What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

[rinnie]

No. I quoted Popes who said that (see post 139).

Popes quoted in post 139 said that; but the CCC gives exceptions, such as:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

I disagree that, without exception, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The issue isn’t valid orders. It is salvation and whether “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” as declared, proclaimed, and defined by Unam Sanctam—which, in post 175, you said is an infallible teaching.

The issue is not how any “Church can be the True Catholic Church that is not connected to the Apostles sent by Christ,” or “How can we be saved if we do not have the Valid Sacraments.”

The issue is salvation outside the CC.

The CCC gives more than one exception.

Once again, the issue is not “in order to have a valid Holy Orders they must be united by Apostolic Succession and that means they have to be united to the RCC.”

The issue is salvation and whether “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” as declared, proclaimed, and defined by Unam Sanctam—which, in post 175, you said is an infallible teaching.

Not just “recognize,” but also “obey.”

Pope Pius XI:
“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).

I’m not trying to prove Pope John Paul II wrong. I’m trying to understand which Popes spoke infallibly about salvation, and how you can agree with what every Pope said, when they don’t seem to be saying the same thing as the CCC.

So, I asked you some very specific questions, which you refuse to answer.

I’m asking for direct answers to direct questions. Is there any chance you will answer these?

Peace,
Anna

I thought I did. Is there Salvation outside of the Catholic Church? NO

Can someone who is not taught this be held to it? NO

But does it change the meaning? NO.

All Salvation comes from the CC which is Jesus Christ.

If a Person does not know about Jesus Christ and is not subjected to the teaching can they be saved? Yes? But it still comes by the grace and love of Jesus Christ and his Mercy.

Just like the question can a person who is not baptised enter heaven? No not according to the word of GOd. But on the other hand can Christ with his Mercy grant them Baptism himself? Of course he can, he can do anything he wants.

Is it Possible? Anything is Possible for Christ. Is it a guarantee? We can guarantee nothing. We do not know the extent of Gods mercy.

All the Church can teach is it is necessary to be baptised. We can only teach what we know.

On the other hand we cannot judge anyone or the mercy of Christ.

Did I answer what you want Anna. If not I don’t know what more I can say.

 

[rinnie]

Again Ann they are subjected to the Roman Pom. if they have valid Holy Orders. I said that.

Although they are not in PERFECT communion they are tied to the Roman Pope by the Apostolic Succession.

Also Anna you cannot be OUT of commumion with the Roman Church which is Christ if you believe in Jesus Christ. He is the CC.

While the commumion as I said is not PERFECT it is connected. Anyone who believes in Jesus CHrist is tied to his Church rather they know it or not.

They have some part of the teaching of the RCC. IF Christ is in that Church that have some part of the RC Teaching.

 

[rinnie]

You should have kept going rinnie. St James was the leader of the Council of Jerusalem.

Holy Acts of the Apostles 15:6-20
And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The Bishop is the leader of the RCC in my area also. A particular area of Church’s. But he still is under the Pope. Many Bishops have a particular area. But he is not the POPE. He is the leader of the Pitt. Area.

There are many Bishops, but they still do not hold the seat of Peter. So I do not see your poing.

Anyway Micky you know I love you. You and Guan. are my 2 very favorite people on this forum. Even though you and I butt heads MOST of the time But thats

But gotta head out for the second job. No computer there. So will catch up with you on Mon. Bought a old house and me and hubby are re-doing it from top to bottom. Its soooo much work. But someone has to give the orders and keep the beer cold:hammering:

God bless and talk to you Mon. And Anna see you then also. For now Will keep you all in my prayers.

 

[Mickey]

Many Bishops have a particular area. But he is not the POPE.

St Peter was not the Pope either.

God bless and talk to you Mon.

I will be gone until at least after the Apostles Fast and the Feast of SS Peter and Paul (which is June 29).

Peace and prayers,
Mickey

 

[Anna_Scott]

How can both of these statements be true?

Statement #1

I thought I did. Is there Salvation outside of the Catholic Church? NO

Statement #2

Can someone who is not taught this be held to it? NO. But does it change the meaning? NO.

If someone, who is not taught to believe there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, is not held to that and can be saved; then there is salvation outside the Catholic Church—which makes Statement #1 false.

All Salvation comes from the CC which is Jesus Christ.

You are claiming that the Catholic Church*** is*** Jesus Christ? Please provide a source for this.

If a Person does not know about Jesus Christ and is not subjected to the teaching can they be saved? Yes? But it still comes by the grace and love of Jesus Christ and his Mercy.

Then your statement “Is there Salvation outside of the Catholic Church? NO” is not true. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and then say there is. These are contradictory statements.

Just like the question can a person who is not baptised enter heaven? No not according to the word of GOd. But on the other hand can Christ with his Mercy grant them Baptism himself? Of course he can, he can do anything he wants. Is it Possible? Anything is Possible for Christ. Is it a guarantee? We can guarantee nothing. We do not know the extent of Gods mercy. All the Church can teach is it is necessary to be baptised. We can only teach what we know. On the other hand we cannot judge anyone or the mercy of Christ.

No arguments here.

Did I answer what you want Anna. If not I don’t know what more I can say.

No. You did not my answer my questions.

As for what more you can do; I would simply ask that you answer the following questions, which I have repeatedly asked you. If you believe you have answered them, please cite the post(s) containing the answers:

In Post 175, you agreed the statement in Unam Sanctam: “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” is an infallible teaching,

Question #1:-----but even though this infallible teaching says, “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” some human creatures, not subject to the Roman Pontiff, will be saved? (I’m talking about your statements regarding an exception) Doesn’t that contract the infallible teaching?

Question #2-----Did Unam Sanctam, which you say is an infallible teaching, define the exceptions of which you speak–to clear up this apparent contradiction?

Question #3-----If Unam Sanctam didn’t define exceptions; at what point in history were these “exceptions” defined?

Please provide sources.

If you don’t want to answer the questions, just say so----and I will respect that and stop asking; but please don’t claim you have already answered them, when you haven’t.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Again Ann they are subjected to the Roman Pom. if they have valid Holy Orders. I said that. Although they are not in PERFECT communion they are tied to the Roman Pope by the Apostolic Succession.

Aren’t the Orthodox the only Christians outside the Catholic Church, recognized by the CC as having valid orders? Your above statement would exclude all other Christians from our discussion regarding salvation, including me, an Anglican.

Also Anna you cannot be OUT of commumion with the Roman Church which is Christ if you believe in Jesus Christ. He is the CC.

So, no Christian out of Communion with the Roman Church, which would include the Orthodox, believe in Christ?

Also, you’re saying Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church? Source please.

While the commumion as I said is not PERFECT it is connected. Anyone who believes in Jesus CHrist is tied to his Church rather they know it or not.

They have some part of the teaching of the RCC. IF Christ is in that Church that have some part of the RC Teaching.

I agree that, as Christians, we are connected; but your statements are contradictory.

How can anyone who believes in Jesus Christ be tied to his Church, when you just said you cannot be OUT of communion with the Roman Church which is Christ if you believe in Jesus Christ. ???

It would be really helpful, if you would provide sources for your statements.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Again Ann

rinnie,
Maybe we should take a break from the discussion, until after the weekend. It’s not my intention to put pressure on you.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[KathleenGee]

I with through the book, ‘Crossing the Threshold of Hope’, by his holiness John Paul II.

The book is in interview form. The very first part of the book is on the primacy of the papacy.

He begins by saying that when first elected pope, his first message to the people were Christ’s words, ‘Do not be afraid’. And likewise he says, do not be afraid of the title of Vicar of Christ.

Knowing parish canon law…you can take it to the top. First of all, whether people want it or not, your baptism incorporates a person into the Catholic Church. Whether you go to Mass or not, your baptism is valid. You are incorporated into the Body of Christ.

Every priest prays not only for his parishioners; he prays and is responsible for every soul within his parish boundaries. The bishop prays for every soul within his diocese. And the Holy Father has jurisdiction over the entire world, to pray for entire mankind. The role of the pope is a scandal in his terms to contemporary mankind. The role of the pope is a contradiction in itself, but he says, so was Christ a contradiction.

All Masses are said to atone for sin in the world. No other religion has worship that is accepting to the Father. There is a Mass said every hour of the day throughout the entire world. The Mass is uniting all souls to the Lord Jesus to be offered to the Father for our daily sins.

So all Christians are especially blessed with baptism, recognized by the Church as our brethren, albeit separated, and all mankind is being blessed, saved, and atoned for in the daily Mass. Even if a person never goes near a church, if they are living in good will towards others, helping those in need, being grateful, a peacemaker, just—without knowing Christ or not understanding the Catholic Church, they are nevertheless drawing on the merits of Jesus Christ Who came to conquer sin and death.

In regards to the Church and Rinnie’s comment that the Church is Christ…she means that the Church is like a living sacrament, breathing, organic, and consecrated to Christ as His Bride, and being the source of the sacraments, which are the outward signs of the divine life of Christ’s grace within.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I posted a couple of Church Fathers who explained it for me, Gary.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
The Apostles.
The last I heard, The Roman Catholics believe that the Church Fathers (part of Holy Tradition) help us to interpret Sacred Scripture.

Are you a sola Scriptura Roman Catholic?
Oh my! I hope I am reading this incorrectly. Did you just denigrate the holy Apostles Paul and John?
No it is not. No one has been able to answer Anna’s questions yet.
The protestants were a result of Roman Catholic abuses (and they were not out of their minds). The Orthodox did not have a horse in that race.
Settle down Gary. You are getting all worked up and beginning to talk nonsense.

Objectively MIck, Catholic’s believe the Church arrives as it is today in Rome by the Divine word of Christ in Matthew.

While “you” may believe in Bible interpretation as you indicate. Theres over a Billion Catholics who are not only convinced of Matthew/Peter, they watched the Divine stand the test of time with it. There was never any guarentee Man would not error or would be subjected to the human period. The infinate has survived as it stated it would. The finate play their roles in their period of man. The Succession from Peter is here as Christ said it would be. And its withstood all empires and evils for 2000 years.

So I guess we disagee on the roll of the papacy on earth.

Peace. I never get upset. I wanted you to start your day out right

 

[KathleenGee]

Going into the particularities of JPII, he said people consider Vicar of Christ, Holy Father, Your Holiness – expressions – as inimical to the Gospel…however, their use comes out of a long tradition.

The Lord has asked us to call Him, Father. JPII says do not be afraid to say Father, desire to be perfect just as our Heavenly Father is perfect…the focus on sanctity…freely offered to all of us.

Christ is the sacrament of the invisible God. Sacrament indicates presence. JPII says do not be afraid of God Who became man.

About Peter…we know he denied Christ. And Christ knew when the Holy Spirit then spoke through Peter from the Father, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’. Peter also shared issues with those who cannot see Christ as God suffering for us, and being put on the cross.

Peter showed he was not capable of following Christ, and was not at the Crucifixion. At the Resurrection, however, he was the first to enter the tomb…John acknowledging Christ’s appointment of Peter as the rock, and allowing Peter to enter first.

Christ confirmed Peter’s mission even after the Resurrection, ‘Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep’. Peter could not follow Christ, he could not profess the truth of Christ, he could not enter the tomb on the day of the Resurrection without the Holy Spirit.

Non-Catholics are looking at the papacy as alone without the communion of bishops, and most of all, without the Holy Spirit------We look at the Holy Father through the Holy Spirit, and the communion of bishops around the world, and the bishops represent the faith of their local people–us, what we believe and affirm, adn what we reject.

The Holy Father professes with all of us ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ 'Over the centuries this has been the Church’s profession of faith, as wellas that of those who share her faith and all of those to whom the Father revealed the Son in the Holy Spirit, just sa the Son in the Holy Spirit revealed to them the Father.

This Revelation is definitive; one can only accept it or reject it. On can accept it, professing belief in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, the Son, of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit, who is Lord and the Giver of life. Or one can reject all of this, writing in capital letters,: “God does not have a Son”; "Jesus Christ is not the the Christ, is not the Son of God '…Peter himself had doubts. Peter had struggles.

JPII says being pope is not easy. But it hasn’t been in the past for any other pope as well. But Christ brings as special presence to every priest who celebrates the Eucharist.

JPII states that the title, ‘Vicar of Christ’, assumes its true meaning in the dignity of service. JPII’s Petrine ministry for the good of the entire Church and the faithful. St. Gregory understood this perfectly when of all the titles of Bishop of Rome, he preferred Servus servorum Dei…Servant of the Servants of God. This title also includes all the bishops throughout the world.

'One duty of the Pope is to profess ‘The bridegroom is with them’–those men and women who have fully consecrated their lives to Christ in the Church in the nuptial dimension.

I am slowly studying Church history. I am reading about the history of the papacy. What impression I have from this reading is just how miraculous the Church has survived to its present form, because every generation was afflicted with great trials and uncertainties, the pendulum swaying for balance between the papacy or conditions or temporal rulers.

Today the role of the papacy for many has been the great sign of unity and one single voice representing both Christ and all of us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

On this Rock I will build my Church…Jesus conceived of St Peter as an architect on whose construction an immense developement would be centered, a human edifice that would outlast the centuries and embrace the whole earth.

Space and Time have no bounds.The words of Jesus have been fulfilled. The Roman empire fell and the church rebuilt and created europe and its civilization, despite all the crisis. And now in the midst of this modern crisis in which sees the collapse of empires, in a war that is perhaps headed to the exaustion and the ruin of both sides, the Church stands firm.

When the Pope talks it is not to only to his flock of Catholic’s. He expects the world to listen. And his flock and the world do listen, not always liking what they hear. People who see him do not forget him. His appearences generate an interest unmatched by anyone on earth. Not bad for the heir of a Fisherman.

God Bless, Gary

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t see any leader having the stature as we see in the papacy.

It is not the human person himself, but the presence of Christ Who gives such prominence to the servant of the servants through the office of St. Peter…

We need at the end of the line, one person representing all of us, not two disagreeing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The joys and the hopes and the griefs and anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the the joys, hopes, griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Nothing human fails to raise an echo in their hearts.

The Catholic Community, united in Christ are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of their Father, and they have welcomed the news of salvation which is meant for everyone. That is why this community realizes that it is truly linked with mankind and its history by the deepest of bonds.

And that bond is from GOD to Peter “On this Rock I will build my Church”

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

This is Paul speaking and converting with the theology that all are united in Christ and then all built upon the cornerstone which is Christ to form “one” not two or 3600. Which of course would be correct. My favorite apostle btw. And yes of course we love all the apostles equally.

Nonetheless …GOD…said to Peter, GOD said this Mick…"On this Rock I will build my Church. Cornerstone=God, the Rock=Peter. Did God say anything like this to any of the other apostles? We know what Paul said preaching etc.

We also know all those the apostles taught consistantly [John with Ignatius of Antioch] and all referred to Rome the Primacy. Not Antioch, not Alexandria. Matter of fact Alexandria was the first choice before Constantinople but…it was destroyed.

Of course the linage of Constantinople is realized, yet we seem to want to downplay the Primacy of Rome and the NT of Matthew which btw I haven’t heard anyone speak on???

Point? The point is my brother, how can their be communion, or how can we even talk on any issue when theres a problem right from the rip in scripture/history to Rome with Matthew and the word of God?

Human error or issue plays no part in the big picture. Schism? Nothing new, there have been schisms in the Catholic Church with Two Popes at the same time, heresy, murder, and every other human condition by mans thinking. The only reason you hear about the sex scandle is because nobody bothered to actually research the church. All kinds of chaos occured over the centurys. In the end its Gods Kingdom. And theres only ONE as Paul so brilliantly stated in your quote! So shall we go with what the Divine stated or what man thinks? Feed my Sheep!

God Bless, Gary

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks for your posts, Gary…

The Holy Father is infallible when he is in the Holy Spirit.

And when he speaks infallibly, he is speaking in union with all bishops throughout the world, and the Holy Spirit also in us, and we likewise affirm infallibly what the Holy Father declares.

 

[AmateurPianist]

If someone, who is not taught to believe there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, is not held to that and can be saved; then there is salvation outside the Catholic Church—which makes Statement #1 false.

Find this kinda interesting. My one contribution.

I think one underlying issue is whether Unum Sanctum negates the possibility of what is called “invincible ignorance”. If it does, then aborted foetuses, miscarriages, stillborn babies and the like go directly to hell because they too are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Since nobody really likes the idea of God sending dead foetuses to hell, everybody (well most everybody) believes in invincible ignorance on some level. It is my understanding that Catholics do also.

But once you acknowledge the possibility of invincible ignorance you then have a bigger question as to what its boundaries are. And there are big time cutoff point issues here (could get into this a lot more).

So the second question is (if Unum Sanctum does not negate invincible ignorance) does it provide boundaries for it and what are these boundaries.

Now if I were Catholic I would probably respond that Unum Sanctum does not negate invincible ignorance, neither does it provide boundaries for it. Since I am not Catholic I dunno how I would substantiate this response.

Now if I were Catholic I also would probably acknowledge that the Church at the time of Unum Sanctum probably had a much narrower understanding of invincible ignorance than the Church of today. But since the church has never (wisely) authoritatively ruled what the boundaries are, that is ok.

Of course I am not Catholic and for all I know this line of reasoning is bogus. But based on my faulty understanding of it, I think my response would reason in this way.

BTW us fundy evangelical types have the same type of sticky wickets with regards to invincible ignorance (we say we don’t believe in it but really we do). But I digress.

 

[Anna_Scott]

First of all, whether people want it or not, your baptism incorporates a person into the Catholic Church. Whether you go to Mass or not, your baptism is valid. You are incorporated into the Body of Christ.

. . . .All Masses are said to atone for sin in the world. No other religion has worship that is accepting to the Father. There is a Mass said every hour of the day throughout the entire world. The Mass is uniting all souls to the Lord Jesus to be offered to the Father for our daily sins.

So all Christians are especially blessed with baptism, recognized by the Church as our brethren, albeit separated, and all mankind is being blessed, saved, and atoned for in the daily Mass. Even if a person never goes near a church, if they are living in good will towards others, helping those in need, being grateful, a peacemaker, just—without knowing Christ or not understanding the Catholic Church, they are nevertheless drawing on the merits of Jesus Christ Who came to conquer sin and death. . . .

KathleenGee,

I appreciate all that you have said.

I think your comments closely represent what the CC teaches today. The problem is that Catholics say the CC has never changed in matters of “faith and morals.” I can’t imagine that salvation–which involves the very Gospel of Christ would not fall under the category of “faith and morals”—especially since the Marian doctrines were infallibly defined as necessary for salvation.

As you can see from my posts; I’ve been trying to understand what is and is not an infallible teaching about salvation. Some Popes of the past stated very clearly that there is no salvation unless you are subject to the Roman Pontiff or obey the Roman Pontiff. Pope Eugene IV defined it more explicitly saying, “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”. . . .

Pope Eugene IV:
"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.)

I’ve tried to avoid the Peter/Keys issue, because it has been, in many ways, a diversion from the issue of what is infallibly proclaimed about salvation and whether or not that has changed.

However, you are defining what it means to be subject to or “incorporated into” the CC, which is part of the teaching about salvation in question. So, I will respond by saying that it seems very clear that Pope Eugene IV’s understanding of what it means to be subject to or “incorporated into” the Catholic Church is very different from what you are describing–as does Unam Sanctam and quotes from other Popes in Post #139.

First of all, whether people want it or not, your baptism incorporates a person into the Catholic Church. Whether you go to Mass or not, your baptism is valid. You are incorporated into the Body of Christ.

If your statement above is true and baptism incorporates everyone into the Catholic Church; then it seems that would negate the Catholic argument that Anglican orders are invalid.

I don’t think you can have it both ways. If we are incorporated into the Catholic Church through Baptism, then our Sacraments are valid. If , as Catholics say, our Sacraments are not valid, then that means we are not part of the Catholic Church.

I don’t think you can have it both ways regarding salvation either. You can’t claim “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” . . . .and then centuries later define exceptions, unless the early Popes were wrong.

—And if the early Popes were wrong about salvation, then you can’t really claim the Catholic Church hasn’t changed, unless you exclude salvation from “faith and morals.”

—Unless you discredit what the previous Popes said; and claim they were not speaking Ex Cathedra. Yet, even then, since one must submit “religious mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra, Catholics living in past centuries would not have believed there were any exceptions to salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .About Peter…we know he denied Christ. And Christ knew when the Holy Spirit then spoke through Peter from the Father, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’. Peter also shared issues with those who cannot see Christ as God suffering for us, and being put on the cross.

Peter showed he was not capable of following Christ, and was not at the Crucifixion. At the Resurrection, however, he was the first to enter the tomb…John acknowledging Christ’s appointment of Peter as the rock, and allowing Peter to enter first.

Peter wasn’t the first to enter the tomb, so I don’t see how that is a sign of his “appointment as the rock.”

Mark 16:
1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?”

4And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back— it was very large. 5And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.

7But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." 8And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Wasn’t Peter considered, at that time, a “fallen disciple”, since he had denied Christ? There is a distinction made in Mark 16:7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

Wasn’t Mary Magdalene the first to see the risen Lord; and wasn’t the Lord’s appearance to Peter His third appearance?

Regarding entrance to the tomb of Christ and the order of appearances of Christ; I’m not seeing Peter stand as having been “appointed.”

Peace,
Anna

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Anna,

I don’t think you can have it both ways regarding salvation either. You can’t claim “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” . . . .and then centuries later define exceptions, unless the early Popes were wrong.

To what “exceptions” are you referring? The only one of which I am aware is the “exception” of invincible ignorance. Do you have something else in mind?

The Catholic Church understands that there has been no change since the “exception” of invincible ignorance has ALWAYS been recognized by the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Anna_Scott]

Find this kinda interesting. My one contribution.

I think one underlying issue is whether Unum Sanctum negates the possibility of what is called “invincible ignorance”. . . . . .

But once you acknowledge the possibility of invincible ignorance you then have a bigger question as to what its boundaries are. And there are big time cutoff point issues here (could get into this a lot more).

So the second question is (if Unum Sanctum does not negate invincible ignorance) does it provide boundaries for it and what are these boundaries. . . .

I have the same questions about the “boundaries” of Unam Sanctam. I’ve tried to get an answer in my questions 2 & 3; but I have not received one.

**Question #2-----Did Unam Sanctam, which you say is an infallible teaching, **define the exceptions of which you speak-****-to clear up this apparent contradiction?

Question #3-----If Unam Sanctam didn’t define exceptions; at what point in history were these “exceptions” defined?
AmateurPianist;8005955:

. . . .Now if I were Catholic I also would probably acknowledge that the Church at the time of Unum Sanctum probably had a much narrower understanding of invincible ignorance than the Church of today. But since the church has never (wisely) authoritatively ruled what the boundaries are, that is ok. . . .

I understand your reasoning and I see that as part of the CC’s approach to such issues. However, I wouldn’t exactly say it’s O.K.

The CC claims it never changes–that infallible teachings may be more clearly defined or understood over time, but they never change.

IMO, the beliefs regarding salvation outside the Catholic Church do seem to have changed. The problem lies in trying to pin down precisely which statements are infallible.

----And, as I’ve said several times on this thread, without knowing what the infallible teachings are; it is impossible to answer the question of whether or not I object to them. So, the question of this thread is impossible to answer completely.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .The Catholic Church understands that there has been no change since the “exception” of invincible ignorance has ALWAYS been recognized by the Church.

Please provide your source. IOW, cite the first time the exception of “invincible ignorance” was defined by the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Anna