Sorry, but that is completely untrue. Salvation is also there.
It is incorrect to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.
Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII’s 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church’s magisterium . However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.
Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):
“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
That’s what my sources tell me.
As usual we have a self serving thread which has no place on this sub-forum.
Do you really think this will change ANYONE’s opinions for the better?
The Council of Florence states it, as I showed in an above quote. The Council of Florence was an ecumenical council approved by the pope. It is thus “doublely” infalible. First because of the infallibility of the magisterium when united to the pope, and again from the pope.
If your sources aren’t the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the magestirium at council, or the pope then they are just opinions.
It seems very clear to me that some Catholics - certainly not all - don’t know their own church very well, much less the definitions of words such as ex cathedra.
Just an observation.
It is interesting you quote only from Pre-Protestant Reformation sources. Remember that before the Protestant Reformation, in the West, anything outside of Catholicism would have been heretical by virtually anyone’s standards (Catholic or Protestant), such as Judaizers and Gnostics.
Also, perhaps the definition of ‘invincible ignorance’ needs to be re-examined in light of these words from Lumen Gentium: “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.”
I think virtually every Protestant would fall into the category of not knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ. The history, especially of the first couple centuries of the Post-Apostolic (NT era) Church is just murky enough to leave many a cloud in the Protestant mind. Not to mention there are many Protestant and secular historians who further muddy up the waters on the issue.
No it shouldn’t be reinterpreted. It isn’t supposed to be interpretted at all. In the same article of Pius IX that I quoted earlier he said we should not be curious about such things. Also what does it matter that pre-Reformation sources were quoted? Nothing changed for us because of the Reformation. The Church has always been clear they are heretics, so no new “understandings” were needed.
But you do make an interesting point about LG. Thankfully the Church, thourgh the CDF, has released a document to help the faitful in understanding what this document truly says. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
Footnote 4 explicity states that seeking the Catholic Church is required for salvation.
Invincible ignorance alone saves no one. A desire for the Church is required.
Footnote 4 mentions the Church of Christ. I think most Protestants (at least the ones who are truly religious) would say they seek Christ and, ipso facto, Christ’s Church, they merely disagree on what constitutes Christ’s Church (i.e. only Catholicism).
The document also states the Church of Christ is uniquely the Roman Catholic Church. So your argument doesn’t hold up. They must seeks the the only Church founded by Christ. Disagreeing with the Catholic Church is the same as disagreeing with God when it comes to issues of doctrine.
I am not disagreeing. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. What I am saying is this:
To a Protestant, they do not believe (thus, they do not know) that Christ’s Church is uniquely the Roman Catholic Church. They seek Christ’s Church, but they do not believe or know that it is the Roman Catholic Church.
I believe I understand what you mean now, but I do think think you are abusing LG to draw your conclusion. The Church has given no definite meaning to what desire for the Church is. But what is clear, via many statements by the Church, Protestantism in and of itself is not enough. If there has ever been a Protestant saved it is despite his religion, not because of it. The truths they have, in general, are not enough to save them if they persist in error. But please don’t read this as, all Protestants go to Hell automatically, because I don’t mean that.
I am a convert to the faith. I know what it is like to live outside the Church and have a dersire for something I can’t find. Then to have that desire satisfied when entering the Church. My mother, shortly after me, went through the same thing. And I know that all of her life she has had a desire for the Church but just couldn’t place that that was what it was. Because of these experiences I find it hard to stomach arguments which seem to imply being Protestant is enough. I know for a fact a calling from God makes other faiths feel empty so I don’t see how one can genuinley seek the Church while staying Protestant, in general. This is clearly just a personal view, but it is one that I will defend.
Please quote the Catechism saying Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus Est (you forgot est), and how it is supported by Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate. You are falling to the extremism, brother. If the RCC believes as you do, it must first nullify Vatican II council. Then, the RCC should condemn John Paul II, too.
BTW, Linux, you have not answered me. Have you found the word “Catholic” in Mat 25:31-46?
Why must the quote be from the Catechism? Do you deny the infalllibility of an ecumentical council? If you don’t I’ve quoted the Council of Florence which settles the issue. I’ve also linked to the official explanation of LG which explains what Vatican II was saying. If you disagree with the CDF’s explanation of LG then it is you who are in error, not them. Except for the one time I explicity mentioned in the above that I was giving an opinion, I have only been repeating what popes and Church documents say. You have yet to provide any infallibile document, or fallible for that matter, which says there is slavation outside the Church.
But since you insist on the Catechism see article 846-848.
How is that relevant? The Immaculate Conception isn’t mentioned either, but as Catholics we must still believe it. This thread is about Catholics believing a Catholic teaching. I use Catholic sources to support it. I’m not trying to defend this belief to non-Catholics, so I don’t need to find Bible passages to support what I’m saying. Furthermore that passage does not state salvation can be from outside the Church. It is silent on the issue. Short of finding a passage that explicity says you can be saved outside of the Church you don’t have a case.
Have you shown that the Pope or the congregation haved deffinatively said these statements were ex-cathedra?
But they DO know that Christ established the Catholic church, yet REFUSE to accept or enter it. They are taught immensely just right here on CAF, they are shown historical, archaelogical, and evidence of the one true church, yet refuse to enter it.
Sambos…give it up…:shrug: