The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[Javl]

See Crazzeto’s response to you below re “Lumen Gentium must be believed, it is an infallible teaching of Vatican II.”

As I have mentioned in a previous post, I do not remember the Pope speaking ex-Cathedra on it.

I understand.

 

[josie_L]

Salvation for only baptized Catholics was infallibly declared for 20 centuries. The Church no longer teaches this. Is that good enough?

This is absolutely false there was no such teaching that was infallibly declared, i.e., please state in which ecumenical council this was stated? Moreover, even baptized Catholics can go to Hell!!!

p.s. The Catholic Church has recognized the validity of baptisms outside the Church, please look up the controvery between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian of Carthage (in the third century) over rebaptism.

 

[Javl]

Be careful of what you say here because we do not want Anna to think that just because humanae vitae was not spoken ex-cathedra that it should not be adhered to, i.e., you might want to expand on your commentary.

It is to our advantage to adhere to it, but as I’ve said, it’s not an infallible teaching and we are under no obligation to accept this teaching. When a teaching or pronouncement is made by the Magisterium then it is infallible and we are under an obligation. This has held true from the beginning of the Church and Papacy.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Nicea325]

so i guess you wont be joining us on the info on SDA thread? we would love to have you. its been getting interesting lately! Peace and Grace to you my friend

Sorry my friend,but I have discussed that issue so many times,I am tired of discussing it with SDA.

 

[josie_L]

It is to our advantage to adhere to it, but as I’ve said, it’s not an infallible teaching and we are under no obligation to accept this teaching. When a teaching or pronouncement is made by the Magisterium then it is infallible and we are under an obligation. This has held true from the beginning of the Church and Papacy.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Did the early Church decry the usage of “birth control”? Because my understanding is yes, therefore, if you say we are under no obligation to accept this teaching, are you saying we can use birth contol?

p.s. I understand the difference between infallible statements and those that are not, however, when it comes to issues of morality, are we not looking to Tradition (as well as scripture) in order to establish truth?

 

[Nicea325]

I understand the problem with “proof-texting.” My observation is that Catholics proof text in here as much as hardcore evangelicals proof text the Bible. But when we actually read an official Catholic document like that that actually says

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, I don’t really see any other way to take that? Doesn’t sound out of context and I can’t imagine a context that would justify that statement? Anna posted it and I’m sure you can read the whole thing from her citation.

Sorry my friend,but as I stated,the above is not the entire document,which I believe is 60 pages long. One cannot isolate one sentence and claim it is conclusive and that is something I do remember being taught as a History major when sources were being analyzed. Case in point, you just mentioned the Bible,which is very common to isolate on specific passage and use it as a smoking gun. One has to relate the passage with the entire Bible.

 

[ron77nyc]

Are you 100% sure about what you just posted.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY

There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be
(1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

Here are a few quotes that meet the above 4 tests of infallibility:

• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

• Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (#24), Nov. 1, 1914: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic faith, which **unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ **(Athanas. Creed).”

 

[GKC]

I must remind all of you that the Magisterium is the teaching arm of the Church and we are all bound to believe its pronouncements. The Magisterium is infallible and consists of the Pope and the College of Bishops ( all the Bishops from all the Catholic Churches, East and West ). The Pope is infallible when speaking ex-Cathedra only when with the Bishops in Magisterium. When the Pope does not speak ex-Cathedra we are not bound to accept or agree with any of his pronouncements.

The Pope’s Bulls, Epistles, Letters, etc., are not dogma. They may concern Church law ( Eclesiastic or Canon ), a teaching, and explanation, or expansion on a teaching, and the like. We are free to accept or reject. It is only dogma, which is the basis of our belief and faith and the means of our salvation that we must not and cannot reject.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I’m probably going to be sorry I jumped in, but AFAIK, you are not accurate in your statements.

The Pope may teach infallibly, with or without reference to the body of bishops. Each case is a case of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. With the other bishops, it is a teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. A teaching of the Pope alone is infallible , if it meets the definitions for an ex cathedra statement

Teaching under the Ordinary (not the Universal Ordinary, that is, the Sacred) Magisterium is the prerogative of any bishop, the Pope included. Such teachings are not infallible, as are the teachings under the Sacred (Universal) Magisterium. But all teachings which are part of the Magisterium in any sense require the assent of the faithful

Ecumenical Councils, similarly, may teach infallibly, under the sacred Magisterium, or not infallibly, under the Ordinary Magisterium.

I think. Always happy to learn more.

GKC

 

[ron77nyc]

This is absolutely false there was no such teaching that was infallibly declared, i.e., please state in which ecumenical council this was stated? Moreover, even baptized Catholics can go to Hell!!!

p.s. The Catholic Church has recognized the validity of baptisms outside the Church, please look up the controvery between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian of Carthage (in the third century) over rebaptism.

According to this quote from catholic.com they were baptized but not saved until becoming a Catholic.

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
Fulgentius of Ruspe
“Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church” (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

 

[josie_L]

According to this quote from catholic.com they were baptized but not saved until becoming a Catholic.

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
Fulgentius of Ruspe
“Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church” (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

And how is this an infallible statement that only baptized Catholics are saved?

 

[ron77nyc]

And how is this an infallible statement that only baptized Catholics are saved?

This may not be an infallible statement. The infallible statements are in post #545.

 

[tuscany]

This is a super interesting question!
I will just look at it simply. At the Last Supper Jesus said. “This is My body, this is My blood, do this in rememberance of Me”. So what group of people from that day on saw the bread and wine as truly being Jesus’ body and blood? I would think they are the true line from what Jesus started.

 

[ron77nyc]

This is a super interesting question!
I will just look at it simply. At the Last Supper Jesus said. “This is My body, this is My blood, do this in rememberance of Me”. So what group of people from that day on saw the bread and wine as truly being Jesus’ body and blood? I would think they are the true line from what Jesus started.

Jesus also said: John 14:12“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father."

Does this mean that all who are not doing greater things than Jesus did are not true believers? Shoudn’t some of us at least be changing water into wine, walking on water or maybe healing the sick? What group of people are doing these things?

 

[josie_L]

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY

There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be
(1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

Here are a few quotes that meet the above 4 tests of infallibility:

• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

• Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (#24), Nov. 1, 1914: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic faith, which **unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ **(Athanas. Creed).”

There is but one Church which the faithful (i.e., Catholics) can be saved and that is in the Church Christ established, i.e., the Catholic Church, this does not mean however that on an individual basis people outside of the Church cannot be saved, it means that other religions are not the means to their eternal salvation. Moreover, this is not an infallible statement but a doctrine held by the Church which overtime developed and became more defined without contradicting its core message: “there is no salvation outside the Church”.

Edit: please read this article in order to understand what is meant by “no salvation outside the Church”: socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/12/ecumenism-evangelism-and-apologetics.html

 

[Anna_Scott]

Looks like you’re a bit confused. I posted my reasons for disagreeing with the Pope. You copied it. Did you read it? Here it is again:

Originally Posted by Ferde Rombola
Yes, I disagree with Pope John Paul II. My sources are the Scripture passages cited by the Pope and the account of the Blessed Mother’s appearance at Fatima, which the Pope failed to mention.

“His statement that hell is not a place is pure conjecture. There isn’t a word in Scripture to support it.” If you’re aware of anything in Scripture that denies Hell is a place, please cite it for me.

I don’t know what that proves other than your hope that hell is not a place.

My disagreement with the Pope’s opinion does not mean the Catholic Church is wrong about anything. You really ought to study the Catholic faith a little before jumping to the conclusions you seem eager to express. I understand you’re asking questions, but some are rhetorical and seriously uninformed.

CCC 632 et seq.

Ferde Rombola,

Regarding my two questions to you:

1. What study have you done that led you to disagree with Pope John Paul II?

According to your response, your only sources are “the Scripture passages cited by the Pope and the account of the Blessed Mother’s appearance at Fatima, which the Pope failed to mention?”

1. Does your disagreement come from your own private interpretation?

Re your request: “If you’re aware of anything in Scripture that denies Hell is a place, please cite it for me.” I’ve already done a thread on Hell. The heart of the issue here, is how you arrived at a different belief than Pope John Paul II. And again, what studies have you done to justify disagreement with the Pope.

Which of my questions are seriously uninformed?

Anna

Thank you, Crazzeto for your kind words. There are few greater admirers of John Paul II than I, but my admiration falls somewhat short of adulation. He was a brilliant man but, as Supreme Pontiff, tended to lose focus. He spent a lot of time traveling and writing, involving young people in the Church and building bridges to other faith confessions, much to his credit, but he allowed the heresies of the Church in the US and Western Europe to fester and didn’t do as much as he should have done to eliminate homosexuality from the clergy. That said, where I think he’s wrong, I’m entitled to say he was wrong. And I did. It doesn’t mean I’m right. It means I think I’m right.

Isn’t it hilarious how non-Catholics condemn the Church as being dictatorial and dogmatic, then condemn Catholics who express an independent opinion? If there’s a better way to exemplify anti-Catholic bigotry, I’d like to see it.

I’m sure it seems that way, but it’s not. Protestant private interpretation involves a private interpreter’s right to declare dogma by virtue of his private interpretation. My disagreement with JPII involves opinion, not dogma. I do not declare myself right, as protestant private interpreters do. I merely say I disagree with another Catholic about the properties of Hell.

As I said, your problem is not me, it’s your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, the authority of the papacy and the rights of conscious as extended to all the faithful.

No it isn’t. You’ve been told at least three times you do not understand the doctrine of infallibility. Instead of investigating what the doctrine actually teaches, you insist on forcing a definition of your own invention on us.

We’re Catholics. We understand the doctrine of infallibility. You don’t.

A faithful Catholic agrees and follows the infallible teachings of the Church.

The infallible teachings of the Church NEVER change and I defy you to prove otherwise.

From what I gather from you, you have no intention to consider Catholicism. You seem to want to prove the Church’s teachings are wrong. Good luck with that.

Indeed. I prefer to ignore it.

I wasn’t too clear. There are many ways a pope speaks. They have public audiences in St. Peter’s Square every Wednesday afternoon at which they make a speech, they issue statements about various items of Church business, they write books, they write encyclicals, they write their speeches, etc. Not everything a pope thinks, says or sneezes is an infallible teaching. As josie pointed out, encyclicals are treated differently from speeches and off-the-cuff remarks and we need to recognize the difference.

The document you cited makes a blanket statement which seems to me to say every word a pope utters must be believed by the faithful. I don’t agree with that.

Ferde Rombola,

When I peal away all of the snide comments and avoidance of the issues, all that is left is your open disrespect for Pope John Paul II; and your disagreement with “the document” I cited, which happens to be “Lumen Gentium,” which Crazzeto said is an infallible teaching of Vatican II.

Lumen Gentium must be beleived, it is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. . . . .

Anna

 

[josie_L]

This may not be an infallible statement. The infallible statements are in post #545.

Those are not infallible statements, it is a however a doctrine held by the Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

Those are not infallible statements, it is a however a doctrine held by the Church.

That is open for discussion always. Are bulls, encyclicals and councils instruments of infallibility? If not, then what is?

 

[GKC]

That is open for discussion always. Are bulls, encyclicals and councils instruments of infallibility? If not, then what is?

A Bulls is an administrative form of Papal communication. Not necessarily infallible, depends on the content. Councils are infallible when exercising the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, in teaching or defining doctrine or dogma. They may be fallible, if exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. An encyclical, like a Bull, depends on the content and intent, as to it’s degree of theological certainty and the extent to which assent must be given to its contents.

Popes are infallible, under the narrow definition of an ex cathedra statement, or when teaching or defining under the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

Popes, bishops and Councils may teach under the Ordinary Magisterium, but this not infallible.

However, in any case, the faithful must assent to any teaching of any form of the Magisterium.

I think.

 

[crazzeto]

Open line is a rerun today =(

Maybe tomorrow, or I’ll give Fr Pacwa a try again next wk.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have a couple of things to say with respect to the document you posted, for instance, when the pope writes an encyclical about why we cannot allow female priests should we disregard this as optional (teaching of the faith) simply because it was not spoken ex-cathedra, or are we to submit to his understanding of the faith (which should not conflict with the deposit of faith) mind and will? When Pope Paul IV wrote humanae vitae does the fact it was not spoken ex-cathedra make it less truthful and therefore optional? No. Are we as Catholics to adhere to what he taught on birth control? Yes, in that we submit mind and will. There are so many encyclicals which deal with issues of a moral nature which are not classified as ex-cathedra statements but which nevertheless do not violate the deposit of faith either, i.e., teachings on abortion, stem cell research, invitro fertilization . . . etc. We are to submit mind and will when we understand that the mind and will of popes are in accord with the faith, i.e., the Pope cannot teach that which is not part of the deposit.

(165) . . . . .I’m not sure what all the fuss is about considering that this is in reference to bishops, i.e., if the pope is going to teach about the evils of birth control then bishops too must teach about the evils of birth control, i.e., “teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff”.

Crazzetto, what anna scott posted about submission is referring to bishops . . . . . so what’s the big deal?

Agreed, it is not dogma but at the same time it should not be rejected just because it is not.

Be careful of what you say here because we do not want Anna to think that just because humanae vitae was not spoken ex-cathedra that it should not be adhered to, i.e., you might want to expand on your commentary.

Did the early Church decry the usage of “birth control”? Because my understanding is yes, therefore, if you say we are under no obligation to accept this teaching, are you saying we can use birth contol?

p.s. I understand the difference between infallible statements and those that are not, however, when it comes to issues of morality, are we not looking to Tradition (as well as scripture) in order to establish truth?

Those are not infallible statements, it is a however a doctrine held by the Church.

But Anna you chose this particular document which is referring to bishops, i.e., if you wanted to know in what manner Catholics approach papal teachings (which are not ex-cathedra statements) then why didn’t you simply ask instead of posting what you did? Either way your question was responded to (please read my post and those of JAVL).

God bless.

JosieL,

I quoted Lumen Gentium from the Vatican website. It deals with “submission of mind and will” to the “authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”

This document deals with fallible teachings. I am asking how Catholics deal with fallible teachings. So, this is a quote which is appropriate to my questions.

Obviously I can’t quote the full document on the forum. It is more than 60 pages.

Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

1. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.

(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Lumen Gentium must be beleived, it is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. . . . .

This thread has shown me that Catholics are not in agreement regarding how Catholics are to view teachings that are not spoken ex cathedra. No one has even said they were aware of the contents of LUMEN GENTIUM, before I posted the quote and link.

Anna