Dissent In The Church

[phatcatholic]

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

Edited March 2, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

hi phatcatholic,

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

You are completely right in this quote.

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

And here is why.

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

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

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

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

Edited March 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

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

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

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

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

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

hopefully we can somehow resolve this matter.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

Edited March 3, 2004 by phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

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

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

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, (1215)

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (D. 423)

Pope Boniface VIII, (1294-1303)

Pope Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctum, 1302:

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

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

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

Edited March 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dairygirl4u2c]

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

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

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


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

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

Edited March 5, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[phatcatholic]

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

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

yes or no?

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

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

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

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

Edited March 6, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Is this all correct phatcatholic?

And how do you explain that contraception can not change? And what would be a theoretical reason for it to?

Also could you help me understand what proper "development of doctrine" is?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 6 2004, 02:02 PM'] Yes I have read and understood your post. You are saying that Boniface may have thought that there was not salvation at all outside of the CC in the strict sense, but that it was only bc he was lacking full knowledge and wisdom to know any differently. [/quote]
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. what i'm saying is this:

--the church's stance on "outside the church no salvation" has NEVER changed.
--this is because:

1. the broad and strict interpretation of "outside the church no salvation" have BOTH ALWAYS existed.
2. the broad and strict interpretations are NOT IN CONFLICT w/ one another.

THAT is what i'm saying, and i feel that both statements 1 and 2 have been aptly proven.

[quote]So as for contraception it has always been a strict interpretation. You could not go from strict to broad because anything else would be outside the realm that has been taught.[/quote]
i think contraception is beyond the scope of this discussion. [b]first off[/b], we would have to define what a "strict" interpretation is, and what any theoretically "broad" interpretations would be. i would rather stick w/ the doctrine at hand: "outside the church no salvation." [b]secondly[/b], you must know that [b]NONE of the doctrines of the Church have ever changed in their most fundamental nature.[/b] they never will. so, it is rather pointless for catholics to redefine doctrines or ask themselves "well, what would i do if this or that doctrine changed?" they don't change. over 2,000 years of history has proven this to us.

i hope that i have proven that to you.

in my next post i will address what can be considered legitimate "development of doctrine."

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

i had originally intended to summarize legitimate development of doctrine. however, i honestly have a headache at the moment, so i don't feel like now would be the time to attempt to do it justice. at the same time, i realize that this question of yours has gone unanswered for long enough. therefore, until i can give a more personalized response, i give you the following articles:

[b]--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ529.HTM"]Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ21.HTM"]Overview of Development of Doctrine[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp"]Can Dogma Develop?[/url][/b]

all three articles are easy to read, and not very long. i encourage you to read them. i will respond w/ my own thoughts as soon as i can.

pham, you are welcome to pitch in on this discussion in my absence.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

ps: dairygirl, i hope u don't think this post is a cop-out!

Edited March 10, 2004 by phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

Maybe it'd help if I elaborated on this that you wrote:

[quote]DISPUTE: "Does the present interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church" contradict the interpretation of Boniface and his contemporaries?"

NOTE: present interpretation is lenient, or "broad." boniface interpretation is "strict."

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

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

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

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

My answer is no. I don't see the broad interpretation as a new or novel change. I see Boniface's strict interpretation as a new or novel change.



[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, but that it was only bc he was lacking full knowledge and wisdom to know any differently. [/quote]

I did somwhat assume that from what you said. But I have no other chocie but to assume that.

If like you showed, the early christians thought that it is possible to be saved outside the CC yet the CC is the norm, and people after Boniface (and his era of popes) taught this same thing, but yet Boniface and his era of popes thought ONLY in the CC could one be saved, their thought on the matter contratdicts the lenient positions.

Unless you are willing to argue that Boniface had it in mind that ppl outside the CC could be saved possibly. Is this your assumption? There really is no way of knowing, but considering his strong words, and the evidence of people back in his day thought, I would say that's likely a cop out.

I'm sorry but if that's not your assumption, I can only assume that he lacked full knowledge to know that it is possible for someone outside the norm of CC to be saved, since the CC really teaches that they could be saved.
Are you following me?

Edited March 11, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]first off, we would have to define what a "strict" interpretation is, and what any theoretically "broad" interpretations would be. i would rather stick w/ the doctrine at hand: "outside the church no salvation." secondly, you must know that NONE of the doctrines of the Church have ever changed in their most fundamental nature. [/quote]

I'm not saying the doctrine will CHANGE, I'm saying it will DEVELOP. The strict interpretation would be no contraceptoin, ever. The lenient interpretation would be contraception is wrong only as a rule of thumb since God wants us to have kids. Perhaps instead of the poor (especially Africans) abstaining or monitering the cycles and missing the love aspect of sex since they can not afford to have kids while the rich do not have to abstain at all, we can use it since God intended us to have kids.

If I were to show that some early pope thought that contraceptoin was okay, and the current pope says not at all, then I could say this is alright, correct? Bc the current pope would parallel Boniface and the early teaching would parralel the early teaching on salvation and the current teaching on salvation would parallel the theoretical teaching of a future pope. Theorteically, if I were to show this, then I could argue development of doctrine correct?

[Gray Eminence]

[i]Laudetur Jesus Christus.[/i]

Excellent discussion (I’m leaving the specific question of contraception aside temporarily).

When it comes to definitive written expressions involving the deposit of faith, the intent of the human writer (insofar as it can be deduced) will have historical significance and spiritual value, but it is a mistake to focus too much on it. The human writer will have had many ideas, concerns, and even mixed motives, but the Holy Spirit does great things in and with these writings.

Boniface, for example, was having serious geopolitical issues and wanted to reaffirm the temporal and spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff against the contemporaneous threats to that authority. Thus, in the early part of the document, he says, “he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter wrongly interprets the word of the Lord….”

However historically interesting that may be, what Boniface solemnly defined was “that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
[i]Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, diffinimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.[/i]

I think phatcatholic did an excellent job in that extensive March 4 post of showing how this definition fits in with the teaching of the Church throughout the ages.

When interpreting definitive statements of faith, we need to avoid the twin extremes of textual isolationism on the one hand (focusing on a particular text without regard to its canonical and/or ecclesial context) and arbitrary subjectivism on the other (a text means whatever the person currently in charge – some Catholics say that person would be the reigning Pontiff, some theologians [i]de facto [/i]say it would be themselves – says it means, without regard to any objective reality).

We can confidently trust the Holy Spirit to continue guiding the Magisterium in preserving and teaching the deposit of faith, developing doctrine appropriately without internal contradiction.

[b]O God, who did instruct the hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit, grant us in the same spirit to be truly wise, and ever to rejoice in His consolation, through Christ our Lord. Amen[/b]

[Dave]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 11 2004, 11:18 AM'] I'm not saying the doctrine will CHANGE, I'm saying it will DEVELOP. The strict interpretation would be no contraceptoin, ever. The lenient interpretation would be contraception is wrong only as a rule of thumb since God wants us to have kids. Perhaps instead of the poor (especially Africans) abstaining or monitering the cycles and missing the love aspect of sex since they can not afford to have kids while the rich do not have to abstain at all, we can use it since God intended us to have kids.

[/quote]
If the doctrine on contraception later permitted contraception to a degree, that woudl be a change, not a development. Development in doctrine doesn't entail a doctrine coming to mean the opposite of what it once meant.

[Gray Eminence]

[i]Laudetur Jesus Christus.[/i]

[quote]If I were to show that some early pope thought that contraceptoin was okay….[/quote]

My recollection (and I could be wrong on this) is that there have been no solemn definitions (i.e., infallible) by the Magisterium on any moral matter. I also feel pretty confident that while [i]Humanae Vitae [/i]contains no solemn definitions or anathemas, neither are there any solemn definitions or anathemas by the Magisterium of the Universal Church saying contraception is okay anywhere in history.

What I’m saying is that we don’t have any definitive statements on contraception on the same level as Boniface’s [i]Unam Sanctam[/i].

That being said, the overwhelming weight of Church teaching comes down pretty heavily against contraception, so much so that it would be a grave error to say that the Church teaches contraception is okay and that the weight of this teaching must be fully respected by all Catholics.

Of course, there are other reasons to embrace this teaching beyond the fact that Mother Church says so: consider the beauty which is the unity of the unitive and procreative aspects of the Marriage act, consider the selfishness of “the contraceptive mentality” and the great damage it has wrought upon our world, etc. etc. etc.

Is it sometimes a challenge to live out this teaching? Yes. Do I speak in condemnation of those who practice contraception? No.

[b]Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful and kindle in them the fire of [u][i]Your [/i][/u]love.[/b]

[p0lar_bear]

Gray Eminence,

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

The reason Humanae Vitae caused such an uproar was because it maintained the Church's teaching that artificial contraception is gravely sinful when a lot of people thought it should have reversed that teaching.

It has been the constant and definitive teaching of the Church that artificial contraception is morally wrong. Pope Pius XI addresses this issue in his encyclical On Christian Marriage, (Casti Connubii), 1930. He states that, “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” He explains that this is because “to use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will.” The Church, therefore, teaches that the use of contraception is of grave matter. Pope Paul VI (Humanae Vitae), Pope John Paul II (Evangelium Vitae), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Catechism all uphold this constant teaching.

On the other hand, there are statements in support of Natural Family Planning (NFP). The first of these was Pope Pius XII’s Address to the Congress of the Italian Association of Catholic Midwives (October 29, 1951).

[quote]The use of the “infertile periods” for conjugal union can be an abuse if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level. This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of the whole of mankind (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, September 5, 1984).[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

Perhaps its like you said, since Boniface was going agaist heresies, he was just affirming the fact that you had to be saved by being a Catholic, but knew non's could theoretically be saved.

[quote]When interpreting definitive statements of faith, we need to avoid the twin extremes of textual isolationism on the one hand (focusing on a particular text without regard to its canonical and/or ecclesial context) and arbitrary subjectivism on the other (a text means whatever the person currently in charge – some Catholics say that person would be the reigning Pontiff, some theologians de facto say it would be themselves – says it means, without regard to any objective reality).

We can confidently trust the Holy Spirit to continue guiding the Magisterium in preserving and teaching the deposit of faith, developing doctrine appropriately without internal contradiction.
[/quote]

Okay so who should decide what it means?

Or are you jsut saying that your faith in the CC leads you to feel whatever has been said was in good doctrinal standing even though it may appear otherwise?

But since I am not a Catholic, but inquiering into the Catholic religion, I can not just settle without a rationale.

As a Catholic trying to convince me, should I believe he thought fully on the matter (that Boniface and such popes had it in mind that non-Catholics could be saved) or that he didn't know any better due to his human element?

Those are also what I see it coming down to. I don't see how I can not not assume one of these two things.

Or are you willing to brush this aside since all other CC teachings should compel me to believe that whatever was taught was taught in Truth even though it may appear on the surface differently?

Edited March 11, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c