What's the ONE Catholic Doctrine that you disagree with most?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Porknpie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”

Can’t you point me to the Apostolic teaching that proclaimed the following?
“it is absolutely necessary
for salvation
that** every human creature**
be subject to the Roman Pontiff”

Or from Genesis 3 to the end of time in the Book of Revelation: can you show that it was believed and taught that
“it is absolutely necessary
for salvation
that** every human creature**
be subject to the Roman Pontiff”
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t think anyone will put Pope Boniface up for the “pope of the millennium” award. :o
 
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t think anyone will put Pope Boniface up for the “pope of the millennium” award. :o
that part of Unam Sanctam is considered to be an inflatable statement by the Catholic Church:

There are nearly **5 CENTURIES ** of other Papal statements confirming the truth of the plain reading of Unam Sanctam.
 
Although it’s not dogma, the title to our lady as “co-redemptrix” really grinds my gears. It is the historical truth that the CC was built on that Christ is our redeemer. More importantly, the council of Trent infallibly declared:

“Christ alone is our redeemer. Should anyone teach or maintain differently let him be anathema.”
Same here. I understand what it means but hope they don’t pronounce it dogma. It just sounds wrong.

Not dogma, but I find the concept of a marriage being annuled pretty awful.
 
that part of Unam Sanctam is considered to be an infallible statement by the Catholic Church:
“considered to be” is the key here.

Someone (an EO priest I think) did a study a few years back, concerning different “lists of ex cathedra statements”. It was interesting – how many ex cathedra statement there have been depends greatly on whose list you follow.
 
confession to a priest only for the forgiveness of sins. The Bible says to confess one to another but I don’t recall it says anywhere that it must be to a priest. We know that God forgives us - but for some reason we are told a priest is the only one who can reassure us of this…The forgiveness of sins depend on us forgiving others (see the Lord’s prayer). A priest may give absolution but I have NEVER had one ask me during a confession if I have forgiven those who sin against me… “…and forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US…” . We are to confess one to another but it does not say to do this for the forgiveness of sins, while the lord’s prayer is very clear on how our sins are forgiven… got a little off track there but got my thoughts out;)
We can confess to each other and sooo many do that openly, and we can forgive others and we should, BUT only a validly ordained Catholic Priest can give us Absolution when we Confess our sins to him. Christ gave us the LORD"S Prayer but HE also gave us HIS Church and the Seven Sacraments with it, including the Sacrament of a valid Confession. (“Whose sins YOU shall forgive, they are forgiven them”) THAT is our assurance! God Bless, Memaw
 
That objection has already been answered here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14297046&postcount=15. :tiphat:
Della said:
The document is dated 1302–a time when all Christians in the West were Catholics and long before Luther and the other Reformers lived. It was a specific document for a specific time. It’s purpose was to affirm the pope’s primacy among his fellow bishops. It wasn’t directed at Protestants because there were no Protestants at the time. It was an internal Church statement meant to settle the matter of papal primacy, and that’s all. Please don’t take statements out of context, both their documental context or historical context because doing so only seems to confuse things for you. :tiphat:
The principle stated in Unam Sanctum was upheld long after the Reformation, the Waldensians, the Hussite’s, etc
 
“considered to be” is the key here.

Someone (an EO priest I think) did a study a few years back, concerning different “lists of ex cathedra statements”. It was interesting – how many ex cathedra statement there have been depends greatly on whose list you follow.
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church maintains that the phrase the follows “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that …” is infallible.

You and others may not like to think it is an infallible proclamation, but the Catholic Church holds that it is.

Am I in error?
 
that part of Unam Sanctam is considered to be an inflatable statement by the Catholic Church:

There are nearly **5 CENTURIES ** of other Papal statements confirming the truth of the plain reading of Unam Sanctam.
fyi, “Unam Sanctam” is perhaps the most *unAmerican *papal statement of all.

You are saying Unam Sanctam was influential in its time. Sometimes I wonder what if that document had not been written, what if the thread had gone differently…

Within the century after 1302, diverse philosophical systems arose in Europe, all claiming to be faithful to the bible. The Church was able to assess these through a single point of reference, sifting what was good and bad. A century later the Reformation ostensibly rejected Unam Sanctam, but implicitly went along with a single point of reference. In other words, the reformers may have disagreed with the pope, and each other, on some things, but they went along with the need for a ****single ****point of reference, a single orthodoxy. The RCC might have split into multiple denominations in 1400, or in 1600. People left it, but it did not split.

Unam Sanctam - a single point of reference - a single orthodoxy - helped form the frame of reference for Luther, Calvin, etc, even though the reformers often contradicted each other with bible quotes. But they never started separate religions. They might have.

A century or two later the Church was challenged by scientific and philosophical developments, secularism and nationalism. To some extent the single point of reference - the aftermath of Unam Sanctam - helped the Church steer through the good ideas and the bad, when the RCC could have fragmented into multiple denominations based on philosophy or what country you live in. Protestant denominations may have said “we don’t follow any pope” but to a large extent they (unofficially) followed, or rather paralleled, the popes.

Since the 1800s, Protestants have rejected bible quoting sects repeatedly. You can’t say the JW’s are unscriptural. You do reject them on the grounds they stray too far from the template. The **single **template. Many Protestants reject the mainline P’s now, even though they too quote the bible all the time. They veer away from the (single) orthodoxy. Protestants committed to orthodoxy are influenced by Unam Sanctam, and other things.
 
The principle stated in Unam Sanctum was upheld long after the Reformation, the Waldensians, the Hussite’s, etc
Of course, because it’s true–for Catholics. 🙂 At the time, they were Catholics–Catholics who had strayed from their mother faith, and become what is known as formal heretics. They knew perfectly well that the pope had primacy and that they, as Catholics, were subject to the Catholic Church’s ecclesial law.

The Church has recognized that most modern Protestants are what is called material heretics, meaning that they didn’t choose to leave the Catholic Church for another ecclesial body. That they were baptized into their communions and are faithful to them. Such persons are not subject to the pope or to canon law. Others with more knowledge of canon law can address this point.

It’s never a good thing to take disparate sentences from Church documents to try to make a general case out of them because it hardens misconceptions some of our Protestant brethren may have. 🙂 I suggest reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially the paragraphs on the Wounds to unity:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
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
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
 
fyi, “Unam Sanctam” is perhaps the most *unAmerican *papal statement of all.

You are saying Unam Sanctam was influential in its time. Sometimes I wonder what if that document had not been written, what if the thread had gone differently…

Within the century after 1302, diverse philosophical systems arose in Europe, all claiming to be faithful to the bible. The Church was able to assess these through a single point of reference, sifting what was good and bad. A century later the Reformation ostensibly rejected Unam Sanctam, but implicitly went along with a single point of reference. In other words, the reformers may have disagreed with the pope, and each other, on some things, but they went along with the need for a ****single ****point of reference, a single orthodoxy. The RCC might have split into multiple denominations in 1400, or in 1600. People left it, but it did not split.

Unam Sanctam - a single point of reference - a single orthodoxy - helped form the frame of reference for Luther, Calvin, etc, even though the reformers often contradicted each other with bible quotes. But they never started separate religions. They might have.

A century or two later the Church was challenged by scientific and philosophical developments, secularism and nationalism. To some extent the single point of reference - the aftermath of Unam Sanctam - helped the Church steer through the good ideas and the bad, when the RCC could have fragmented into multiple denominations based on philosophy or what country you live in. Protestant denominations may have said “we don’t follow any pope” but to a large extent they (unofficially) followed, or rather paralleled, the popes.

Since the 1800s, Protestants have rejected bible quoting sects repeatedly. You can’t say the JW’s are unscriptural. You do reject them on the grounds they stray too far from the template. The **single **template. Many Protestants reject the mainline P’s now, even though they too quote the bible all the time. They veer away from the (single) orthodoxy. Protestants committed to orthodoxy are influenced by Unam Sanctam, and other things.
700 years after Unam Sanctam was declared, proclaimed, and defined:
Which statement is most true?

it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff
or
it NOT is absolutely necessary for salvation that ANY human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

1200 years prior to Unam Sanctam being declared, proclaimed, and defined:
Which statement is most true?

it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff
or
it NOT is absolutely necessary for salvation that ANY human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
Does Unam Sanctam and similar papal documents guide how Protestants today look at religion? yes to some extent. not referring to how they look at the pope but their basic adsumptions on theology
 
Annulments.
3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
***Who answering, said to them: ***Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
*** They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?***
*** He saith to them:*** Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
I was reading this column on The Catholic Thing by Fr. Mark A. Pilon, in which he states the following;
Today, the United States is the abortion capital of the world, and the American Church is the annulment capital. The Church can say all she wants that an annulment is not a divorce, which is obviously true in terms of Catholic doctrine, but the general population, including a huge percentage of Catholics, has simply come to see the annulment process as Catholic divorce. An Anglican friend of mine used to chide me in the 1970s, “we Anglicans call it divorce and you Catholics call it annulment, but in the end it amounts to the same thing in the way it affects people’s lives.”
Consider this; In 1968, only 338 annulments were granted in this country. In 1974, 28,918 were granted. In just six short years, we see a whopping increase of roughly 8000 percent!!! In 1991 there were 63,933 annulments granted. By anybody’s standards, the above figures are nothing short of staggering. I’m not in any way criticizing American tribunals, but looking over these numbers, it’s obvious to me at least, that we’re witnessing the near total collapse of the American Catholic family…with scores of young children being the ultimate casualty. Now I am by no means a theologian, but knowing how the RCC for 2000 years has interpreted Matthew 19, vs. 3-9 above, somehow I get the feeling that the stewards of HIS Church will have some serious explaining to do, come judgement day.* (And we haven’t even started on the Kasper proposal yet…which appears to still have legs despite being roundly rejected by the majority in two synods!)*

Peace, Mark
 
700 years after Unam Sanctam was declared, proclaimed, and defined:
Which statement is most true?

it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff
or
it NOT is absolutely necessary for salvation that ANY human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

1200 years prior to Unam Sanctam being declared, proclaimed, and defined:
Which statement is most true?

it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff
or
it NOT is absolutely necessary for salvation that ANY human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
The key to the matter IMO is understanding exactly what is meant by 'subject to the Roman Pontiff" (we all I think can agree on 'absolutely necessary for Salvation" and not argue over that. Absolutely necessary for Salvation means just that, absolutely necessary for salvation).

Now comes the hard part : Subject to the Roman Pontiff.

What does that mean?

The Roman Pontiff is the Pope. Who is the Pope? The Successor of St. Peter. Who is St. Peter? The shepherd of the Church. The one given the keys to the kingdom.

OK, so if somebody has the keys to some place, he’s the one who lets you in, right? Seems logical.

Christ told St Peter, “feed my lambs, feed my sheep”. Not “you and the rest of the guys for the next 50 years” or “you and all other Christians”. just "feed my lambs, feed my sheep’. Jesus knew that Christians were going to be around for quite some time. He also knew that people being what they are, they were going to be in a lot of confusion unless they had somebody leading them, like God’s envoy in Moses lead the people to the Promised Land. (and even Moses had the people going squiffy on him at several points). And Moses didn’t leave Israel ‘leaderless’ when he went, either.

So we have an office (the papacy, the successors of St. Peter, the ones who ‘hold the keys’ and are here on earth delegated to lead people to Christ until He comes again).

So, all Catholics of course are ‘subject to the Roman Pontiff’ as we acknowledge him as our leader.

All Christians are likewise subject to the Roman Pontiff in that, as Christians, they are in imperfect membership with the Catholic (universal) Church. They might not think they are subject to the Pope but simply because they are members of Christ’s body in professing Him as Lord, they are indeed ‘under the rule’ of the Pope. Christians don’t get to pick and choose Christ’s teachings. If they are following Christ, they are following ALL that Christ has told us to do. Sometimes they don’t do it exactly right (and that includes Catholics too), but they are bound to try to do all Christ has commanded, and do it through what Christ has given us.

Ok, how about the rest of humanity --the Muslims, the Jews, the nonChristians, and the non believers in any god at all?

Well, they too are subject to the Roman Pontiff even if they don’t believe it, even if they actively refuse to acknowledge it, simply because they are human beings, and all human beings are formed in the image of Christ Himself, and are in that sense a part of Him as well.

So now, we are all ‘subject to the Pontiff’ simply because we are human beings, because Christ has called us to salvation, and because He instituted a leader who established a Church by and through Christ Himself, and we are bound to obey Christ in all things. . .and the Pope is Christ’s ‘representative.’ What we give to Christ, we are in effect giving to the Pope (whether we believe it or not). And it is indeed through that obedience to Christ that ANY person, Catholic or not, is going to be saved.

Hey, we might think it kind of a strange process.
It was strange that we were saved by Christ dying on the cross, too.

We might think it strange that some ordinary human being can represent God on earth.
It was strange that God decided to be born of an ordinary poor woman.

Once we get however into the realization that we are subject to the Roman Pontiff not because he has a cool title and all kinds of funky stuff, and that we are subject to CHRIST, and that the Pope is only kind of the ‘key’ through which we are going through the gate to heaven, it makes more sense. If we were standing outside the door of heaven and Christ told us to ‘pick up the key and walk through the door, the key will bring you to salvation’, would any of us turn a hair? Start complaining that 'we aren’t saved by some key", and refuse to use the key and demand that Christ just 'teleport us in?" I don’t think so. At least I hope not!!!
 
I think the better question is “What doctrine do you have the hardest time following?”

Any faithful Catholic is not going to disagree with God or his church.
But all of us fall short and know all too well our shortcomings.
 
“considered to be” is the key here.

Someone (an EO priest I think) did a study a few years back, concerning different “lists of ex cathedra statements”. It was interesting – how many ex cathedra statement there have been depends greatly on whose list you follow.
P.S. According to Fr. Ambrose, an Eastern Orthodox priest:

"Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY."

(Admittedly I haven’t studied Fr. Ambrose’s sources so I cannot vouch for his summaries – nor do I know which 4/18/60 papal documents he’s talking about.)

Fr. Ambrose was being a bit sarcastic obviously, but the underlying point is a good one: Catholics don’t have an official list of ex cathedra statements.
 
The key to the matter IMO is understanding exactly what is meant by 'subject to the Roman Pontiff" (we all I think can agree on 'absolutely necessary for Salvation" and not argue over that. Absolutely necessary for Salvation means just that, absolutely necessary for salvation).

Now comes the hard part : Subject to the Roman Pontiff.

What does that mean?

The Roman Pontiff is the Pope. Who is the Pope? The Successor of St. Peter. Who is St. Peter? The shepherd of the Church. The one given the keys to the kingdom.

OK, so if somebody has the keys to some place, he’s the one who lets you in, right? Seems logical.

Christ told St Peter, “feed my lambs, feed my sheep”. Not “you and the rest of the guys for the next 50 years” or “you and all other Christians”. just "feed my lambs, feed my sheep’. Jesus knew that Christians were going to be around for quite some time. He also knew that people being what they are, they were going to be in a lot of confusion unless they had somebody leading them, like God’s envoy in Moses lead the people to the Promised Land. (and even Moses had the people going squiffy on him at several points). And Moses didn’t leave Israel ‘leaderless’ when he went, either.

So we have an office (the papacy, the successors of St. Peter, the ones who ‘hold the keys’ and are here on earth delegated to lead people to Christ until He comes again).

So, all Catholics of course are ‘subject to the Roman Pontiff’ as we acknowledge him as our leader.

All Christians are likewise subject to the Roman Pontiff in that, as Christians, they are in imperfect membership with the Catholic (universal) Church. They might not think they are subject to the Pope but simply because they are members of Christ’s body in professing Him as Lord, they are indeed ‘under the rule’ of the Pope. Christians don’t get to pick and choose Christ’s teachings. If they are following Christ, they are following ALL that Christ has told us to do. Sometimes they don’t do it exactly right (and that includes Catholics too), but they are bound to try to do all Christ has commanded, and do it through what Christ has given us.

Ok, how about the rest of humanity --the Muslims, the Jews, the nonChristians, and the non believers in any god at all?

Well, they too are subject to the Roman Pontiff even if they don’t believe it, even if they actively refuse to acknowledge it, simply because they are human beings, and all human beings are formed in the image of Christ Himself, and are in that sense a part of Him as well.

So now, we are all ‘subject to the Pontiff’ simply because we are human beings, because Christ has called us to salvation, and because He instituted a leader who established a Church by and through Christ Himself, and we are bound to obey Christ in all things. . .and the Pope is Christ’s ‘representative.’ What we give to Christ, we are in effect giving to the Pope (whether we believe it or not). And it is indeed through that obedience to Christ that ANY person, Catholic or not, is going to be saved.

Hey, we might think it kind of a strange process.
It was strange that we were saved by Christ dying on the cross, too.

We might think it strange that some ordinary human being can represent God on earth.
It was strange that God decided to be born of an ordinary poor woman.

Once we get however into the realization that we are subject to the Roman Pontiff not because he has a cool title and all kinds of funky stuff, and that we are subject to CHRIST, and that the Pope is only kind of the ‘key’ through which we are going through the gate to heaven, it makes more sense. If we were standing outside the door of heaven and Christ told us to ‘pick up the key and walk through the door, the key will bring you to salvation’, would any of us turn a hair? Start complaining that 'we aren’t saved by some key", and refuse to use the key and demand that Christ just 'teleport us in?" I don’t think so. At least I hope not!!!
**
What you just expressed was never the view of Unam Sanctam, untl after VII : and you know it.**

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, : “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”*

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, :

“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[iii]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, :

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”[iv]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, :

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[v]

"*
 
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, :

“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”[vi]

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, : “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”[vii]

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”[viii]

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, : “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[ix

Pope Gregory XVI: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies” (Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832).

Pope Gregory XVI: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’ [Athanasian Creed] (Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832).

Saint Ambrose (died A.D. 397): “Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. …Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward.” (The Fathers of the Church)

Saint Jerome (died A.D. 420): “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. …This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. …And as for heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible way that the Church’s enemies are also my enemies.” (Manual of Patrology and History of Theology)

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only 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 prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Enchiridion Patristicum)

St. Bede the Venerable (died A.D. 735): “Just as all within the ark were saved and all outside of it were carried away when the flood came, so when all who are pre-ordained to eternal life have entered the Church, the end of the world will come and all will perish who are found outside.” (Hexaemeron)

Saint Thomas Aquinas (died A.D. 1274): “There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church.” (Summa Theologiae)

Saint Peter Canisius (died A.D. 1597): “Outside of this communion - as outside of the ark of Noah - there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having received it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.” (Catechismi Latini et Germanici)
 
Saint Robert Bellarmine (died A.D. 1621): “Outside the Church there is no salvation…therefore in the symbol [Apostles Creed] we join together the Church with the remission of sins: `I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins’…For this reason the Church is compared with the ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church.” (De Sacramento Baptismi)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia)

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

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)

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity … This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
(Athanasian Creed; quoted and solemnly ratified by Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, session 8, November 22, 1439)

Pope Gregory XVI (AD 1831 – 1846) “Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care”. (Mirari Vos).

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)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XII: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members … By divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and … this is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824; paragraph 14)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. …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.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”
 
Karen, do you go through an examination of conscious when you go to confession? The priest relies on your doing so. Sometimes when I only confess that “one” sin, he’ll ask if there is anything else. So no, they don’t “truly” know. They rely on the honesty and thoroughness of the penitent to confess what they are knowledgeable of that is serious sin (venial is ok too). Keep in mind, God already knows all.

An example is here.
That’s a part of my point: The priest does NOT know all but God does 😉 It would be a simple thing though for a priest to ask everyone who confesses if they have forgiven others who have trespassed against them and point out that IF they haven’t, then their sins cannot be forgiven until they do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top