Dissent In The Church

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote]And hypotheticals do matter because that's why I started this thread. If someone thought that a concept being taught be the CC is not fully true, would they have to follow only what ALL superiors are telling them not to add to their faith since the person thinks there is more to it? eg. If I lived back in the day, and the pope and everyone was telling me I was sinning by believing that non's could be saved by a special grace, since he emphatically said they could not, what should I do? [/quote]
dairygirl,

I'm just making this up and throwing it out there for the sake of discussion...
Plenty of Theologians of the past and present, had and have theories, doctrinal opinions and interpretations of revealed truths which go beyond what is dogmatically defined. When we look back and see a theologian who espoused a view that was novel at the time but normal now we consider them ahead of their time.

If a person at the time of Pope Boniface came out with the statement that God is not bound by the normal means of Salvation (the common view long before Boniface, Aquinas teaches it for example) and that Salvation is theoretically possible for persons who are not members of the institutional Church. And if they qualified it in such a way that it did not contradict the teaching that Salvation is only in Christ and His Church, they would simply have a theological conclusion that was ahead of it's time.

You ask what should a person do? Submit to the Roman Pontiff of course. If the speculative doctrine is understood in a way that is in harmony with Church teachings I don't think it would be a big deal. If your theory/opinion was submitted to the Church and formally rejected you would be a heretic to persist in this view.
No one has ever been condemned for holding that God is not bound by the Sacraments of by the normal means of Salvation. But Christ's Atonement is objectively the source of all redemptive grace and His Church is the instrument by which this grace is communicated. Therefore a person who is theoretically saved through extraordinary means is still saved by the merits of Christ and through the instrumentatility of the Church. In fact being saved is synonymous with being incorporated into Christ's Body.

Anyway, I don't want to ramble so I'll finish what I'm saying.

If you have a doctrinal conviction that is not an official teaching of the Church or that is a novel interpretation of the Church's teachings, and you, in all honesty believe it is true and in harmony with the Church, I don't see any problem (although there may be potential problems). The problem comes when a person denies a Church's teaching or knowingly persists in heresy. If it's a grey area or a matter that is not defined there is more room for personal speculation. For example I reject the theory of limbo. I certainly do not reject any of the dogmas and doctrines that touch upon the theory, but limbo is not an official doctrine and I understand and interpret the dogmas involved in a way that does not necessitate positing limbo. If the Church ever says limbo is for real or that my interpretation is false I will thank God and reject my fallible opinion.

I must also note that it is better to approach the Church's teachings and doctrines as a student and not as a teacher.

I hope this helps.
Peace.

[megamattman1]

this is an interesting conversation.

Edited March 13, 2004 by megamattman1

[dairygirl4u2c]

*this is a clearer post from the one above*


QUOTE
[quote]dairygirl4u2c, the question is not really answerable in a definitive way (best guess would be the latter alternative, if any) and it’s really not the important point when it come to Catholic teaching, as I have tried to say. What's your point?  [/quote]





At least Gray will almost answer acknowlege that question.



QUOTE
[quote]dairygirl, i don't care what Boniface "had in mind" or what his intentions were, or what he did or did not know. i have already stated, and Gray Emminence has affirmed that what Boniface "thought" is not the issue here and it is not even that important to our discussion. i have already refuted your claims, and i did so w/o even mentioning wht Boniface "had in mind."  [/quote]



You can't refute my claims since my claims are that very thing, that it does matter what the thought on the matter was. Otherwise, you're just arguing polemics because these phrases contradict each other: "No savation outside the CC" and "salvation can exist outside of the CC" unless you set context. Or should I assume your faith is a paradox? If that's the matter, then you win. But since I am trying to reason it out...



QUOTE
[quote]NOTE: before you attempt to prove that it matters what he was thinking, please show me how my refutations are faulty or how i have not refuted your claims about the doctrine of "outside the church no salvation."  [/quote]


This is confusing because the strict and the lenient phrases contradict each other on a straightforward level. So trying to argue with you will only take us around in circles if we don't set the context.

So let's try to break it down:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that salvation can be ONLY in the CC yet it can exist outside of the CC. That's not a contradiction because salvation in both senses mean that they're not going to hell and will be one in the CC.

Now it does matter what Boniface had in mind because if he had in mind that non-Catholics would burn in hell definitly (I won't say be saved since that word is ambiguous), then he is contraditing the truth that they may not.


QUOTE
(dairygirl4u2c @ Mar 6 2004, 02:02 PM)
[quote]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 (and that non catholics would burn in hell abstractly in his mind), but that it was only bc he was lacking full knowledge and wisdom to know any differently (that they wouldn't burn after all due to unfully grasped abstract thoughts). 


i'm sorry, but that is not what i'm saying. i haven't said anything remotely like that in any of my posts in this thread.  [/quote]



My premise is that in the back of his mind he thought non's would burn in hell definitly and therefore lacked full knowledge to know any differently. THat would be a contradiction of truth according to the CC teaching and would thus matter what he thought.

Therefore you would have to come to the conclusion that either he didn't know any better personally just not offically (which would be a cop out if he thought they'd burn in hell) or he just didn't have it in mind what would happen to them. (which is also a cop out if he thought htey'd burn in hell... but maybe not considering the abstact thoughts limitation of humans) Of course these are just cop outs if I assume he thought that, but his strong words lean that he assumed non's would burn in hell.

If you were to argue that he knew the CC is the only way to salvation, and didn't really know what would happen to others you might have an argument since people mind's don't always fully grasp concepts, you might have an argument. But this is what I just said (was trying to say) in my quote, it's the only conclusion I can come up with and you said this is not true. Since my context is clearer, is that statement now true?

I'm trying to give you an excuse. It's somewhat flimsy at first glance, but abstract thoughts are like that. Otherwise, I thought you proved your point when in fact you didn't!

Maybe there is one more thinkg I could add to those two things I was saying were the only assumptions I could make. I could assume that you are going to call your faith an inherent paradox. If that's the case, I guess I won't badger you about it, but it seems to be a cop out, but that's how paradoxes are.

I realize you probably have some abstract thoughts on how to reconcile your long proof, so now it's time to state them in a few sentences. I don't see how one of those three assumptions could not be the case.





And hypotheticals do matter because that's why I started this thread. If someone thought that a concept being taught be the CC is not fully true, would they have to follow only what ALL superiors are telling them not to add to their faith since the person thinks there is more to it? eg. If I lived back in the day, and the pope and everyone was telling me I was sinning by believing that non's could be saved by a special grace, since he emphatically said they could not, what should I do?

Edited March 13, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I must also note that it is better to approach the Church's teachings and doctrines as a student and not as a teacher. [/quote]

I am approaching as a student, and as a student, I'm going to ask many questions until I get answers.

[Laudate_Dominum]

dairygirl,

even if Boniface did have your assertion in the back of his mind, which I don't think you can prove, it's irrelevant anyway because something in the back of his mind is not infallible or applicable. We do not need to figure out what Boniface was thinking to interpret the dogma, this is not the way it works. The Church alone has the authority to interpret dogma and She has done so in this case.

Also as I pointed out that the understanding that God is not bound by the normal means of salvation is a part of Catholicism and was held long before Boniface's time. So even if Boniface did have your assertion in the back of his mind (which I do not think you can prove) such a concept would go against Catholicism. If the current official, magisterial interpretation of the dogma was at one point put forward and condemned we would have a problem. But this is not the case.

[quote]I am approaching as a student, and as a student, I'm going to ask many questions until I get answers.[/quote]
The statement was in the context of discussing personal Theologizing and interpreting dogma. It wasn't intended to put you on the defensive. It was not directed at you personally but was a consideration in light of the preceding comments.

Edited March 14, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think the strong wordings make it evident it was in the back of his mind. I don't think that is the question, but think it's permissible to say he didn't state it explicitly considering how humans think.

Is the teaching of the CC on salvation a paradox?

[Archangel]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 13 2004, 03:06 PM']Is the teaching of the CC on salvation a paradox?[/quote]
Not to Catholics.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 13 2004, 05:30 PM'] At least Gray will almost answer acknowlege that question. [/quote]
i may not have answered it the way you would have liked me to, but the mere fact that i answered it shows that i acknowledged your question. so, i don't see that as a valid statement on your part......but i digress.

[quote]You can't refute my claims since my claims are that very thing, that it does matter what the thought on the matter was. [/quote]
dairygirl, this is difficult for me, considering that from where i'm sitting, it appears that your claims always change as they are refuted.

--i refute the claim that the lenient interpretation is new.
--then u state that ur claim was that the strict interpretation is new.

--i refute the claim that the strict interpretation is new.
--then, u state that ur claim was that the strict and the lenient contradict each other.

--i refute the claim that they contradict.
--then u say that ur claim was that they "develop" and not that they "contradict." that i don't even understand b/c i thought the whole problem was that, in ur opinion, the doctrine changed in its essence.

now, ur claiming that it somehow matters what boniface was thinking, or how much knowledge he had, even though i have refuted every other claim of yours w/o even mentioning boniface. since me, and LaudDom and Gray Emminence have already shown how this claim of yours has little bearing on the topic at hand, it is now up to you to prove that it does.

[quote]Otherwise, you're just arguing polemics because these phrases contradict each other: "No savation outside the CC" and "salvation can exist outside of the CC" unless you set context. Or should I assume your faith is a paradox? If that's the matter, then you win. But since I am trying to reason it out .... This is confusing because the strict and the lenient phrases contradict each other on a straightforward level. [/quote]
here, you are stating that they contradict. but, two paragraphs later you say that they dont. here are you words:[quote]I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that salvation can be ONLY in the CC yet it can exist outside of the CC. That's not a contradiction because salvation in both senses mean that they're not going to hell and will be one in the CC.[/quote]
so, which one is it? do they contradict or not? i need to know what ur final stance is on this. if u wish to continue to state that the two intepretations contradict, then here is what u need to refute:[quote]now, on to [b]ASSUMPTION #2. this assumption claims that the broad interpretation and the strict interpretation contradict each other. they do not. [/b]the reason they do 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 (please read this slowly and carefully):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]therefore, ASSUMPTION #2 is refuted as well.[/b][/quote]

now, on to your recent claim:
[quote]Now it does matter what Boniface had in mind because if he had in mind that non-Catholics would burn in hell definitly (I won't say be saved since that word is ambiguous), then he is contraditing the truth that they may not.

My premise is that in the back of his mind he thought non's would burn in hell definitly and therefore lacked full knowledge to know any differently. THat would be a contradiction of truth according to the CC teaching and would thus matter what he thought.[/quote]
[b][color=red]--okay, here is the part to pay attention to--[/color][/b]

we can hypothesize and make theories about what Boniface "had in mind" or how much knowledge he truly had, but [b]the only [color=red]concrete[/color] evidence of his understanding of this doctrine is what he has written about it.[/b] all we have to go by is what he has written.

also, when it comes to papal infallibility, popes are allowed to disagree w/ orthodox catholic doctrine in their private writings as theologians and conversation or speeches. [b]only when they set out to define an article of the faith for the universal church are they protected from error by the Holy Spirit. [/b] [b][color=red]since a pope's thoughts (what he "had in mind") and his private interpretations are not protected by the Holy Spirit, there is no scandal when these contradict what has been infallibly set forth.[/color][/b]

do u see now? his thoughts or private interpretations have no bearing on what has been infallibly declared. where there is infallibility and protection by the Holy Spirit, there is Truth. so, boniface can ramble off until he's blue in the face about how every single person who is not baptized into the catholic church is going to hell and there is no saving them. it doesn't matter b/c he is not attempting to speak infallibly here.

now, assuming that Boniface's writings and, for example, Vatican II's writings on "outside church no salvation" ARE infallible, it is ONLY THESE WRITINGS that we have to reconcile b/c it is ONLY HERE that a possible scandal could reside. so, i looked at his writings and, thru a 3-step process, i proved that there was no scandal in them.

1. i refuted the claim that the lenient interpretation is novel.
2. i refuted the claim that the strict interpretation is novel.
3. i refuted the claim that the lenient and the strict contradict each other.

i have thus reconciled the only problem that could exist regarding this topic. i don't really know what else to say. finally....

[quote]And hypotheticals do matter because that's why I started this thread. If someone thought that a concept being taught be the CC is not fully true, would they have to follow only what ALL superiors are telling them not to add to their faith since the person thinks there is more to it? eg. If I lived back in the day, and the pope and everyone was telling me I was sinning by believing that non's could be saved by a special grace, since he emphatically said they could not, what should I do?[/quote]
dairygirl, all we can go by are the resources we have at our disposal at any given time. of course, we have our ability to reason, but we also have the writings of previous popes, of the early church fathers, of orthodox theologians, and of course of the bible. as long as we draw conclusions that do not contradict what has been infallibly declared and/or what the church has always believed, then we are okay, we are not sinning.

i hope this helps and [color=red][b]i hope you read this entire post.[/b][/color]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]1. i refuted the claim that the lenient interpretation is novel.
2. i refuted the claim that the strict interpretation is novel.
3. i refuted the claim that the lenient and the strict contradict each other.
[/quote]

The only reason you think I am changing my story is because you never understood me to begin with. I started out saying his *thought* on the matter contradicted Vatican II. I also said some seminarians I know said he wrote something that even he didn't know what he was writing. You said that if the seminarians were right, that would be a cop out. Then you went on to try to prove that salvation outside the CC wasn't new by all your quotes, which has nothing to do with what Boniface thought on the matter. That has been my point the whole time.

[quote]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]

The fact that I said this after you first list of quotes and many other similar things, and you said this shows a lot:

[quote]now, ur claiming that it somehow matters what boniface was thinking[/quote]

[quote]even though i have refuted every other claim of yours w/o even mentioning boniface[/quote]

The fact that you think that you can prove your point without Boniface goes to show that you never understood me. Go back and read more, or at least think about the fact that I have been pounding on Boniface's teaching all along, just not for the reason you thought. (I don't think you were trying to understand me when you knew you were clearly right arguing technicalities)

Incidentally, just as much as you argue that you never had to check into Boniface, I would argue that I never had to check into the other quotes because his thought on the matter *does* matter. And for you, there was the technicality of being right in hopes that me and my seminarian friends were reading between the lines and considering history and context too much. But I am not going to argue that because I have been trying to understand you, and clearly saw that you didn't understand me (all the while you thought I wasn't understanding you.. ie since I didn't disprove your repeated line of reasoning wrong. But I don't disagree with it in the theoretical technicality context! Just in the context of reality.)

So then I tried to put it in a different context (that's not changing my story) in hopes that you would better understand what I was saying, that if someone teaches that there is absolutely positively NO salvation at all outside of the CC, he is *proactively* contradicting a truth at least *in thought*. It was just another way of saying that Vatican II, or, if granted, (still gotta check these sources) those before Boniface, proactively contradicted Boniface.

As I said, I do admit that those two phrases can co-exist without contradicting technically depending on the context, but my whole question lies on the fact that they are contradicting when considering the thoughts on the matter, not just the polemics.

So actually I am the one that said in theory they don't have to contradict each other, but when the phrases are *taken in context* of the situation they were written in, they do contradict.

And now you say my "new claim" is that what Boniface thought on the matter is new, but this has been my claim all along.

[quote]we can hypothesize and make theories about what Boniface "had in mind" or how much knowledge he truly had, but the only concrete evidence of his understanding of this doctrine is what he has written about it. all we have to go by is what he has written[/quote]

Don't the actions that have taken place have any bearings on what was writen? If you agreed it did, it would seem that you would be joining my two seminarian friends saying that even he didn't know what he was saying, that it only matters what he wrote and not what he thought. But since you say that it doesn't matter the context of his writing, it seems to me, you have gone one worse than the seminarians in that while they at least admited the context, you are relying soley on technicalities and turning your head to the context.

So now it appears that, since I have finally gotten through to you that all those quotes don't matter when you take consider Boniface's *thought* on the matter, if anyone is changing their story, it would have to be you.

Edited March 16, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]you are going to have to prove to me why it matters how much knowledge Boniface had or what he was thinking. as far as i can tell, this has no bearing on our argument.[/quote]

This also shows that we weren't really on the same wavelength. Of course what he thought has no bearing on the theoretical argument, but it does on the argument I have been making the whole time. (trying to anywho)

Edited March 16, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

i will indeed agree that we have been on different wavelengths through this entire dialogue. at any rate, in my last post i stated rather clearly why the context or what he thought does not matter. you did not respond to the integral portion of my explanation, which was about papal infallibility (i have provided it below):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also, when it comes to papal infallibility, popes are allowed to disagree w/ orthodox catholic doctrine in their private writings as theologians and conversation or speeches. only when they set out to define an article of the faith for the universal church are they protected from error by the Holy Spirit. since a pope's thoughts (what he "had in mind") and his private interpretations are not protected by the Holy Spirit, there is no scandal when these contradict what has been infallibly set forth.

do u see now? his thoughts or private interpretations have no bearing on what has been infallibly declared. where there is infallibility and protection by the Holy Spirit, there is Truth. so, boniface can ramble off until he's blue in the face about how every single person who is not baptized into the catholic church is going to hell and there is no saving them. it doesn't matter b/c he is not attempting to speak infallibly here.

now, assuming that Boniface's writings and, for example, Vatican II's writings on "outside church no salvation" ARE infallible, it is ONLY THESE WRITINGS that we have to reconcile b/c it is ONLY HERE that a possible scandal could reside. so, i looked at his writings and, thru a 3-step process, i proved that there was no scandal in them.

1. i refuted the claim that the lenient interpretation is novel.
2. i refuted the claim that the strict interpretation is novel.
3. i refuted the claim that the lenient and the strict contradict each other.

i have thus reconciled the only problem that could exist regarding this topic. i don't really know what else to say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what i have written above seems to clearly refute your claim regarding the necessity of context or knowing what Boniface "had in mind." [b]btw, if you have any of this valuable context, please share it w/ us. [/b]i would love to see what is so compelling in your eyes.

also, this sentence makes no sense to me:[quote]But I don't disagree with it in the theoretical technicality context! Just in the context of reality.[/quote]can you clarify this for me please?

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited March 16, 2004 by phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]also, this sentence makes no sense to me:
QUOTE 
But I don't disagree with it in the theoretical technicality context! Just in the context of reality.
can you clarify this for me please?
[/quote]

What I mean by that is that if you read the words "no salvation outside the CC" and "salvation can exist outside the CC", at first glance they would be contradictory but it does depend on the context, so not necessarily. By the context of reality I mean, when taken in context, they do contradict.

[quote] his thoughts or private interpretations have no bearing on what has been infallibly declared. [/quote] and the rest of your quote

I'll assume you mean the purposeful intent to leave out information. I am assuming you don't mean even though he wrote with one thing in mind, he can still be right regardless of the context of his thought.

But if the intent of his words he used were to express that non-Catholics would burn in hell, I would have to disagree. If he knowingly left it vaque, I would agree. It's all about intent.

If I got events from history, would that not be sufficient or would it have to be from the pope? Cuz I'd argue that the pope should have made mention of the events if they said that outside of the CC is definite hell.

Edited March 16, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Archangel]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 16 2004, 10:52 AM']What I mean by that is that if you read the words "no salvation outside the CC" and "salvation can exist outside the CC", at first glance they would be contradictory but it does depend on the context, so not necessarily. By the context of reality I mean, when taken in context, they do contradict.[/quote]
Your first quote is taken out of context: "no salvation outside the CC".

It is usually said something like this: "[i]Except for invincible ignorance, [/i]there is no salvation outside the CC."

Said in this way, it does not contradict your second quote: "salvation can exist outside the CC."

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 16 2004, 02:52 PM'] and the rest of your quote

I'll assume you mean the purposeful intent to leave out information. I am assuming you don't mean even though he wrote with one thing in mind, he can still be right regardless of the context of his thought.

But if the intent of his words he used were to express that non-Catholics would burn in hell, I would have to disagree. If he knowingly left it vaque, I would agree. It's all about intent.

If I got events from history, would that not be sufficient or would it have to be from the pope? Cuz I'd argue that the pope should have made mention of the events if they said that outside of the CC is definite hell. [/quote]
dairygirl,

i'm sorry but i'm afraid i'm going to have to bow out of this discussion. it has increasingly become a source of frustration for me, and i am afraid that if i continue i will disgrace the foundation of patience and charity that i have attempted to maintain.

also, as much as my perfectionism may tell me otherwise, i must acknowledge my limitations and accept the times in which i must fold my cards. i see now as such a time. for some reason, we are on two totally different plains of articulation and understanding, and between them exists a seeminly insurmountable divide. i qualify this statement w/ the word "seeminly" b/c i also realize that what has proved insurmountable for me may not be so for someone more skilled than i.

finally, i must admit that i have not turned to God enough to help guide my words and understanding during this discussion. however you or anyone else interprets my success in this thread, i see this as yet another glaring example of what happens when i attempt to rely too singularly upon my own merits.

i hope my departure from this discussion is not viewed as a concession, nor the assumption made that i am "quitting" or "giving up" b/c i could not take the heat. charity and humility demand that i depart before any of them are degraded. that is what i shall do.

peace of Christ to you dairygirl, and i pray that God will help you find resolution on this issue. "and the Truth shall set you free"

phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

It could be that the pope knowingly wrote what he wrote with a clause for invisible ignorance in mind. But I think the context of history, ie cutting relations with Jews and other religions and allowing the inquisitions all within 20 years of the statement, show that he had it in mind strictly that if you are not a Catholic, then you will be in hell.

I always talked about Boniface, but that's only because he was the only one I could think of. Actually Eugene is the one that had the strong words and within 20 years, things happened.

[quote]"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).[/quote]


So the way I see it, either my seminarians friends are right in that the pope didn't know what he was saying, thus a development of doctrine, or the CC's stance on salvation is a paradox.

You don't have to back out. Just admit that you do agree with my seminarian friends after all, or admit that it is a paradox, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And then you can help me understand how development occurs.