Unam Sanctam and salvation

[AlNg]

You don’t address any of it, so it doesn’t seem like you are arguing in good faith.

I would say the same for you. It was a simple question and has nothing to do with a particular document. It simply asks this: Does Florence teach the same thing as:
" it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God."
Does Florence teach this?

Secondly with regard to the OP, I believe that this teaching has been changed.

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

Let us look at what his all Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew has officially written about artificial birth control:“The Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of safe and non-abortifacient contraceptives within the context of married life, not as an ideal or as a permanent arrangement, but as a provisional concession to necessity.” If the Orthodox were subject to the Roman Pontiff would they not teach that the use artificial birth control is a sin? so His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew and other Orthodox Christians who teach and believe as he does, are not subject to the Roman Pontiff and yet, properly disposed Orthodox Christians are allowed to receive Holy communion in a Roman Catholic church. Why would they be allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church if they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff and therefore cannot be saved? IMHO, it means that the teaching has changed.

 

[AlNg]

No it isn’t.

None of this is new or a change.

I am not convinced that nothing has changed.

From Unam sanctam:

“of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster …”

But today we are taught that the Church can breathe with two lungs.

And

“ 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 “

today we are taught that the Greek Orthodox Church is an apostolic Church with true and valid Sacraments

“we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, “

Today we are taught that the Sacraments of the Orthodox church are valid and there is remission of sins in the Greek Orthodox church.

There is a change in teaching on who can receive Holy communion. Pope Pius VIII , Pope Gregory XVI , and Pope Pius IX said that it was wrong for non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion,. Now this is not taught.

In the past it was Ok for Catholics to try to convert the Orthodox. However, today, It is a “very grave sin against ecumenism” for Catholics to try to convert Orthodox Christians.

John Paul II says that Jews can intercede for us to grant world peace.

This is not what Florence taught.

Cardinal Cupich asks for forgiveness from jews who have had Catholics try to convert them?

Previously it was taught that Jews had to convert to Catholicism to be saved. It is not taught so now:

“ Accordingly the document affirms the integrity of the Jewish faith and understanding of Scripture and that there is no intent on the part of the Church to convert Jews .

indeed you are our elder brothers and sisters in the faith. We all belong to a single family, the family of God ,

Jews and Christians must therefore consider themselves brothers, united in the same God and by a rich common spiritual patrimony (cf. Declaration Nostra Aetate, n. 4), on which to build and to continue building the future.

I agree with all of these ecumenical efforts, but what I am saying is that it seems to me that they represent a change from past teachings.
So i disagree with an analysis that supports the idea that nothing has changed.

 

[stpurl]

Then what it comes down to is, in the end, your personal opinion. YOU aren’t convinced.

IOW, the evidence has been presented. You don’t find it compelling or complete, so you persist in saying that “it’s changed’.

So long as you make it clear that’s your opinion, fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion (however wrong it might happen to be).

Evidence is a different story. You can have an opinion about evidence, but that doesn’t turn the evidence itself into an opinion.

So since you’re on a Catholic forum, it would be the Christian and respectful thing to do to, since you really cannot accept the evidence the Catholic Church gives you, to ‘back off’. To argue if you will not on whether you personally ‘think’ something but to move on. To say, well, OK, thank you for showing us what you believe, I understand from that why you believe as you do, but I can’t believe it.

That way you show respect for us, by acknowledging that we HAVE evidence even if you don’t accept us.

And we come to an ‘end of the debate’ if you will, because we are now at: Catholic Church says this, AINg doesn’t accept it. End of story.

No more Catholic Church having to repeat itself while AINg says all kinds of variants of, “But no”, “I don’t”, ‘This isn’t, “You changed’ etc. Etc.

A simple:

The Catholic Church has said that Unam Sanctam says this, and the teaching has not changed in its essentials because the matter —membership in the Catholic Church—has been more deeply clarified as extending to all humanity. After all, we are no longer in a situation where the Protestant communities are now, as they ALL were at inception, original Catholics who rejected the faith. They are now many generations apart from those original Protestants.

You don’t accept that this understanding does not represent some ‘complete change’. Apparently nothing that is said will change your mind at this point.

We get it. So. . .we wish you well, but you’ve made it clear you don’t believe our explanation and just going on and on about it is rather insulting to everyone’s intelligence.

 

[AlNg]

you’ve made it clear you don’t believe our explanation

the evidence has been presented.

I don’t see your evidence.
I don’t see your explanation. What did you say your explanation was for Unam Sanctam:
" we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, “|
His All Holiness Bartholomew is outside of the Catholic Church, No?
It is taught today by the Roman Catholic Church that there is remission of sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Orthodox Church. That was not taught in Unam Sanctam, was it? So it is a change.

membership in the Catholic Church—has been more deeply clarified as extending to all humanity

Oh? Where is this written in the CCC? In any case, is this not a change from what Unam Sanctam says:
“ 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 “
Do you say that the Greeks are members of the Catholic church and are sheep of Christ?

 

[stpurl]

Oh well. I thought I would give you the opportunity to do the gracious thing.

As for myself, I’ll remove my pearls and bid you a pleasant evening.

 

[AlNg]

Oh well

The Catholic Church has said that Unam Sanctam says this, and the teaching has not changed in its essentials because the matter —membership in the Catholic Church—has been more deeply clarified as extending to all humanity.

Well two obvious things here:

1. i don’t see the evidence in the CCC or elsewhere that the Catholic Church teaches that membership in the Catholic Church—has been more deeply clarified as extending to all humanity.
2. This unsubstantiated claim of yours appears to be a complete change from Unam Sanctam which says:
   “ 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 “

 

[Dovekin]

i don’t see the evidence in the CCC or elsewhere that the Catholic Church teaches that membership in the Catholic Church—has been more deeply clarified as extending to all humanity.

In Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church, there is an extensive portrayal of the ways the Church relates to people:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church… LG 14
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, … LG 15
those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. LG 16

These show the ways the Church reaches out and shares her life and faith with all people. This is the same thing as is talked about in Unam Sanctam.

 

[AlNg]

These show the ways the Church reaches out and shares her life and faith with all people.

Jesus said Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.
Can Greek Orthodox today be called sheep of Christ and be fed by Christ?
It is true that the Greek Orthodox today are sheep of Christ who can be fed with Holy Communion, No?

 

[commenter]

“Change” or development?
When I read the verses in Mathew, and compare them to Unam Sanctam, I can see development. I find it to be not inconsistent with Mathew but I bet most wouldn’t see it as the only obvious interpretation.

It takes into account passage of time, very different circumstances and challenges that arose.

I see development between Unam Sanctam and V2. If you accept the authority Innocent describes popes as having, this includes that exercised by St Pope Paul. If you reject the whole concept of development, out goes Unam Sanctam.

 

[AlNg]

“Change” or development ?

According to Unam Sanctam, the Greek Orthodox are not sheep of Christ.
However, according to the present teaching, the Greek Orthodox are sheep of Christ, are they not?

I don’t see why this is not a change in teaching?