The Council of Florence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jehannette
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jehannette

Guest
An acquaintance pointed out the following text from the Council of Florence:
The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following…
Click to expand...
What do forum members think about the text in bold above? What did the Council fathers mean by it? What’s the history behind it? The above text can be found here:

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
 
A lot of people don’t realize that the Catholic Church teaches predestination (although the Catholic understanding is not the same as proposed by John Calvin). This Council is an example of this teaching. The topic has been discussed here several times, but I must admit that I do not understand it.
 
Just to be clear, the sentence you have put in bold, as well as the two before it and several following it, are all propositions that are being condemned by the Council, not asserted by it.
 
Jehannette said:
An acquaintance pointed out the following text from the Council of Florence:

What do forum members think about the text in bold above? What did the Council fathers mean by it? What’s the history behind it? The above text can be found here:

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
Click to expand...
The sentence in question

t**o be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. **

It seems to me, the points in the paragraph previous to this sentence, give the explanation to this sentence.

The text previous to that said other conditions were needed also. One must also be the elect, in the Church, and are foreknown by God.

That’s how I read it.
 
MarkThompson said:
Just to be clear, the sentence you have put in bold, as well as the two before it and several following it, are all propositions that are being condemned by the Council, not asserted by it.
Click to expand...
Of course; that’s why I italicized the statement before the text which I highlighted in bold.
 
steve_b said:
The sentence in question

to be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed.

It seems to me, the points in the paragraph previous to this sentence, give the explanation to this sentence.

The text previous to that said other conditions were needed also. One must also be the elect, in the Church, and are foreknown by God.

That’s how I read it.
Click to expand...
The propositions listed are being condemned.
 
steve_b said:
🙂 yes, On the condemnation of the book of friar Augustine
Click to expand...
Great; can you tell me more? Who was our “fair friar” Augustine (not Saint Augustine, of course!) What was he saying that raised the ire of the Council of Florence? Once again, what did the Fathers at that Council mean by the statement in bold? Exactly what were they condemning, and why? I am not “giving you homework” here! Links are, of course, very much appreciated!
 
Jehannette said:
Great; can you tell me more? Who was our “fair friar” Augustine (not Saint Augustine, of course!) What was he saying that raised the ire of the Council of Florence? Once again, what did the Fathers at that Council mean by the statement in bold? Exactly what were they condemning, and why? I am not “giving you homework” here! Links are, of course, very much appreciated!
Click to expand...
I searched and can’t really find any additional detail on the man. Apparently he wrote a book and the Church publicly declared that it was banned during this council (he was teaching something that was not inline with the Church doctrine). The council was not formed only to address him, the council had other purposes as well.

See: newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm for some more info.

I’d also like to clarify in case anyone missed it above: the quoted text is the Church quoting the book, and they are saying they disagree with it. Right off the bat, the friar claims Christ sinned and is sinning daily; that is NOT and never was a teaching of the Church, and I cannot understand how on earth he came up with that nonsense-- I’m not surprised it was banned. Being a friar, and teaching and writing a book like that is all he needed to bring the attention of the council since he was representing the Catholic Church. I can’t find anymore info, but I’d imagine he either repented or he left the Church.
 
Jehannette said:
The propositions listed are being condemned.
Click to expand...
Well, if it is recognized that the statement “to be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed” is being condemned by the council, then… what is the issue?

If a person is bonded to Christ in charity, he is a member of him–his mystical Body–for he has sanctifying grace within his soul. This is the teaching of the Church. And so if the council is condemning the contrary position, then what is the problem?
 
Jehannette said:
An acquaintance pointed out the following text from the Council of Florence:

What do forum members think about the text in bold above? What did the Council fathers mean by it? What’s the history behind it? The above text can be found here:

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
Click to expand...
This is purely conjecture on my part. But perhaps it is referring to the title of one treastise: “On the charity of Christ towards the elect and his infinite love”. Maybe he proposed that there was some difference in the love (charity) of Christ based on elect/non-elect.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Well, if it is recognized that the statement “to be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed” is being condemned by the council, then… what is the issue?

If a person is bonded to Christ in charity, he is a member of him–his mystical Body–for he has sanctifying grace within his soul. This is the teaching of the Church. And so if the council is condemning the contrary position, then what is the problem?
Click to expand...
Amen, brother! See this:

opc.org/nh.html?article_id=722

In particular, this:
It is difficult to disagree with Roman Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx when he concludes that the Council of Florence and Vatican II “are diametrically opposed” on this issue (though he wryly notes that “there are always theologians who are able to reconcile the two statements in the abstract in an unhistorical way with some so-called hermeneutical acrobatics”). Catholic apologists in our own day appeal to the certainty and unchanging character of their own church’s teaching, and their arguments often seem compelling to Protestants who are weary of ecclesiastical divisions. But this area of theology provides one example (among others) of how Roman doctrine has indeed changed over the years. Rome used to have a very exclusive doctrine of salvation, but it has become quite inclusive in recent generations.
Click to expand...
I emailed the above author with the citation from Florence that is in my OP; he never replied to me.
 
Jehannette said:
Amen, brother! See this:

opc.org/nh.html?article_id=722

In particular, this:

I emailed the above author with the citation from Florence that is in my OP; he never replied to me.
Click to expand...
“Rome used to have a very exclusive doctrine of salvation, but it has become quite inclusive in recent generations.”

Why would you think that? The Church teachings are clear.
  • Baptism is necessary for salvation
  • There is no salvation outside the catholic Church
What has changed from before?
 
In response to the author of the article from the OPC, it is up to the Church to define and explain, it’s own Doctrines (most especially not the job of the OPC or individual members thereof.) If I am not mistaken, there seems to have been legitimate development of Doctrine in the teaching of “Extra Ecclesia nulla salus.” He is mistaking “change” with legitimate development of Doctrine.

If I’m not mistaken, too rigid of an interpretation of “Extra Ecclesia nulla salus” is the heresy of Feenyism. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeneyism)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top