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

[Hesychios]

Hi Kathleen,

He was dealing with the Basel ecclesiastics who wanted a conciliar form of governing the church rather than the episcopal with one head.

The conciliar form of church governance does not mean a church without bishops.

I don’t know much about the bishops who met at Basel except that they were not heretics, not even presbyterians. Just traditional Catholic bishops watching the beloved church they had known circle the drain.

However, you are right to make a point of it, the early sessions of the Council of Basel were probably the last gasp of a truly conciliar Catholic church, more than 1400 years running.

 

[KathleenGee]

Understood…the ecclesiastics in Basel wanted to break from the 1400 year tradition of having bishops…to these conciliatory councils…where in my faith…sounds like they want to please men…instead of denying themselves and following the fullness of Christ and His cross.

I can think of a certain country where the episcopal councils are very strong…but then the results often appear to the laity as watered-down religion. Or these same bishops say if they were alone…and facing Rome…would vote differently…and more true to form…not being so relevant…where then we appear no different from the spirit of the world…I don’t mean to condemn or question…

Follow me?..

The place of Peter…to be the living human symbol of universality of all people in one Jesus…in the face of upcoming fragmentation…had to reassert and redefine…and secure the parameters of the Vicar of Christ…

The complete and total revelation of who Christ is…and those who reject it…represented by the Holy Father…are then not subsequently following the true Christ…I do not mean that towards the Orthodox…politics led the Council of Florence…hoping to prevent the Reformation…

But with Pope Eugene…he was representing the true faith for salvation…It is God alone Who judges for damnation…and don’t people at their end, chose the consequence of their decision?..

This is a monastic, unfeigned pope preventing a fragmentation of Christianity…to be one as Christ has called us, and this oneness in Christ is the walk of salvation…again, it is God Who decides at the end. We cannot judge.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .But with Pope Eugene…he was representing the true faith for salvation…It is God alone Who judges for damnation. . . .

The fact remains that Pope Eugene IV did judge. He named the groups that will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with the Catholic Church. This is clear judgment of those he calls pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does give exceptions. These are a few:

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

Though Pope Eugene IV stated, “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches” that the Jews “will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,” the CCC gives them some hope:

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

This thread has had 4,690 views. Yet, no Catholic has answered my 6 questions regarding salvation. I’ve tried to give Catholicism a chance. I’ve been in discussions here for two years. I’ve really hit a brick wall with the infallibility issue; and that fact that Catholics must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra–and even knowing some statements might later be considered erroneous. Catholics claim the CC never changes; but I’m just not finding historical evidence to support this claim—especially considering the conflicting teachings on salvation–which involves the Gospel of our Lord.

Signing off this thread for the last time,
Anna

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, Anna, he is defining those who willfully reject the truth of Jesus…and then there are those Jews whose hearts are hardened by God Himself so the Gentiles can enter.

The pope represents the universal faith of all apostolic Catholic Christians…he and the communion of bishops and us – also stand with him in our faith in Christ for salvation.

He is not condemning people to hell. People condemn themselves. He is referring to the full faith that leads to salvation. By the end of his pontificate, Christianity was united throughout the world as one faith.

So to refuse the fullness of faith is to refuse Christ Himself.

Pope Eugene is in no way condemning pagans who can perceive God in reason, who are benevolent…but considering that the time in which he lived there were no missions…no outreach into the New World yet at that time.

I think the block here is not being knowledgeable of the specific times and issues in which he was living, and he was in a ‘very stormy pontificate’. So what was he addressing…pastoral now…your excerpts are not showing the conditions and troubles each pontificate was having.

The Church had not entered into the missions. He was dealing with forces attempting to fracture Christianity, deny Christ or hold erroneous ideas about Christ.

I note that when we hold even the smallest error about Christ, it leads to unnecessary suffering and ineffective or counter fruit. When we follow the truth of Jesus Christ, we bear witness to His life in His Word, deed, and the nourishment of Himself, and it leads to extending His kingdom here on earth…without the divisions within His body.

We think we are answering you…but some how there is some disconnect and only what I can see is that you – and many of us-- are not knowledgeable of the conditions of these pontificates. Church history is the means to connect the points, and the Church is self-reforming.

It is evident in the growth and awareness of Christ in Vatican II for the modern world.

 

[GaryTaylor]

First off the last paragraph of Eugene IVs Bull is not his but a referrence to the 500-AD letter. Which again is Dogma and Infallible.

The quote is from a book written by Saint Fulgentius (who died in 533 AD) called “To Peter on the Faith.” The original (translated) text from that book reads as follows,

“Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

The Council of Florence elevated Saint Fulgentius’ teaching to that of the Solemn Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which made it forever infallible, and per the following solemn definition given at the First Vatican Council,

Also the letter is in context with Cyprian EENS!

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: “Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

We are forever restricted to understanding the solemn definition given at the Council of Florence as it was defined at that time. Saint Fulgentius’ words are, I think, pretty self-explanatory, as is the text from the Council of Florence.

“The key to this passage is the four categories mentioned, pagans being listed first. They have received none of the message of salvation. The Jews have received only part of the message, that of the Old Testament. Third are the heretics who, although having received the complete message of salvation, seem to have lost some of it by way of a conscious separation from the Church. The fourth group is the one to whom the document is primarily directed, the schismatics. They have deliberately cut themselves off from the Church by a complete break from its head, the Pope. The reason for the strength of this statement was that it was hoped that it would bring the separated Eastern Churches back into unity with Rome. Such a strong statement was issued againnst the schismatics because of the relation between unity and charity. St. Thomas holds that unity is made by charity and therefore the schismatics are separating themselves from the unity and therefore the charity of the Church. The concern of the Council of Florence was pastoral; it was trying to bring back lost sheep.” The Church has always taught that no soul is lost except by its own fault, its rejection of truth and charity. Simply adhering to another religion does not necessarily mean such rejection. - Dr. Carroll

The encyclical is not infallible, yet it comes from an ecumenical council which means that it has the highest teaching authority, just as Lumen Gentium does and contains and infallible statement in regards to EENS.

Anyway, Pope John Paul II explicitly affirmed both the declaration by the Council of Florence and Boniface VIII as authoritative:

Quote: John Paul II
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).

Encyclicals are not infallible, No Salvation is Dogma of the Church and Scripture and it is INFALLIBLE!.

In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, “this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.”

Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

And of course you can read this…

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7lUSFw9OYWoANPVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1Z3IxNmxjBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDA3OV8xNDc-/SIG=126gue545/EXP=1309633394/**http%3a//www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp.

But to answer your questions NO encyclicals are not infallible.

All six questions relate to “ONE” infallible statement. which is EENS. The fact that each encyclical address’ s a specific issue within the church regarding heresy doesn’t make way for exceptions in these specifics. "The exceptions are defined by the Doctrine of Faith, Vatican-I and Vatican -II as to what specfic issue was being related to as Eugene IV had a specific agenda. John Paul II elaborated in a general sense on EENS and these encyclicals. Which gets back to… and it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings which you see with JP-II

Yet you can rest assure that its impossible for EENS to be in error.

Have you read Eugene IVs complete encyclical?

 

[KathleenGee]

Anna, If you come back…I had the impression that these writings you have displayed came from a source critical of the Catholic Church.

It looks on the surface that Eugene judged…What he was doing was affirming the seat of Peter, the papacy…never intended to be discarded in time. We need the papacy more than ever considering all the different peoples of the world…

He was affirming that it was and is the Catholic Church who is the Church founded by Christ through Peter and the Apostles…its structure here never changes. The Church contains the full deposit of faith necessary for salvation…he is naming those in error…and they bring judgment on themselves in refusing to accept this reality of Jesus Christ given us in the Church.

If you note, we are not focusing on judgment because we know it is God Himself Who judges. The Church is as a Mother who nurtures us in the Eucharist and guides us. The Roman Catholic Church provides for us direction in this world…may be it over defines…but it works to answer questions contemporaries have in their lifetime.

Finally, internal governing has its norms. The Church was already attempting to reform itself…but it had to go up to extenuating structures of the papacy itself. But that does not mean that the papacy itself is corrupt…it is always the seat of Peter…

If people refuse to follow the full deposit of faith, and choose to find another means to their eternity…they won’t find it…or they will have to turn around and go on the path that leads to God.

Finally, all baptized are members of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not. And daily Mass is the atonement for our sins and that also of the world’s. You do not find this encompassing generosity in other beliefs.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, If you come back…I had the impression that these writings you have displayed came from a source critical of the Catholic Church. . . .

Kathleen,

“No salvation outside the Catholic Church” was not even an issue for me when I came to this thread. It became an issue when GaryTaylor (Catholic) posted Unam Sanctam.

. . . .

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]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. . . . .

I understand I bought up Unam Sanctam, but we all must understand the Catholic Church now follows the doctrine of V-II. Which I might be mistaken but I believe still acknowledges the No-Salvation theology. Lumen Gentium doesn’t change this but expands on it. . . . .

After reading Unam Sanctam, I did some searches on the issue of salvation outside the CC, and I found Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV at this link: catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html.

Peace,
Anna

 

[KathleenGee]

Glad you came back to clarify, Anna…The Council of Florence failed because it was political, not spiritual. The Council of Trent was spiritual and redefined the papacy in the face of the dismantling of Christianity due to Sola Scriptura and Luther’s stand that the papcy was the anti-Christ.

Anna-- I have gone through the history of the Church the few hundred years prior to Pope Eugene, and also during his pontificate, and it is so volatile, a literal swinging pendulum, and highly complex,— as of yet I cannot even condense it.

He had bulls repudiated by his cardinals…but it is not clear right now to me which ones, and again, he was reasserting the seat of Peter against conciliar movements…we have conciliar jurisdiction on certain levels today…(I think in the USA the bishops’ councils sometimes tend to appear more relative than orthodox)…

What he is essentially saying is that the Church hierarchy includes Peter, the apostles, and reading through some of it, he is also speaking in communion with the bishops…there was the split with the Basel bishops who wanted more local and conciliar jurisdiction minus Rome…and that would break a spirit of universality…

The Catholic Church has the full deposit of faith and truth of Jesus Christ necessary for salvation…I think in those days the peoples polarized on such things as the papacy as anti-Christ, conciliar councils without Rome, indulgences, redefining the Eucharist…whether it is as is but without the term 'transubstantiation as Luther proposed…but also the priesthood ended…the believers the only priests…if anything, a priest would be appointed to head ecclesial gatherings simply for keeping things in order. So what we have then is theological chaos…and

Chaos is not what the Lord intended…we need concrete…and so He gave us the Pope…the parameters of the papacy were needed reformation as well as redefining the papacy’s role with bishops…in part because of corruption, in part due to the fact the world has changed.

And in those days—there were Catholics, Orthodox, and then the ecclesial revolution of Germany with the Scandinavian populations that were wanting a split from Rome, not the rest of Christianity. Many English Catholics did not want to split. And there was alot of mutual antagonism between Christianity and Judaism in those times.

We need centuries to heal…and Vatican II represents that…I am reading in my text as well the mistakes made against Protestant reformers and those other leaders of the Orthodox.

The Church is sustained by Jesus Christ but His ministers are men of clay. You have to separate what is nurturance and guidance vs who decides who is saved or not. The latter is God alone.

Some how I am not getting the same sentiment you are in that bull…

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Some how I am not getting the same sentiment you are in that bull…

I searched through some related threads this evening and found one entitled,** “Does Papal bull = Ex Cathedra?”** It was started by a Catholic: sambos671 (44 replies)
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=308582&highlight=Does+Papal+bull+%3D+Ex+Cathedra%3F

As you can see, Catholics were basically asking each other the same questions I’ve been asking on this thread.

(color emphasis and underline is mine throughout)

. . . .Salvation is from Christ the head through the Church however the Lateran Council, Unam Sanctam and the Council of Florence did not say what the Church says today. These councils took place from approximately 1200-1500 AD. At that time there were Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Eastern Orthodox Christians who were all condemned to eternal punishment because they were not in submission to the pope.

If the Church back in that era had the gift of infallibility then those statements cannot be changed. If the Church is correct today, which I believe it is, then the Church was teaching error from 1200-1500 AD and probably before and after that time. The Church has always taught the necessity of baptism and confession for salvation. In the past there was no hope for the unbaptized or even those baptized outside the Church.

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

The change in teaching goes beyond invincible ignorance.
The Church used to teach this:
Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )

The Church now teaches this:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

(Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, “though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat.” And when they eat of it, “without knowing it or willing it” they are “incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church.” scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

CHESTERTONRULES asks what to do with “Outside the Church there is no salvation” and CCC:

What do you do with this?

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

CHESTERTONRULES, ron77nyc, & sambos671 are all Catholics.

 

[KathleenGee]

Anna, still searching to see what bulls were rejected by cardinals and which were…Gary did well…

It is about context…willful, full intent, and rejecting Jesus…if we take wrong turns…we have to turn around and go right way…I think alot have to restart not because of doctrines and dogmas and infallibility…but for Catholics, charity. In fact…Vatican II states that those most able to go to hell are Catholics who know all the in’s and outs, but do not have charity…

And I don’t like nicey-nice, phoney charity either. If you don’t like me, I’d rather you show it then be nice and cut me down behind my back…Catholics do that to each other. It hurts with the former and it hurts with the latter…fact of life. Don’t know how forgiving the Lord is in regards to Catholic on Catholic malice, but I do believe He is much harder on us when we treat those outside the sacramental faith with lack of charity that does not reveal the life of Christ we receive with the sacraments. We contradict the very reality of Our Lord when we do not communicate Him to others.

So if Catholics sin through charity, but not in a scandalous way, they will be joining those who had some heretical ideas but endured in love for one another.

We can propose the truth of the Church, but we cannot decide where one goes after this life.

There is a tremendous grace being with the Holy Father…I can only say that as a witness. With the vast numbers and types of people in the world, I am so glad we have the Holy Father who represents all of us to each other in a common faith, and represents us with authority from Christ Himself.

Gary showed the context of Pope Eugene’s statements…and encyclicals are usually not binding…you really have to go to a historical scholar to see what is what…today we have our bishops give us contexts on papal definitions. That is what they did in times past…and without the US Postal Service, the internet…and advisors for the Orthodox and papacy did also misrepresent all parties…so there was the issue of interloping as well…

And Vatican II speaks for the past prior to it…the Church of Pope Eugene was a ‘very stormy’ one, much trevail and upheaval…

Thanks for clarifying, Anna, because at first they looked all lined up like on one of those tracts…again, there were cardinals who disagreed…and Pope Eugene did give the Cardinals joint decision making on spiritual and temporal issues so I don’t think he was a dictator either. It sounds like it, but he wasn’t, and he was maintaining the role of Peter in the Church. Again, it is the Lord Who alone can judge. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth of Who Christ is, and she nurtures us, and she is always ready to help us understand our faith in universal, worldwide issues.

 

[KathleenGee]

No salvation outside the Church…well in Buddhism, one only escapes from evil and suffering in this world by achieving Nirvana…but there is no Creator, no God of love. In Islam, there is no God of Love, no ability of God to come to us as Man to intercede for us, to unite us to God the Father, and to show us the significance of loving and forgiving our neighbor.

The animists are close to us in that they acknowledge the Creator.

The New Agers and Gnostics affirm secret, exclusive knowledge about God…so there is one who is exclusive and selfish.

And with the Jews, well, there are those who have acrimony against Jesus and our faith, and there are many others who affirm the good of Christ, acknowledge Him as a great philosopher, but the Lord is holding Him as chosen until His time to reveal to them the Savior and Messiah. They are our friends.

And our church goes back to Pentecost, our liturgy, creed, and episcopal governing in establishment by 100 AD, a uniformity only the Holy Spirit could give to the entire Christian world at that time. Liturgy then in Rome had the same spirit, tone, and meaning as the Mass today.

The definition of the Rock of Peter had its parameters defined a number of times to sustain itself as instituted by Christ, as well as the apostles as our foundation of faith tradition, because of the world changing all the time.

You have to find out what the apostolic faith is, its focus, and its parameters, and pray for unity of faith. The Church is constantly in reform, constantly redefining faith to the world and its conditions around us. There has been papal reform…Pope Eugene lived in the time when the papacy needed reform as well. And since the Council of Trent we have had excellent popes. I think of the pope in 1890 who wrote about the Industrial Revolution, the rights of the workers and having just wages.

Today there is scandal in Humanae Vitae…but contraception gave license to sex without the reality of its use to bring a human being into existence, and instead developed more sexual gratification by men to exploit women, to limit families unnecessarily, and facilitate fornication and abortion. Some are beginning to see Pope Paul VI was right. He was a dry martyr.

 

[KathleenGee]

People need to pray alot about the role of Peter.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, still searching to see what bulls were rejected by cardinals and which were. . . .

. . . .You have to find out what the apostolic faith is, its focus, and its parameters, and pray for unity of faith. The Church is constantly in reform, constantly redefining faith to the world and its conditions around us. . .

Kathleen,
**
I appreciate all that you wrote; but most of my questions remain unanswered:**

Question #1: Is Unam Sanctam, which declares, proclaims, and defines that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” an infallible teaching?

Question #2: If Unam Sanctam is infallible, did Pope Boniface VIII infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC?

**Question #3: **If Pope Boniface VIII did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Since, Pope Eugene IV seems to be saying the same thing, only more sternly; I think it is fair to ask the same questions about the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441.

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.)

Question #4: Is the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441 infallible?

Question #5: If it is infallible, did Pope Eugene IV infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC? I can’t imagine that he did. Who is left after “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” are professed to be headed into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with the CC.

Question #6: If Pope Eugene IV did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Through these 6 questions, I’m basically asking the same thing Catholic forum members CHESTERTONRULES and ron77nyc asked–I quoted them in post #329.

How did the Catholic Church go from “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” to the exceptions given in the Catechism and other places? No one has answered this; and I’ve given up hope that anyone will.

I keep signing off this thread and coming back to answer more posts addressed to me; but I’m left with the same unanswered issues—issues Catholics could not sort out among themselves on this thread or the thread: ** “Does Papal bull = Ex Cathedra?”** Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=308582&highlight=Does+Papal+bull+%3D+Ex+Cathedra%3F

Salvation is a serious issue. If Catholics can’t agree on the answers to these questions, what hope do I have of ever understanding the historical continuity of “salvation outside the CC”?

As a side note; I’m having some serious health problems; and I really can’t spend any more time on this thread–I’m exhausted and in pain.

Kathleen, you have my e-mail address, so you can e-mail me, if you find the answers.

Peace,
Anna

 

[AmericanMuslim]

I was taught (in the 1970s, Catholic grade school) that there had been only two exercises of ex cathedra since Vatican I:

Pius IX, 1854 - Immaculate Conception
Pius XII, 1950 - Assumption of Mary

Indeed, there was a saying I heard many times that the bare-bones minimum you could believe and still be considered a Catholic was the Nicene Creed and these two pronouncements. I’m not sure that’s really true - there is a lot of council statements also.

I think some scholars have gone back and looked at the whole history of the church and labeled other official statements as ex cathedra, but of course since the phrase was not used prior to Vatican I, then they were not “officially labeled” by the popes making them.

So…in the narrow confines of this thread…as a Muslim…

Immaculate Conception: Yes. In fact, this is stated in the Quran and it’s been a non-negotiable article of faith since the 7th century. I think in Catholicism it was determined through theology, argument regarding original sin, etc., but in Islam it is a direct revelation from God. Of course, a skeptic could argue that Muhammad (7th century) had access to the first 700 years of Church scholarship. Regardless, it’s been a settled matter since the Quran.

The Assumption of Mary: No, we do not believe this. Like the New Testament, there is nothing directly in the Quran about the later stages of Mary’s life. However, we believe that everything in creation - man, angels, even the angel of death himself - dies and Mary is no exception.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Question #1: Is Unam Sanctam, which declares, proclaims, and defines that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” an infallible teaching?

Answer: The scripture and statements carried foward by the one Holy Apostolic Church are spoken to the One Church and most definate apply to everyone. The fact that
Unam Sanctum is not infallible, No Salvation is and its scripture. Being that the Church has issues existing outside of Rome with schism etc. The church is speaking for Rome but in essense is speaking for the One Holy Apostolic Church on earth. And yes thats a responsibility given to whom ever sits in Peters Chair and the Magisterium and College of Cardinals. So no Benedict isn’t proclaiming off the top of his head statements due to acting off his feelings. Cyprians “No Salvation” is addressed in question #3

Question #2: If Unam Sanctam is infallible, did Pope Boniface VIII infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC?

Answer: No he carried foward Cyprians which is infallible, Unam Sanctum is not infallible. No Salvation is defined in the next question as to how and when.

Question #3: If Pope Boniface VIII did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Answer: Any statement that coincides with scripture or the deposit of faith is infallible. When? Here…In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, “this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.” Which is further defined by V-II.

Question #4: Is the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441 infallible?

Answer: NO BULL is infallible

Question #5: If it is infallible, did Pope Eugene IV infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC? No Bull is Infallible

Answer: the one paragraph taken from 500-AD. Which I referrenced in my last post. The Council of Florence elevated “Saint Fulgentius” teaching to that of the Solemn Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which made it forever infallible, and per the following solemn definition given at the First Vatican Council. Otherwise no Bull is infallible. That paragraph is infallible, and the when and how I just explained.

Question #6: If Pope Eugene IV did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Answer: No he did not define the exceptions he wrote the Bull for Catholic’s and to Catholic’s, and question 5 answers the remainder of your question. I read the history of the bull and specifically what his referrence was, but I would have re-read from my books to be quoted.

God Bless, Gary

Anna I hope your feeling better my prayers are with you.

As to “Does Papal bull = Ex Cathedra?” Thats been answered in the last two pages of this thread. And the answer is NO! Though I didn’t read the other thread so I am not sure whom stated what.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Gary,

I appreciate all your work. So, I am back (no surprise). I’m in pain, but I’ll try to make sure I understand what you are saying.

“No salvation outside the CC” is an infallible teaching:

. . .The quote is from a book written by Saint Fulgentius (who died in 533 AD) called “To Peter on the Faith.” The original (translated) text from that book reads as follows,

“Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

The Council of Florence elevated Saint Fulgentius’ teaching to that of the Solemn Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which made it forever infallible. . .

Re groups who "will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,” if they “finish this life outside of the Catholic Church:”

. . . . "The key to this passage is the four categories mentioned, pagans being listed first. They have received none of the message of salvation. The Jews have received only part of the message, that of the Old Testament. Third are the heretics who, although having received the complete message of salvation, seem to have lost some of it by way of a conscious separation from the Church. The fourth group is the one to whom the document is primarily directed, the schismatics. They have deliberately cut themselves off from the Church by a complete break from its head, the Pope.

The strength of statement (threat of “eternal fire”) was used for the following reason:

The reason for the strength of this statement was that it was hoped that it would bring the separated Eastern Churches back into unity with Rome. Such a strong statement was issued againnst the schismatics because of the relation between unity and charity. St. Thomas holds that unity is made by charity and therefore the schismatics are separating themselves from the unity and therefore the charity of the Church. The concern of the Council of Florence was pastoral; it was trying to bring back lost sheep." The Church has always taught that no soul is lost except by its own fault, its rejection of truth and charity. Simply adhering to another religion does not necessarily mean such rejection. - Dr. Carroll

Pope Eugene IV and Pope Boniface VIII did not define any exceptions to “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.”

Regarding exceptions:

. . .Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

. . . ."The exceptions are defined by the Doctrine of Faith, Vatican-I and Vatican -II as to what specfic issue was being related to as Eugene IV had a specific agenda. John Paul II elaborated in a general sense on EENS and these encyclicals. Which gets back to… and it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings which you see with JP-II

So, though Unam Sanctum is not infallible, the statement which declares, proclaims, and defines that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” is infallible:

. . .Question #2: If Unam Sanctam is infallible, did Pope Boniface VIII infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC? Answer: No he carried foward Cyprians which is infallible, Unam Sanctum is not infallible. . . .

Question #3: If Pope Boniface VIII did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Answer: Any statement that coincides with scripture or the deposit of faith is infallible. When? Here…In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, “this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.” Which is further defined by V-II.

In summary:

“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”. . . . . .is an infallible statement.

“. . .It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” is an infallible statement.

“This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.” Which is further defined by V-II."

Pope Eugene IV had a “specific agenda.”

The “strength” of Papal “statements” (threat of “eternal fire”) was used to “bring the separated Eastern Churches back into unity with Rome.”

“The exceptions are defined by the Doctrine of Faith, Vatican-I and Vatican -II.”

“The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings which you see with JP-II.”

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. It affirms the contrary–which I’m guessing would mean pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics aren’t necessarily headed for “eternal fire.”

Do I have this right?

Peace and gratitude for all your work on this thread,
Anna

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Gary…as I am still unable to condense history of faith within Christiandom at that time…so complex and volatile…I would say P. Eugene was in essence calling on Christiandom to recognize that only in the Catholic Church is the fullness of faith in Christ defined…and salvation defined. He saw forthcoming as well a possible fracturing of Christianity.

The Church is not placing itself either as the one who judges who goes to heaven or hell either…that we leave to the mystery of God…as He sees our lives and how we acknowledge Him and our neighbor.

In the meantime, while Europe was rocking with corruption and heresies and schisms, there was also the beginnings of Christianity coming to the New World.

I think people who are having difficulty understanding the porousness of the papacy could pray to Mary of Guadalupe, Queen of the Americas, who brought many pagans into the Church who were formerly heavily involved in human sacrifice…Gentle Mary…pointing the way to heaven through Christ.

Mary brings the feminine face to the Church…

 

[KathleenGee]

Anna,

I think non-Catholics put too much weight into papal statements…more than we do…and I named myself a papal Catholic when I was in training with my archdiocese. It is more we draw our source from Christ Who is at the center of the Church…itself a breathing organism…made of clay…but the Holy Spirit is there enlivening us with the Sacraments…we live more at the life source than the outer shell of definitions, dogmas, doctrines…those only explain certain points that reflect the spirituality of Jesus Himself.

Mary was conceived without sin, and she did not earn the wages of death because of sin as us…she was a creature, but she followed our Lord into heaven…a mystery that in the Latin Church was never recorded by witnesses…according to the Orthodox…they do mention witnesses…shocking event…but so revered perhaps that no details were given.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

I think non-Catholics put too much weight into papal statements…more than we do…and I named myself a papal Catholic when I was in training with my archdiocese. . . .

Kathleen,

How can you be Catholic and not put “too much weight into Papal statements?”

In answering the question of the OP, I said my main disagreement is that one must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra:

. . .My main disagreement, and the one that keeps me from jumping into the “Tiber,” is that one must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra–then add the problem of finding the infallible declarations re Faith and Morals. . . . .

The “submission of religious mind and will” is infallibly required in Lumen Gentium:

(color, bold, underline emphasis is mine)
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

CHAPTER III

ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH
AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE

“. . . .25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . .” Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

GaryTaylor posted a link to THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF PAPAL ENCYCLICALS,
By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Exact from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150:

Heres another link if you want to view this more in depth and from different perspectives.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicapologetics.info%2Fthechurch%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocauthority.htm&ei=v4f3TaGKG8ne0QHVg62mCQ&usg=AFQjCNGotsl3uvPaj0lKdN5eaAPUUJ0zWg

Partial quote of my response:

. . . .The article speaks of some Catholic writers who disregard and even oppose certain statements in papal encyclicals—adopting the attitude that much of the material, presented in the encyclicals, does not come from the Holy Father with an absolute guarantee of infallibility.

The article also says that these Catholic writers have forgotten that the “internal and sincere assent due to teachings presented even in a non-infallible way by the supreme teacher and ruler of the Church militant is definitely and seriously obligatory.”

Ironically, the article goes on to say the "obligation holds until the Church might come to modify its position on some particular portion of the teaching contained in the encyclicals, or at least until the time when very serious reasons for such modification might become apparent."

The article refers to a large number of prominent theologians who, in regards to encyclical letters, consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio.

The article mentions another “very imposing group of theologians” who explicitly list papal encyclicals as non-infallible documents. However, they maintain that “the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.” An “internal mental assent” is also demanded.

The article continues saying, "The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.”

So, if I were Catholic, I would have to submit to teachings of Papal Encyclicals that may, at a later date, be modified or even discovered to be erroneous. . . . .

The requirement of “religious submission of mind and will”; and the requirement that “assent” be given to such teachings (THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF PAPAL ENCYCLICALS) and accepted as true; unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous-------keep me, at least at this point, from converting to Catholicism.

However, I still hold the Catholic faith in high regard.

Peace,
Anna

 

[KathleenGee]

I believe in all Catholic doctrine through the grace of God…but what I meant was that my focus is on Christ and the sacraments and Word of God…the communion of saints lived out in the daily rhythm of life in our liturgical year.

I am getting through John Paul II’s remarks on the Church and hope it will give you the understanding and perspective…