OracleOutlook
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum
14hr ago
all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives") is damned to eternal fire, correct?
Yes, this is correct. This does not contradict what I said and it does not contradict what the Church taught previously either.
So consider this - Moses, Elijah, Abraham, these people are uncontroversially saved, right? That is official Church teaching, Abraham is in Heaven, this was known well before the council of Florence. The people at the council of Florence would agree that Abraham is in Heaven and they still wrote what they wrote.
So from the start, we can tell that what Florence is saying here is completely different from how it's been interpreted by various groups (many of whom are Catholic unfortunately.)
What the Catholic Church believes herself to be is the most important obstacle to understanding what she means when she utters statements like this.
OracleOutlook
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum
17hr ago
From your source:
Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.
But also I think your Catholic Encyclopedia source is just incorrect on some points, which an Encyclopedia is allowed to be.
And even granting that these anathemas were to excommunicate:
-
The penalty of excommunication applies to the present, it is not retroactive. It is something faithful Catholics should keep in mind going forward and keep out of obedience, not something that condemns people in the past before the definition was made.
-
It is a canonical penalty. There are saints who died while excommunicated. People who are excommunicated are still expected to meet the precepts of the Church, come to mass, etc. It's not what people think it is.
This also another area where I think it is important to recognize that Vatican I actually limited Papal authority. Now we have the tools to look back and assess what is morally/theologically certain, what are pious opinions, what are disciplines and canonical requirements. And pious opinions and disciplines can change without impacting the veracity of dogma over time.
Florence explicitly say that "schismatics" are damned
Yes, schismatics are damned. Schism is a damnable sin. But how many people who believe themselves outside the Catholic Church are actually personally guilty of the sin of schism? Not that many, especially centuries after the initial break. A bishop who breaks away from the Church is guilty of schism and will be judged accordingly, but someone who follows their bishop all their life without knowing the difference is not guilty of schism. An individual who breaks away from the Church on their own free choice is different from their great grand children who grew up without knowing the Church. And so on.
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Tt 3:10–11.
OracleOutlook
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum
20hr ago
We are at war special military operation. Doesn't have a ring to it.
Why should this matter if the formulation is absolute the way it is interpreted? They were Jews and they wouldn't have recognized themselves having any allegiance to a Pope in Rome. Therefore, they will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. That's what the phrase is interpreted to mean when people say that it excludes Protestants or basically everyone who does not consider themselves under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome.
While there are no dogmatic declarations like for Abraham, and sainthood is reserved for Christian role models, we do have records from the earliest times where people outside the church were considered to have been saved:
Acts of Paul and Thecla (c. AD 150) — A deceased non-Christian woman, Falconilla, appears in a dream to her mother Queen Tryphena, asking that the martyr Thecla pray for her soul’s transfer from suffering to happiness.
Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicity (AD 203) — Perpetua’s prison diary, one of the oldest surviving texts written by a woman, records two visions of her unbaptized younger brother Dinocrates: first in suffering, then in joyful refreshment after Perpetua prays for him.
**Pope St. Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel, 2:3 (540-604 AD): “**The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow… They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church.”
Abel is an interesting choice because he's not even part of the covenant with Abraham.
So that shows that at one time, Christians assumed that people who died without knowing Christ could be saved. Augustine has compunctions on the case of poor Dinocrates and argues that he could have been baptized as an infant without anyone knowing, but even with that excuse it is still clear he died without being a practicing Catholic.
Though arguing this is perhaps that early Christians believed this, but were the early Christian's Catholic? That's probably one of the points in contention.
I don't know what the authors of Florence read for sure, but I know for a fact that Saints Perpetua and Felicity held wide popularity and they had a publicly celebrated feast day up until the 14th century when Aquinas replaced their calendar day. The Acts of Paul and Thecla also have Latin copies found far and wide.
Ultimately I just don't know enough about what the signatories of Florence had in their libraries to argue too strongly. Hopefully we can agree that Pope St. Gregory the Great was Catholic. Abraham is the better argument for me as his salvation is as assured as anything can be in the Bible.
The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the bridegroom and we are the bride. The Church is the New Israel.
All who are baptized with water in a Trinitarian formula are members of the Church. All who are baptized by desire and wish they were members of the Church are members of the Church. All who are baptized by blood and suffer for the Church are members of the Church. This isn't a new teaching or a modern softening of things. The Catholic Church has considered Orthodox sacraments perfectly valid, including and especially baptism. Baptism can be conferred by anybody, even someone who is not a Christian.
I return to Gregory the Great's quote: "in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church." With this in mind, consider this:
The Kingdom of Heaven is not just "a set of all those who are saved"/invisible church but instead we are told there are some bad people in it right now who will not be saved but nevertheless are considered in what I would call the Church.
But nevertheless there are some people who are not aware that the Pope in Rome has jurisdiction over them, who are also saved. But all of them are saved through participation in Christ's Body.
Catholics believe the Pope has jurisdiction over the suffering Church on Earth, which would include everyone who is in Christ's Body.
So if I were to rephrase Florence to how I read it with the definitions I have:
Everyone who is saved is saved through a participation in Christ's Universal Church, which is under the jurisdiction of the Pope. This participation needs to happen sometime in their earthly life before their death. They are not saved through merit found in their other faiths, but saved through Christ and His Church.
More options
Context Copy link