legitimate development

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've heard several arguments for apologizing "no salvation", that the wording was misunderstood to begin with, which is generally what is argued here at phatmass. the other arguemtn is that the doctrine developed. Here is new advent article which says this.

[quote]It has always been believed that there is no salvation outside the Church, but as this belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now considered within the soul of the Church who would have been placed without, in a day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not generally obtained.[/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm[/url]

Also, it's somewhat significant that I've heard seminarians espouse the quoted view. They don't espouse saying that people were misunderstanding the pope who wrote no salvation.

I would like a rationale for saying that "no salvation outside the catholic church" can legitimely develop to today's understanding where non-catholics in the strict sense may still be catholic in a spiritual sense, and are saved through the church. whoever is saved, is saved through the church.

the major reason i ask is because I have always understood that development of doctrine has to be from general to specific. Like of course early christians would not worship the eucharist at first, but as time comes and they understand what they are partaking in, it makes sense to worship. I'm not sure this legitimate development can occur with that doctrine cause it seems the new intent is contradicting the old intent.

If this development is okay,
What's to keep them from some day saying that confession is okay to be done outside the confessional if you don't feel like going, because there is some new spiritual understanding which hadn't been considered before?
You might say, they say now that you have to go to confession, so they can't change that. But I'd say, they said then that you hav eto be part of the physical body, so they can't change that.

i've never gotten a good answer here as to the development theory, which ironically seems to be the position of the church.

Edited December 31, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest JeffCR07]

To make a short reply of it, the issue of EENS is not a "development" in terms of a general-to-specific application of an already held doctrine, but rather, it is a clarification.

Many people misunderstood what "outside the Church there is no salvation" meant, and so it was necessary to clarify this by pointing out the equivalent statement formulated positively (i.e. "all salvation is through the Church").

Now, nowhere in either the negative or the positive statement does it say "visible Church" but rather, it simply says "Church," thus clearly referring to the Mystical Body of Christ. Thus, the doctrine is saying that all salvation comes from Christ, through the Church, and even someone who is not a visible member of the Church may be saved if they have been united to the Church in a mysterious way.

It is important to point out that this is not a "new" development. This principle is indeed presupposed by the fact that even people who were not formally incorporated into the visible Church (such as catechumens) are considered saints upon martyrdom (vis-a-vis Baptism of Blood). Baptism by Blood has been believed since the beginning of the Faith, and it presupposes the proper understanding of EENS.

Now, on a completely unrelated note, I think you'd be interested to know that Confession has not always been done in a confessional - it used to be done in public :

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't know. That sounds pretty much like what's been the argument here. And that doesn't seem to do justice to the quote.

[quote]It has always been believed that there is no salvation outside the Church, but as this belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now considered within the soul of the Church who would have been placed without, in a day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not generally obtained.[/quote]

The reason it don't do justice is because it says that the "belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now considered within the sould of the Church who would have been placed without, in a day when the distinction.. had not generally obtained."

That is, no salvation was thought strictly, until something else "gradually" came to be understood not strictly. Now, I suppose it does matter who in that passage it was thought by.
If the passage refers to the masses, which now that I think about it might be the case given "generally obtained" which might indicate beyond a Pope, then the development of their understanding of course is allowable even in a messed up sense that wouldn't be allowable for the Pope etc.
But if it was thought one thing by the Pope that no salvation could be for non-Catholics, he surely meant that in the strict sense Catholics. If this is the case, I don't think you've explained the development properly because you addressed the common man misunderstanding, not the understanding of the Pope, and you didn't explain how it's not possible for other doctrines that normally wouldn't be thought to be developed could be developed, really my point in this thread.

[quote]It is important to point out that this is not a "new" development. [/quote]
and/or this could be explained more. Learning to kneel to the eucharist is not new in a sense because they've always believed, but it's new to realize that they should kneel to it.
Now, you have those notions of blood baptism etc. First, I don't think he was talking about people who were straight up ignorant or chose not to be Catholic.
But if they did mean that, which is a big if, you'd have an argument that perhaps the Pope said no salvation in the carnal sense, and it was later understood given the tradition that the spiritual sense is allowable. But if this is the case, theoretically speaking, then couldn't a Pope say that babies cannot be saved at all, but then a next pope say that the babies can be saved because of a spiritual connection and the grace of God given the limbo tradition? Or cue many other such examples.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Two brief comments:

First, you are right to point out that the critical phrase is "in a day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not generally obtained."

What is significant about this is that it had not [i]generally[/i] obtained. We should understand this to mean amongst common catholics. It is clear that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not mean to say that it was a distinction unknown to theologions (I highly doubt you need proof of that).

That means that the common people (the majority) had not obtained the deeper, technical understanding of the that was possessed by the theologions. Thus, it makes perfect sense that we would then begin to use the positive formulation of the negative phrase in the hopes that it would help people come to a proper understanding.

Second, you confusing yourself regarding my discussion of Baptism By Blood. The reason I reference it is because it clearly presupposes the EENS doctrine in both its negative and its positive formulations. Allow me to provide a more formal proof:

1.) A catechumen is not formally a member of the [i]visible[/i] Church until he receives Baptism by water. (Premise)
2.) Martyrs are considered Saints, and attain salvation. (Premise)
3.) Catechumens have been martyred since the earliest days of the Church. (Premise)
4.) Some chatechumens are considered saints and attain salvation. (From 3 and 2)
5.) Some people who are not formally members of the [i]visible[/i] Church attain salvation.

Therefore, the non-rigorist interpretation of EENS follows logically from the doctrine of Baptism by Blood.

[infinitelord1]

i wouldnt trust anything with the word "new" as in NewAdvent. That means things have changed. Im more into "old" or "preserved" kind of like how the catholic church preserved the teachings of the apostles furthermore jesus christ. I think its wiser to put your faith into that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Your syllogism is correct. However, to add those who are ignorant would not count within those conclusions from your premises. The only conclusions that could be made are that those catechumens could be saved in those situations of the premises.

You might argue that it was not the intent of the no salvation pope to exclude the ignorant. I think the writings of the popes are strong enough to. I think the writings might even go against what was taught by Aquanis and those other catechumen people, especially since they came before those no salvation popes.

Now, I will need to dig up the time periods, and show the curious lack of info we have on those no salvation popes. This way you can show me by writing from people around these popes' time period what was believed by the theological minded.

I will do this next year though....

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 31 2005, 04:33 PM']Your syllogism is correct. However, to add those who are ignorant would not count within those conclusions from your premises. The only conclusions that could be made are that those catechumens could be saved in those situations of the premises.
[right][snapback]842072[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not true, look like this...

1.) A catechumen is not formally a member of the visible Church until he receives Baptism by water. (Premise)
2.) Martyrs are considered Saints, and attain salvation. (Premise)
3.) Catechumens have been martyred since the earliest days of the Church. (Premise)
4.) Some chatechumens are considered saints and attain salvation. (From 3 and 2)
5.) Some people who are not formally members of the visible Church attain salvation.

The conclusion, doesn't pertain ONLY to the catechumen's who are martyrs, it applies to any catechumen (to keep the terms straight), you could extend it to anyone ie me!

6.) I am not a member of the visible Church (Premise)(Not true BTW!)
7.) I can attain salvation (1,2,3,6)

Now take your position, your premise, no person outside the Church can attain salvation, is directly opposite Jeff's conclusion. So someone's premise must be wrong... but all Jeff's are facts? and can certainly be researched! yours is an interpretation.

[Guest JeffCR07]

rkwright is correct, though his "can" must be interpreted as meaning "it is possible that."

You have accepted my argument as true. So you accept the statement "Some people who are not formally members of the visible Church attain salvation." From this, it logically follows that "it is possible for someone who is not a visible member of the Church to attain salvation."

Now, you cannot maintain that statement [i]and[/i] believe the strict (aka rigorist) interpretation of EENS, which would say that only those who are formal members of the visible Church can attain salvation."

Therefore, if you think that the rigorist interpretation is what was intended, then you are forced to conclude that it is contradictory to thousands of years of Christian Tradition.

I see no reason to believe this, especially when a more reasonable option is more than feasible.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 1 2006, 04:38 AM']Not true, look like this...

1.) A catechumen is not formally a member of the visible Church until he receives Baptism by water. (Premise)
2.) Martyrs are considered Saints, and attain salvation. (Premise)
3.) Catechumens have been martyred since the earliest days of the Church. (Premise)
4.) Some chatechumens are considered saints and attain salvation. (From 3 and 2)
5.) Some people who are not formally members of the visible Church attain salvation.

The conclusion, doesn't pertain ONLY to the catechumen's who are martyrs, it applies to any catechumen (to keep the terms straight), you could extend it to anyone ie me!

6.) I am not a member of the visible Church (Premise)(Not true BTW!)
7.) I can attain salvation (1,2,3,6)

Now take your position, your premise, no person outside the Church can attain salvation, is directly opposite Jeff's conclusion.  So someone's premise must be wrong... but all Jeff's are facts? and can certainly be researched! yours is an interpretation.
[right][snapback]842265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wow rkwright you sound like Jeff. I'm truly impressed

[rkwright]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 1 2006, 09:53 AM']Wow rkwright you sound like Jeff. I'm truly impressed
[right][snapback]842470[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

haha I took one semester of logic! and I remember the basics..though when someone starts talking existential elim I might have to pull out the text book

Though jeff did all the work all props to him!

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 1 2006, 05:21 PM']haha I took one semester of logic! and I remember the basics..though when someone starts talking existential elim I might have to pull out the text book 

Though jeff did all the work all props to him!
[right][snapback]842474[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Uh huh. Well we all know how great Jeff is...he should have a phanclub lol

[Guest JeffCR07]

no phan clubs, I'll get kicked out of the Un-Phan Club if you do

oh, and I heart existential elimination. I was actually trying to find a way to type in all of the first-order and S5 modal logic operators on phatmass...but it was too hard and I gave up. :

[dairygirl4u2c]

I can see there's been a misunderstanding.

[quote]Your syllogism is correct. However, to add those who are ignorant would not count within those conclusions from your premises. The only conclusions that could be made are that those catechumens could be saved in those situations of the premises. [/quote]

Here all I was stating was that his syllogism is correct the way he structured it. Note that I agreed that the catechumens could be saved according to his structure. I also state as Jeff in the last post agreed that you could take the inferences to his true conclusions he made differently: even if Jeff is correct that some catechumens can be saved, that doesn't necessarily apply to the ignorant.

If you want to develop what "catecumens" means, that fine. I disagree, I think, but it's debatable and that's why I opened this thread. Or if it's not development, and that was always possible for ignorant to be saved, I agree the fact that catechumens could be saved does somewhat indicate that perhaps there was room for the ignorant too. But again that is not a necessary conclusion that can be made from his premises, as Jeff agrees. They would be possible inferences only.

[quote]You might argue that it was not the intent of the no salvation pope to exclude the ignorant. I think the writings of the popes are strong enough to. I think the writings might even go against what was taught by Aquanis and those other catechumen people, especially since they came before those no salvation popes. [/quote]

This is a separate thought from the syllogism and the last paragraph I wrote. I was essentially noting that I'm not sure his premises could be even made given the writings of the questioned popes.


If Jeff's premises aren't necessarily facts if you consider that the popes taught different than Aquanis etc, then Jeff's conclusions can't be made either. Then my conclusion that no salvation would be possible because there's different premises. As per Aquanis etc, they are correct premises and conclusions. But as to what was taught by the questioned popes, they are not necessarily.


Also, I think my interpretation is just as good as anyone's. You have circumstantial evidence that catchumens could be saved according to the controversial popes because of some theologians in around that time period, a little before the popes (leneiency not shown from the popes), who showed leniency. I have circumstantial evidence that Catholics all believed the strict interpretation, which we all agree. I find it odd that they'd believe it wrong, or that Traditionalists would continue to believe it.


Now I will post some of the writings to ask you guys for more evidence of leniency from the time period of the questioned popes.

Also, I want to note that I might allow that catechumens might have been saveable by the questionable popes. But I don't think that applies to the ignorant etc. For this, I don't think it's far fetched to think popes would allow for catechumens who just didn't happen to make it a few months etc longer, but not to allow ignorant who knows nothing of the Church.


Something else I'd like to look into is if Traditionalists think catechumens can be saved. If they can, then it shows that it's possible to be agagaint the ignorant and the for the catechums.

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 2 2006, 02:52 AM']I can see there's been a misunderstanding.
Here all I was stating was that his syllogism is correct the way he structured it. Note that I agreed that the catechumens could be saved according to his structure. I also state as Jeff in the last post agreed that you could take the inferences to his true conclusions he made differently: even if Jeff is correct that some catechumens can be saved, that doesn't necessarily apply to the ignorant.

If you want to develop what "catecumens" means, that fine. I disagree, I think, but it's debatable and that's why I opened this thread. Or if it's not development, and that was always possible for ignorant to be saved, I agree the fact that catechumens could be saved does somewhat indicate that perhaps there was room for the ignorant too. But again that is not a necessary conclusion that can be made from his premises, as Jeff agrees. They would be possible inferences only.
This is a separate thought from the syllogism and the last paragraph I wrote. I was essentially noting that I'm not sure his premises could be even made given the writings of the questioned popes.
If Jeff's premises aren't necessarily facts if you consider that the popes taught different than Aquanis etc, then Jeff's conclusions can't be made either. Then my conclusion that no salvation would be possible because there's different premises.  As per Aquanis etc, they are correct premises and conclusions. But as to what was taught by the questioned popes, they are not necessarily.
Also, I think my interpretation is just as good as anyone's. You have circumstantial evidence that catchumens could be saved according to the controversial popes because of some theologians in around that time period, a little before the popes (leneiency not shown from the popes), who showed leniency. I have circumstantial evidence that Catholics all believed the strict interpretation, which we all agree. I find it odd that they'd believe it wrong, or that Traditionalists would continue to believe it.
Now I will post some of the writings to ask you guys for more evidence of leniency from the time period of the questioned popes.

Also, I want to note that I might allow that catechumens might have been saveable by the questionable popes. But I don't think that applies to the ignorant etc. For this, I don't think it's far fetched to think popes would allow for catechumens who just didn't happen to make it a few months etc longer, but not to allow ignorant who knows nothing of the Church.
Something else I'd like to look into is if Traditionalists think catechumens can be saved. If they can, then it shows that it's possible to be agagaint the ignorant and the for the catechums.
[right][snapback]842842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Who says the traditionalists dont accept the solemn teaching of Blessed Pope Pius IX?

[DingoBot]

[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_04_18_socrates58_archive.html#108233513157066637"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_04_18_...233513157066637[/url]

[Guest JeffCR07]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jesussaves]

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

Edited January 2, 2006 by jesussaves

[dairygirl4u2c]

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

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

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

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

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino published  1441 [/quote]

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

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

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Expanded version.

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

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

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

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

3. Pope Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino (1441)
Usually quoted as thus:
“It [the Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
[/quote]

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

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

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

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c