[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

from the catholic encyclopedia, which gives a good overview of this document at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm

'The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep.'

How does that help?

I still disagree with what it is saying. I don't believe it is necessary for someone's salvation that they be subject to the pope. The Catholic Church that I belong to teaches that it is possible or non-Catholics to be saved despite their heretical beliefs, if they sincerely tried to follow Christ the best they knew how.

Have you ever read Lumen Gentium?

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

That may be true generally speaking Reed, but I think there is alot more political history thrown into the mix to muddy the waters... alot of people seem to react harshly to the ecumenism efforts of VII, but in my opinion I think the efforts made there have advanced the relationship between Rome and the East a great deal - I can almost hear the disagreements already ... but before VII there was hardly even a glance at each other, small steps are still steps...it seems that the fruits of ecumenical councils were never apparent immediately, it often took years, if not centuries for their work to be effecacious... problems with some of the early heresies are example of that, they didn't just die as soon as the councils condemned them. Only time will tell, but its always possible given prayer and faith in the holy Spirit to guide the Church that the disagreements with papal infallibility are not as deep as they seem. Thats only a person guess, and I try to be optomistic about the situation in light of the little reading I have done on it.

Peace

I don't have a problem with Ecumenism. My beef right now is with the assertion that Catholic doctrine has changed, specifically with regard to the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics.

What do you think about Unam Sanctam?

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

I am going to go out on a limb to give my understanding, but I am sure there are plenty of orthodox theologians who can do a much better job -

the key word here is PRESERVED.... if you are in unity with the Catholic Church, and leave it willingly (not being preserved), with the understanding that you are severing your communion with the body of Christ - even if you shed your blood, you will not be saved because you have already rejected the Church Jesus Christ gave you, a martyrs death would be in vain because it would be as a martyr in a false sense of true authentic Christian unity with Christ.

The word "preserved" doesn't appear in the passage she quoted. It says "persevered", I think you misread it.

Here it is again:

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 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.

It says that Jews, heretics (which includes Protestants), and schismatics (which include Eastern Orthodox) cannot be saved at all unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives. It says only those who persevere in the Church are saved, all heretics, schismatics, and fallen-away Catholics (those who don't persevere) are excluded.

That is very unsettling, to me. Perhaps there is a historical context that would make this make sense in light of modern Catholic teaching?

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

The word "preserved" doesn't appear in the passage she quoted. It says "persevered", I think you misread it.

Here it is again:

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 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.

It says that Jews, heretics (which includes Protestants), and schismatics (which include Eastern Orthodox) cannot be saved at all unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives. It says only those who persevere in the Church are saved, all heretics, schismatics, and fallen-away Catholics (those who don't persevere) are excluded.

That is very unsettling, to me. Perhaps there is a historical context that would make this make sense in light of modern Catholic teaching?

Afraid there isn't any context that can explain this away, Reed. The teaching for hundreds of years was clear and it was that no one who is not actively joined to the Catholic church and in submission to the Pope could be saved. Vatican II attempted to "clarify" this, but what they did was completely change direction and say that others could be saved, even if they were outside the church. It's hard to accept that the Catholic church taught this and firmly believed it, but that it how it was.

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I don't have a problem with Ecumenism. My beef right now is with the assertion that Catholic doctrine has changed, specifically with regard to the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics.

What do you think about Unam Sanctam?

I see the differences between, say Unam Sanctam, and LG as nothing more than a more charitable way of saying the same thing. KFBM disagrees, and I would expect nothing less, but here is an analogy I gave her which I think explains the issue:

1) A mother and her child are walking down the sidewalk next to a street, the child all of a sudden has the urge to jump out into the street right as oncoming traffic is barrelling down this road, the mother yells out in anger and worry: 'GET OUT OF THE STREET YOU ARE GOING TO BE HIT A BY A CAR!!' and the child is scolded.

2) A mother and child walk down this same sidewalk, but there is not a car in sight, they are still next to this road, where potentially traffic can drive through any minute, but there is none at the moment. The child doesn't see a car, so doesn't necessarily think there is anything wrong with being in the street, but the mother lovingly, and calmly warns him that he should never play in the road regarless - she doesn't have to scold him because there is no imminent danger, she calmly lets him know.

Whats the ultimate point in both these? Don't play in the street, you will get hit by a car.

Different delivery, same message. The Church has never changed its teaching that you must be a part of the Catholic Church to be saved... in which case you must be subject to the Pope, but the effort now is one of search and rescue, because many people don't even realize that they were seperated from the Church at all (I never did myself as a Protestant, I never ONCe heard a single Catholic teaching explained to me until I met my wife's family - so I was not resisting the Church or its graces, I didn't know there was such a thing - just as an unborn baby, a mentally incapable person, a person with alzheimers, a person living in the middle of the Amazon, etc doesn't know about Jesus Christ) - Paul wrote in the NT about the greeks who searched for the God they knew existed through philosophy (I am paraphrasing the idea) - well this is what we are called to, once God and His Church are revealed to us, its a matter of our salvation to embrace it - ALL of Christ...).

KFBM misunderstanding is coming from a flawed understanding of Catholic teaching and language in general, so don't be suprised if she sees a contridiction - its just not there though.

PEace

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

The word "preserved" doesn't appear in the passage she quoted. It says "persevered", I think you misread it.

I read it correctly just mistyped as I replied.. but I think persevered strengthens my point...

Here it is again:

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 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.

It says Jews (those who deny Jesus Christ as the fullfillment of the OT), heretics (a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church / a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith - these are not necessarily ALL protestants, invincibly ignorant protestants are not heretics), schismatics (a person who promotes schism or is an adherent of a schismatic body, this would never apply to each and every person of EO, again, invincible ignorance is not even considered in this definition), fallen away Catholics - thats obvious...

I don't think this upsets you as much as you think it does, you do agree that everyone baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church correct? So through baptism, Protestants automaticaly become seperated brethen - they don't need to KNOW they are seperated brethen, its an objective fact - it doesn't mean they have caused schism, and it doesn't mean they have embraced heretical views - they would have to first gain knowledge that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and THEN continue to resist it, and if schismatic then openly oppose it and promote others to do the same. How many Prostants do you know follow the above 3?... not many for me, I don't doubt it happens, but it is not the widespread blanket statement KFBM would like you to beleive it is.

Peace



That is very unsettling, to me. Perhaps there is a historical context that would make this make sense in light of modern Catholic teaching?

[theguidedheart]

By the way, incase I have not summarized why I think you are confused - its language....

You are reading 'unless they persevere in the Church'

and you are understanding 'unless everyone joins with the Church' objectively

But thats not what its saying... in relation to heretics and schismatics (those who KNOW the faith, and still deny it, you can't be a heretic and schismatic unless you are subjetively oppose an objective truth) THEY must persevere... so regardless of their doubts, relativism, personal gain or suffering, etc, they must continue to embrace the Catholic Church in full faith and fidelity.

That is a HUGE distinction... KFBM is trying to understand Catholic language through Protestant interpretation.

Only a good orthodox Catholic source is going to be able to tell you what the Catholic meaning is.

[Reedolo]

Thanks for that explanation, theguidedheart.

Although I still think you might be misunderstanding a part of the papal statement, specifically this part:

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.

See, it refers to the Catholic Church as an ecclesiastical body, not simply and invisible mystical body that permeates even heretical and schismatic groups. It says that no one can be saved outside that ecclesiastical body even if they give alms and shed blood in the name of Christ. By "shed blood" I'm assuming it's talking about martyrdom, not killing someone else in the name of Christ, which would be barbaric and opposed to the spirit of Christ.

Thanks again for the explanation, nonetheless. You might be right; you might have a good point. I'm going to have to do a bit more reading, though, before I make a conclusion one way or the other.

Take care,
Reed

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

By the way, incase I have not summarized why I think you are confused - its language....

You are reading 'unless they persevere in the Church'

and you are understanding 'unless everyone joins with the Church' objectively

But thats not what its saying... in relation to heretics and schismatics (those who KNOW the faith, and still deny it, you can't be a heretic and schismatic unless you are subjetively oppose an objective truth) THEY must persevere... so regardless of their doubts, relativism, personal gain or suffering, etc, they must continue to embrace the Catholic Church in full faith and fidelity.

That is a HUGE distinction... KFBM is trying to understand Catholic language through Protestant interpretation.

Only a good orthodox Catholic source is going to be able to tell you what the Catholic meaning is.

No, actually, I am reading Catholic language as it was stated and then reading responses to it (multiple ones) to see what those alive at the time understood it to mean. It meant what it said, only those in full unity with the Catholic church and in submission to the Pope can be saved.

I will need to find and quote again the document that stated that those who believe anything other than Catholic teaching are heretics. All who followed other teachings were called heretics by the Catholic church, it was not a matter of whether they knew or didn't know, denied or didn't deny, but that they followed something else. No such provision was made, it was a simple "they heretics because they don't follow all the Catholic teaching".

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

I see the differences between, say Unam Sanctam, and LG as nothing more than a more charitable way of saying the same thing. KFBM disagrees, and I would expect nothing less, but here is an analogy I gave her which I think explains the issue:

1) A mother and her child are walking down the sidewalk next to a street, the child all of a sudden has the urge to jump out into the street right as oncoming traffic is barrelling down this road, the mother yells out in anger and worry: 'GET OUT OF THE STREET YOU ARE GOING TO BE HIT A BY A CAR!!' and the child is scolded.

2) A mother and child walk down this same sidewalk, but there is not a car in sight, they are still next to this road, where potentially traffic can drive through any minute, but there is none at the moment. The child doesn't see a car, so doesn't necessarily think there is anything wrong with being in the street, but the mother lovingly, and calmly warns him that he should never play in the road regarless - she doesn't have to scold him because there is no imminent danger, she calmly lets him know.

Whats the ultimate point in both these? Don't play in the street, you will get hit by a car.

Different delivery, same message. The Church has never changed its teaching that you must be a part of the Catholic Church to be saved... in which case you must be subject to the Pope, but the effort now is one of search and rescue, because many people don't even realize that they were seperated from the Church at all (I never did myself as a Protestant, I never ONCe heard a single Catholic teaching explained to me until I met my wife's family - so I was not resisting the Church or its graces, I didn't know there was such a thing - just as an unborn baby, a mentally incapable person, a person with alzheimers, a person living in the middle of the Amazon, etc doesn't know about Jesus Christ) - Paul wrote in the NT about the greeks who searched for the God they knew existed through philosophy (I am paraphrasing the idea) - well this is what we are called to, once God and His Church are revealed to us, its a matter of our salvation to embrace it - ALL of Christ...).

KFBM misunderstanding is coming from a flawed understanding of Catholic teaching and language in general, so don't be suprised if she sees a contridiction - its just not there though.

PEace

There is a clear contradiction. It isn't just a more charitable way of saying something, it is saying something quite different

Your example simply doesn't fit.

What is your answer for the Sedevacantists who were taught in the Catholic church, understand the language, and see this exact same thing? There are more than just a handful of them. Do they also see a contradiction that isn't there and if so, how could people taught in the Catholic church to understand the language of the Catholic church, misunderstand the same way I do?

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

There is a clear contradiction. It isn't just a more charitable way of saying something, it is saying something quite different

Your example simply doesn't fit.

What is your answer for the Sedevacantists who were taught in the Catholic church, understand the language, and see this exact same thing? There are more than just a handful of them. Do they also see a contradiction that isn't there and if so, how could people taught in the Catholic church to understand the language of the Catholic church, misunderstand the same way I do?

To be fair.. the vast majority of Catholics were fine with Vatican II. The Sedevacantists are in fact an extreme minority.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, actually, I am reading Catholic language as it was stated and then reading responses to it (multiple ones) to see what those alive at the time understood it to mean. It meant what it said, only those in full unity with the Catholic church and in submission to the Pope can be saved.

I will need to find and quote again the document that stated that those who believe anything other than Catholic teaching are heretics. All who followed other teachings were called heretics by the Catholic church, it was not a matter of whether they knew or didn't know, denied or didn't deny, but that they followed something else. No such provision was made, it was a simple "they heretics because they don't follow all the Catholic teaching".

In this case I think it's important to differentiate between a "formal" heretic and a "material" heretic. A formal heretic is someone who knows and understands the truth, and willfully abandons it in favor of heresy. A material heretic is someone who believes in heresy but never fully understood the truth to begin with. I think any comments made against heretics are directed only at the formal heretics.

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, actually, I am reading Catholic language as it was stated and then reading responses to it (multiple ones) to see what those alive at the time understood it to mean. It meant what it said, only those in full unity with the Catholic church and in submission to the Pope can be saved.

I will need to find and quote again the document that stated that those who believe anything other than Catholic teaching are heretics. All who followed other teachings were called heretics by the Catholic church, it was not a matter of whether they knew or didn't know, denied or didn't deny, but that they followed something else. No such provision was made, it was a simple "they heretics because they don't follow all the Catholic teaching".

But that just goes against what heretic means.... thatsmy only issue.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

In this case I think it's important to differentiate between a "formal" heretic and a "material" heretic. A formal heretic is someone who knows and understands the truth, and willfully abandons it in favor of heresy. A material heretic is someone who believes in heresy but never fully understood the truth to begin with. I think any comments made against heretics are directed only at the formal heretics.

What about those who hear what the "official" doctrine is and still reject it? Are they "formal" or "material" heretics? Or do they fall into the category of never fully understanding it?

[milkmandog]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

In this case I think it's important to differentiate between a "formal" heretic and a "material" heretic. A formal heretic is someone who knows and understands the truth, and willfully abandons it in favor of heresy. A material heretic is someone who believes in heresy but never fully understood the truth to begin with. I think any comments made against heretics are directed only at the formal heretics.

These designations of formal and material heretics were later additions to the dogma. At the time of these papal bulls, there was no distinction, heretics were heretics. It would be like the difference in philosophy on the constitution. the original framers of the document understood it this way and now later generations are revising what it meant at the time. I believ we have to read the documents in context. In the historical context in which these bulls were written, they were stating the obvious for unam sanctum, if you do not submit to the papacy you are not saced for the other statement if you are not a memebr of the Roman Catholic church and reamin one you are not saved.

Now it is fine and allright for later theologians to revise these statements and say that this is not exactlt fitting. The problem is that romans have painted themselves in the corner of infallibility an dso they can't say Boniface was too harsh in his language and hold to infallibility they have to twist everything around and say we protestants don't understand what is plainly written.