95.XI.14. Dear Randal, Although there are several issues on which I don't agree with you, I tried to remain reasonable. However, some parts may suggest sarcasm. When you read these, please bear in mind that these are not directed against you or the whole Catholic Chuch. ------------------------------------------------------------------ >:Did the Church "excommunicate" (as you put it) pagans? Or Jews? >:When, I beg you tell me, were they Catholics? For, as you affirm, :>" this decree [D 714] *only* applies to those who _had been_ Catholics, :>" but who had then left the faith for whatever reason... :I hate to have to say this, but the word "remain" has a fairly :definite meaning: : Remain. To continue in a place or condition... [New : Webster's Dictionary] :This word presumes that those listed were once a part of the Catholic :Church. And this makes sense too, in the context of Florence. :As the gloss on p. 77 of your TCT indicates, the decree for the :Jacobites was the Catholic Church's attempt to bring these and :two other Eastern groups back into communion with her. I see. In a Catholic church history book I read that the patriarch of the Jacobites had acknowledged the pope's primacy in 1237, so if they behaved contrary to this oath in the meantime, until Florence, then they committed breach of promise. But what about Jews? or pagans? Did they belong to the Catholic Church? When? Which council included the profession of pagans or the Jews in its acts? And when did they depart? How? Most seriously: I am not satisfied with your defense based on the word "remain". For the below reason: We have a statement which provides the theoretical support to the whole profession of faith: "not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, "can become partakers of eternal life... Let's analyze the text. There is a certain group here referred to as "pagans". We disagree on what kind of people it consists of according to the council. You say the council applied this word to certain Catholics who forsook the faith for some reason. I say that the council had in mind pagans. In the first meaning of the word, no matter which dictionary we use. You maintain that the word "remain" refutes my point. Now I answer that (1) Let's suppose you are right. (2) Let's transform the text to fit your interpretation: No one leaving the Catholic Church and remaining outside, not just those Catholics who leave the faith and become pagans, but also those Catholics who leave the faith and become Jews or those Catholics who leave the faith and become heretics or those Catholics who leave the faith and become schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life... You say that the Church had in mind the apostates. Then why is the first statement divided from the following ones with a logical counterposition: NOT JUST pagans BUT Jews ...? Obviously because (3) pagans are mentioned here as A TRIVIAL EXAMPLE OF THOSE WHO SHALL PERISH, that's why they are listed first, and their mention is followed by no explanation. If they had had in mind apostates then why wasn't it obvious for the Jacobites that those Catholics who turned Jews are in the peril of hellfire, while those who became pagans were referred to as a group of whom these Jacobites also knew their destruction? (4) The first "remain" is followed by "OUTSIDE". Not "inside". So your argument doesn't work here. On the contrary: you yourself give me an excellent argument. "No one REMAINING outside the Catholic Church can become partaker of eternal life". This unqualified sentence (in itself) goes contrary to the emergency doctrine of invincible ignorance. (5) Under the list of those who shall perish comes another interesting phrase: "unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church". Not "come back". It suggests that there are some in the above list for whom this salvific union wouldn't mean "coming back". (6) The phrase "remaining in the Church" is placed into a context which is different from this: the usefulness of sacraments, exercising Christian warfare etc. It cannot be applied to literal Jews or literal pagans because they don't use any sacrament. So it refers to the Jacobites. :>The warning at least suggests that there were some people :>committed with the responsible service of teaching who used :>to teach this unchristlike conclusion (that Jews will perish). :Right. But the magisterium never taught this as dogma. It doesn't matter. No, it hasn't got even tangential importance. The distinction between dogma and non-dogma is an argument which occurs only to when I try to remind Catholicism of her blood-stained hands. It would have been ineffective and ridiculous, on the other hand, if a Jew of those thousands who were harassed by the inquisition had tried to protest against the unjust treatment that befell him, saying "Excuse me, sirs, but the charges you bring against me aren't based on dogma. Please drop them, for the certainty level of my being worthy of death is less than sufficient." :>I am sure that the source of their error is in some way connected with :>the "coloured language" of the authoritative pronouncements of old, :>which had the basic aim of convincing, as you insist on it. :Yes, of convincing Catholics to remain in the Church and not :revert back to what they may have been prior to baptism. Pay attention to the main clause, too. I mean the words before "which". ----------------------------------------- Vatican II reference read and deleted. I acknowledge them as a valuable testimony of the Catholic Church's good will and that she starts to understand the Bible. (A boastful Protestant remark.) ----------------------------------------- :>To be concrete, no hellfire or eternal damnation are mentioned when :>the Council deals with the Jews or "pagans". (I am not sure whether :>this very word still applies.) :>I'll put this decree on your screen until you manage to say something :>about the Jews, schismatics, etc. going to everlasting fire. :How about this? If the Catholic Saints Cyprian (circa 250, Ep. :72, 22, ANF 5), Ambrose (4th century, De obitu Val. 51) and :Augustine (De bapt. IV, 22-30, NPNF I, 4) all contributed to :Pope Piux IX's teaching on invincible ignorance in 1854 and 1863 :(D 1647, 1677), then what more do I have to say about Jews, :etc. going to everlasting fire that I did not already say in :my previous article? Did you review TCT 174 and 178, as I had :requested in that post? Evidently you either did not read :these paragraphs or you did not understand what you read. I did. And found them to be a desperate wriggling between former practice of treating pagans, Jews etc. and taking the responsibility for it. One of them speaks about a misunderstanding which took place when certain Catholics were interpreting the words "extra ecclesiam nulla salus". It's much easier to blame the reader than the writer for the unfortunate case; and the pope decided to do the first. Maybe I'm reading too much into these paragraphs. :Also, Pope Innocent III is ascribed to have written a :letter to the Archbishop of Cremona in the 12th century :which provides the Catholic interpretation of (and :even translates) St. Augustine's understanding of "baptism :of desire," as written in his "On Baptism: Against the :Donatists" (cited above). Therefore we have papal recognition :of this doctrine 3 centuries prior to the decree for the :Jacobites. As I recall from looking last night, Pope Innocent's :letter is n. 388 (or 385) of the Denzinger documents, but TCT :does not include it. One last point, St. Aquinas in part III :(q. 62, a. 2, I think) of his Summa Theologica wrote in the :mid-13th century (again, 200 years prior to Florence) about :the Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance and baptism :of desire. Thus you are putting yourself out on a limb :by trying to assert that Florence was of this doctrine. No, I say that for the sake of making the Jacobites loathe their state outside the Church the council dismissed the doctrine of invincible ignorance. Exactly the same could be said about the crusaders. They killed pagans who were invincibly ignorant of Christian doctrine. They needed the gospel, not sword! Do you think that everything works according to the theoretical system of invincible ignorance, while church history testifies about the opposite? Does the fact that high-flighted theologians contributed to the doctrine of invincible ignorance (as clear from TCT, it was to avoid the need of condemning those who have never-ever heard of Christ) mean that the Catholic Church always acted in this spirit? Especially when treating large and lasting heretical movements, which after some generations could really get in the state of "invincible ignorance" with regard to the fullness of truth that is found in the Mother Church. So that they really deserved being called "material" heretics and "dissented brethren". But after Dominique's unsuccessful preaching to the Albigenses (and the assassination of Pierre Castelnaud) the Church decided to use the temporal sword. Well, after Dominique having acquainted them with the fullness of truth, they could hardly be called "invincibly ignorant material heretics", but the same applies to the Protestant denominations today. After having debated about the issues in which they didn't see face to face, for centuries, Catholics and Protestants seemed to arrive at a dead-end. It wasn't the lack of information that put an end to the "dialogue" but that each side introduced new definitions which were more and more the results of an inbred thinking; apologetic interpretations which clouded the real intention of the other side. And mutual hatred very effectively prevented the lay from making a research into the other denomination's faith. Catholics were forbidden under the pain of excommunication from reading books of the so-called heretics. Protestants were taught that "papists have a god made of bread", etc. Dialogue was caput. And am I the one who misinterprets the doctrine of the Church, while the highest forum approved such organizations as Inquisition and gave authority to such books as Malleus Maleficarum? Am I who puts himself out on a limb when I notice that the Jews were a persecuted and slaughtered people in those times, "decorated" with the epithet "perfid Jews", "infidels", "murderers of Christ", were alleged to be "slaves for ever", and consequently to deserve being confined to ghettos etc. so I don't wonder they are mentioned in this decree as damned to hell. By name: "JEWS". Jews - it's a name. A name of an ethnic and religious group. :It should be painfully obvious by now that "remains" means "remains," It also should be painfully obvious that "Jews" means "Jews." So do you have a key word? Certainly I have one, too. Note, I don't blame you for anything which I read out from that decree. I'm just curious why the Church didn't make herself clear when proclaiming such an ambiguous stuff. I agree with you that the doctrine of invincible ignorance existed long before that decree. But I see abundant evidence for wilful ignoration of several doctrines in the previous ages by the Catholic Church. You may say that these are , e.g. you mentioned Galilei's trial and Summis desiderantes affectibus as . But pay heed to the testimony of history, too. Both of these <<>> lasted centuries. No pope or council thought it necessary to make a research into the treasure chambers of the Bible and the tradition in order to do away with the error of the predecessors. Thus it seems that the gates of hell did prevail against the Church. At least for some centuries. :and that the decree for the Jacobites pertains only to Catholics :who choose to leave and to _remain_ outside the Church in full :cognizance of and consent to their action. Let me tell you, I never said that the decree to "literal" pagans. Neither did I say that it to "literal" Jews. All what I said was that the council used the example of literal Jews and literal pagans, of whom they asserted to be going to hell, in order to intimidate the Jacobites. Thus the decree only which is contrary to the doctrine of invincible ignorance, and the main point of the decree is that heretics and schismatics deserve nothing better than pagans deserve. :What do you think the intent of the Spanish Inquisition was :if not to bring Catholics (the wrong way) back to the faith? Oh... nicely put. They had the power to do or not to do what they did, so why did they miss the way? Perhaps the too much power corrupted them. Yes, the intention was to bring them "back". But also to chase Jews and moors out if they don't want to Catholics. And who were those whom they tried to "bring back in the wrong way"? Marannos and moriscos, among others. People who were already Christians. People who were forced to convert by terror and by being threatened with depriving them of their properties. And then the Suprema accused them of "Judaism in secret" etc. Those ones who were to convert! Your example strengthened my case: that the Catholic Church used her spiritual authority for the physical annullment of her enemies. Calling them "enemies of Christ". Now my question to you isn't "why did you kill them" but "Aren't Protestants right when interpreting the Bible as not giving such spiritual authority to Peter and successively, to the bishops in unity with the pope, as they allege? Isn't it a misinterpretation of the divine commission that had lead to these horrible events? What made the Church stop the physical harassment of those who opposed her? Exploring new approaches to the eternal truth? Or being deprived of the powerful alliances?" You see, some Protestants cannot make a distinction between a man and his office. "If a pope commits a sin, papacy is defiled forever". More comprehensive ones among us say that though we are fallible, God still uses us. Now my focus was on the application and the usage of the "God-given authority of the Church to do this and this". I am familiar with the standard Catholic argument that were misusing their authority, and that their personal weakness, between others, was that lead to eg. "crusades" against the Albigenses. Now, I am questioning this opinion for the reason that were using the same prooftexts that are now waved in front of the Protestants who express doubt in Rome's primacy. And if once terrible things happened under this banner, then why should we believe thet they won't be repeated? :>:Turning one's back on the faith is considered as serious :>:an offense against God today as it was five centuries ago. :>In theory, I agree. My concern is: :>To what extent did(n't) teaching> fulfill the criteria of "turning one's back on the faith" in :>the 17th century, and how does(n't) it mean that now? :Point me to some doctrine here, so I can figure out :what you are talking about. :) I point you to the lack of doctrine. Why is it that only Vatican II said that "those born in these dissented communities cannot be charged with the guilt of dissention" ? and The encyclical Quanta cura, 1864 [D 1696] "But others have revived the evil mistakes of the "Reformers which have been condemned very often. The consistent behaviour for today's Catholicism would be to go on with these frequent condemnations. Ceasing to do so in the name of a so-called "willingness to make a dialogue on some issues of faith" and "charity towards dissented brethren" would be contrary to the above attitude. Don't misunderstand me: I wouldn't be satisfied if you wrote two lines in response, saying "End of dialogue. You have what you wanted". But, although I'm not the one who makes decisions on the matter "which of the old pronouncements should be retained in Denzinger", I consider the attempt to make distinction between eg. parts of Unam Sanctam as an attempt to get rid of the responsibility. As if a man, climbing up a tree, wanted to prevent others from coming up to him and asking "How dare you place yourself above us?" by painting the lower part of the tree with Invisible-Making Fluid. Thus the real support (real - according to Protestant historians who deny that it's the Lord's commission) remains concealed, and papacy can preserve its authority. :>" ...However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation :>" those who at present are born into these communities and :>" in them [dissenting communities which had become separated :>" from full communion with the Catholic Church] are brought :>" up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts :>" them with respect and affection as brothers. :>Why did the Council write this? In the 17th century, having in mind :>the Orthodox Church (schism in 1054) this argument would have been :>valid, too. And yet the mutual excommunications were withdrawn :>only in this century! :The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both Churches of men, not of :angels. Evidently it was men resisting the promptings of the Holy :Spirit who were responsible for the delay in forgiveness. See. The pillar of truth was staggering during this period. Or not? Were only men staggering? Doesn't it mean the whole institution? I hear the answer: "the remained solid and unshaken". Yet also remained concealed and powerless. Certain men overcame it. If Protestants are faced with this dilemma then either they say "These were the papists" (which isn't true, see Servet), or admit with sad faces: "Yes, God's name is being blasphemed because of our sin". In this approach (which I consider as binding my conscience) we don't search arguments to support any hierarchical system, neither do we seek justifying motives for what had happened but we repent from our sins and try to return to the path which God has appointed for us. Protestants maintain that the Church (Christ's Church, without any denominational label) is not infallible. God hasn't entrusted to us a bag of infallability which could be opened at every instance when we face trouble. Rather it's God's Spirit who guides us to all truth, here and now, through various events, including our errors. He is the infallible one. If we don't obey Him, we fall. :>The 1st Vatican Council went on anathematizing :>those who reject the Trent canon of the Bible, among others most :>Protestants. But why, if once they were continally taught to do so? :>(thus "getting into the state of invincible ignorance") :I do not understand this question. Protestants are taught that the deutero-canonicals are not scripture. They are invincibly ignorant of Catholic doctrine on this. The Catholic Church anathematizes those who don't accept the Trent canon. Why? :But I have a question for you. Why do so many non-Catholic Christians :hate (anathematize?) the Catholic faith? You seem to consider me an apologist of the Non-Catholic Church here. I try to do my best in this role, but I can't guarantee any result. (0) Hatred and anathematizing aren't the same. Even you got upset when someone on s.r.c. called anathema "a curse". (1) Out of fear: probably they are afraid that it would bring them back to bondage with its million of precepts, canons, paragraphs, decrees and definitions, neglecting Acts 15; (2) Out of tradition: interpreting certain biblical passages according to their non-Catholic background, e.g. Rev 13:18, Col 2:8-23, 1Tim 4:1-5, Jn 16:2... (3) Out of theological reasons: because they don't put up with the traditional, sacrament-centered interpretation of the Church, which suppresses the apostolic teaching on the gifts of the Spirit and the diversity of services. (4) Out of personal reasons: they need an enemy or else they can't sleep. etc. :>:If you think that the Church has ever damned anyone by name :>:to hell, produce the evidence or retract your assertion. :>" Therefore, of the one and only Church [there is] :>" one body, one head, not two heads as a monster, namely, Christ :>" and Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter, the :>" Lord Himself saying to Peter: "Feed my sheep" [John 21:17]. :>" He said "My," and generally, not individually these or those, :>" through which it is understood that He entrusted all to him... A renewed quotation: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \ "If therefore the Greeks or others say that they are not committed / / to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are \ \ not the sheep of Christ, as the Lord says in John that there is one / / fold and one shepherd." (see Jn 10:16) \ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ :This sentence was evidently left out because it is irrelevant, :superceded by the conclusion of the bull, and not _de fide_. Irrelevant?? It _is_ the conclusion of the previous couple of sentences! On the other hand, you seem to be cautious in making the judgment. So I repeat my argument: the pope damned the Greeks. Are you content with saying that this statement isn't infallible? Why don't you say that Boniface proved a heretic now? :So why include it? I type fast, but why waste even a few seconds :entering non-essentials? By consensus of all commentators I :have read on what does and does not constitute the _de fide_ :portion of Unam Sanctam, it is only the concluding sentence :of the bull that is considered a new definition. The gloss on :p. 73 of your copy of TCT alludes to this. There are other :dogmatic elements in the bull, primarily in the first sentence, :but the only _new_ definition promulgated by Unam Sanctam was :the last sentence. It's strange that while you accept some parts of the bull (mainly the theoretical ones), you reject the logical and practical consequences. You - excuse me for the idea - would have been condemned by Boniface for not accepting his whole bull. So, are commentators in the position of "rewriting" Church documents? Or re-interpreting them? That's what I was referring to in the simile of a man climbing up a tree. :>OTOH, this sentence plainly contradicts your attempts at interpreting :>the most offensive sentence ("...subject to the Roman Pontiff") as one :>meaning that to the pope, for he is Christ's vicar and the chief dispenser of :>sacraments>. No, this in Unam Sanctam goes the other way round: :> :The statement made by Boniface that you quote is _not_ :infallible. It is not _de fide_. It is _not_ a dogma. Yet it is a conclusion drawn from the "de fide" portion by the most reliable commentator, that is, Boniface himself. And the Jesuit Fathers should have made a comment on it. See the sentence on the cover: So it's a misinformation of even fair-minded Protestants that they haven't cleared up this offensive stuff. Hierocratic theory is to which the gloss in TCT refers. Not Greeks. :>Notice that Boniface didn't even hint at being subject to him without :>knowing it; this statement simply wouldn't have been effective when :>applied to the pope's enemies. So he stressed the "submitting" side, :>as it is proven by the excerpt about "Greeks and others". :I only accept the statements that the Church binds me :to accept, and the one you quote above is not binding :on me or on anyone else. I find only the first and last :sentences of the bull to be binding on me. The rest of the :bull either points to the Apostles' Creed (which binds :as well) or to non-dogmatic opinions. Do you say that Boniface was inspired (compelled by virtue of his faith) to write down the first and the last sentences for Denzinger, and he was allowed to fill in the blanks according to his greed and lust for power? I'm curious. :The English language is not the issue here, but the mind of the :Church is. If you wish to know how the Church thinks, then you will :have to invest the effort to do so. I can point you here and there, :but the real work must begin inside of yourself. I do have to put things right within myself. Really. But I call it returning to Christ. Learning again how thinks. :>:The most she has ever done is to excommunicate persons who cease to :>:be Catholic in their public profession of what they believe. :> :>And their followers born in dissented communities, too, :>even centuries after the "founder"'s death. :Please establish this from magisterial documents. From history? Albigenses. (discussed above) Bogumils and kathars. They had been flourishing on the Balkan in the XI-XIII. centuries, and in Hungary in the XIV-XV. centuries. Yet no one said "they are not to be charged with the guilt of dissention". They were slaughtered with sword, fire and prison. And although I don't know the Denzinger numbers, I know from history that there was a bull (1208) in which Innocent III "made possible" the mass murder of the Albigenses. :To the extent that popes' abused their authority, I distance :myself from their actions, and JPII has recently apologized for :their mistakes in governance. A praiseworthy fact. :>And let me remind you of "Greeks or others" and "Jews and pagans". :>In what way did they swear allegiance to the Church or the pope? :By being baptized into the Church. Maybe I should have expressed myself more clearly. In what way did they swear allegiance to the Church or the pope? Your answer included something about baptism. When, I beg you tell me, were Jews etc. (1) baptized, and then (2) left the faith? >:Maybe implicitely: through accepting the creed or by the keeping >:the Old Testament or because they believe in an "unknown god", >:respectively? In this case, when did they cease to do so, that >:the pope "had to" "excommunicate" them? :A history book would help you out here. :I can recommend several on the Inquisition. Apart from the ideological and apologetical thoughts, I don't think that eg. de Maistre is more useful or trustworthy than Llorente or Lea or even a Soviet book on the Inquisition. :I commend you in your search for truth. Keep up the good work, :but do not limit your search to only one or two Catholic resources. :Expand your horizon to include all kinds of literature: Catholic, :Protestant, Jewish, pagan, whatever you wish. You suggest me Protestant literature? To a Protestant? And "whatever I wish"? To a previous atheist? :I ask you again. Show me a dogma that has changed. The 18th accusation against Jan Hus. ("The Church isn't permitted to judge heretics and give them over to authorities for execution." Condemned.) :>: For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put :>: in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.. :>Did Trent emphasize this imperfect communion? (I really don't know.) :I would have to take another look at exactly what was said there. :Since I am doing this through email, I will look it up at home if you :are truly interested. :But actually, why should I begin at Trent? I have shown you above that :this doctrine has been _de fide_ from the beginning (I consider St. :Cyprian to be pretty near the beginning). And had been blatantly ignored by those who practiced a "sacred war" against Protestant preachers. Using violence to make them leave their parishes. Making converts of noble families' children without the permission of one of the parents. The history of my country provides a large number of (mutual) hatred between religious communities (17th century). But if Catholics are also to be accused in this then the doctrine of invincible ignorance failed to work in times of upheaval (eg. Reformation). :>In the times of Donatist error, as I know, the matter was whether :>re-baptism was necessary for former heretics. Or did Augustine :>write sg about accepting heretics as brethren? :I doubt it. But _formal_ heretics are fully aware of their choice :against the Church; _material heretics (such as modern Protestants, :Jews, pagans and others) are not. The former are culpable for their :error, whereas the latter are not. This distinction resolves much. But when was it first put into practice? :>(2) Did the times change in such a vigorous way that this solemn :> warning towards those who exist outside the "ark" shouldn't be :> repeated anymore? (Has the flood passed?) :Invincible ignorance was an infallible doctrine held :from the beginning of the Church. So the Church proved guilty of oblivion for centuries when punishing those who had never heard any proper teaching about Jesus. :>(3) Has the great ark since then "launch" small arks that derive their :> efficacy in the missionary work from her? (Can excommunication be :> interpreted with this simile?) :These "small arks" exist mostly in the condition of _material_ :heresy. Thus, the vast majority of their crew are not guilty :of formal sin and therefore may or may not be united to the :Catholic Church by unspoken desire. I have no way of :distinguishing the condition of these souls. To me, this distinction between the various kinds of heresy doesn't serve else but the purpose of modifying an ancient and outdated attitude called "triumphalism" by the commentators of my Vatican II copy. So is the reference to "unspoken desire". What are they if not a try to escape from the labyrinth of middle aged doctrine? :>Maybe it (CCC) tries to conceal some details of which the Church is :>in a certain way "ashamed", saying "reviving anathemas wouldn't serve :>the common good". But I ask: if (un)religious indifference has grown :>so high, why doesn't the pope remind these reluctant people of :>their future fate (unless they return to the bosom of the Church)? :Because of charity in the face of rampant _material_ heresy? Useless is this kind of charity while those who are not acquainted with the precious definitions of the Church are deprived of the fullness of truth... :>And please, don't quote here Vatican II about "not full communion". :>I require something including the word "salvation" of you. :How about this? : The Second Vatican Council's _Decree on Ecumenism_ explains: : "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is : the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the : means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic : college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe : that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, : in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into : which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in : any way to the People of God. [CCC n. 816; UR 3] Unity is symbolized and created by the visible head! One shepherd! Submitting to him! Power of jurisdiction! Depriving kings of their throne!... These ancient claims don't seem to be emphasized nowadays. I see why. Because of the abuses. But I beg, why does the Catholic Church always refer to her ancient power being exercised over temporal authorities even now when it comes to proving the primacy? Why not use the Bible instead? : In their religious behavior, however, men also display the : limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: : Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become : vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth : of the Creator for a lie, and served the creature rather : than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world : without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. : [CCC n. 844; LG 16; cf. Rom 1:21, 25] I read it, : Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council : teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is : necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator : and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body : which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the : necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at : the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter : through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not : be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded : as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to : enter it or to remain in it. [CCC n. 846; LG 14; cf. : Mk 16:16, Jn 3:5] "knowing that..." ! A fine distinction, in a completely modern language! Randal, I am not hurt by the declarations of the present Church; but rather by those of the old one. The Church of this age is trying to make herself clear from innocent blood (I myself don't blame the sons for the guilt of the fathers), not with the rejection of erroneous doctrines, which would be harmful to the present authority, but rather by re-wording old teachings. :>:I tried to explain something away? Me? Membership *by :>:Catholics* in the Catholic Church *is* necessary for salvation. :>:It always has been. :>By Catholics? See my problems with "Greeks or others", etc. :These "Greeks or others" that are referred to in the decree :for the Jacobites Excuse me... I quoted "Greeks or others" from . I should have mentioned that. :) :are Catholics who left the fold for some other "faith." :It is to these that the decree appertains. :Check on the history of the times. Do you say that those forced political agreements on union in a hysterical atmosphere of constant wars (the Latin Empire of the crusaders threatened Constantinople) are sufficient reason to demand obedience? I wouldn't. :>teachings were condemned as heretical. Do you think this left :>them in the state of invincible ignorance? (see below the phrase :>"oppose the definitions") :It is true that the Church had condemned their teachings :as heretical. She even excommunicated (and worse) those :who taught these heresies. But she also had to recognize :the truth of invincible ignorance which had been believed :from the beginning, as shown above. Recognize... after having sentenced many of them to death. It weakens the power of the above (true) evidence. ------------------------------------------------------------- :>But isn't it [opposing the definitions of that Church] :>the very thing what Protestants do all the time? :Yes. But the vast majority of them do this from a position :of *ignorance*. Review my excerpt from the Catechism (n. 846) :above, especially the last sentence. The quotation: "Therefore, no one who knows that the Church has been divinely "established by Christ and, nevertheless, refuses to be a subject "of the Church and refuses to obey the Roman Pontiff, the vicar "of Christ on earth, will be saved. :Yes. This is what the Second Vatican Council taught as well. :>Or am I to take "knowing" in another, wider sense as "having :>heard of"? Then clearly it can be extended to the Protestants :>without qualification. :Take "knowing" to mean "to believe with all their heart, :with all their strength, with all their soul, and with :all their mind." This should be a decent analogy. As :the Church has consistently taught, everyone is required :by the moral law to follow his conscience wherever it may :lead him. Only we Catholics consider that a conscience :can be faulty; so we insist that all Catholics refer to :an infallible guide for proper formation of their consciences, :and especially in the case of what is referred to as a :"doubtful conscience." What about those who are baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant, but never having had religious upbringing, join a Protestant community at the age of accountability, and being terrified by its shallow teaching, begin to read books of other Protestant denominations, and even Catholic books, and finally sit down in front of the screen to correspond with catechists in order to learn more about the Catholic Church, YET don't want turn to the infallible teaching authority to make their conscience sure about certain issues, and maintain that they can easily do without its counsel, and refuse to accept the truthful definitions of the RC Church in their whole lives, and cling to their ridiculous misinterpretations of the Bible and try to fashion their theology in a way that is a thousand times condemned by popes and councils... ? So do people like me go to hell? You shouldn't respond to this rhetoric question. I tried to show an example which is very characteristic of this present age, in the light of which the whole idea of "invincible ignorance" seems forced and unapplicable. I was ignorant of Christ until the age of 18, that is, until my conversion. Then I embraced God's mercy and didn't think much of (other) denominations. After a while (one year and a half) I bought my first (religious) book which wasn't issued by the Charismatic church I am going to. Then I began to buy all kinds of Bibles that I understand: Hungarian, English and Russian. I still consider some of our teachings unsatisfactory and poorly based from the Bible but I continue in the local congregation I attend. (I's called Faith Assembly, between an average young Charismatic church and, alas, the Faith Movement.) The reason for this is simple: there is no better (more biblical) denomination in Hungary. Most of children are still raised as pagans, although baptism (70% of them in the Catholic Church) is frequent. The majority of the population is baptized but only 15-20% practise their faith "according to the teaching of some denomination", as sociologists would say. The greatest problem from outside is that the traditional denominations are entangled into matters of regaining their former properties (after 1945 and later almost everything, estates, schools, etc. were taken away). The word "sect" is common when it comes to small congregations. Religious indifference is widespread. Signs of revival are few. People are engaged in making ends meet, the more and more difficultly. But the gospel is being preached. Most of the households have a Bible. Religious speeches abound on the radio and on TV. Priests and theologians give lectures on their denomination's theology and moral teaching. If someone isn't Catholic then it's because he refuses to be. Who is invincibly ignorant in such countries? -------------------------------------------------------------------- :>Catholics never call a dogma what goes contrary to a previous dogma :>but rather say that it sheds new light on it. But the application, :>which is the essence, is turned upside down. :Again, I ask you to find me a dogma that has been turned :upside down. I have been looking for one for years, but :have come up empty handed. See other places of this letter. But what about Mary's sinlessness? :Maybe in your mind, the whole of Catholicism is sullied with it. :But in the mind of 1 billion Catholics, we believe our Church to be :the ark of salvation, even if our membership is composed of a bunch of :fallible human beings who make errors in disciplinary and juridical :decisions throughout the centuries. I just say that all Christendom drags its past history along as a long rusty chain. Even me. And that we should repent and call the errors errors, and the sins sins. Protestants don't dread to attribute even doctrinal errors to the Church. :>As you could notice, I didn't quote forgery. Then why do you :>make me read its refutation? I never stated that the king was :>alleged to have received his kingdom from the pope. OTOH, it's again :>a problem on the surface. The essence, that is, excommunicating those :>who don't acknowledge the primacy (not its way of introduction or :>its proof), still applies. :How do you know is a forgery? From history. When Unam Sanctam was issued, the cunning king had a forged bull made up in order to increase the anti-Bonifacious hystery. He wanted to cut the tax paid to Rome. He did everything he could in order to make Boniface's image as black as possible. I didn't attribute this forged bull to Boniface. Yet you quoted him refuting this charge. :>Then I pose the question in another way: :>Doesn't the fact that a supporting theory is out of date, mean :>that the primacy became weaker? Doesn't it hang in the air now? :No. A simplistic answer. See the climber who paints the tree invisible. :>Oh no... Haven't you read 1Tim 3:1-7 about the necessary :>virtues of bishops? Why not apply it to the popes? :Because, as I repeat here from time to time, the Church :condemned Donatism as a heresy centuries ago. Randal, we are at different wavelengths. I asked "why didn't the Church remove Boniface?" And you answered in the style of "Never mind he was wicked, just accept what he said. His viciousness doesn't prevent him from being the mouth of God." :>The Jesuit Fathers faced a serious dilemma: :>either they quote some church father to support Boniface's :>interpretation and run the risk of becoming ridiculous together with :>him, or they don't say a word and hope that the reader puts up with :>seeing a scriptural reference beside the papal sentence. :So you are judging the Jesuit Fathers of deception, then. I :see. Perhaps you need to do some wider reading on the subject. They gave a reference without explaining the intention. Thus one can conclude that the cited verse means what it is forced to mean. But it doesn't. It refers to those who bear a sword not in order to make their belt heavier. -------------------------------------------------- God bless you. Ferenc