legitimate development

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairy, your initial post is about the purported "development" of the doctrine of EENS, not about invincible ignorance, therefore I have been ignoring your comments relating to that topic, and answering your actual question.

However, you seem determined to change the topic of your own post, so I will humor you. Here are some quotes showing that your interpretation is wrong, and the doctrine is not a new invention:

[quote]Pope St. Clement of Rome
"Let us go through all generations and learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance for those willing to turn to him. Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God" (1 Clement, no. 7 [AD 95]).
(St. Clement I was ordained by the Apostle St. Peter.)[/quote]

[quote]St. Justin Martyr
We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos} were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).[/quote]

[quote]St. Irenaeus of Lyons
The Church "is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them... We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come... Resist them [the rigorists] in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons." (Against Heresies, Book III [circa 200 A.D.]).[/quote]

[quote]Clement of Alexandria
"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).[/quote]

[quote]Origen of Alexandria
"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).[/quote]

[quote]St. Augustine
"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44-48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13-19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).

"The apostle Paul said, 'As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him' [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).

"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39]).[/quote]

[quote]Council of Trent
Session Six, Chapter Four:
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. [/quote]

[quote]Pope Bl. Pius IX
We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accord with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment (no. 7).

On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)
"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord" (no. 7).
On the Church in Austria (Singulari Quidam)[/quote]

[quote]The Catechism of Pius X
Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
(The Sacraments, Baptism - Question 17)[/quote]

[quote]Pope Pius XII
“…those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer” (Mystici Corporis 103).

“…those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love” (Mystici Corporis 103).[/quote]

[jesussaves]

Only in Christ's Church of believers does salvation come.

Edited January 2, 2006 by jesussaves

[dairygirl4u2c]

Can anyone find a good newadvent article that discusses this issue?


quote]Dairy, your initial post is about the purported "development" of the doctrine of EENS, not about invincible ignorance, therefore I have been ignoring your comments relating to that topic, and answering your actual question.

However, you seem determined to change the topic of your own post, so I will humor you. Here are some quotes showing that your interpretation is wrong, and the doctrine is not a new invention:[/quote]

Invincible ignorance is not at all at odds with the topic of this thread as you say. Invincible ignorance is the issue that was either developed as I said or clarified as you say. It is possible that it was only a clarification as you call it and there was always room if you interpret the questioned popes that way. I say it's not possible with my interpretation of the popes. I am not changing to invincible ingnorance now instead of development as you say, because I"m using the ignorance topic to show that it had to be development the way I characterized it in the initial thread. We need to get this topic fixed before going into what happened.


So, I am stating that new popes added a spiritual element that wasn't there with the medeval popes. With your interpretation, again, there was that possibiltiy yes. We're defending our interpretations, I'm not saying that it wasn't absolutely necessarily there; you've shown it's theoretically possible.

The list of leniency that you give in a way doesn't have anything to do wih the questioned popes ipso facto. You need to find leniency then. If you want to argue that the tradition was always there and that the medeveal popes were simply misunderstood, which is what your argument I believe is?, that's fine, I already know your argument. You don't need to list those sources.

What you need to do is show any shreds of leniency by the controversial popes or theologians who lived during those times. I think what this would come down to is us researching actual documents, cause I cannot find it either way.

I think what it would even then come down to, cause the theologians might believe the strict, is that you'll simply insist everyone misunderstood the medeval popes.

note: And when I say medeval popes, I am referring to the popes who wrote "not possible at all" etc.

Show me that catechumens could be saved during the times of the medeval popes. Was the ignorant issue just not brought up? It would be best if you could show me by the controversial popes that the catechumens andor the ignorant could be saved. I would almost say that the medeval popes "corrected" the catechumen idea with the strict interpretation and finally decided what would be believed after years of varying beliefs, as is what popes do in such circumstances, noting you can show both rigor and lenient beliefs for this.

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council finished 1215

Aquinas life: 1225 - 1274 Summa Theologica, 1266-1273. taught that those who expressly wanted to be baptized catholic but died before actual baptism could be saved.  (this is the most lenience i could find in the time of these quotes)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam published 1302

"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 almsgiving, 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, Cantate Domino published  1441 [/quote]

Well, given that Aquanis did teach that after that pretty strong first statement is pretty convincing on your part. Aquanis wasn't before the contoversials so to speak. I wonder though if the last two popes were correcting Aquanis.
I suppose I will give you the benefit of the doubt that catechumens could be saved. But that doesn't leave room for the ignorant or the non-cathoic/catechumen formally. The last pope talks about pagans and other christains who can't be saved. Now, I do realize it's possible to reconcile that, ie if you don't do what you know you should to become catholic, but I think that's a cop out at this point.

We need more theologians and popes' beliefs on the ignorant and prefereably catechumens from these times. We may need to go to the Vatican archives or something eh? Otherwise my interpretation is just as good as yours. We both have defenses for them, but more evidence would force us to fix our interpretations.

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Expanded version.

[quote]1. The Fourth Lateran Council (During the Pontificate of Innocent III [1198-1216])
Usually quoted as thus:
"There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…”
Pope Innocent III would not have approved this statement if it had contradicted his own views:
Apostolicam Sedem
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).

Debitum pastoralis officii
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).

X. Aquinas life: 1225 - 1274 Summa Theologica, 1266-1273. taught that those who expressly wanted to be baptized catholic but died before actual baptism could be saved.  (this is the most lenience i could find in the time of these quotes)

2. Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302)
Usually quoted as thus:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
However, the sentence before that:
"Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1].”

3. Pope Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino (1441)
Usually quoted as thus:
“It [the 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 catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the 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 his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
[/quote]

It is obvious that the first one taught leniency for catechumens. I could continue to speculate with the other popes, but I don't know

It is obvious that 2 is directed at those who have "resisted" the Gospel, not those who've never heard it. That is after Aquanis, so I suppose if they'd only talk about those who resisted, then the catechumens would still be saveable.
But, the fact he said resisted might not really indicate the teaching in that it might be only referring to those who resist, not necessarily ruling out the ignorant. More is needed, if possible, by other writers of these years.

Eugene.. 100 some years later needs a lot more explanation. His own writings and those of his times.

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/[/url]

Why can't Eugene even be found here?

Now, some say this was all before the New World, so they considered everyone to have heard.


Now, I'm pretty sure Traditionalists are more strict in some sense. If it's not strict in the sense of catechumens, is it strict in the sense of the ignorant?

Someone mentioned this, the dude actually:
[quote]Before Colombus, St. Gregory of Nanzianzus is the only theologian who I can find making any sort of vague reference to the uneveangelized. After that, we have to wait until Pope Bl. Pius IX and Pope Pius XII. The only Church council to address the uneveangelized was Vatican II, and it spoke quite clearly in favor of the possibility of their salvation.[/quote]

What was it that St. Gregory said?

I would like more evidence from those times that I quoted whatever the case.

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairy, I already posted a ton of quotes above from people throughout history writing about the invincibly ignorant.

[dairygirl4u2c]

You need to show people's beliefs during the times showing in my threads. I realize it's possible to interpret those strict pope's appearing writings the way you do, and your evidence strengthens that possibility. But if you want to prove that those popes didn't teach strictly and contradict recent, you have to show people in those times had lenient views. Otherwise, all you have is specualation. Which I admit is all I have, but I could also aton a bunch of strict quotes and point out my traditionalist questions, and have just as much of a basis as you. of course i would think more, looking at how the writings were worded, but that's not enough to make a basis.

We both need more evidience one way or another from the times of the popes. Or explain to me why this is not the case and how you have proven and not just hown possible (which I think you've done) how those popes didn't contradict VII and other more recent popes.

I ask for that Saint Gregory is because I thought he was from around the time of those popes. upon closer inspection, he was from the 300's and so i was mistaken to ask for his ideas on the matter. surely this issue was addressed somewhere other than recent popes and then with greg.

Edited January 7, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

So do I have to go to the vatican or do research somewhere to find more info on this? Doesn't Cardinal Newman discuss the no salvation outside issue?

If there's anything keeping me from becoming Catholic again, it would be this issue mainly. There's also wanting to research where we have writings, where we don't, why we don't and how all that progressed, but this is second, and what is existant with the Catholic Church in writings is suffiencent as apolstolic, orthodox and thus "converging and convincing" arguments are concerned. There's also not accepting your rational regarding homosexual marriage and similar things, but the rationales I espouse are simply philosophical possibilites I happen to accept. If I had a good source of saying something was objectively true or not such as the CC, I could see changing my philosophical views. So in essense, this one issue is a major stumbling point for me as one examing the validity of the CC.

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 21 2006, 03:03 PM'] So in essense, this one issue is a major stumbling point for me as one examing the validity of the CC.
[right][snapback]862817[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What would qualify one Church to be valid, and why do you see the CC as not being valid?

[dairygirl4u2c]

A valid church to me would be one that I put faith in that has converging and convincing arguments, as Newman put it. Now, if there are legitimate arguements that need more research when more research is possible, then that's what is needed for me to take a leap of faith. More writings surely exist to lean the argument one way or another surely exist.

Incidentally, one thing I don't like about this board. People say things like... if the CC is wrong, Christ lied etc. That shows a profound faith, but I also think it's dangerous thinking. What the people should think is.. if the CC is wrong, I have been given inadequate information etc. That's the way faith and reason should go together the way God intended. Maybe I'm missing something...

Now, if someone knows anyone who can help me in my research, that'd be greatly appreciated.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, I must admit to this I found by Augustine:
[quote]St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "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 sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."[/quote]

This means that he too had a strict way of speaking, much like the middle age popes. Compare this with what Jeff posted, and it's possible to have a strict appearing but actually not per se as the position of those here espouse for the middle age popes.

The irony being, I found that quote at a Traditionalist website...
(which helps somewhat strengthen my arguement, but not really in a sense)
[url="http://olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml"]http://olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml[/url]

sigh..
More research needs done.. to determine if possible that Augustine wasn't just referring to catecumens with his leniency and more on those middle agers..
but I admit my arguments are cracking..

Edited February 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

**"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39]).**

Well, there is that as for the ignorant that I hadn't considered that Jeff posted. I guess it shouldn't matter when it was taught by him as I sort of told myself; the fact is he believed that and the strict one. So I shouldn't be researching Augustine anymore...
my argument begins crackin more..

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey Dairy, I hope you're doing well!

I haven't posted here in a while because after my admittedly long list of quotes, I thought it would be a good idea to let people do research on their own. Truth be told, I still think this is the wisest course of action, however, I feel motivated to make one point that I feel is crucial.

It seems to me that if one is making the [i]a priori[/i] assumption that the small number of middle ages popes in question had a rigorist interpretation, then one is forced to try to reconcile that with all of the non-rigorist views of the Saints and Doctors who came before and after them. One is forced to try to rationalize away particular theological teachings made by Augustine, Ireneaus, Pius XII, and others.

However, one does not have any problem whatsoever if he/she chooses simply to interpret the quotes of the middle ages popes as being in conformity with the views of the Saints/Doctors who lived and taught prior to them and after them. If that is done, the intellectual stress is much, much less.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff