Shake off the dust, Unam Sanctam and Invincible Ignorance

[SemperPax]

Hi all,

I’d love your commentary/opinions on the following:

When Jesus sent out his disciples to preach the Gospel (Matthew 10), he states the following regarding disbelieving towns:

"Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Now…since Sodom and Gomorrah were completely destroyed by God, I think it is safe to assume that Jesus is basically saying those unaccepting people He refers to are in for an unsavory fate, to say the least.

Now let’s inject “invincible ignorance.” If we assume that some of the people the disciples would have preached to were pagans, I think we can say that they perhaps had a stronger argument for being invincibly ignorant than Jews of the time, having no reference whatsoever to what the disciples were preaching (they weren’t familiar with the Jewish/OT scriptures.)

It seems that invincible ignorance is shot down via what we read in Matthew 10 (at least it seems that way to me).

Let’s fast forward a bit to Boniface VIII and his bull Unam Sanctam, in which he states (infallibly I believe, and I think that is key), that:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff"

Seems that the above is in line with what we see in Matthew 10.

Now…some might say that we should look at Boniface’s statement in a relativist light - he was directing it at so-and-so, under these circumstances…I cannot accept that if indeed his statement is infallible…infallible means without error - in essence, it is the truth - and the truth is the truth in all times, places, circumstances, etc - it is not mitigated by time or political climate, etc.

DESPITE ALL OF THIS…I find it difficult to believe that, I don’t know, an Aboriginal Australian, for example…who doesn’t know Christ from a boomerang…will burn in hell.

And therein lies my confusion!!!

God bless!

 

[Ruthie]

From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

“2. c. God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)”

(P. 241. From the chapter, “the Universality of Grace.”)

Feel better now?

God bless all humans,

Ruthie

 

[Nita]

Now let’s inject “invincible ignorance.” If we assume that some of the people the disciples would have preached to were pagans, I think we can say that they perhaps had a stronger argument for being invincibly ignorant than Jews of the time, having no reference whatsoever to what the disciples were preaching (they weren’t familiar with the Jewish/OT scriptures.)

It seems that invincible ignorance is shot down via what we read in Matthew 10 (at least it seems that way to me).

Actually, it was to the Jews, and very specifically to Jews only, that the apostles were being sent by Jesus – and that is the context for Our Lord’s statement regarding “shake off the dust”

**Mt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. **

Nita

 

[jcrichton]

Hi all,

I’d love your commentary/opinions on the following:

When Jesus sent out his disciples to preach the Gospel (Matthew 10), he states the following regarding disbelieving towns:

"Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Now…since Sodom and Gomorrah were completely destroyed by God, I think it is safe to assume that Jesus is basically saying those unaccepting people He refers to are in for an unsavory fate, to say the least.

Now let’s inject “invincible ignorance.” If we assume that some of the people the disciples would have preached to were pagans, I think we can say that they perhaps had a stronger argument for being invincibly ignorant than Jews of the time, having no reference whatsoever to what the disciples were preaching (they weren’t familiar with the Jewish/OT scriptures.)

It seems that invincible ignorance is shot down via what we read in Matthew 10 (at least it seems that way to me).

Let’s fast forward a bit to Boniface VIII and his bull Unam Sanctam, in which he states (infallibly I believe, and I think that is key), that:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff"

Seems that the above is in line with what we see in Matthew 10.

Now…some might say that we should look at Boniface’s statement in a relativist light - he was directing it at so-and-so, under these circumstances…I cannot accept that if indeed his statement is infallible…infallible means without error - in essence, it is the truth - and the truth is the truth in all times, places, circumstances, etc - it is not mitigated by time or political climate, etc.

DESPITE ALL OF THIS…I find it difficult to believe that, I don’t know, an Aboriginal Australian, for example…who doesn’t know Christ from a boomerang…will burn in hell.

And therein lies my confusion!!!

God bless!

*Hi, Semper Pax!

…being ignorant of Christ seems to bring some sort of exemption but we are held responsible by Scripture (Roman 1:18-22): we may be ignorant of Christ but not ignorant of the existence of God!

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were part of a different economy (eye for an eye…) where phisical death was punishment for rebellion against Yahweh God; the people to which Jesus’ disciples were sent were part of the new economy (“God is Spirit and those who worship must worship in Spirit and Truth…”); While all of the Old Testament looked forward to Christ’s Revelation only Jesus’ contemporaries enjoyed such privilege.

The Kingdom of Heaven was at hand and Christ’s disciples were sent with the Good News to one and all–those who rejected them rejected Christ (the Resurrection and the Life); hence, Judgment would be more severe on those who reject Christ than those who simply rebel against God’s commandments.

Since I am ignorant of most extra-Biblical writings I can only surmise that Pope Boniface’s statement might be addressing his own contemporary issues: Christ founded only One Church: the Church is the Pillar of Truth: those outside the Church live in error. Conversely, we can compare it with Jesus’ warnings that “…not all who call me Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom of heaven but those who do the Will of my Father…”

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[Nita]

From Unam Sanctam:
*…Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that **He entrusted all *to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ …
I suppose one could interpret these words in two ways:

1. Those who do not formally recognize the successor of Peter as their shepherd here on earth are not in the Lord’s sheepfold.
   or
2. God has placed Peter as shepherd over all. Those who accept Our Lord and follow Our Lord are in His sheepfold. Their shepherd here on earth is the successor of Peter, some (those who are not member of the Catholic Church) just don’t realize it yet .

I prefer the second way of understanding the Pope’s words.
Also, there is a difference between one who was born Catholic and then chooses to reject her teachings and leave and one who was never a member of the Church. Those people may never have been taught or acquired an understanding of the Church’s truths. Hence they cannot be said to have rejected them.

…* Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. … that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. … For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. …Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter … Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.*
The last half (more than half actually) of the bull has to do with the supremacy of spiritual power over temporal power. This is the context for the bolded statement. I have trouble interpreting it within that context. Anybody know how to relate it to that context?

The full text is available on this site. fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

 

[COPLAND_3]

Hi all,

I’d love your commentary/opinions on the following:

When Jesus sent out his disciples to preach the Gospel (Matthew 10), he states the following regarding disbelieving towns:

"Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Now…since Sodom and Gomorrah were completely destroyed by God, I think it is safe to assume that Jesus is basically saying those unaccepting people He refers to are in for an unsavory fate, to say the least.

Now let’s inject “invincible ignorance.” If we assume that some of the people the disciples would have preached to were pagans, I think we can say that they perhaps had a stronger argument for being invincibly ignorant than Jews of the time, having no reference whatsoever to what the disciples were preaching (they weren’t familiar with the Jewish/OT scriptures.)

It seems that invincible ignorance is shot down via what we read in Matthew 10 (at least it seems that way to me).

Let’s fast forward a bit to Boniface VIII and his bull Unam Sanctam, in which he states (infallibly I believe, and I think that is key), that:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff"

Seems that the above is in line with what we see in Matthew 10.

Now…some might say that we should look at Boniface’s statement in a relativist light - he was directing it at so-and-so, under these circumstances…I cannot accept that if indeed his statement is infallible…infallible means without error - in essence, it is the truth - and the truth is the truth in all times, places, circumstances, etc - it is not mitigated by time or political climate, etc.

DESPITE ALL OF THIS…I find it difficult to believe that, I don’t know, an Aboriginal Australian, for example…who doesn’t know Christ from a boomerang…will burn in hell.

And therein lies my confusion!!!

God bless!

Somewhere in the Catechism it tells us that God judges those kinds of people by how they respond to the knowledge that has been revealed to them. Also here is where the CCC talks about the baptism of desire scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1260.htm