnation.

 

[bobzills]

Here’s a different translation which is a lot easier to read:

humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wqq.html

I went to the link that you provided and I read the following (I added the bold lettering which was not in the original)::
“However, it is evidently clear from the following that the premiss of the above argument–namely, that those things which through the key of knowledge the supreme pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals it is not lawful for a successor to call again into doubt, or affirm the contrary, though it is otherwise (they say) with things ordained by supreme pontiffs through the key of power–is entirely contrary to truth.”
This is basically the same thing that I have been saying all along in this thread.

 

[mgrfin]

It is as irrelveant as Quo Primum. Neither liturgical rubrics nor the physical structure and scientific mechanisms of the interplanitary and intergalactic systems have been infallibly defined in the dogmas of Holy Mother Church.

Vatican I anathema again, just to refresh your memory.
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.
Got anything else?

DustinsDad

Really, that’s an interesting denial.

How then can you explain that in 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for “following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,” and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

But, Galileo got off lightly.

Our famous Doctor of the Church, who has been credited with proposing the foundation for sedevacantism, Robert Bellarmine, prosecuted another Copernican, Giorano Bruno in Rome, and in 1600 and had him burned at the stake for heresy.

Did he burn to death any sedevacantists?

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

Really, that’s an interesting denial…

Again - the physical structure of the universe is not and never was infallibly defined dogma, which is what we’re talking about (you know, such as EENS). Read the article from CAon the topic, might (and this is a long shot) actually help you understand.

Who said modernism is dead?Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense – with some modification when needful – should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. “Blind” they are, and “leaders of the blind” puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself."
(Pascendi Dominici Gregis)

I shall do my utmost best to refrain from casting more pearls before you. No offence.

DustinsDad

 

[SFD]

Here’s a different translation which is a lot easier to read:

humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wqq.html

I think the following shows that John XXII is differentiating between infallible statements of previous popes and disciplinary statements. If John XXII believes he is allowed to contradict anything a previous pope says, then why does he go to great lengths to show how he actually isn’t contradicting what most of them said, or in this case, to show that what he contradicts was not something that would make him a heretic?

I think this is correct. Disciplines are an object of a secondary or indirect infallibility…however they are mutable laws. It is looks like John XXII was dealing with this subject of the laws of a religious order and concerning poverty, it appears.

The idea that a dogma (A TRUTH) can be opposed or contradicted is ridiculous. It is contrary to reason to make such an assertion.

The changing or abrogation of disciplinary laws is dealt with here:

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church. The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

1. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment. Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs.

But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp 102-124.)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I went to the link that you provided and I read the following (I added the bold lettering which was not in the original)::
“However, it is evidently clear from the following that the premiss of the above argument–namely, that those things which through the key of knowledge the supreme pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals it is not lawful for a successor to call again into doubt, or affirm the contrary, though it is otherwise (they say) with things ordained by supreme pontiffs through the key of power–is entirely contrary to truth.”
This is basically the same thing that I have been saying all along in this thread.

I think you’re misunderstanding. It seems like you think that only sedevacantists or extremists hold to this position that a pope can’t contradict previously infallibly defined dogmas. It’s not an extremist position, just ask your priest.

Yes, our understanding develops, yes, the Deposit of Faith can be applied differently in different times to different questions and problems, but there are basic dogmas and doctrines which are infallible and can’t ever change.

 

[bobzills]

I think you’re misunderstanding.

I was only quoting the Pope’s exact words.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I was only quoting the Pope’s exact words.

Are you just trying to be funny or what? That’s a very confusing document. Please, just because I don’t want you to misunderstand, please talk to a priest who you trust.

 

[bobzills]

Are you just trying to be funny or what? .

?
A Catholic refers to a papal encyclical and quotes directly from this papal encyclical and then one or two other people on this thread, who have not even read or heard of the encyclical, claim that he is a heretic and that he has anathematised himself. Then that one person on this thread defends this position by displaying cartoons and laughing faces. I don’t see why this is humorous or funny in any sense. Please be advised that I am not the individual who was posting these silly cartoon like responses.
You yourself gave the link to the encyclical.
The quote I gave was directly from the link that you yourself supplied.
“However, it is evidently clear from the following that the premiss of the above argument–namely, that those things which through the key of knowledge the supreme pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals it is not lawful for a successor to call again into doubt, or affirm the contrary, though it is otherwise (they say) with things ordained by supreme pontiffs through the key of power–is entirely contrary to truth.”
Does the pope not say in the encyclical that the following idea is contrary to the truth:
That it is not lawful to call into doubt or affirm the contrary of that which a previous Pope has defined through the key of knowledge in faith and morals although it is otherwise with things ordained through the key of power?
I don;t see why a Catholic would be anathematised or declared to be a heretic for quoting a passage from a papal encyclical?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Does the pope not say in the encyclical that the following idea is contrary to the truth:

That it is not lawful to call into doubt or affirm the contrary of that which a previous Pope has defined through the key of knowledge in faith and morals although it is otherwise with things ordained through the key of power?

Yes, the pope does say that. What do you make of it? Does it say that a pope can contradict previously defined dogma?

I understand it be rejecting the terms “key of knowledge” and “key of power”, rather than completely rejecting the notion that a pope is limited by what the church has defined as dogma and doctrine.

 

[DustinsDad]

?
A Catholic refers to a papal encyclical and quotes directly from this papal encyclical and then one or two other people on this thread, who have not even read or heard of the encyclical, claim that he is a heretic and that he has anathematised himself. Then that one person on this thread defends this position by displaying cartoons and laughing faces. I don’t see why this is humorous or funny in any sense. Please be advised that I am not the individual who was posting these silly cartoon like responses.
You yourself gave the link to the encyclical.
The quote I gave was directly from the link that you yourself supplied.
“However, it is evidently clear from the following that the premiss of the above argument–namely, that those things which through the key of knowledge the supreme pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals it is not lawful for a successor to call again into doubt, or affirm the contrary, though it is otherwise (they say) with things ordained by supreme pontiffs through the key of power–is entirely contrary to truth.”
Does the pope not say in the encyclical that the following idea is contrary to the truth:
That it is not lawful to call into doubt or affirm the contrary of that which a previous Pope has defined through the key of knowledge in faith and morals although it is otherwise with things ordained through the key of power?
I don;t see why a Catholic would be anathematised or declared to be a heretic for quoting a passage from a papal encyclical?

Pope John XXIII wrote - “it is evidently clear*** from the following…***”, that means you’ve got to read the following to understand the error of the argument of his adversaries. You are not reading or seeking to understand the following (the arguments he lays out in this encyclical or the context thereof), therefore you do not understand the premise of the argument that is condemned.

Whether you know it or not, you are struggling to defend the indefensible position that Jesus Christ was wrong when He told us His Church cannot bind truth for error and error for truth. Your attempt is in vain.

You have my prayers,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

Again - the physical structure of the universe is not and never was infallibly defined dogma, which is what we’re talking about (you know, such as EENS). Read the article from CA on the topic, might (and this is a long shot) actually help you understand.

(Pascendi Dominici Gregis)
[/INDENT]
I shall do my utmost best to refrain from casting more pearls before you. No offence.

DustinsDad

No Offense?

You did not answer my post, forget about “offense”.

That the earth was the center of the universe was theologically defined. They burned people at the stake for not believing it. Even Doctors of the Church light the flames which burned such ‘heretics’.

“Modernism”? The Copnerican theory is modernism?

Post Conciliar Catholics have moved out of the 16th Century, else everything is ‘modernism’. Vatican 2 is ‘moderism’ too, I guess according to “Pascendi”. The last Ecumenical Council put a truer meaning on “Pascendi”?

There is something about the burning of another Catholic Chiristian’s flesh fthat prevents science from moving along. I expect to have someone tell us that the ‘Syllabus of Errors’ is an infallible statement as well? And before we all post, we must take an oath against “modernism”?

Please answer my post on Robert Bellarmine and what heresy was contained in the Copernican theory that we had to have these burnings? I wish I had been the ‘devil’s advocate’ at his canonization process to bring to mind that he light the match which charred Catholic Christians flesh and blood.

“Modernism” as you call it has to be interpreted in terms of “Lumen Gentium”, “Unitatis reintegratio”, “Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesarium”, “Reconciliatio et penitentia”, “Orientalium Ecclesiarum”, “Ecclesiae Sanctae”, "Christifideles laici’ and other documents of our last Ecumenical Council, Vatican 2. These are the pearls of great price.

peace

peace