Why do Catholics get so offended?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aball1035

Guest
Whenever salvation is brought up among my Catholic friends in life or on this forum, Catholics seem to get offended somehow if you bring up Church teaching such as…

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

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“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."

People always bring up the subject of invincible ignorance, but since that’s not the normative means of salvation, why bring it up and vigorously talk about it? My question is, why do Catholics (at least in my experience) get so offended when “difficult” teachings about salvation and such are brought up?
 
I don’t get offended at all - unless someone brings up such quotes with the implication that they are the last, only, or most authoritative words on the matter. They are not.
Whenever salvation is brought up among my Catholic friends in life or on this forum, Catholics seem to get offended somehow if you bring up Church teaching such as…

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

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“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."

People always bring up the subject of invincible ignorance, but since that’s not the normative means of salvation, why bring it up and vigorously talk about it? My question is, why do Catholics (at least in my experience) get so offended when “difficult” teachings about salvation and such are brought up?
 
I don’t get offended at all - unless someone brings up such quotes with the implication that they are the last, only, or most authoritative words on the matter. They are not.
I second this. 🙂
God bless!
 
Is your question really why do people get offended or do you want people to argue about who is saved? Anyway, I expect the reason people get so touchy is that it is hard to think of ones friends and loved ones not going to eternal joy.
 
I think it can be offensive to state it like that without explaining it more fully. The truth is a little more nounced.
 
Alex, I also am not offended by this question. It quite possibly could be in how the question is asked. If one asks such a question with the desire for the truth, then no one should be offended. If on the other hand one asks it with the desire to cause division or to somehow prove the Church to be in error, then maybe not so much. Sometimes when you are looking for the truth, people can perceive it as an attack. I’ve experienced this myself as a protestant convert. Since you seem uncomfortable with the subject of invincible ignorance, I will not go there, but I would encourage you to take some time to study the difference between invincible and evinicible ignorance. It will make all the difference. J+M+J Bruce
 
I, for one, am deeply offended by Catholics who constantly come up with highly contextual and usually reformation-era statements. And, I mean it.
 
Whenever salvation is brought up among my Catholic friends in life or on this forum, Catholics seem to get offended somehow if you bring up Church teaching such as…

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

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“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."

People always bring up the subject of invincible ignorance, but since that’s not the normative means of salvation, why bring it up and vigorously talk about it? My question is, why do Catholics (at least in my experience) get so offended when “difficult” teachings about salvation and such are brought up?
What are the contexts of those two quotes? If a statement was ex cathera like the 1441 one, doesn’t that mean its absolute truth?
 
What are the contexts of those two quotes? If a statement was ex cathera like the 1441 one, doesn’t that mean its absolute truth?
Who says it was ex cathedra? Not everything produced by a Council is infallible (some doubt whether ANYTHING said during Vatican II amounts to doctrinal teaching), nor everything produced by a Pope. In fact there are a mere handful of things that Popes have ever said that are commonly agreed upon to be infallible teaching.

More importantly - our Popes and bishops (at least when acting in concert with the Pope) know better than anyone what is dogma and doctrine and what isn’t - what they can expand upon or even change, and what not.

To suggest that they don’t is to suggest that the Holy Spirit isn’t doing his job. So we can take it as read that when major productions of the Magisterium such as the latest catechism say something that it is accurate.
 
I don’t mean to be all doom and gloom when talking to them, but that’s how they see it, and simply take an almost *too *charitable approach, when all it is is Church doctrine.

You all might have different experiences, but many churches I have gone to have definitely had a spirit of being “politically correct” when it comes to salvation. Then when you give quotes from past councils, you’re looked at as judgmental and uncharitable.
 
aball1035
People always bring up the subject of invincible ignorance, but since that’s not the normative means of salvation, why bring it up and vigorously talk about it? My question is, why do Catholics (at least in my experience) get so offended when “difficult” teachings about salvation and such are brought up?
Why do some who call themselves “Catholics” misrepresent what Christ teaches through His Church?

Bl John Paul II explains in *Threshold of Hope *(Random House, 1994, p 140-1): “Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation (Cf. p 101-117), which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’”

Thus, just as without Christ there is no salvation, so without the Church there is no salvation. *Catechism of the Catholic Church *# 846 - # 848]. The Catholic Church, regardless of whether or not a person knows of its divine origin and founding, is the body through which ALL salvation comes to anyone whom God deems worthy to receive it.

Christ teaching IS God’s law and, if you take the trouble to look at what His Church teaches, you will have the opportunity to know that “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 God’s will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.” The *Dogmatic Constitution of the Church *(Lumen Gentium) # 16, Vatican II.
 
Who says it was ex cathedra? Not everything produced by a Council is infallible (some doubt whether ANYTHING said during Vatican II amounts to doctrinal teaching), nor everything produced by a Pope. In fact there are a mere handful of things that Popes have ever said that are commonly agreed upon to be infallible teaching.

More importantly - our Popes and bishops (at least when acting in concert with the Pope) know better than anyone what is dogma and doctrine and what isn’t - what they can expand upon or even change, and what not.

To suggest that they don’t is to suggest that the Holy Spirit isn’t doing his job. So we can take it as read that when major productions of the Magisterium such as the latest catechism say something that it is accurate.
It says ‘ex cathera’, as in Pope Eugene was speaking by virtue/authority as successor of St. Peter.
 
I find that question offensive! :mad:

Probably, it’s not the question that “offends” people, it’s the way it’s conveyed and said. Basically, whenever you’re “having a discussion” (debate) with someone you need to pay as much attention as to what you don’t say and the way you’re saying something as to the words themselves.
 
It says ‘ex cathera’, as in Pope Eugene was speaking by virtue/authority as successor of St. Peter.
Who/what is this ‘it’ that uses the term ex cathedra to describe the statement? I highly doubt Pope Eugene or anyone at the Council labelled his statement specifically as being ex cathedra, and the statement doesn’t contain any wording to the effect of ‘the following lines are spoken by virtue/authority of my being successor of St Peter’.

What it actually says is ‘the church believes/professes’ etc. Now the church currently believes, professes etc that priests in the Latin rite need to be celibate. But saying so doesn’t make priestly celibacy either doctrine or dogma. It is mere discipline, and one that only became such after about the 1000s AD, and could change again tomorrow without the slightest implication for the dogma of Papal infallibility.
 
Why do some who call themselves “Catholics”
The have the right to call themselves Catholics by virtue of their Catholic Baptism. You have no right implying otherwise.
misrepresent what Christ teaches through His Church?
Wasn’t Pope Eugene IV the Vicar of Christ? He was exceedingly assertive and clear in his statement, and what Catholics are required to believe at that time.
 
So…but…the church did change its traditional teaching on this, right?
No it did not.
At one time–as per your post here–it was taught that no one outside the catholic church could have “salvation” but now, that is not believed to be the case and an updated idea of this is taught now, yes?
No. the Church has always taught “no salvatioin outside the Catholic Church”.

What has been clarified over time is what " outside the Catholic Church" means. It does not only mean those who are baptised and practicing Catholics. I apologize for the long cut, but this section of the catechism addresses it far better than I could:
**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

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

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

**“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
 
There are two separate discussions going on here. One is that the what a prior Pope stated is correct, and the other is that what the Church currently states is correct. The problem is that these assertations appear to state two entirely different things, and nobody is attempting to reconcile the two. If these two ideas cannot be reconciled, nobody will be convinced.
 
In my own opinion, the Church’s definition of a “pagan” must specifically include a person that “knows of and rejects” Christ. If it does not, then Pope Eugene’s statement clearly indicates that people that do not know Christ through no fault of their own are damned.

Feel free to comment.
 
Not all
Catholics will be saved
Baptists will be saved
Methodist will be saved
Lutherans will be saved
Protestants will be saved.

Churches do no save people, belief and faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour saves people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top