Catholic Faction?

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't see how you could argue against the "orthodox" catholics such as domina has mentioned. You might be able to legitamitly apply the development. In which case the "orthodox" should adhere since they follow the pope.

And so what we need it a primer on development that we can apply it to this situation. And we need all the possible facts of the situation so that we have the best possible picture for the situation being applied to.

It's looking like a cop out so far. (plus if it wasn't we'd be faced with other things that should be able to develop that pretty much everyone here has said cannot)

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='DominaNostra' date='Sep 18 2004, 09:04 PM'] Oik, have you read the actual decrees which are infallible from the Church on that. "One indeed is the universal Church of faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." c.f., Lateran Council IV. "It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." c.f., [i]Unam Sanctam[/i]. "No one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless he remain in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." c.f., Council of Florence. These seem to be pretty clear. The only argument would be that the doctrine has developed, not that the Church didn't teach "all those outside the Church are damned." In this case you would have to show a development of doctrine which does not contradict previous teaching. In this case, that wouldn't be possible since it would be contradicting a previous absolute. That seems to be Dairygirl's point, and that of orthodox Catholics. [/quote]
You have to understand the context of the era they were delivered in. These decress are directed at the Reformers and other schismatics/heretics.

I really don't get what we're trying to prove here in this thread if the magisterium isn't sufficient enough to prove the magisterium.

Edited September 19, 2004 by thedude

[Oik]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp"]Salvation outside the Church[/url]

[Oik]

[quote]"It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."[/quote]

What about the jews who died before the pope existed?

[Oik]

Its not even about context, its about understanding that the Church hasn't taught anything different than it has always taught. Asserting a "development" of doctrine is a dangerous assertation if we do not all understand the term "development." IN this instance, the development of doctrine means the Church (that is the body of believers) comes to understand the Church (that is the being and Truths that are universal and do not change).

Futhermore, the teachings of the early Church fathers along with tradition and bibical text provides the reinforcement of the Church and Her teachings, which come from God.

[Oik]

CCC 846-848:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"


846
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:


Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336


847
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:


Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337


848
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

[Oik]

And

Vatican II explained, "The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp"]Can Dogma develop?[/url]

[DominaNostra]

The only problem is that 1) a development, properly speaking, cannot denote a change, and 2) a development cannot become looser (this is almost the same as denoting a change), i.e., if the Church Fathers said "Without the Church there is no salvation" (that there is salvation through the Church but did not specify "in" the Church), then the Church could clarify, being more specific to say "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (no mortal can be saved without being subject to the Pope). The opposite is not true. If the Fathers taught "Outside the Church there is no salvation", that cannot morph into "Without the Church there is no salvation," but the Fathers taught "Outside the Church there is no salvation," ergo the Church cannot teach "Without the Church there is no salvation" (same labels apply to the meanings of "without" and "outside"). God bless.

[Oik]

Domina, I understand, please clarify the statement "no mortal can be saved without being subject to the Pope," specifically "subject to the Pope."

Also, please answer how it is that people "in good faith" who died before the "Pope" were able to go to heaven.

What I am trying to show is that while all will need to "being subject to the Pope,"
often times, it is misundersood what this means.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think he just misinterpreted you Oik. Could be partly because you didn't address my issues. I already know how you can reconcile all that on textual levels. Just saying it's what is taught now, doesn't make it so. So do some follow up on that french stuff or something. Try to show intent. (by the way, if you're trying to show intent by showing what was taught before the controversials and after, then you are arguing in a circle because you're assuming the Catholic Church to be true, which is one of the assumptions we are disputing)

I have two circumstantial evidences against the Catholic Church. One, the mentality of the days of trent where they believed the fate of newborns without baptism was not good. The other, the fact that so many traditionalists follow "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" strictly. I've had seminarians tell me it was thought of in the strict since by even the popes who wrote it. (that may be the third evidence, but it's just what someone says, not necessarily fact) So if you want to argue this is development, then let's talk about that. And by the way, your sites on development and salvation outside the Catholic Church were very poorly done. (don't just copy and paste links unless you know what it means to the point that you can argue it.. I assume you didn't really read it because it pretty much says what everyone has been saying as far as the salvation one. and this topic doesn't appear to me to apply to the development one.. if you think it does, then let's discuss it) And this doesn't go to just oik, in fact, I want people who are knowledgeable to comment.

Thanx.

Edited September 20, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There is no difference now as then on the issue of unbaptized infants. The Church has never taken a stand for infant salvation or damnation. The New Catechism merely says their fate is left up to God and that they should be prayed for. If you've heard otherwise, chances are it was a dissident source of Catholic theology.

[Oik]

Dairy, don't be harsh. Better to not reply.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Oik

[Oik]

[quote]Try to show intent.[/quote]

Ummm, right. This will never happen because you cannot prove intent, even if you could show it. Intent is a matter of faith, so to speak. I "believe" what you say or I don't "believe" it, either way, I judge you actions by a standard. Intent is as difficult to talk about as Faith.

It is more appropriate to discuss whether the standard by which a thing is judged is True or not. If it is, it will hold up, if its not, it may hold up sometimes, but not always.

[Oik]

Also, here is your origianl post:
[quote]How do you all suppose the traditionalists came to reject the teachings of vatican II on allowing the possibility for salvation outside the Catholic Church for non Catholic Church's officially?

It seems they'd come to that because at one point, it was expressly said that no nons can be saved. And the ordinary magisterium taught this. If this is the case, papal infallibility is a sham, correct?.


Maybe there was an equal split in the Church on the issue, I dunno. But you can tell me how it came to be[/quote]
Also, in you last post you wrote
[quote]you're assuming the Catholic Church to be true, which is one of the assumptions we are disputing[/quote]
There is nothing in the original post that states we are debating whether the Catholic Church is true.
[quote]I have two circumstantial evidences against the Catholic Church. One, the mentality of the days of trent where they believed the fate of newborns without baptism was not good. The other, the fact that so many traditionalists follow "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" strictly. I've had seminarians tell me it was thought of in the strict since by even the popes who wrote it. (that may be the third evidence, but it's just what someone says, not necessarily fact)[/quote]
As Brother adam has already stated earlier in this thread, your points are moot. You make one really big mistake about the Church, you fail to see that the Church isn't just the people who make mistakes, but it is also the Bride of Christ whose teachings are from God, meaning there are not mistakes. Please understand that the Church is not just the people, but the actual physical being that is not the people.

[Oik]

Actually, the article I posted on can domga develp is very clear, you should cafefully reread it.

[quote]As we read Scripture, we see in it doctrines we already hold, each of us having been instructed in the faith before ever picking up the sacred text. This is a necessary process, as Scripture indicates. Peter explained, "There are some things in them (Paul’s letters) hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16)[/quote]

Pretty clear that what the church teaches does not change, but that the [b]people[/b] over time come into a deeper understanding of the Church. Also:

[quote]However, when we read Scripture in the light of the apostles’ authentic teachings, we sometimes forget that some central doctrines (such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union) were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Church’s early days the way they are now. Understanding grew and deepened over time.[/quote]

[quote]More significant than Fundamentalists’ rejection of the development of human traditions—such as when Christ’s birth is celebrated—is their rejection of apostolic tradition. Human traditions may be good or bad, but they do not have the weight that apostolic tradition does. The latter, since it conveys God’s revelation to us, is essential to the proper development of doctrine.

Catholics know that public revelation ended with the last apostle’s death. But the part of revelation that was not written down—the part outside the Bible, the apostles’ inspired oral teaching (1 Thess. 2:13) and their binding interpretations of Old Testament Scripture that forms the basis of sacred Tradition—that part of revelation Catholics also accept. Catholics follow Paul’s command: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15, cf. 1 Cor. 11:2).[/quote]

[quote]I have two circumstantial evidences against the Catholic Church. One, the mentality of the days of trent where they believed the fate of newborns without baptism was not good. The other, the fact that so many traditionalists follow "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" strictly. I've had seminarians tell me it was thought of in the strict since by even the popes who wrote it. (that may be the third evidence, but it's just what someone says, not necessarily fact) So if you want to argue this is development, then let's talk about that.[/quote]

There have been many [b]people[/b] disagree with the Church, that really is irrelevant. The teachings of the Church haven't changed, so it is more important to discuss this than to try and go through history pointing out that others have disagrred with the Church as a way to prove that the Church is wrong.

In this thread, it have been made very clear that the Church has not changed Her teeaching, but that people through out history have changed thier minds. Equating the undertanding of the Church with the mentality of the people is not a valid way to point out that the Church is wrong.

If you want to discredit the Church, you are going to have to discredit Her own works and teachings, not the works and teachings of people.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Oik

[Oik]

BTW, I find your postings to be intellectually chanllenging and very exciting, because I love to talk about the Church, so thanks for those posts.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Oik

[dairygirl4u2c]

oik, thanx for the compliment. And I wasn't trying to be disagreeable in the negative sense of the word. I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. But as for you guys' posting..

[quote]There is no difference now as then on the issue of unbaptized infants.[/quote]

It's ironic because I got the infant quote from thedude's post on this page. (4)

[quote]On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants[/quote]

You are right that the stances are technically the same, ie we don't know what happens with the baby. But this article stresses that they are in bad shape. Do you agree? And incidentally I would say today they stress more of not knowing as opposed to the dangers. Anyway, since they had that tone, it still goes to show the intent.

[quote]Ummm, right. This will never happen because you cannot prove intent, even if you could show it. Intent is a matter of faith, so to speak. I "believe" what you say or I don't "believe" it, either way, I judge you actions by a standard. Intent is as difficult to talk about as Faith. [/quote]

I agree intent can be hard to find. I found lots of circumstancial evidences. mega argued the french stuff. There's lots of ways to show it, at least circumstantially. (remembering circumstantial does hold up in a court of law though admittted that's not divine)

[quote]There is nothing in the original post that states we are debating whether the Catholic Church is true.
[/quote]

It is not there explicitly. But it is implied. You might be able to argue that with a catholic, (which I'm sure they could argue with you about who the pope really is or whatever and not be proven necessarily wrong, but anyway) but any argument with a non catholic is going to have that implied.

[quote]you fail to see that the Church isn't just the people who make mistakes[/quote]

Actually I'm not even arguing that. I recognized that because the seminarians said something doesn't mean it's true. That's why I didn't count it as one of my circumstantials. Unless you are talking about the people who I may use who interpretted it wrongly? In that case you have a good point. But I still insist it shows intent. I would want you to show more of the lenient from around those days, that's always one thing that I've been wanting. (in case I didn't make that clear enough)

But this does bring up the good topic of development. That's what the priests argued. And that's the only way I could see it being argued. I'm not against the concept of development. I just want to argue if it is legitimate when applied to this case.

Then there is also the french kind of thing, but I haven't seen much in that area for many of the other popes.


Are we going to have to agree to disagree or does anyone have anything new to bring to light? Namely, applying the theory of development to this doctrine. Or arguing more of the french type of argument to show intent.

Edited September 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[DominaNostra]

Dairygirl, I am just curious; what is the source you have that the Church currently teaches that non-Catholics can be saved? If this has not been taught [i]De Fide[/i], then there is no basis for this as a proof against the Church. Correct me if I am wrong; your argument is as follows: The Church teaches that She is infallible. The Church taught [i]De Fide [/i]that non-Catholics cannot be saved. The Church now teaches that non-Catholics can in fact be saved. The Church, therefore, has erred and contradicted Her own principle of infallibility... I would agree with you if the third proposition could be proven. Where has the Church taught that non-Catholics can be saved (in an infallible statement)? I agree with you on this point other than the fact that the Church has not taught [i]De Fide [/i]that non-Catholics have any chance of being saved whatsoever. On the next issue, that of souls who die without Baptism, the Church teaches that "The souls of those who die with mortal sin or original sin only descend immediately into Hell (to be punished with different punishments)." c.f., Council of Lyons II & Council of Florence, N.B., the part in parenthesis was clarified at Florence. These are both Ecumenical Councils and are thus infallible. There is no infallible source whatsoever declaring that unbaptized infants can be saved. This is speculative theology of this era (which can certainly be denied by faithful Catholics) and is by no means taught by the Church, much less [i]De Fide[/i]. Further, if your third objection is that the Popes who declared [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [/i]believed it to be the strict understanding, this would not be contradicted by any infallible statement by the Church, so that point would also be moot. In short, believing that all of the "old teachings" are true is not only possible for a Catholic, but some would say it is even necessary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Isn't VII infallible? I've seen Catholics debate this issue before. Or did VII just say, if nons can be saved, it is simply through the church? I thought I was pretty sure that this was official. Why do Catholics bash heartford for saying you have to believe that noncatholics can not be saved in the strict sense? Is this disagreement legitimate within a catholic believer context?

I guess the question is, is VII or that "saved by the church" stuff de fide or not? Actually if I grant that it is not, it would surely have to be part of the ordinary magisterium right?


[quote]The Church teaches that She is infallible. The Church taught De Fide that non-Catholics cannot be saved. The Church now teaches that non-Catholics can in fact be saved. The Church, therefore, has erred and contradicted Her own principle of infallibility[/quote]

Yes that is right. Except the de fide can replaced with "the ordinary magisterium" if need be. The ordinary is infallible the way I understand it.


You have a good point. But it's aggravating because you are arguing differently than others. Most here say they can be saved and that is the faith. I suppose that is why you were on oik. We need a firm definition of what it teaches. And we need to establish if VII is de fide. And we need to analyze the ordinary magisterium.

Edited September 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest lundercovera]

LOOK: it's simple, the Catholic Church has never contradicted the idea of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, She has never denied the fact that inculpable ignorance makes one INCULPABLE for the sin. the Second Vatican Council elaborated on all these issues, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is AUTHORITATIVE in matters of what the Catholic Church does and does not hold as its faith (at least according to the POPE. and the BISHOPS. and, umm... the CHURCH). it's a developement on previously held notions of baptism of blood and desire, and of inculpable ignorance. (for it is a mortal sin to not be a member of that Catholic Church which Christ established for all men, but if one through no fault of their own is not a member of that Church, but seeks out God and tries to do God's will through the dictates of his God-given conscience, he may be unconsciencely connected to the Church in intent and longing for God though he knows not the gospel (not his fault, OUR fault for not bringing it to him) and thus be saved by his connection to the Church. saved by the Church. there is no salvation outside of the Church)

to deny this is what the Divine Catholic Church teaches is to doctor it up to fit your own preconcieved ideas. to say "oh this or that is not proclaimed de fide, i can reject it and hold to a stricter sense (which was condemned by the Holy Office in a little campaign against "Feenyism") than the Church holds it to and harm the Church's efforts to bring more into her fold by proclaiming everyone not physically attached to her damned" is to WORK AGAINST THE CHURCH and thus not work on God's side but the devil's.

God's One Holy Apostolic Church holds that if one is inculpably ignorant of the Gospel of Christ through no fault of his own (yeah i'm being redundant that means the same as inculpable, sue me) they will not be damned for the sin of heresy or schism or lack of visible Catholic faith. they will be judged and they might be saved depending on if their intention and desires and actions were ordered towards the following of their conscience (which is given by God). they are judged on whether or not they sought to do God's will and thus were united to the Church in desire and intention.

Outside the Church there is no salvation.

The desire and intention to follow God's Will if one has not had the oppurtunity to hear the Gospel and thus is inculpable for the sin of remaining outside the New Ark of Noah they may not be damned.

May God have mercy on us all, especially those who fail to hold the Divine Catholic Faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation, and for those who beaver dam people to hell denying the powerful reign of the Almighty God based on their preconceived notions. Amen.

Pax Dominus Iesus