Unam Sanctum question.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A blessed Easter to you also!

Why? Why did the Council of V-II and the Catechism of 1994 trump all that preceded them? Where is continuity and organic development?
Why does the “new” teaching now have the final answers and all that went before is history for the shelves? How did 3 years in the 1960’s trump 1961 years of organic development of Catholic theology? :confused:
The doctrine has not changed. What changed was the question. At the Council the question was asked, “What is the role of the Church in the modern world?” The Church issues to documents to answer this question. But the name of one of them is very important “Lumen Gentium”. The Church is the Light among God’s people or the Light of the World. Personally, I like the first translation better. 😃

The Church does not give up her place in the world. In fact, she says something that she had never said about herself. She says, “I am the light” We have known this for 2000 years, but we have never stated it, much less so publicly. Why not? There was no need to do so. The Church and the State strange bed partners. Times have changed.

Secondly, because the Church no longer sleeps with the State, there was another question placed on the table. What are we to think about our non-Catholic brothers and sisters with whom we live and work? This question was never asked before. Why not? States were clearly divided: Protestants, Catholics, Jewish, Muslim and other. With the conclusion of WW II, religious boundaries beak down as they had never broken down before. Your neighbor to the north is Jewish and your neighbor to the south is Lutheran and you boss is Muslim.

The Church has to issue a value system for Catholics who live in a world where many people of many religious traditions cross paths every day. The Church looks back at Tradition to find an answer. He see that there has always been the belief that the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. Such terminology was the “jargon” of seminaries, theological colleges and Pontifical universities, not the language of the parish priest and the religious sister or brother in our schools. A very old term is dusted off and brought out of storage and thrown out there.

Why? I’ll explain below.
 
Pius would never have said what you quoted: “there is only one true Catholic Church – the Apostolic Roman Church.” This would simply be a falsehood; no pope would ever think that. It ties in with the overall point he is making in this paragraph, which is about dividing the Church.
Subsists was the term used in the world of academia, but not in the parish or the catechism. But it had to be dusted off, because of the eample the Mark so well explains. What had been said by the Church was poorly translated. It suggested that the only Apostolic Church was the Roman Church. Even the popes of the past often referred to “the Church of Rome”. Then meant one thing, but the lay faithful and the parish priest who is not a theologian understood another. They understood, The “one holy Catholic Roman Catholic Church” There is no such church and the popes did not mean that.

There is, however: one, holy catholic and apostolic church that subsists in the Catholic Church.

This begs the question about the Orthodox. That’s when Pope Paul VI decides that it’s time to re-unite the one holy catholic and apostolic church under the Catholic Church. He proceeds to lift the excommunications and anathemas against the Orthodox, to acknowledge that they are apostolic churches with apostolic succession, that they do have valid and licit sacraments and that the Catholic Church does not have jurisdiction over them, nor had it been the intention of the previous popes to suggest that. There has been mistranslations and misunderstanding of what they had said, because they had used the term “Roman”. In reality they were trying to refer to communion with the Bishop of Rome, not calling everyone to be Roman Catholic. To do so would have been a serious sin against the Eastern Christians that retained their autonomy and remained in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It would have been a slap in the face to the Patriarchs of the East and to the Synods that govern the Eastern Churches.

This triggers a very positive response from the Othodox leadership. They lift the excommunications against the Latin Church and the anathemas against her. Some lay people argue that the Orthodox had no authority to excommunicate the Latin Church. The Holy See admits that they did. A Patriarch has the authority to excommunicate. But one has to properly understand the meaning. In simple English. They would deny Holy Communion and absolution to Latin Catholics. This is no longer the case. We do not deny them and they do not deny us. The mutual agreement is that neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics should cross over to receive the sacraments, unless there is a need and they must ask the priest for permission. There is no question as to whether the sacrament is valid and legal. The issue is that the communion between Orthodox and Catholics is imperfect. Therefore, receiving Holy Communion on the other side, makes a statement that we’re in full communion. That’s not the case. However, Orthodox and Catholicsd may cross over to fulfill their obligations, if there is no church of their tradition available.

In other words, if you live across the street from a Russian Orthodox church and your closest Catholic Church is 300 miles away. You have no excuse to miss Sunday mass. You can attend mas there and ask the Orthodox priest for permission to receive Holy Communion. It does not work the same if you’re just visiting. Let’s not get carried away. 😃
While I agree that we should not be quick to damn, we also should avoid the assumption that there is “good hope” for the salvation of those outside of the Holy Mother Church - the very proposition was condemned in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors.
He did not make such a black and white condemnation. Pope Pius answering a very specific question. “If they all believe in Christ, what difference does it make whether one is Anglican or Catholic, Lutheran or Catholic, etc.?” It was a question about relativism.

Every couple of decades, maybe more frequently, relativism shows its ugly head. It is one thing to say that one should not believe that the non Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities do not have the fullness of faith and quite another to say that non Catholics cannot be saved.

Again, we have to be careful. Pope John Paul explained that the “fulness of faith” or lack thereof, does not apply to everyone the same way. He pulled out the Orthodox. This had not been explained before. Therefore,he is not contradicting the past. He is sharing something that the popes and theologians knew, but no one spoke about, because Catholics and Orthodox were not on speaking terms. Why bother saying nice things about each other? There was a lot of pain and anger. Therefore, no one spoke aboiut the good things, only about the bad things.

Pope John Paul makes a beautiful plea to Catholics to set the example by leading the way in putting aside the anger and nasty language that we have used against each other for so long.

the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that “people of both sides were to blame”,13 and acknowledges that responsibility cannot be attributed only to the “other side”. By God’s grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.

We have to acknowledge two things. First, we Catholics are just as guilty as are the Orthodox and second, fortunately for us and them, our sinfulness does not destroy the nature of the Church nor the communion, because the communion is with Christ. It is the same Christ for all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The section I have highlighted above – which is really the crux of why you posted this, I assume – is a bad translation. The Latin says:
“. . . et una est vera, sancta, catholica, Apostolica, Romana Ecclesia . . .”
This means
“and there is one true holy, catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church,” or
“and the true holy, catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church is one (i.e., all together, united).”
Please note that the Latin is not anything like the translation given above, which would require something like
et exstitit tantum una vera, sancta, catholica Ecclesia, quae est Apostolica Romana Ecclesia.
It frankly beggars belief that anyone would offer what you posted as a literal translation of the Latin.

The point can be made clearer by considering the Eastern Catholic Churches, which (at least some) are Apostolic, and which of course are true Churches. Pius would never have said what you quoted: “there is only one true Catholic Church – the Apostolic Roman Church.” This would simply be a falsehood; no pope would ever think that. What he would have said is what I have translated: that “there is only one true Apostolic Roman Church,” a significantly different point. It ties in with the overall point he is making in this paragraph, which is about dividing the Church.
Mark perhaps you should offer your services to the Vatican to rewrite the translations of the documents from the Holy Fathers. Since that is the source for the quotation you are so quick to deride. If the translation does not support your ideal…sorry.
I will take what is given rather than insert my own appraisal of what i think should have been said. I was not there, nor do i have your fluency in liturgical Latin.
I quoted this document and gave links to others for Catholics to educate themselves on what has gone before. Given what passes for Catechesis these days, one must educate themselves if they are to know the full depth of our Faith. By studying the documents from the Holy Fathers and the Doctors of the Church we may see the organic development of our Catholic Faith over the centuries.

As an aside, you did not answer my question from the post you quoted. Can you provide an answer to the changes in Doctrine in regards to before and after Vatican II? Or do you simply wish to attack this one translation?
 
Mark perhaps you should offer your services to the Vatican to rewrite the translations of the documents from the Holy Fathers. Since that is the source for the quotation you are so quick to deride.
Papalencyclicals.net is not the Vatican, nor is it run by the Vatican. Also, in 1856 the Vatican did not promulgate vernacular translations of its documents the way it does today; it was understood that interested people would be able to read them in Latin. This especially applies to an encyclical letter to the Austrian Empire – why should it be in English? I haven’t been able to find out who is responsible for this English translation.
If the translation does not support your ideal…sorry.
I will take what is given rather than insert my own appraisal of what i think should have been said. I was not there, nor do i have your fluency in liturgical Latin.
No need to apologize. If the translation is screwy, I just go to the original. Doesn’t that make sense? What I am trying to tell you is that the translation given is manifestly theologically wrong, in that the Apostolic non-Roman churches in communion with the Holy See are also true churches. Isn’t that clear? It’s not a question of what our “ideals” or preferences are; this translation is just objectively incorrect. Any English speaker can see that.

Now, when I see something that is mistaken and I know it’s a translation, I’m always curious to know whether the mistake was in the original or was introduced through the process of translation. In this case – as almost always happens, vide YouCat – the Pope was right, and the translation introduced the error.

The grammar and vocabulary here are actually quite simple once you strip out a lot of intermediate clauses which do not affect the meaning. Let me see if I can demonstrate. The phrase in question says that the Austrian bishops should teach their flocks “quod sicut est unus Deus Pater, . . . ita . . . una est vera, sancta, catholica, Apostolica, Romana Ecclesia.”
quod: that
sicut: just as, just like
est: there is
unus: one
Deus Pater,: God the Father,
ita: so, in the same way
una est: there is one
vera: true
sancta: holy
catholica: catholic
Apostolica: Apostolic
Romana: Roman
Ecclesia: Church.
There is no “only”; there is no “which is” dividing “vera, sancta, catholica” from “Apostolica Romana Ecclesia”; the word “Church” does not appear twice. So how can you get “there is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church”? It’s just incorrect.
As an aside, you did not answer my question from the post you quoted. Can you provide an answer to the changes in Doctrine in regards to before and after Vatican II? Or do you simply wish to attack this one translation?
You didn’t ask any question in the post I quoted. :confused:

I’m not a theologian, so I will leave most of the deep thinking to people like Brother JR. But my point in attacking this translation was this: when it looks like doctrines are changing wildly, often the truth is that we are misunderstanding what was taught in the past, usually due to our ignorance of the circumstances and original text of old documents that we think we understand because some translation was posted on a website somewhere. This is what happened in the case of Unam sanctam (not actually about non-Catholics at all), and I was not in the least surprised to find out that scratching the surface of the quotation you posted revealed further inconsistencies and mistakes.

For what it’s worth, this often happens too when anti-Catholics post quotations from Catholic documents in an attempt to discredit the Church. I saw one on a Christian forum where the translation – and this one actually was from the Vatican website, see Fulgens Corona ¶ 18 – instructs Catholics to “worship” Mary. There were six or seven pages of posts where this was discussed ad nauseam, but not a single person bothered to look at the Latin, which actually used a broader word most of whose meanings are closer to “cherish, care for, attend to, revere, honor.” All that confusion could have been solved by a simple trip to the original text.
 
In short, Yes. in fact this is the first time I have ever heard anyone arguing that it was not infallible. I admit that I am surprised, although in our day and age this does not happen too often. The statement meets all the requirements for an infallible statement laid out by Pope Pius IX when he defined the dogma of Papal infallibility.
I believe that you may be referring to my statement here.
The dogma here is that all need to be united to the Church founded upon the Apostle Peter, because salvation comes through the Church. There is no problem there
The difference between what you’re saying and what I’m saying may be a matter of linguistic pragmatics, not a difference in belief. It’s probably more my fault than your own. I could have said more clearly.

Let me explain. There is a tendency to say that everything that a pope says or writes is infallible. This is not true. However, what does apply in this case and in many others, is that the popes write about dogmas. Dogmas are always infallible.

In this case, the Holy Father wrote about the necessity of communion with Peter. That’s a dogma. He was not declaring anything new. He is repeating what has already been believed by the majority of Christians from the time of the Apostles.

Therefore, he does not need to make an Ex Cathedra statement and he does not do so.

What Vatican I defines and the pope decrees is the conditions under which infallibility can be invoked. Those are the conditions that you have stated.

When I made by statement, I was not thinking forward to Vatican I. I was focussing on the fact that the Holy Father was not declaring a dogma that was already in place. He is reaffirming it.

That being said, we still have to take this statement along with all the hundreds of statements that have been made on this issue. They form a tapestry. We will never understand the whole of it, if we don’t understand all the statements and how they fit together. They actually do fit. The contradictions are only apparent, not real.

Happy Easter!

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The Bull was written by the Pope with the intention of defining an article of faith for the church. It is Intrinsically ex cathedra, because the head has spoken in his capacity as universal teacher to define a matter of faith and morals to be binding on the whole Church.
Do you really think that Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Isaias , Jeremias, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Maccabeus brothers, John the Baptist who were not subject to the Roman Pontiff are in the hell?
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
If the Pope wanted to define the Truth in all circumstances, so to make a generic infallible statement, why he used language arising problems related to this aspect?

Also please analyze the intention of the Pope? Did he believed his own statement when he forced Celestine V to retire? Or may be later he repented to taking control instead of accepting himself as subject to that Pope?
 
He did not make such a black and white condemnation. Pope Pius answering a very specific question. “If they all believe in Christ, what difference does it make whether one is Anglican or Catholic, Lutheran or Catholic, etc.?” It was a question about relativism.
The condemnation was made nonetheless, correct? Here is how it reads:

1717 17. We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ 13. [see n. 1646] 28 [see n. 1677]. (Denzinger EN 1717)

1646 Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ [see n. 1717]. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgments of God” which are 'a great deep" ( Ps. PS 35,7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.(Denzinger EN 1646) {emphasis mine}

1647 For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains “we shall see God as He is” (1JN 3,2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” ( Eph. EP 4,5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry. (Denzinger EN 1647){emphasis mine}

1648 But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, “for the hand of the Lord is not shortened” (IS 9,1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light. *Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls. *(Denzinger EN 1648){emphasis mine}

1677 And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life [see n. 1717]. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom “the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,” * cannot obtain eternal salvation.(Denzinger EN 1677)

Brother JR, I am not sure what source you have used that has these alleged ambiguities in what Pope Pius IX addressed, but no. 17 seems rather “black and white” to me. Could you lead me to where you might have found these said ambiguities?
Every couple of decades, maybe more frequently, relativism shows its ugly head. It is one thing to say that one should not believe that the non Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities do not have the fullness of faith and quite another to say that non Catholics cannot be saved.
To be clear, when you speak of this relativism, are you speaking in regards to the Church, or in regards to society at large?

God be with you.
 
The condemnation was made nonetheless, correct? Here is how it reads:

1717 17. We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ 13. [see n. 1646] 28 [see n. 1677]. (Denzinger EN 1717)

1646 Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ [see n. 1717]. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgments of God” which are 'a great deep" ( Ps. PS 35,7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.(Denzinger EN 1646) {emphasis mine}Brother JR, I am not sure what source you have used that has these alleged ambiguities in what Pope Pius IX addressed, but no. 17 seems rather “black and white” to me. Could you lead me to where you might have found these said ambiguities?

To be clear, when you speak of this relativism, are you speaking in regards to the Church, or in regards to society at large?

God be with you.

I know what it says quite well. I don’t believe that he is ambiguous. I believe that people read him incorrectly. I’ve highlighted in red the part that people read and run with, without reading the whole of it. People go around picking parts of what they like. The point that I’m trying to make is that we don’t do ecclesiology out of one document, unless of course it’s the only one on that subject. As it happens to be the case here, there are many documents that came before and after. In this one, it’s very interesting to note that the Holy Father already hints at the very idea that non-Catholics can achieve salvation. We have to read this document in context with what came before from other popes and councils and what came after from other popes and Vatican II. Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI have tried to clarify the for us what all of these documents mean when you put them together.

The conclusion is that it is one thing to say that the non-Catholic traditions are incomplete and another to say that Christ cannot use them to save. Because in fact, he does use them. Non-Catholics are not sentenced to a state of hopelessness. They have many graces that they receive through the Catholic Church. What they receive and what they could receive, which is the summary of what subsists in the Catholic Church are two different stories. There is no argument that they are lacking. This document tells us this and reminds us that we should not deceive ourselves into believing anything contrary to that. However, what people don’t pay attention to is that lacking does not mean empty. This is what today’s popes try to address. That’s why I say, we have to read the entire sequence of writings, keeping them in their historical context. Theology of history tells us that if you pull a Church teaching out of its historical context, you run the risk of losing part of its meaning and obviously message. God communicates through a context, not just the printed word. You may enjoy reading the Holy Father’s writings on this subject. He wrote several things on this when he was studying Franciscan theology or what is called Bonaventurian Theology, aka: Bonaventure. 🤷

As far as relativism, personally, I don’t believe that the Church herself is relativistic. Relativism is a social illness. However, we have to remember, people of faith (all faiths) live in society and we bring with us our baggage, good, bad and indifferent.

Happy Easter,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I know what it says quite well. I don’t believe that he is ambiguous. I believe that people read him incorrectly. I’ve highlighted in red the part that people read and run with, without reading the whole of it. People go around picking parts of what they like. The point that I’m trying to make is that we don’t do ecclesiology out of one document, unless of course it’s the only one on that subject. As it happens to be the case here, there are many documents that came before and after. In this one, it’s very interesting to note that the Holy Father already hints at the very idea that non-Catholics can achieve salvation. We have to read this document in context with what came before from other popes and councils and what came after from other popes and Vatican II. Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI have tried to clarify the for us what all of these documents mean when you put them together.
Brother JR, just so you understand my position on the salvation of those outside the Holy Mother Church, allow me to re-post our previous post:
Irish_Polock;7792956:
While I agree that we should not be quick to damn, we also should avoid the assumption that there is “good hope” for the salvation of those outside of the Holy Mother Church - the very proposition was condemned in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors
.

He did not make such a black and white condemnation. Pope Pius answering a very specific question. “If they all believe in Christ, what difference does it make whether one is Anglican or Catholic, Lutheran or Catholic, etc.?” It was a question about relativism.
I agreed that there is salvation for non-Catholics, whom have retained a part of the truth that the Church has taught - even if that truth is only a miniscule part of this persons salvation process. However, there is a couple “but,’s” in regards to this document, one being:

…But, as is Our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.(Denzinger EN 1646)

For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood…(Denzinger EN 1647)

Which is followed by a great explanation of invincible ignorance, then the dogma is again reiterated:

but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” ( Eph. EP 4,5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry. (Denzinger EN 1647)

So this reiterates the fact that we should not lead others to believe that outside of the Mother Church there is salvation, and it is unlawful to say otherwise. Now, “who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance” ? Not I. I am only a land surveyor with a interest in what God has willed; I will not pretend to know such limitations of God. But, I will not entertain the thought that I could certainly know that anyone outside of the Catholic Church might be saved, and I would not lead anyone to believe otherwise. Those that we know are indeed within the kingdom of God are Catholic, correct?

This Syllabus was ratified by St. Pius X, and this subject is a dogmatic teaching; correct? And does not contradict any Popes before said Syllabus.
As for post Syllabus Popes… that would more then likely require another lengthy thread on that particular subject. Although I will say this, and as you have already stated:
As far as relativism, personally, I don’t believe that the Church herself is relativistic. Relativism is a social illness. However, we have to remember, people of faith (all faiths) live in society and we bring with us our baggage, good, bad and indifferent.
This is my thoughts exactly, the Church in recent times, has been plagued by relativism and modernism - which is another set of baggage. While divinely protected, I feel, she is holding on to nothing more then a thread.

As a side note, while still Vatican Secretary of State, Msgr. Pacelli (Pius XII ) stated - or made this astonishing prophecy:

I am worried by the Blessed Virgins messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul…. I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past. (Roche, Pie XII Devant L’ Histoire, p. 52)

I can’t help but feel this was indeed a prophetic statement.

Happy Easter

God be with you.
 
The real question for us is: being Catholic is advantage or disadvantage toward the salvation?

The Merciful God draws everybody without distinction, the Just God judges everybody by his/her own action, not by the free gifts what one got. Those who got more are required higher result.

I believe that in percentile the Catholics are not better represented in the heaven than those who did not get the free gits of the Sacraments and the Unity with the Vicar of Christ. Anything else would be unjust against the non Catholics. We truly believe that before God we are all equal: nobodies.
 
I believe that you may be referring to my statement here.

The difference between what you’re saying and what I’m saying may be a matter of linguistic pragmatics, not a difference in belief. It’s probably more my fault than your own. I could have said more clearly.

Let me explain. There is a tendency to say that everything that a pope says or writes is infallible. This is not true. However, what does apply in this case and in many others, is that the popes write about dogmas. Dogmas are always infallible.

In this case, the Holy Father wrote about the necessity of communion with Peter. That’s a dogma. He was not declaring anything new. He is repeating what has already been believed by the majority of Christians from the time of the Apostles.

Therefore, he does not need to make an Ex Cathedra statement and he does not do so.

What Vatican I defines and the pope decrees is the conditions under which infallibility can be invoked. Those are the conditions that you have stated.

When I made by statement, I was not thinking forward to Vatican I. I was focussing on the fact that the Holy Father was not declaring a dogma that was already in place. He is reaffirming it.

That being said, we still have to take this statement along with all the hundreds of statements that have been made on this issue. They form a tapestry. We will never understand the whole of it, if we don’t understand all the statements and how they fit together. They actually do fit. The contradictions are only apparent, not real.

Happy Easter!

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I wasn’t referring to your statement in particular, I was just going by a quick scan down the page. I admit it is a bad habit of mine to read through posts too quickly and post before I have taken all positions into consideration. That being said, I agree with you that the Pope was not declaring anything new and that he was reaffirming the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation, which was already a dogma. A big problem in the past, that is; before the definition of Papal Infallibility, was that theologians sometimes made mistakes when they taught a doctrine was infallible or that it was not - e.g. St Robert Bellarmine and St alphonsus etc. It was only really after the definition that theologians could be sure that when a statement met all the criteria it was infallible. This included examining statements from the past. However, in cases such as this when the language is like; “We decree, declare, define, pronounce” etc the majority of theologians knew they were dealing with and infallible teaching, when the matter concerned the faith.

This statement in particular: "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." is infallible as it meets all of the criteria. Now the majority of people will recognise this as dogmatic, but the interpretations will no doubt differ as most of us on this forum are aware. However, I think the danger is, with so many liberal and modernist tendencies today, when people no longer recognise what is infallible by the criteria laid out by Pope Pius IX in his definition. This makes everything subject to change including dogmas, which undermines the entire faith as Pope St Pius X made clear in Pascendi. The dogmatic teachings of the Church must be understood in the same sense which the Church has once and for all declared, and are never subject to review or to be interpreted in a different sense than they had been in the past. In order to get the most accurate interpretation of the dogma therefore, we should look at the constant practice of the Church, the common writing of the theologians and other related magisterial pronouncements. We know that protestant infants who are baptised are actually Catholic - not really protestant and are therefore by the sacrament of baptism made subject to the Church and therefore its Christ ordained authority: the Roman Pontiff - until they attain the use of reason and make their own choices. All baptised persons are subject to the Church, even if they rebel against its authority. Since the doctors and saints commonly held baptism of desire, while holding EENS and this particular dogma, we can infer that a desire (in the sense understood traditionally) would suffice in their minds to be also to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in voto, though in practice no one can be subject to the Pope or Church who is not baptised. This is what I mean when I say that the understanding of this dogma is intimately connected with that of extra ecclesia nulla salus.
 
I wasn’t referring to your statement in particular, I was just going by a quick scan down the page. I admit it is a bad habit of mine to read through posts too quickly and post before I have taken all positions into consideration. That being said, I agree with you that the Pope was not declaring anything new and that he was reaffirming the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation, which was already a dogma. A big problem in the past, that is; before the definition of Papal Infallibility, was that theologians sometimes made mistakes when they taught a doctrine was infallible or that it was not - e.g. St Robert Bellarmine and St alphonsus etc. It was only really after the definition that theologians could be sure that when a statement met all the criteria it was infallible. This included examining statements from the past. However, in cases such as this when the language is like; “We decree, declare, define, pronounce” etc the majority of theologians knew they were dealing with and infallible teaching, when the matter concerned the faith.

This statement in particular: "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." is infallible as it meets all of the criteria. Now the majority of people will recognise this as dogmatic, but the interpretations will no doubt differ as most of us on this forum are aware. However, I think the danger is, with so many liberal and modernist tendencies today, when people no longer recognise what is infallible by the criteria laid out by Pope Pius IX in his definition. This makes everything subject to change including dogmas, which undermines the entire faith as Pope St Pius X made clear in Pascendi. The dogmatic teachings of the Church must be understood in the same sense which the Church has once and for all declared, and are never subject to review or to be interpreted in a different sense than they had been in the past. In order to get the most accurate interpretation of the dogma therefore, we should look at the constant practice of the Church, the common writing of the theologians and other related magisterial pronouncements. We know that protestant infants who are baptised are actually Catholic - not really protestant and are therefore by the sacrament of baptism made subject to the Church and therefore its Christ ordained authority: the Roman Pontiff - until they attain the use of reason and make their own choices. All baptised persons are subject to the Church, even if they rebel against its authority. Since the doctors and saints commonly held baptism of desire, while holding EENS and this particular dogma, we can infer that a desire (in the sense understood traditionally) would suffice in their minds to be also to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in voto, though in practice no one can be subject to the Pope or Church who is not baptised. This is what I mean when I say that the understanding of this dogma is intimately connected with that of extra ecclesia nulla salus.
We agree on all the above. As far as the decree, the wording “We decree, etc” is was redundant, but His Holiness felt it was necessary to restate it in such an emphatic manner. Who are we to question what he was seeing that we’re not?

However, I am amazed that many defenders of EENS on these threads stop at Pope Pius X. Pope Pius X was not the last pope of the Catholic Church. To stop there borders on sedevacantism. It implies that the popes who followed him got it wrong. If they got it wrong, then the Holy Spirit is not with them. If that’s the case, are they truly popes?

If we believe that those who followed are truly popes and that the Holy Spirit is with them, when they speak about dogmas using the Ordinary Magisterium, then we cannot leave what they have said on this subject out of the equation and we cannot reject it. We have to seek to understand how it fits into the tapestry that is this great teaching.

It is too easy to stop at a pope that we like. People do this in both directions and both are wrong. Some people act as if there was no other pope after Pius X, others after Pius XII and others as if there was no pope prior to John XXIII. Both positions are ludicrous. The Magisterium has continued and we are bound to listen and to try to understand.

When we don’t understand, we are bound to trust that the Holy Spirit is our guide and follow along. It is not our role nor our right to scrutinize the Ordinary Magisterium of any pope. We analyze for the sake of learning, not for the purpose of proving wrong or defending our position, that constitutes an abuse of freedom.

Pope John Paul II spoke very strongly on this issue. He said that democratic societies believe that democracy is an end and they are mistaken. Democracy is a means to ensure that every man and woman is free to worship God according to his conscience. However, many have used their freedom in order to question the Church and to challenge the Church under the veil of freedom. He explained that such a use of democracy is an abuse of freedom.

When we try to frame the truth between this pope and that pope to the exclusion of all others, then we are abusing our freedom to study, our freedom to speak and our freedom to teach, because we are assuming that we understand what the popes have failed to understand. Is this not a personal Magisterium of our own?

Have a Blessed Easter filled with the mercy of the Risen Lord!

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
All Salvation Comes through Christ

[We find Pope John Paul II reaffirming the EENS dogma, but it must be understood as the Church herself understands it. Hopefully this commentary will help those who find difficulty submitting to the teaching of the Church.]

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351).

The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10).

It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

Religions can exercise a positive influence on the destiny of those who belong to them and follow their guidance in a sincere spirit. However, if decisive action for salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, we must keep in mind that man receives his salvation only from Christ through the Holy Spirit. Salvation already begins during earthly life. This grace, when accepted and responded to, brings forth fruit in the gospel sense for earth and for heaven.

What has been said, however, should not lead to the conclusion that her missionary activity is less needed in these situations–quite the contrary. …]

This is the theological approach drawn from Christian tradition. The Church’s Magisterium has followed it in her doctrine and practice as the way indicated by Christ himself for the apostles and for missionaries in every age.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html
 
The question has been answered. Thank you for participating.

THREAD CLOSED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top