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

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .So shall we go with what the Divine stated or what man thinks? Feed my Sheep!

Gary,
The problem lies in the interpretation of what the Divine stated; and there is no agreement within all of Christendom on that interpretation.

Peace,
Anna

 

[mardukm]

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

Well, “invincible ignorance” has never been “defined.” The Church has only ever defined things over which there was a conflict. But I am not aware that the principle of invincible ignorance has ever been denied in the Catholic Church. It is normally non-Catholics who doubt it.

For example, in the OT, God distinguished between sins done with full knowledge, which deserved death, and those same sins done unwillingly or inadvertantly, which did not deserve death. Also Scripture specifically teaches that only those who have heard and rejected will be condemned.

The closest thing to a denial of the principle of invincible ignorance from the early Church is the idea that those who have not heard the Gospel did not do so because God, in his foreknowledge, knew they would have rejected the Gospel, and so did not bother to send someone to them. The most prominent proponent of this view was St. Augustine, and it was popularized by the Calvinists in support of their heresy of double predestination. The Catholic Church has dogmatically rejected this opinion, at least since the time of the Reformation, since it contradicted the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Does that help?

Also, were you thinking of another “exception” aside from invincible ignorance?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is the disagreement in what Matthew actually states, or how the CC interprets it through infallible declaration?

Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,
The problem lies in the interpretation of what the Divine stated; and there is no agreement within all of Christendom on that interpretation.

Peace,
Anna

I’m listening to you and Mickey and I believe as I posted on the other thread that the correct thinking from the onset would be here…

“But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;” and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).

But here you have my opinion in how I view scripture in context with the church, the whole church.

God Bless, Gary

 

[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.

Well, “invincible ignorance” has never been “defined.” The Church has only ever defined things over which there was a conflict. But I am not aware that the principle of invincible ignorance has ever been denied in the Catholic Church. It is normally non-Catholics who doubt it.

For example, in the OT, God distinguished between sins done with full knowledge, which deserved death, and those same sins done unwillingly or inadvertantly, which did not deserve death. Also Scripture specifically teaches that only those who have heard and rejected will be condemned. . . . .

Does that help?. . . . . .

Actually, it doesn’t help, because you did not provide a single source to prove “invincible ignorance” has always been taught by the CC.

The closest thing to a denial of the principle of invincible ignorance from the early Church is the idea that those who have not heard the Gospel did not do so because God, in his foreknowledge, knew they would have rejected the Gospel, and so did not bother to send someone to them.

The most prominent proponent of this view was St. Augustine, and it was popularized by the Calvinists in support of their heresy of double predestination.

The Catholic Church has dogmatically rejected this opinion, at least since the time of the Reformation, since it contradicted the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Well, “invincible ignorance” has never been “defined.” . .

Consider these quotes to the contrary:

Pope St. Pius X: “Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”” (Acerbo Nimis)

Pope Pius XI: “Behold how many souls are lost every hour! Behold the countless millions of those who live in barbarous regions and do not know Jesus Christ!” (Raccolta 628)

The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, replied: “It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.”

Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”

Pope Pius XII: “O Mary Mother of Mercy and Refuge of Sinners! We beseech thee to look with pitying eyes on poor heretics and schismatics. Do thou, who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds wretchedly enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly recognize the Holy, Catholic, Roman Church to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither sanctity nor salvation can be found.” (The Raccolta, 1957, No. 626. The prayer was also indulgenced by Pope Pius IX.)

How are the above quotes compatible with your claim that “invincible ignorance” has always been taught by the CC?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m listening to you and Mickey and I believe as I posted on the other thread that the correct thinking from the onset would be here…

“But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;” and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).

But here you have my opinion in how I view scripture in context with the church, the whole church.

God Bless, Gary

Gary,
I do understand this is the Catholic interpretation.

However, it is not the same interpretation as that of the Orthodox or that of Anglican Catholics.

Peace,
Anna

 

[GaryTaylor]

Anna I’m not sure how the EO or Angelicans would interpret this?

Gary

 

[AmateurPianist]

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.

If I were Catholic (which I am not of course) my argument would be that what has changed is the understanding of the bounds of “invincible ignorance”. The earlier writings reflect an understanding of very narrow boundaries while the later writings reflect an understanding of more expansive boundaries. But since the Church has never defined what these boundaries are, these differences of understanding are ok.

I would also claim that the Church has held this from the beginning. How I would support this I am not sure. I do think “Baptism of Desire” supports this on one level in that there will be people in heaven that were not baptized. If there are writings that extend this grace to say stillborn infants, miscarriages or newborn infants that would also support it. I would also claim that the only way one can disprove this assertion would be if writings exists that claim miscarried human beings are condemned to damnation.

But that would be if I were Catholic. I feel funny doing their work.

 

[Anna_Scott]

If I were Catholic (which I am not of course) my argument would be that what has changed is the understanding of the bounds of “invincible ignorance”. The earlier writings reflect an understanding of very narrow boundaries while the later writings reflect an understanding of more expansive boundaries. But since the Church has never defined what these boundaries are, these differences of understanding are ok.

I would also claim that the Church has held this from the beginning. How I would support this I am not sure. I do think “Baptism of Desire” supports this on one level in that there will be people in heaven that were not baptized. If there are writings that extend this grace to say stillborn infants, miscarriages or newborn infants that would also support it. I would also claim that the only way one can disprove this assertion would be if writings exists that claim miscarried human beings are condemned to damnation.

But that would be if I were Catholic. I feel funny doing their work.

Well, AP,
I would say that you are giving the Catholic position serious consideration, which is a very mature approach. This approach also indicates that you are looking for truth rather than making “being right” your mission on these forums. I respect that about you and all who come to the table sincerely searching for truth.

I think you and I have both changed some of our ideas and beliefs since we’ve been in discussions on CAF.

I’ve changed my mind on quite a few things, when I found I could not support certain beliefs. I now embrace infant Baptism, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Communion of the Saints–just to name a few. My views on the Marian doctrines have certainly changed as well. In light of all that and other experiences and circumstances—I left the Southern Baptist Church; and I am now a conservative Anglican.

In that same spirit of searching for truth; I am asking questions about infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church, since our thread topic is: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

Since there is no “list” of infallible doctrines; I’m focusing on just one issue: salvation. Yet, my questions, for the most part, remain unanswered. Perhaps answers will come this week.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m listening to you and Mickey and I believe as I posted on the other thread that the correct thinking from the onset would be here…

“But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;” and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).

But here you have my opinion in how I view scripture in context with the church, the whole church.

God Bless, Gary

Anna I’m not sure how the EO or Angelicans would interpret this?

Gary

Gary,

The quote from the Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256 says, ". . . .Christ said to Peter alone: "Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven. . . "

However, Christ didn’t give the power to bind and loose to Peter alone. He gave it to “the disciples” as noted in the first verse of Matthew Chapter 18: At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

Jesus is still speaking to “the disciples” in Matthew 18:15-20:
Matthew Chapter 18:
15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

It is not until verse 21 that Peter is specifically mentioned as asking the Lord a question:
**Matthew 18: **21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

Even I, a lowly Christian—“working out my salvation in fear and trembling,” have prayed for something to be “bound up and cast out” according to Scripture; and it was done. See my Posts #57 & 58 on the Thread: Protestants, Could You Please Tell Me How You Interpret This? Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=424483&highlight=cancer+bound+up+cast+out.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your opinion/view of Scripture in the context of the “whole Church.” Do you interpret the Letter to Cyprian to refer specifically and exclusively to those in Communion with the Roman Pontiff?

Peace,
Anna**

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Anna,

I will respond to the quotes you gave from post#245, and provide you with evidence from the Church down through the centuries of belief in the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance.

Before I do so, however, I need to know:

Do you agree that a belief of the Church can still be considered a de fide belief even if it is not dogmatized? I mean, I can provide you with proof of a constant belief in the Church of the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance, but if you’re going to turn around and say “it hasn’t been formally defined, I don’t believe it,” it would be a waste of time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother AmateurPianist,

If I were Catholic (which I am not of course) my argument would be that what has changed is the understanding of the bounds of “invincible ignorance”. The earlier writings reflect an understanding of very narrow boundaries while the later writings reflect an understanding of more expansive boundaries. But since the Church has never defined what these boundaries are, these differences of understanding are ok.

Maybe it’s just a matter of perception. Dogmatic necessity for a certain belief has always existed alongside the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance. During certain periods in the history of the Church, the dogmatic necessity for certain beliefs has attained the focus, while today, it seems as though the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance has attained the focus. In the past, it seems knowledge of the principle of invincible ignorance was not “common knowledge,” but only for those who were fortunate enough to have a good education - which was a very small percentage of the population for most of the history of the world.

So it is not that the boundaries have changed - it is simply that A LOT MORE people have become aware that the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance actually exists.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Since there is no “list” of infallible doctrines; I’m focusing on just one issue: salvation. Yet, my questions, for the most part, remain unanswered. Perhaps answers will come this week.

There is no official list of infallible doctrines.

As I suggested to you in an earlier post, if it is an itch that you really have to scratch, then find all the lists you can and pick out the teachings that are common to all those lists, and let that be your own list.

No Catholic requires such lists to live out their Faith (though some may have an academic interest in such lists). So if you want such a list, you will probably have to do the work yourself per my suggestion above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

No Catholic requires such lists to live out their Faith (though some may have an academic interest in such lists). So if you want such a list, you will probably have to do the work yourself per my suggestion above.

Blessings,
Marduk

I propose that the OP, kd5glx, registered here as a Catholic, make out the list.

 

[KathleenGee]

Someone wrote to our local Catholic newspaper…and Deacon Owen Cummings…I am pretty sure was reflecting on an aspect of one of the papal decrees…I tossed out the article and wished I had kept it…

You have to know the history of the time these pronouncements were made…and the context…Deacon Cummings was very specific in the context, date and manner in which a papal decree was made…

Ignorance can be an ongoing refusal to learn more about God…these statements also sound reactionary as statements against the growing fragmentation of Christianity and the secularization of the world…you have to step back and look at Paul’s Romans or ancient Scripture’s Wisdom…to remember that mankind can perceive the presence of God in creation and reason. God speaks to us 24 hours a day…it is ongoing deliberate denial of wanting to seek truth, and aspire to one’s calling by the creator…

I remember growing up and hearing about the infants in limbo…only to find out, it wasn’t as dogmatic as I thought…and in God’s mercy, I could not see the Lord relegating the innocent to such places…I also heard a pastor saying the laity never could believe in aspects regarding indulgences during the Middle Ages…so the Holy Spirit is at work in providing context and application…in some instances such as limbo…the Church was looking at a limited source…sounds like trying to find an answer for everything…when the Church must simply place a mortal in the mercy of God.

Will check out some sources I am currently studying…

 

[AmateurPianist]

Dear brother AmateurPianist,

So it is not that the boundaries have changed - it is simply that A LOT MORE people have become aware that the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance actually exists.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think I need to explain myself better. I meant to say the boundaries of when invincible ignorance applies and when it does not apply.

I do not know of one Christian on the planet who would claim that aborted and miscarried human beings go to hell. Thus it seems to me that everybody believes in invincible ignorance on some level whether they want to call it that or not. And therefore, it is very easy for me to believe the church has always believed it, whether it has been formally taught or not. Nobody wants to declare that aborted and miscarried human beings go directly to hell, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

So the issue in my mind is not whether it exists or not, but when does it apply and when does it not, And these are very sticky issues where very real boundary problems exist.

Does it exist for infants? If so how old do you have to be before it is not applicable? Does it exist for the severely mentally challenged? If so, how mentally challenged must one be before it applies? Is access to the truth a factor? If so how much does it apply?

So it seems to me that it is a good and wise thing that the Church has not decided to play God and set rules for Him here. Let God be God and let Him decide when it applies and when it does not.

But it does seem to me that in different time periods, people have had different beliefs as to when it applies and when it does not. This is not unlike us when we debate “age of accountability” or “what about those who have never heard”?

It seems to me that the cited popes believed it applies in only a very limited number of cases. Hence the language used in these declarations. And it also seems to me that the authors of Vatican 2.0 believed that it has a much broader application than the dead popes. Hence the apparent contradiction.

But it is only a contradiction of when invincible ignorance applies and when it does not apply, which the Church has (wisely) not dogmatically decided, not a contradiction of settled dogma.

Anyway, if I were Catholic, that is how I would answer her question. But I am not, so I am probably just butting in where I have no business.

 

[Anna_Scott]

There is no official list of infallible doctrines.

I propose that the OP, kd5glx, registered here as a Catholic, make out the list.

That would be a good idea.

It’s difficult to answer what “official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals” would a non-Catholic Christian object to and why, when the “official infallible declarations of the Popes” is not available for the discussion.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

There is no official list of infallible doctrines. . . .So if you want such a list, you will probably have to do the work yourself per my suggestion above.

Marduk,
This thread was started by a Catholic who asked: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

It would seem logical that Catholics should provide the official infallible teachings of your Popes.

Otherwise this thread topic should read: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why? -----But we, as Catholics, have no list of “official infallible declarations of our Popes.” So, in order for non-Catholics to answer the question of this thread, you will have to do the work yourself to find out what our infallible teachings are.

Does that make sense to you?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .I will respond to the quotes you gave from post#245, and provide you with evidence from the Church down through the centuries of belief in the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance.

Before I do so, however, I need to know:

Do you agree that a belief of the Church can still be considered a de fide belief even if it is not dogmatized? I mean, I can provide you with proof of a constant belief in the Church of the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance, but if you’re going to turn around and say “it hasn’t been formally defined, I don’t believe it,” it would be a waste of time.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,
The topic of the thread is infallible declarations of the Popes.

I am asking for infallible teachings/declarations about salvation.

GaryTaylor posted Unam Sanctam…Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302.

. . . .

Unam Sanctam…Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302

Urged by faith, 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, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. . . . .

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

Wasn’t this an infallible teaching? It was “declared, proclaimed, and defined” in Unam Sanctam, a Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302.

That last line:** “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,”** doesn’t seem to leave much room for an exception.

Perhaps it does, and I’m missing it. If that is the case, please show me where the exception of “invincible ignorance,” or any other exception, is “declared, proclaimed, and defined,” at any time by Pope Boniface VIII.

In doing so, perhaps you could help rinnie answer these 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… . .

Again, I’m asking for infallible teachings.

Perhaps the Catholic Church always has taught “invincible ignorance,” and other exceptions. I would just like specific citations for the “infallible” sources to support the claim that exceptions to “no salvation outside the CC,” have always been infallibly taught by the CC.

Peace,
Anna

 

[mardukm]

Marduk,
This thread was started by a Catholic who asked: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

It would seem logical that Catholics should provide the official infallible teachings of your Popes.

Otherwise this thread topic should read: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why? -----But we, as Catholics, have no list of “official infallible declarations of our Popes.” So, in order for non-Catholics to answer the question of this thread, you will have to do the work yourself to find out what our infallible teachings are.

Does that make sense to you?

As stated earlier in this thread, what makes sense to me would be to ask, “What do you have in mind? Give me some examples.”

The conversation was going on just fine. Members were discussing particular points/teachings that could be further discussed. Even non-Catholics are generally aware of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and which ones they object or might object to or about which they express some concerns — until an EO came on and made some comment about there not being an infallible list.

So asking for the list has nothing to do with the OP. Some official list is not necessary to discuss the OP. It is up to the person who actually wants the list (which is not needed for the discussion to proceed) to find such a list if it exists.

That said - to repeat, there is no official list. That’s the only answer you will get. If you have no objections to Catholic moral teachings that you know of, then this thread will likely not hold your interest.

Consistenly asking for an official list changes the focus of the discussion on the existence of such a list itself, and not the particular moral teachings to which non-Catholic Christians may object.

Blessings,
Marduk