Is this a truly authoritative statement?

Pope Eugene IV, Papal bull 1441 Cantate Domino

“[the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Can anyone verify this quote for me? Is the teaching in this document an infallible statement?

I can only think of two explanations to make it consistent with the idea that those outside the Church through no fault of their own can participate in the grace of the Church and that’s these:

  1. This is merely personal opinion, not doctrine and Pope Eugene’s opinion is simply wrong in this case.
  2. This is not an accurate quote and does not reflect the teaching of the document (which I have not read in full or in context).

Anyone able to verify this quote and help me out?

Wrong thread. Sorry

The quote is accurate, but it was not originally taught by Pope Eugene-4, but by the (Ecumenical) Council of Florence (perhaps more precisely refereed to as the Council of Basel–Ferrara–Florence). Pope Eugene-4 ratified the Council.

Is the teaching in this document an infallible statement?

It might be. The Church has never said one way or another. Contrary to popular misconception, the findings of an Ecumenical Council are not “automatically” regarded as infallible. The only way we know for sure is if the Church says the teaching is infallible. And She has done so in very few instances. And it is completely irrelevant to the Catholic in the pew, who is expected to accept ALL Church doctrine, regardless of whether it has been recognized as infallible.

I can only think of two explanations to make it consistent with the idea that those outside the Church through no fault of their own can participate in the grace of the Church

Why do you need to make it consistent with anything? This is simply a teaching of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which has always been (and still is) the Doctrine of the Church. The Doctrine has not changed, but the idea of what it means to be “in the Church” has developed.

Your name is Robert FILMER? And you live in KOREA?

From Denzinger’s ***Sources of Catholic Dogma ***

A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites *

[From the Bull “Cantata Domino,” February 4, Florentine style, 1441, modern, 1442]
714 It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. *
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma8.php

[quote=DavidFilmout further12421204]The quote is accurate, but it was not originally taught by Pope Eugene-4, but by the (Ecumenical) Council of Florence (perhaps more precisely refereed to as the Council of Basel–Ferrara–Florence). Pope Eugene-4 ratified the Council.

It might be. The Church has never said one way or another. Contrary to popular misconception, the findings of an Ecumenical Council are not “automatically” regarded as infallible. The only way we know for sure is if the Church says the teaching is infallible. And She has done so in very few instances. And it is completely irrelevant to the Catholic in the pew, who is expected to accept ALL Church doctrine, regardless of whether it has been recognized as infallible.

Why do you need to make it consistent with anything? This is simply a teaching of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which has always been (and still is) the Doctrine of the Church. The Doctrine has not changed, but the idea of what it means to be “in the Church” has developed.
[/quote]

Thanks for the info regarding the source.

So I’m trying to accept, in obedience, what ever the Church teaches, but that doesn’t mean I can’t strive to understand it.

The trouble is i don’t think the intention of the council (well this quote) can be reconciled to the teaching today. I feel sure that, considering the language used, the Council Father’s would have condemned as heresy what we teach today. The understanding of the belief send to have “deepened” in such a way as to completely negate the intention of the words of this council, even if the words themselves do not contradict it.

Can you help me out?

Catechism VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

**1258 **The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For *catechumens *who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Exactly, how do we reconciled that with, “The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward,”

“…brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

**Eternal Reward

** “only to those remaining in it … do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward”

Only those that were ever in it and persevere “to the end” *remain *in it. If the baptism is of desire or blood at death, then it is “to the end” which is only an instant.

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94 She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.95

OK, that makes sense even if it does seem a bit of a stretch. The words seem to make room for each other even if the intention behind the words do not seem to be in agreement.

Thanks for that

Actually what about that first statement, “[the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life,”

It has been said that anyone and everyone who receives eternal life in heaven is in some way attached to the Catholic church. I believe one pope put it that a person may belong to the soul of the church without formally belonging to the church and being subject to her judicial system.

The purpose the church Jesus established is “to save sinners” and not to condemn them. And so the recent teaching has been to include where it is possible to include, tho in doing so the i is not always dotted and the t is not always crossed. It is a grander view of what is possible in the ever expounding and the fuller teaching of the church on its dogma. It isn’t something that we might be able to define exactly since we are talking about mystery of God and individual human situations.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

I think you might like the following document:

Scripture, Church Fathers, and Medieval Doctors on the Possibility of Salvation for Non-Catholics
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=884499

I think it illustrates that the doctrine the Church teaches at present has been part of Catholic tradition since the very beginning. Therefore, the present tradition needs to be regarded as the starting point, and the question ought to be how Cantate Domino fits into it, rather than how far the “modern teaching” deviates from it.

As others have pointed out, and as I think the Fathers and Doctors of the Church were clear about, the definition of “the Church” is broader than just those who are registered in a Catholic parish, and can include those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church but who strive to follow God’s laws as they can know them from a position that is (nominally) outside the Church.

If we start from a standpoint where the term “the Catholic Church” in medieval documents implies that broader meaning, which I think is justified based on the earlier history I linked you to above, then I don’t think these documents are any problem at all. “The Catholic Church” includes those who are invincibly ignorant etc. Therefore, by saying that “those not living within the Catholic Church…cannot become participants in eternal life,” the document is merely saying that those who are not in the Church, even in the broad way, cannot be saved, and that is still the teaching of the Church.

Let me know if that is helpful.

I would take this to mean universal as per the original meaning of the word catholic. If not then it can not be backed up from the bible and would then resemble “religion” not Christianity.

There was no mention of other Christians.

In my opinion it is an infallible teaching, but even if it were not it would still be a part of the deposit of the faith which must be held and adhered to by all Catholics. However, it must be understood in light of the entire body of the Church’s teaching. All people of good will, who through no fault of their own are not formal members of the Church, who have lived morally upright lives according to the best lights of their reason and conscience can merit salvation, since they are considered to be members of the Church by desire. Excluded would be those who knowingly and culpalbly reject the Church. As to who exactly is excluded the Church makes no further comment, that is up to God, in whom all may hope.

God Bless
Linus2nd

They may come to be living within the Catholic Church, …

All Salvation Comes through Christ (St. Pope John Paul II)What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.” As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way… The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).

It is important to stress that the way of salvation taken by those who do not know the Gospel is not a way apart from Christ and the Church.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

Both are jokes. Google “Robert Filmer” and Google image search “Best Korea”.

I would just point out, that if your interpretation is correct, modern Pope are heretics, because they have taught things contrary to your interpretation.

Tread carefully.

OK, so I gather that we are not actually distant cousins. My real name is actually David Filmer. To my knowledge, I am one of only two actual Filmers who are on this Forum (the other being my brother, Father Eric Filmer, an accredited CAF apologist). One of our distinguished ancestors was Sir Robert Filmer, patriarch of the Filmer Baronetcy of County Kent, England. The Baronetcy was extinguished in WW1 with the death of Sir Robert Marcus Filmer.

FWIW, I still don’t get the “joke.” When I Google “Robert Filmer,” the first hit is the Wikipedia page that I cited. If I do an image search for “Best Korea,” the top hit is a meme of the wacko dictator, followed by meaningless (and unidentifiable) images.

I would just point out, that if your interpretation is correct, modern Pope are heretics, because they have taught things contrary to your interpretation.

Tread carefully.

I will not tread carefully. I tread boldly. I assert that nothing any “modern” Pope has said is, in any way, in conflict with this teaching. I assert that the Church has always taught (and still teaches) Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which I find to be the doctrinal core of this teaching, and is unopposed by any “modern” Pope.

If I am missing something that would cast Canonized Popes as heretics, please be a bit more specific.

Maybe it’s too much of an inside joke. Have you read Patriarcha? It’s kinda insane. In a good way.

knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/justin-bieber-to-north-korea

[quote="Know Your Meme]Justin Bieber to North Korea (also known as “Project North Korea is Best Korea”) is an Internet prank orchestrated by users of the imageboard 4chan in early 2010, which aimed to rig an online poll to select North Korea as a destination in Justin Bieber’s “My World” tour.
[/quote]

I was talking to OP. I know that stuff like this has a tendency to lead to sedevacantism.

If I am missing something that would cast Canonized Popes as heretics, please be a bit more specific.

I’m not arguing the Pope is a heretic, only warning that we’re broaching the subject. Last time everybody was talking about a heretic Pope, we got the Protestant reformation. Not fun times.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.