Dissent In The Church

[dairygirl4u2c]

Just an issue along these lines. The doctrine of infallibility wasn't defined until fairly recently. I realize that you'd argue that doctrines are only defined when there is dispute.

But it's hard to say what all the popes in the past have thought about infallibility.

Some would teach this or that.. abortion is wrong here... no here.. okay there. Or some other less controversial article. It's hard to tell what would have happened had they known they had to actually say "this is infallible".. for it to be infallible. So arguing that it's been 2000 of no change is a cop out. I'd say it's only been since the doctrine has been declared. And now we'll have to see what happens. (though now the hierarchy is so large so as to prevent any other ideas into the papacy so it'd be harder to really test the doctrine)

the Church never redefines doctrines, it elaborates. "outside the Church there is no salvation" --- elaboration--- "Ordinarily you must belong the the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvaiton, but it must still be emphasized that the constant tradition of the Church has always believed in extra-ordinary means by which God saves ppl."

What's to keep the CC from redefining/"making more clear" any article of faith? Such as instead of contraception being wrong at all times, it is only wrong when you have no reason not to have kids thus allowing for contraception instead of resorting to abstaining altogether or watching your menstral cycles.

Or realizing that the CC can't force it's view of morality in a democracy. Allowing for people to vote what is democratic instead of what they think is "moral". I am alluding to not allowing homosexuals to marry mainly if we don't redefine marriage as only between peeps that have kids. But there are other issues, like why don't catholics vote against contraception laws and other things like that? I'd bet they'd vote for them as a greater good, but I may be wrong, maybe it's not hypocracy, it's just intolerance. Cuz as far as anyone else knows.. CC teaching is only strict for the sake of being strict cuz well (subconsciously): "we're not really sure what to think, so (conscouisly): the strictest theory will he held" That's how I and many peeps hold to CC teaching.

Anyway, I don't want to argue these, my point is, what's to keep them from "clarifying" any doctrine? And saying what was previously thought is only "normative".

Edited March 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jake Huether]

Some would teach this or that.. abortion is wrong here... no here.. okay there.

Just to be very clear... No Pope has ever claimed that abortion is "okay". It has always been condemned, if I'm not mistaken, in personal opinion as well as official Church Teaching.

[foundsheep]

But it's hard to say what all the popes in the past have thought about infallibility.

The Pope didnt have to worry about it then, people believed in the bibles true instructions and respected him.

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

now, to finally respond to your post.

i feel the tension rising in our dialogue together. i can tell you that i have been and i will continue to make my remarks w/ charity. one way i can do this is by reading your posts in their entirety before i respond, which is something that i always do. so, i can assure you i do not respond impulsively.

that said, lets look at the "backbone" remark again:

If we don't understand something, we are suppose to just go ahead and do it bc a church tells us to? So at the end of the day, you must just go with what the Church teaches regardless of what you might think personally, just for the sake of knowing that you have the "Truth"?  ig Contraception is wrong at all times, just because? That's almost idolatrous if you're going against reason just so you don't have have the back bone to think for yourself. But it does take back bone to be religious. I was for a long time. I just say that because I'd always feign away from thinking for myself, not saying you do.

after reading it again, i see this both as a remark on your past ways AS WELL AS my present ones. i would not be surprised if others reading this took it the same way, and i don't see my response as an unreasonable one. however, if you say that your intent was not to insult me here, then i accept that.

hopefully, that will put us back on the right foot.

now, moving on.........i started to point out some arguments of mine that have gone unanswered, and then to respond to each one ur arguments in ur last post. however, i realized that in order to keep this thread on topic, i am going to have to concentrate only on the remarks that pertain to "outside the Church, no salvation." therefore, i am willing to let some of my questions and arguments go unanswered, and i will likewise not respond to every argument you have made. to comment on the Real Presence, the use of reason in biblical interpretation, the role "long articles" play in apologetics, and how much you or i really know about Catholicism would be to make this exchange all the more convoluted. hopefully, you agree w/ this strategy.

this, then, leaves us w/ the following arguments:

I read the article. Here is what I dispute: "No Necessity to Define". I agree that if a general notion is agreed upon, and later defined in more detail, then that is legitimate development.

It appears from the strongly worded letters of the previous Popes that no salvation exists for non-Catholics at all. And to define the word Catholic is really redefining it since this the new definition contradicts the older though on the matter. I have read much on the Catholic Church. I realize some people say that Pope was writing to France and so it was only to those people. I've heard some people (semenarians whom I personally know) say the popes didn't even know what they were saying. But after all that is said and done, it seems as to define Catholic the way it is is a cop out. I've yet to see any context in those olden days to allow for any leniency for a shadow of a doubt that non church going Catholics can be saved. but only text that church going will. People will argue this was only lay men and fallible statements that backed this notion up. But again, the infallible words "no salvation.. etc" were written in that context, and therefore to say it means something else is a cop out.

and this:

How do you know what the Church is teaching now won't be redefined? You just do with what you got. I do the same. Based on comparing and contrasting arguments, I take what I got and to follow anything else isn't true to me, and therefore doesn't cut it. "well, it seems as though you have surrendered any claim to "truth" w/ your dependence upon a fallible interpretation of a church that isn't even truth. under this scenario, how could u possible possess truth" if you're placing a church above reason?

in my next post, i will begin to address these quotes.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

now, ur first quote reads as follows:

I read the article. Here is what I dispute: "No Necessity to Define". I agree that if a general notion is agreed upon, and later defined in more detail, then that is legitimate development.

It appears from the strongly worded letters of the previous Popes that no salvation exists for non-Catholics at all. And to define the word Catholic is really redefining it since this the new definition contradicts the older though on the matter. I have read much on the Catholic Church. I realize some people say that Pope was writing to France and so it was only to those people. I've heard some people (semenarians whom I personally know) say the popes didn't even know what they were saying. But after all that is said and done, it seems as to define Catholic the way it is is a cop out. I've yet to see any context in those olden days to allow for any leniency for a shadow of a doubt that non church going Catholics can be saved. but only text that church going will. People will argue this was only lay men and fallible statements that backed this notion up. But again, the infallible words "no salvation.. etc" were written in that context, and therefore to say it means something else is a cop out.

this is indeed the crux of the argument: how does a faithful Catholic reconcile the seemingly strict interpretation before VII w/ the seemingly lenient interpretation afterwards? well, first i must admit that there is no simple answer that will appease the skeptic. life and humanity is not goverened by "black-and-white" principles and easy solutions. as a logical extension, neither is salvation. to insist on simplicity is to admit ignornace of the extraneous variables in life. that said, i do believe that i have found an article by William G. Most that adquately addresses our present dilemma. however, b/c of the prevalent aversion towards "long articles," i will attempt to summarize it as well.

i think the first step towards a solution is addressing the assumptions that are being made in the argument.

ASSUMPTION #1: ALL OR AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH BEFORE VATICAN II (OR IN THE EARLIER DAYS OF THE CHURCH) HELD TO A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, NO SALVATION."

W.G. Most, while presenting the strict interpretations that exist, also balances these w/ a lenient interpretation that is not restricted to the VII period of the Church. also, note that the majority of those who expressed the strict sentiment in one work, expressed the lenient sentiment in another. the lenient interpretations presented include the following (references for all quotes can be found in the article):

Broad (or "Lenient") Texts of the Early Church Fathers

--Pope St. Clement had written to Corinth c. 94. A.D.:

Let us go through all generations, and learn that in generation and generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those willing to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who heard him were saved. Jonah preached repentance to the Ninivites; those who repented for their sins appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens [allotrioi] of God.

--Justin Martyr, First Apology:

Christ is the Logos [Divine Word] of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus.

--Justin Martyr, Second Apology 10:8:

Christ . . . was and is the Logos who is in everyone, and foretold through the prophets the things that were to come, and taught these things in person after becoming like to us in feeling.

--Justin Martyr, Second Apology, 13:3:

For each of them, through part of the Divine Logos, seeing what was cognate to it [syngenes] to it, spoke well.

--In Vision 2.4.1 [Hermas] shows a much broader view:

(from the article) "The angel asks Hermas who he thinks the old woman is from whom he received the little book. Hermas opines it is the Sibyl. The angel corrects him: "You are wrong. . . . It is the Church. I said to him: Why then an old woman? He said: Because she was created first of all; for this reason she is an old woman, and because of her the world was established." So the Church has always existed. Creation itself was carried out, it seems, in anticipation of her coming to be."

--Second Epistle of Clement, 150 A.D.:

The books of the prophets and the apostles [say] that the Church is not [only] now, but from the beginning. She was spiritual, like also our Jesus. She was manifested in the last days to save us.

--St. Irenaeus:

There is one and the same God the Father and His Logos, always assisting the human race, with varied arrangements, to be sure, and doing many things, and saving from the beginning those who are saved, for they are those who love God, and, according to their age [genean] follow His Logos.

--Also from Irenaeus:

For the Son, administering all things for the Father, completes [His work] from the beginning to the end. . . . For the Son, assisting to His own creation from the beginning, reveals the Father to all to whom He wills. . . . Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly . . . and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice.

--Clement of Alexandria has many statements of a broad nature:

"From what has been said, I think it is clear that there is one true Church, which is really ancient, into which those who are just according to design are enrolled."43 Similarly: "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."

--Origen, responding to Celsus:

To this we will say that there never was a time when God did not will to make just the life of men. But He always cared, and gave occasions of virtue to make the reasonable one right. For generation by generation this wisdom of God came to souls it found holy and made them friends of God and prophets.

--Origen, Commentary on Romans 2:14-16:

that they must not commit murder or adultery, not steal, not speak false testimony, that they honor father and mother, and similar things . . . and it is shown that each one is to be judged not according to a privilege of nature, but by his own thoughts he is accused or excused, by the testimony of his conscience.

--Hegemonius of Chalcedon, Acts of Archelaus with Manes, first half of the 4th century:

From the creation of the world He has always been with just men. . . . Were they not made just from the fact that they kept the law, 'Each one of them showing the work of the law on their hearts. . . ?' For when someone who does not have the law does by nature the things of the law, this one, not having the law, is a law for himself. . . . For if we judge that a man is made just without the works of the law . . . how much more will they attain justice who fulfilled the law containing those things which are expedient for men?

--Arnobius:

But, they say: If Christ was sent by God for this purpose, to deliver unhappy souls from the destruction of ruin — what did former ages deserve, which before His coming were consumed in the condition of mortality? . . . Put aside these cares, and leave the questions you do not understand; for royal mercy was imparted to them, and the divine benefits ran equally through all. They were conserved, they were liberated, and they put aside the sort and condition of mortality.

--The first Church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, takes a similar stand:

But even if we [Christians] are certainly new, and this really new name of Christians is just recently known among the nations, yet our life and mode of conduct, in accord with the precepts of religion, has not been recently invented by us; but from the first creation of man, so to speak, it is upheld by natural inborn concepts of the ancient men who loved God, as we will here show. . . . But if someone would describe as Christians those who are testified to as having been righteous [going back] from Abraham to the first man, he would not hit wide of the truth.

--St. Gregory of Nazianzus, said:

He was ours even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those outside belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith, and need [only ] the name, having the reality [ergon].

--St. John Chrysostom, in commenting on Romans 2:14-16, explains that the words "by nature" mean "according to natural reasoning":

For this reason they are wonderful, he says, because they did not need the law, and they show all the works of the law. . . . Do you not see how again he makes present that day and brings it near . . . and showing that they should rather be honored who without the law hastened to carry out the things of the law?. . . . Conscience and reasoning suffice in place of the law. Through these things he showed again that God made man self-sufficient [autarke] in regard to the choice of virtue and fleeing evil. . . . He shows that even in these early times and before the giving of the law, men enjoyed complete providence [pronoia]. For "what is knowable of God" was clear to them, and what was good and what was evil they knew.

*much more testimony is introduced, but you get the idea. now on to....

Broad (or "Lenient") Texts of the Magisterium

--Pius IX, in Quanto conficiamur moerore of August 10, 1863:

God . . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault. But it is also a Catholic dogma, that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same Church [and] definitions and who are obstinately [pertinaciter] separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation.

--On August 9, 1949, the Holy Office, by order of Pope Pius XII, condemned the error of Leonard Feeney:

It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit . . . but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God.

--Vatican II taught the same in Lumen gentium:

For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.

by considering the wealth of evidence for a lenient interpretation, along w/ the comparable wealth of evidence for a strict interpretation that the article also provides, one should hopefully come to the conclusion that the Church has not suddenly "changed its mind" about what "no salvation outside the Church" meant. instead, it should be seen that BOTH interpretations have co-existed, side by side and often w/in the same work, throughout the ENTIRE history of the Church.

upon such a realization, ASSUMPTION #1 is summarily defeated.

in another post i will comment on the remaining assumptions and then present the logical deductions that should defeat the apparent dichotomy between the two interpretations.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

Edited March 2, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

*quick note: expect my next post sometime later in the evening*

Edited March 2, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

ok, to quickly summarize, we have so far concluded that the lenient interpretation--which you seem to assume is a more recent development/change that contradicts the church's earlier statements--is actually one that has coincided w/ the strict interpretation almost from the beginning. this realization should put to rest any claim that the church's stance on "no salvation outside the church" has changed in recent years.

the next assumption we have to consider is the one which claims that the strict and the lenient interpretation must necessarily be at odds with or contradict each other. ASSUMPTION #2 then reads as follows:

ASSUMPTION #2: THE STRICT INTERPRETATION AND THE LENIENT INTERPRETATION ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND IRRECONCILABLE

the article i have been referencing, which again can be found here, rejects this assumption as well. since what must follow is the all-elusive conclusion and resolution of our initial connundrum, i must cease my attempt to summarize the article here. the remaining information is just TOO IMPORTANT to be left to anyone but the original author. therefore, i beg and plead for you to please patiently and thoroughly read the following exerpts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary and Conclusion

We found restrictive texts in Hermas, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian, Lactantius, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Fulgentius. There are also five Magisterium texts that seem restrictive.

We found broad texts much more widely. Only three of the above ten Fathers who have restrictive texts lack broad texts: St. Cyprian, Lactantius, and St. Fulgentius. All others, plus many more, do have them.

Broad texts are found in: First Clement, St. Justin, Hermas, Second Clement, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hegemonius, Arnobius, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Prosper, St. Nilus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great, Primasius, and St. John Damascene. We added two samples of later writers with broad texts: Haymo and Oecumenius.

We find many of the Fathers specifically answering the charge of Celsus (why did Christ come so late) — St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, Hegemonius, Arnobius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine (though not all explicitly mention Celsus).

Very many speak of the Church as always existing: Hermas, Second Clement, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Augustine, St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. John Damascene.

The idea that theophanies in the Old Testament times were really by the Logos is very common among the Fathers. So it is not strange that we find many of the Fathers speak of the Logos as present to men to save them: St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine.

Closely related is the idea that pagans can be saved if they follow the law written on hearts by the Spirit of Christ, or the Logos, as in Romans 2:15:97 Origen, Hegemonius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Primasius.

What is the common denominator? Though not all mention Celsus specifically, it seems that underlying all broad texts is the conviction that somehow in the past, God did provide for all men — this is something sometimes explicitly tied to Romans 3:29-30 (He is not the God only of the Jews). This is the fact of which all seem convinced. But just how that provision is worked out is less clear, and often the writers do not attempt to explain.

Yet we can build on these data to reconcile the two kinds of texts, so as to solve the problem of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus." St. Justin gives the best starting point. He says that those who followed the Logos, who is in each person, were Christians, even though they were considered atheists, such as Socrates and Heraclitus. As we said above, Justin was using the language of Stoicism — part of the usual tactics of apologists, who were eager to show the similarity of Christian thought to that of the best philosophers. But does Justin really mean to give us just Stoicism or to play on the vagueness of the word Logos (Word/reason)? Of course not. So if we ask in precisely what way the Logos was present to Socrates and others, we could utilize the insights of many other Fathers: The Logos was there to write the law on hearts (cf.Rom 2:15). Modern experimental anthropology concurs; pagans do know the moral law surprisingly well. How do they know it? It seems to become known in some interior way, though not by mere reasoning. That interior way, even though the pagans did not recognize what it was, is God, or the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Christ, or the Logos — all mean the same. St. Paul clearly has this thought, for in Rom 2:15 he obviously echoes Jeremiah 31:33 (prophecy of new covenant): "I will write my law on their hearts."

So God did and does indeed write His law on the hearts of men. Objectively, this is done by the Spirit of God, the divine Logos, as we said. As Justin says, those who follow the Logos were and are Christians.

Now if we add still other words of St. Paul in Romans we can go further. In Rom 8:9: "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Him." So, those who do have the Spirit of Christ, and follow the Logos as He writes the law on their hearts, do indeed belong to Christ. But still further, according to the same Paul, to belong to Christ means to be a member of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:27). Again further, to be a member of Christ, is also to be a member of His Church for the Church is the Body of Christ.

So we seem to have found the much needed solution: Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the Logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. They may lack indeed external adherence; they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense, without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church.

They can also be called sons of God, for Romans 8:14 adds: "All who are led by the Spirit are sons of God." As sons, of course, they are coheirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), and so will inherit the kingdom with Him.

We can even add that objectively — though probably those who drafted the text or voted for it did not realize it — Vatican II taught the same thing: "For all who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church."98

In saying this, we are not contradicting the teaching of Pius XII (Mystical Body Encyclical). He spoke of some as being ordered to the Church by a certain desire which they did not recognize. We admit that. To add to truth is not to deny truth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in my next and final post, i will provide an exerpt from this article that addresses any possible objections one may have with what has been presented thus far.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

W.G. Most concludes his article by acknowleding three possible objections to it, and briefly refuting each one. i provide his words below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three possible objections remain. First: is our solution indifferentist? Not at all. For we insist that even these people who belong without formal adherence have the objective obligation to formally enter the Church. It is only their ignorance that excuses them. As we saw, Pius IX, so strong against indifferentism, concurs in our conclusion that somehow these people can be saved.

Second: are we proposing mere naturalism, i.e., if one is naturally good, that is enough? Not at all. First the natural law is God's law too; second, these people objectively follow the Spirit of God, and so are on the supernatural plane; finally, they also have available actual graces, and use them, as the Vatican II's broad text said. God always offers actual graces to those who do what they can.

Thirdly and finally: some would say that the Fathers and the Magisterium speak only of people before Christ — after He came, formal entrance into the Church is necessary. We reply: First, the Magisterium texts speak in the present tense, not the paSt. Thus, Pius IX: "God by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments. . . ." And the Holy Office said: "It is not always required. . . ." Vatican II similarly: "They who without their own fault . . . can attain eternal salvation." Second, the statements of the Fathers show a basic conviction that God must have made provision for men before Christ: the same thinking applies to those afer Christ. Further, St. Paul in Romans 5:15-19 insists strongly and over and over again that the redemption is more abundant than the fall. But if the coming of Christ caused countless millions to lose in practice all chance of salvation, then the redemption would not be superabundant — it would be a tragedy, a harsh tragedy for these persons. And God would not act as if He were their God — as St. Paul asserts in Romans 3:29-30.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this concludes my response to the "cop out" and "changing" of doctrine that you insist has taken place w/in the Catholic Church. once assumptions 1 and 2 have been rejected, one comes to only one conclusion:

--the Catholic Church has neither changed nor has it contradicted itself concering her doctrine of "outside the Church, no salvation."

i hope this has been an effective apology, and i hope that you have been able to stick w/ me as i expanded my response over 4 posts! again, i would strongly encourage you to read for yourself the article from which i obtained my information. also, consult the Notes at the end of the article for any info u may want about the quotations that were provided.

finally, if you would like to read more articles concerning this doctrine, (and i suggest that you do) please consult the "Outside the Church No Salvation" section of the Salvation entry in the reference section.

i sincerely hope that this helps..........pax christi,

phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

hi phatcatholic,

life and humanity is not goverened by "black-and-white" principles and easy solutions. as a logical extension, neither is salvation. to insist on simplicity is to admit ignornace of the extraneous variables in life.

You are completely right in this quote.

But think about applying this to my way of life, that is, if something isn't true to me after an honest compare/contrast situation, then it doesn't cut it. With my way of life your quote works. It seems not to with the CC way of life.

And here is why.

You quoted many strict and lenient people from the "Catholic Church" in the early days. This is fine, but for one that isn't necessarily the CC the way you understand it. And for two, if it was, it only shows inconsistency with what was taught by Boniface etc.

The later quotes I would agree are Catholic. So in this case, again, the only thing you have shown is inconsistency.

If you could show me some quotes from around the 1300's (or around the turn of the century) that show leniency, that would mean much more. Even better, some form of leniency from Boniface or at least someone close to him themselves.

QUOTE]well, first i must admit that there is no simple answer that will appease the skeptic.

Edited March 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

You quoted many strict and lenient people from the "Catholic Church" in the early days. This is fine, but for one that isn't necessarily the CC the way you understand it. And for two, if it was, it only shows inconsistency with what was taught by Boniface etc.

how is this not the Church the way i understand it? how does anything i have presented show inconsistency? please, you need to make more of an effort to defend the claims you make w/ proof. sometimes you say things and i'm not sure why you're saying it or where it is coming from.

i honestly don't see how what i provided is inconsistent w/ boniface. did you read all of my posts on this matter? did you read the article? if you read any of these then you would know that what i have essentially proven is that the strict and the lenient interpretation have coincided, or existed together--and w/o conflict--from the very beginning. that article provides documented testimony which reveals that the lenient interpretation is nothing new. often times, the very same author, w/in the very same work, argues for both the strict and the lenient interpretation. this is all in the article and in the testimony i provided.

If you could show me some quotes from around the 1300's (or around the turn of the century) that show leniency, that would mean much more. Even better, some form of leniency from Boniface or at least someone close to him themselves.

why is this important? you haven't explained your logic for why this is necessary. why is it that "lenient" testimony before the 1300's is discredited, but that same testimony after 1300 is somehow more legitimate? i honestly don't understand your logic sometimes. i promise i'm not trying to be mean here. ur just gonna have to help me understand where ur comin from.

hopefully we can somehow resolve this matter.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

Edited March 3, 2004 by phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

Yes I understand that I don't make myself very clear a lot of the time. I used to think others weren't clear either, but then I started trying to think in their shoes instead of just thinking for me. Just sayin is all. I don't think I'd understand your posts if I didn't make a conscientious effort. But I know it's prolly more me being unclear than you not tryin, sorry.

But anyway, as I said, (though not to clearly at first ) I want to know the Boniface eras stance on salvation due to the dates.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, (1215)

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." (D. 423)

Pope Boniface VIII, (1294-1303)

Pope Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctum, 1302:

"With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin."

"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).

By showing what these men taught and actually thought on the matter is in this case the dispute. Showing what was taught before and after them doesn't matter if it doesn't agree with what they taught and thought. That's why that era is the important one important. I understand the confusion because usually a chronology is used to compare and contrast. But in this case if you don't show all of what they thought, it's not really comparable.

Edited March 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

first off, u didn't answer some of my questions in my last post, and i really need them answered so that i can understand you better. these questions are:

[quote]how is this not the Church the way i understand it? how does anything i have presented show inconsistency? please, you need to make more of an effort to defend the claims you make w/ proof. .... i honestly don't see how what i provided is inconsistent w/ boniface. did you read all of my posts on this matter? did you read the article?[/quote]

you did somewhat answer my question for why testimony around 1300 matters and the rest before and after doesn't. you give the following answer:

[quote]By showing what these men taught and actually thought on the matter is in this case the dispute. Showing what was taught before and after them doesn't matter if it doesn't agree with what they taught and thought. That's why that era is the important one important. I understand the confusion because usually a chronology is used to compare and contrast. But in this case if you don't show all of what they thought, it's not really comparable.[/quote]

okay, i'm going to try to explain this again. first off, lets clarify exactly what we are disputing:

[color=blue][b]DISPUTE:[/b] "Does the present interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church" contradict the interpretation of Boniface and his contemporaries?"

[b]NOTE:[/b] present interpretation is lenient, or "broad." boniface interpretation is "strict."

[b]REPLY:[/b] to the question we are disputing, you would say "yes" and i of course would say "no."[/color]

[color=blue]--[/color]are you w/ me so far? am i correct in stating what our [color=blue][b]DISPUTE[/b][/color] is over? please answer yes or no.

now, it is my understanding that your [color=blue][b]REPLY[/b][/color] is "yes" b/c you see the broad interpretation as one that is a new or novel change, and that this change contradicts the strict interpretation that the Church has previously taught.

[color=blue]--[/color]is this a correct summary of your position? please answer yes or no.

now, in your position on this dispute, you have two assumptions. they are:

[color=blue][b]ASSUMPTION #1:[/b] The broad interpretation is a new or novel change of what the Church has previously taught

[b]ASSUMPTION #2:[/b] This change of interpretation contradicts, or goes against, the strict interpretation that the Chruch has previously taught.[/color]

in my previous posts, i refuted both [color=blue][b]ASSUMPTIONS #1[/b][/color] and [color=blue][b]#2[/b][/color]. i will explain again to you how i did this.

since [color=blue][b]ASSUMPTION #1[/b][/color] states that the broad interpretation is novel, and a change, i proved that this was incorrect by providing for you early testimony from the Church Fathers and the Magisterium that presents a broad interpretation. if a broad interpretation has always existed, then [b]the same broad interpretation--the one that is often grouped w/ Vatican II--is NOT new and is NOT a change. it has always been present in the teaching of the Church.[/b]

therefore, [color=blue][b]ASSUMPTION #1[/b][/color] is defeated. it doesn't matter what Boniface's contemporaries thought. ASSUMPTION #1 is defeated regardless of what they thought. and even if it did matter, the testimony you are looking for would require hours of research into writings and papal documents of the day. i don't have time for this. i did, however, find a quote from Oecumenius written around 990 A.D., which espouses the broad interpretation and is only 200-300 years before Boniface. it states:

[color=blue]"They do the things of the law" using the reasonings of nature for just actions. These are wonderful, not needing a teacher, being their own lawgivers and fulfillers of the legislation. . . . "Their conscience bearing witness to them," for it is enough in place of the law to have their own conscience testifying for them. . . . At that judgment we do not need external accusers or witnesses . . . but each one's own reasonings and conscience either accuses or defends.[/color]

now, on to [color=blue][b]ASSUMPTION #2[/b][/color]. this assumption claims that the broad interpretation contradicts the strict one. it does not. the reason it does not is very biblical in its premise. and, b/c it is biblical, this answer has existed at least as long as the bible has, and even before them in the teachings of the apostles. this answer is found in the following exerpt from the article i am drawing my information from [b](please read this slowly and carefully):[/b]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So God did and does indeed write His law on the hearts of men. Objectively, this is done by the Spirit of God, the divine Logos, as we said. As Justin [Martyr] says, those who follow the Logos were and are Christians.

Now if we add still other words of St. Paul in Romans we can go further. In [b]Rom 8:9:[/b] "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Him." So, those who do have the Spirit of Christ, and follow the Logos as He writes the law on their hearts, do indeed belong to Christ. But still further, according to the same Paul, to belong to Christ means to be a member of Christ (cf. [b]1 Cor 12:27[/b]). Again further, to be a member of Christ, is also to be a member of His Church for the Church is the Body of Christ.

[b]So we seem to have found the much needed solution: Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the Logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. They may lack indeed external adherence; they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense, without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church. [/b]

They can also be called sons of God, for [b]Romans 8:14[/b] adds: "All who are led by the Spirit are sons of God." As sons, of course, they are coheirs with Christ ([b]Rom 8:17[/b]), and so will inherit the kingdom with Him.

We can even add that objectively — though probably those who drafted the text or voted for it did not realize it — Vatican II taught the same thing: "For all who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church."98

In saying this, we are not contradicting the teaching of Pius XII (Mystical Body Encyclical). He spoke of some as being ordered to the Church by a certain desire which they did not recognize. We admit that. To add to truth is not to deny truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

therefore, [color=blue][b]ASSUMPTION #2[/b][/color] is refuted as well. both assumptions 1 and 2 make up your position. since they are both refuted, your position is refuted.

does all of this make sense? i'm not implying that you're stupid. i just know that this is a complicated topic. if this does not work, then i may have to just abandon this article and try another approach.

i hope this helps.............pax christi,
phatcatholic

[b]ps: PHAM, am i not being effective here? please, someone help me get my point across. tell me what to do to make this better.[/b]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]We can even add that objectively — though probably those who drafted the text or voted for it did not realize it — Vatican II taught the same thing[/quote]

Did you say this in your last posts? I think I know what you're saying. Are you taking the position of the two seminarians that I know that even Boniface didn't know what he was saying?

I still think that is a cop out but I am willing to give that as a premise. Also, didn't Boniface backtread in his teaching? I suppose if you are right in saying that the was not a cop out, this he can backtread too. Now to what my initial ? was for making this thread.


[quote]To add to truth is not to deny truth.[/quote]
If he thought that contraception for example was bad in a general sense, could he think that perhaps they needed to expand on that teaching and ease on a narrower sense?

Given that truth can be added to, if a Catholic thinks something is not quite correct, should he follow this teaching absolutely?

Edited March 5, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 4 2004, 09:02 PM'] Did you say this in your last posts? I think I know what you're saying. Are you taking the position of the two seminarians that I know that even Boniface didn't know what he was saying? [/quote]
dairygirl,

before i respond any further, did you read my last post, w/ the blue lettering and the two assumptions----IN ITS ENTIRETY? did you read the whole thing and attempt to understand it?

yes or no?

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

Yes I have read and understood your post. You are saying that Boniface may have thought that there was not salvation at all outside of the CC in the strict sense, but that it was only bc he was lacking full knowledge and wisdom to know any differently. And since this belief is technically true (no salvation outside) it was just a flaw of a human and not as an infallible person. But you have a point if you want to consider the human element of the papacy which I had not considered in this context. Still borderline cop out, or at first glance could appear that way. I'm not sure.

So as for contraception it has always been a strict interpretation. You could not go from strict to broad because anything else would be outside the realm that has been taught.

I guess it would help if we talked about what is and is not good development so I have a better frame of reference.

Edited March 6, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c