Dissent In The Church

[dairygirl4u2c]

Dairygirl, have you read the article I posted in this thread? Hmmmmmm?

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html

I assume you meant that one. No I didn't read it, but I did skim it for main point. It's a little extensive. That's usually what I do since many times people throw lots of text at me that don't really answer my question.

I assume you will say that they taught that only Catholics may be saved but never really said that non-Catholics will not. Somewhere along the lines of it isn't really contradiction. But the fact remains that that logic could be applied to any issue.

I'm sorry I admit I'm not super smart. But if you could tell me in simple words what that site says, and/or the answer to my question, I'd be much obliged.

Edited February 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html

I assume you meant that one. No I didn't read it, but I did skim it for main point. It's a little extensive. That's usually what I do since many times people throw lots of text at me that don't really answer my question.

I assume you will say that they taught that only Catholics may be saved but never really said that non-Catholics will not. Somewhere along the lines of it isn't really contradiction. But the fact remains that that logic could be applied to any issue.

I'm sorry I admit I'm not super smart. But if you could tell me in simple words what that site says, and/or the answer to my question, I'd be much obliged.

To keep it simple, the Church has NEVER taught that ONLY Catholics may go to heaven.

[Mateo el Feo]

I can't believe that I have to show this to "great minds". I thought it was a given that the Second Vatican clarified that those outside of the official Church could be saved.

The following quote is part of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, written around 1908 (with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat), about 50 years before the Vatican II Council documents were written:

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark, xvi, 16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matt., xviii, 17). St. Paul is equally explicit. "A man that is a heretic", he writes to Titus, "after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment" (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God's commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

[Catholic Encyclopaedia source of text]

I think the arguments for the possibility of salvation outside the Church is roughly the same as the arguments for salvation without the sacrament of baptism. While Our Lord is a merciful God, He desires all mankind to be brought into His mystical body, the Church (entering through the sacrament of Baptism and being nourished by the graces provided though the other sacraments).

I suppose we should start with this. Would you accept the statement that I underlined as true, or do you believe yourself to be more informed than the Catholic Encyclopaedia (written almost 100 years ago) regarding the consistant meaning of Catholic teachings?

Just as the Holy Bible is misunderstood by protestants, Church documents have often been misunderstood by protestants. I pray that the Holy Spirit continues to lead you to inquire about the teachings of Christ's Church.

God bless,

Mateo

[dairygirl4u2c]

"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).

Are you saying this quote doesn't allude to people who aren't subject to the Roman Pontiff?

I've talked to seminarians who have said that the Pope has redfined the full term Catholic because people back in the day believed it was strictly church going Catholics. The seminarians said even the Pope that made those quotes didn't have the concept that others could be saved.

But they said that the Pope was right really even if he didn't realize it because PJP2 redefined what "catholic" meant.

So the point is, something else Catholics believe could be not defined correct. And my question was, would it be wrong to think and act as if you knew the correct definition. I get some people who say yes. Some like Ironmonk who doesn't even understand my question. And some who contest my very premise. I think the fact that some say yes... including those seminarians... leads me to want to stop arguing about whether or not it was taught and talk about my question and point.

[Aloysius]

i'm gonna get some saint quotes that proove to you it's not a new thing to accept heretitical Christians as partial members of the True Catholic Church... i just gotta look for em, that should settle the question of whether or not it was possible that ppl back then knew this. in times in the Church the common belief was that only those strictly within the Catholic Church go to heaven, but this was never specifically taught by the Magisterium and in fact there are people throughout history who have believed in the partial membership to the Church that seperated Christians have.

.... gotta go to work now. when i get home i'll look those quotes i promised you up for ya. :shield:

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thanks Al. I think we'll conclude that the term Catholic was never really defined to begin with officially so it was officially defined by JP2.

But even if this is the case, that is a cop out because the original pope didn't have this in mind.

Unless you have something that says he did.

That would imply the seminarians don't necessarily know what they're takling about though cuz they think the original Pope didn't have it in mind. But since it's a technicality he was right without realizing it. (which if this is the case, that's a cop out)

But I'll let ya search. Thanks!

[phatcatholic]

how can we really know what Pope Boniface "had in mind" when he wrote that? also, i don't see how any of this is a "cop out." doctrines are allowed to develop overtime as our understanding of them increases, and as long as they do not change in their fundamental nature. Pope Boniface is correct. Pope John Paul II is correct. their is no fundamental difficulty here. the only difference is that one has a greater understanding than the other. what is wrong w/ that? why must this be a cop out?

this article, on the development of doctrine, is probably the easiest one out there to read and understand. please read it. i think it will answer alot of your questions. if after reading it, u still have questions, please let us know. here's that article:

--Can Dogma Develop?

Good Luck w/ this and May God Bless You,

phatcatholic

Edited February 25, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Hananiah]

It is a bit of a cop-out to claim that Boniface didn't really know what he was saying and that no one, not even he, knew the correct meaning of his words until recently. Also note that he specifically excluded Greek Orthodox from membership in the Catholic Church.

"If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only. This authority, moreover, even though it is given to man and exercised through man, is not human but rather divine, being given by divine lips to Peter and founded on a rock for him and his successors through Christ Himself whom He has confessed; the Lord Himself saying to Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordination of God, unless he makes believe, like the Manichean, that there are two beginnings." Pope Boniface, Unam Sanctam

Everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church. However, once one explicitly and consciously rejects the authority of the successor of Peter, one excludes oneself from the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

[Aloysius]

well said hannaniah.

hmm... i shall search for those quotes i promised you now, cuz it is not only in this time that the Church interprets it the way it does, she has always interpreted it the way Hananiah just explained it :cool:

[Mateo el Feo]

Dairy Girl,

You really seem to be a skeptic's skeptic. I would like to refer you to the Holy Bible, but I wonder if you treat the Word of God with the same skepticism that you treat the words of Church documents. I don't know if you believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God. I want to assume that you are some flavor of protestant because you posted a proselytizing website on another thread

If you do believe the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God, I would like you to re-read the discussions of Baptism and the Eucharist. If you don't know where to look, I can give you chapter and verse. There are absolute statements made in it regarding both baptism and the Eucharist.

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses these issues (in the Summa) and acknowledges extra-ordinary situations can allow for salvation for those who weren't baptised in water or who didn't receive the Eucharist. If you're going aim your skepticism on Church documents, it's just not intellectually honest to give the Holy Bible a pass when it makes equally un-ambiguous statements (compared to the Unam Sanctam quote) about the necessity of Baptism and the Eucharist.

Yet, protestant theology (I'm still assuming you are protestant) is all over the place regarding baptism. As I understand it, many protestant sects view baptism as a mere symbol (though not necessarily efficacious or necessary). The evangelicals have their own new formula for salvation: incantation of the phrase: "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior." Apparently, you are immediately saved (a la OSAS) and your sins are forgiven--their version of a new baptism, I guess.

Regarding you're argumentation. I did reject your argument regarding Vatican II. The point of Vatican II--contrary to what you posted--was not to say, "whoops, Catholics were wrong." Your exact words were, "The pope at the second Vatican said that the definition of Catholic church was interpreted wrong by everyone back in the day." Such a claim is unsupportable--I've already shown that the proper understanding of Vatican II is to see it in harmony with both Holy Scripture and Tradition.

Maybe I'm wrong about you being a protestant. Maybe you're agnostic...or an atheist. I suspect this because I have yet to see you show Christian charity towards people who are themselves Christian. Maybe you are skeptical of all religion? I don't know. I just get a vibe that you've got a pretty big chip on your shoulder. If you've introduced yourself to the Phatmass gang, just give me a link. It would help me (and others) to understand where you're coming from. With 100 posts in less than a month, it's seems like God is leading you to learn more about His Church.

God bless!

Edited February 25, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[phatcatholic]

It is a bit of a cop-out to claim that Boniface didn't really know what he was saying and that no one, not even he, knew the correct meaning of his words until recently.

hananiah,

your post appears to be a reaction to mine, so i want to reiterate my point. i do not question Bonifice's wisdom or understanding. i merely assert that the doctrine of "outside the Church no salvation" has developed over time. i consider the words of both popes to be in accordance w/ each other.

if ur post was not a reaction to mine, then disregard this.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

Okay, finally, since everyone has asked me oh so many times. I am now a protestant.. for the last half year I suppose full fledged. At one point I was a Catholic and defended the Church with much rigor for many years. That is all why I hang out here and post so much here. All the superficial arguments I could win. But I wanted to know what all the more logical skeptics thought so I could rebute them too. See, I didn't want anyone at all to have a reason not to be Catholic other than their stubbornness. I was also doing it out of my personal duty to God to live in the truth.. "let God be true thought every man a liar.".. so I had the duty to see what they had to say. Things turned out to be no as black and white as I had thought, and here I am.

I suspect this because I have yet to see you show Christian charity towards people who are themselves Christian.

I don't know why you're getting on me dude. I'm seriously not being mean to anyone! I even told Al thanks many times in my last post.

Anyway, it still seems that Boniface had the idea that no one could be saved outside of the Catholic Church period. And unless we are doing a cop out of defining a word that had different meanings back in the day, it seems that the Pope is then adding "ands" and "buts" to doctrine. If you're kosher with that, that's your perogative. It still seems like cop out to me.

But I'll let Al do his searching.

So thanks all, and thanks Al. ^_^

Edited February 25, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[littleflower+JMJ]

Okay, finally, since everyone has asked me oh so many times. I am now a protestant.. for the last half year I suppose full fledged. At one point I was a Catholic and defended the Church with much rigor for many years. That is all why I hang out here and post so much here. All the superficial arguments I could win. But I wanted to know what all the more logical skeptics thought so I could rebute them too. See, I didn't want anyone at all to have a reason not to be Catholic other than their stubbornness. I was also doing it out of my personal duty to God to live in the truth.. "let God be true thought every man a liar.".. so I had the duty to see what they had to say. Things turned out to be no as black and white as I had thought, and here I am.

catholics are catholics because they know that the fullness of Truth can only be fuond in the Catholic Church, and no where else .

God bless,

flowery

+JMJ

[Mateo el Feo]

Dairy Girl,

Thank you for the response. I didn't get a direct answer, but I assume that you are a protestant who believes that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God. Is this correct?

Regarding your statement:

Anyway, it still seems that Boniface had the idea that no one could be saved outside of the Catholic Church period. And unless we are doing a cop out of defining a word that had different meanings back in the day, it seems that the Pope is then adding "ands" and "buts" to doctrine. If you're kosher with that, that's your perogative. It still seems like cop out to me.

Again, how do you look at Baptism and the Eucharist? According to your beliefs (or those of your church), are they necessary for salvation? The Holy Bible says yes; but I suspect that you've got your own "buts" in your belief system.

God bless!

[Mateo el Feo]

PS--Dairy Girl, have you brought your questions to St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica or the Catechism? They (among other things) are written to address the type of issues that you bring up.