Are these statements infallable?

[Resurrexi]

Are the following statements infallable?

[quote]Pope Innocent III, at the Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, in the year 1215,  “There is only one universal Church of the faithful and outside of it none at all can be saved.”

Pope Boniface VIII, in his bull, Unam Sanctam, dated 1302, “We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV, in his bull, Cantate Domino, dated 1441, “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches 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.” [/quote]

[Dave]

of course

[Resurrexi]

good

[Desert Walker]

Ok, if the Church still teaches that, then why did Marcel Lefebvre think that Vatican II's document on religious liberty teach the exact opposite?

And yes, I know he probably misunderstood the thing, or dishonestly acted like he did.

Something else though. If the Church still teaches that stuff why does the current ecclesiological practice not reflect those statements? If anyone thinks that it does, you lack eyes.

[ardillacid]

They are true...with a catch. If someone is invincibly ignorant religion and the Catholic Church then they can still achieve heaven

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 6 2006, 11:49 AM']Something else though.  If the Church still teaches that stuff why does the current ecclesiological practice not reflect those statements?  If anyone thinks that it does, you lack eyes.
[right][snapback]937655[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Times change.

The Catechism doesn't sound much like the simplicity of the Bible. That doesn't mean either are wrong. It simply means that the Church's doctrine develops, and her express nuance also develops over time.

[Amator Veritatis]

This issue is, for me, as much a compelling discussion as the one I am currently having on the thread regarding moral doubt, but because of my involvement in that thread, I am unable to sufficiently devote myself to this topic. I hope to be able to do so in the near future. The only clarification I would make immediately is that, once defined, the understanding of a dogma cannot change its meaning or be understood in a manner other than that which was defined, cf., Vatican I, [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i], [i]Pascendi[/i], [i]Lamentabili[/i], [i]Oath Against Modernism[/i], [i]et al[/i].

[Era Might]

[quote]The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".

--Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]

Even the understanding of dogma develops (although it does not contradict), and more importantly, it is refined by nuance which is fruit of centuries of reflection.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 6 2006, 10:33 AM']Even the understanding of dogma develops (although it does not contradict), and more importantly, it is refined by nuance which is fruit of centuries of reflection.
[right][snapback]937689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What do you mean by "nuance?" Can you give an example of a modern, "nuanced" understanding of a dogma expounded by Trent?

Nowhere in the above quote by JPII to does he use the word "dogma" btw...

[b]Edited to include:[/b]

I also have another question that NO one has been able to answer to my satisfaction.

What is meant by "times have changed?" Better stated: What precisely about Catholic dogmas and doctrines is SO unacceptable to people in our time that such teachings must be presented to them in a "nuanced" way?

Why in the heck can't we just give people PLAIN STATEMENTS?!

Christ Himself said, in case we've forgotten: "Say "yes" when you mean yes and "no" when you mean no. Anything else is [b]from the evil one[/b]."

Edited April 6, 2006 by Desert Walker

[ironmonk]

The Catholic Church is physical and spiritual... there are Church leaders in Heaven now... they could be praying for those who are ignorant of the truth in the Catholic Church... and I would think that they are. The Church is on earth and it is in Heaven.

True believers who are not Catholic by name can be Catholic by desire if they think that they are in the Church established by Christ.

[Amator Veritatis]

The above refers to the living aspect of Tradition, whatever may be implied by those words, but not to the dogmas which have been infallibly defined [i]ex cathedra[/i] as Articles of the Faith.

[Era Might]

[quote]What do you mean by "nuance?"  Can you give an example of a modern, "nuanced" understanding of a dogma expounded by Trent?[/quote]

Trent? I don't know. I would have to look at the specific canons to determine whether there has been any development since the Council.

Nuance is refined by many factors. The First Vatican Council, for example, formally nuanced the Church's doctrine of Papal infallibility, spelling out what conditions must be present for a particular exercise of that charism. The Second Vatican Council provided greater nuance to the Church's doctrine on the constitutional order of society in "Dignitatis Humanae":

[quote]Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.[/quote]

It was very upfront about its development of doctrine.

[quote]Nowhere in the above quote by JPII to does he use the word "dogma" btw...[/quote]

Dogmatic definitions do not exhaust a topic. In fact, they are usually limited on purpose, addressing only one particular aspect of a Truth. The definition of Papal infallibility, for example, did not define the relationship between the Papal Magisterium and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council fleshed out this relationship. At some time in the future, if it was necessary, the Church could formally take up that relationship in a dogmatic definition, thus nuancing the original definition of Papal infallibility to take into account a new perspective.

[quote]What is meant by "times have changed?"  Better stated:  What precisely about Catholic dogmas and doctrines is SO unacceptable to people in our time that such teachings must be presented to them in a "nuanced" way?[/quote]

It means that the Church is a product of its time. The Papal response to the French revolution, for example, was conditioned by the political atmosphere of the 18th and 19th century. The way the Church framed its response, and some of the concerns addressed, did not correspond adequately to the modern world, which is why the Second Vatican Council took up a development of the Church's social doctrine. The times changed, and the Church's theology had to adapt.

[quote]Why in the heck can't we just give people PLAIN STATEMENTS?!

Christ Himself said, in case we've forgotten:  "Say "yes" when you mean yes and "no" when you mean no.  Anything else is [b]from the evil one[/b]."[/quote]

I find this a little ironic, because the scholasticism that undergirded older Magisterial documents is not very conducive to "plain statements".

The Catholic faith is 2,000 years old. It requires much nuance. "Simple statements" work when we're catechecizing simple people, but when the Church is actively formulating her faith, she must be thorough.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

The specific definition of the Council of Florence:

[quote]We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.[/quote]

There is nothing here about "Ex Cathedra" or "faith and morals". This definition from Florence was later refined, or "nuanced", at the First Vatican Council. Before Vatican I, there was legitimate dispute about how exactly this dogma applied. Some took every word of the Pope as infallible. The First Vatican Council settled the dispute. This dogma was developed, and that development was itself dogmatized.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 6 2006, 11:54 AM']Dogmatic definitions do not exhaust a topic. In fact, they are usually limited on purpose, addressing only one particular aspect of a Truth. The definition of Papal infallibility, for example, did not define the relationship between the Papal Magisterium and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council fleshed out this relationship. At some time in the future, if it was necessary, the Church could formally take up that relationship in a dogmatic definition, thus nuancing the original definition of Papal infallibility to take into account a new perspective.[/quote]

There's no such thing as a distinction between "Papal Magisterium" and "Universal and Ordinary Magisterium." There is only "Magisterium." This was defined by Vatican II, basically, as the "Pope and bishops united together teaching something concerning faith or morality." Whenever the pope speaks infallibly on such matters, the bishops are united to him in teaching whether they do so intentionally or not, and whether they agree or not.

There is only one "new perspective" that could be had about papal infallibility: individual bishops possess the infallible authority of Peter, and the "Bishop of Rome" is merely "first among equals."

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 6 2006, 11:54 AM']It means that the Church is a product of its time. The Papal response to the French revolution, for example, was conditioned by the political atmosphere of the 18th and 19th century. The way the Church framed its response, and some of the concerns addressed, did not correspond adequately to the modern world, which is why the Second Vatican Council took up a development of the Church's social doctrine. The times changed, and the Church's theology had to adapt.[/quote]

The idea that the Church is a "product of its time" is not safe in my opinion. The Church is timeless, and usually challenges the people in the time in which it finds itself to do something that they are not doing, or to do the opposite of what they ARE doing. That's traditional ecclesiology, and you know it.

[quote]I find this a little ironic, because the scholasticism that undergirded older Magisterial documents is not very conducive to "plain statements".[/quote]

Welll.... I know what you're getting at, but modern philosophy has a tendency to PREVENT accuracy of thought and concept definition, rather than CLEARLY present and define. Scholasticism may have been pedantic and ornate, but at least it prevented unintentional misinterpretation of statements.

[quote]The Catholic faith is 2,000 years old. It requires much nuance. "Simple statements" work when we're catechecizing simple people, but when the Church is actively formulating her faith, she must be thorough.
[/quote]

I'm not talking about "simple statements." I'm talking about "plain statements." We have a serious problem if "actively formulating the faith" necessitates that we become non-straightforward. Ultimately, if the fundamentals of the faith cannot be understood or realized and grasped by a simple person it isn't worth the paper it is printed on or the tongues on which it is preached.

MOST people don't want "nuance" they want ANSWERS! The "modern Church" isn't delivering.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I'd like to point out that Boniface VIII's statement was directed at "whoever resists [the Pope's] power (read the statements directly before the quoted part)" and not people who have never heard of the Pope. These statements do not define the possibility of salvation for those ignorant of the Church who would be willing to accept it if given the opportunity. The teachers of Fr. Leonard Feeney were condemned by the Holy Office in 1949.

Edited April 6, 2006 by thedude

[Era Might]

[quote]There's no such thing as a distinction between "Papal Magisterium" and "Universal and Ordinary Magisterium."  There is only "Magisterium."  This was defined by Vatican II, basically, as the "Pope and bishops united together teaching something concerning faith or morality."  Whenever the pope speaks infallibly on such matters, the bishops are united to him in teaching whether they do so intentionally or not, and whether they agree or not.[/quote]

There is indeed a distinction. The Papal Magisterium is not the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, although the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is intimately connected to the Papal Magisterium, to the extent that it requires its approval. There are further distinctions, which we don't need to go into here, such as the "Ordinary Magisterium" and the "Supreme Ordinary Magisterium".

[quote]There is only one "new perspective" that could be had about papal infallibility:  individual bishops possess the infallible authority of Peter, and the "Bishop of Rome" is merely "first among equals."[/quote]

I'll leave it to theologians and the Magisterium to plumb the depths of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. I have already pointed to one development of the Church's dogmatic faith in the Pope. I will not rule out more, in the future, as the Holy Spirit guides the Church, as he always has.

[quote]The idea that the Church is a "product of its time" is not safe in my opinion.  The Church is timeless, and usually challenges the people in the time in which it finds itself to do something that they are not doing, or to do the opposite of what they ARE doing.  That's traditional ecclesiology, and you know it.[/quote]

The Church is, of necessity, a product of its time, although it always retains its eternal dimension. "Ever ancient, ever new" as the Fathers liked to say.

[quote]Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it. In my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli, I recalled that this was the very reason why Saints Cyril and Methodius laboured to translate the ideas of the Bible and the concepts of Greek theology in the context of very different historical experiences and ways of thinking. They wanted the one word of God to be "made accessible in each civilization's own forms of expression". They recognized that they could not therefore "impose on the peoples assigned to their preaching either the undeniable superiority of the Greek language and Byzantine culture, or the customs and way of life of the more advanced society in which they had grown up". Thus they put into practice that "perfect communion in love which preserves the Church from all forms of particularism, ethnic exclusivism or racial prejudice, and from any nationalistic arrogance". In the same spirit, I did not hesitate to say to the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia: "You do not have to be divided into two parts ... Jesus calls you to accept his words and his values into your own culture". Because by its nature the content of faith is meant for all humanity, it must be translated into all cultures. Indeed, the element which determines communion in truth is the meaning of truth. The expression of truth can take different forms. The renewal of these forms of expression becomes necessary for the sake of transmitting to the people of today the Gospel message in its unchanging meaning.

--Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint"[/quote]

[quote]Welll.... I know what you're getting at, but modern philosophy has a tendency to PREVENT accuracy of thought and concept definition, rather than CLEARLY present and define.  Scholasticism may have been pedantic and ornate, but at least it prevented unintentional misinterpretation of statements.[/quote]

There has been PLENTY of misinterpretation throughout the centuries. We only need to look a few decades back, when Fr. Leonard Feeney misinterpreted the Church's pronouncements on salvation, for which he was corrected by Pope Pius XII. You can read that correction [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1467"]HERE[/url].

[quote]I'm not talking about "simple statements."  I'm talking about "plain statements."  We have a serious problem if "actively formulating the faith" necessitates that we become non-straightforward.  Ultimately, if the fundamentals of the faith cannot be understood or realized and grasped by a simple person it isn't worth the paper it is printed on or the tongues on which it is preached.

MOST people don't want "nuance" they want ANSWERS!  The "modern Church" isn't delivering.[/quote]

The Church has been providing answers for 40 years. What is it that isn't "plain" to you? Perhaps I can point to the Church's answer.