Fallible Infallibility

[Standing Up]

Thought this of interest. Many are familiar with the Roman Pope's declaration in Unam Sanctum.

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Internet History Sourcebooks Project


In case some folks erroneously believe Unam Sanctum (US) only applied to a certain time and place, like they might reject Nicea for the same reason (applied only to a certain time and place), make no mistake, a couple hundred years later at the Lateran Council, US was reaffirmed:

Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution, but without prejudice to the declaration of pope Clement V of holy memory, which begins Meruit.
Julius II and Leo X

Although the two doctrines contradict themselves (US is "every human creature", Lateran is only "Christ's faithful"), and thus both could immediately be declared null and void by every Christian, I still wonder about a couple of things.

I have a question about the source of the idea that someone's salvation depends on membership to a group (subject to Roman Pope in this case)? We would all agree salvation depends on being born-again, be in the Body of Christ, but from where did the new and different idea arise that salvation depends on being subject to a man?

A second question. Do today's Catholics still believe their Pope or did he make a fallible infallible declaration?

Lastly, how many actually believe the Popes' opinion on their salvation? Obviously I do not. Do Eastern Orthodox? How about Anglicans? What about Lutherans? Baptists? Etc?

PS. US was decreed 1302.

5th Lateran Council was 1512-1517

Between them was the Council of Florence (1438-1445), this was again reiterated.

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that 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; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

 

[prodromos]

I suspect you already know full well the answer to your last question.

 

[Tzaousios]

In case some folks erroneously believe Unam Sanctum (US) only applied to a certain time and place, like they might reject Nicea for the same reason (applied only to a certain time and place), make no mistake, a couple hundred years later at the Lateran Council, US was reaffirmed:

How is it erroneous? You would have to prove that the Vatican takes and applies Unam Sanctam in the same way that it as well as the Orthodox take and apply Nicaea in the present context (as in 2013).

You have already heard where Catholics have indicated that it is not taken and applied in the present. From what I can tell, it does not work because the Vatican does not take and apply Unam Sanctam to its present statement on salvation. Thus, one would have to decontextualize it and anachronistically apply it to the present outside of what the Vatican thinks. To me that sounds like an abuse of history whose aim is to score rhetorical hit-points.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How is it erroneous? You would have to prove that the Vatican takes and applies Unam Sanctam in the same way that it as well as the Orthodox take and apply Nicaea in the present context (as in 2013).

You have already heard where Catholics have indicated that it is not taken and applied in the present. From what I can tell, it does not work because the Vatican does not take and apply Unam Sanctam to its present statement on salvation. Thus, one would have to decontextualize it and anachronistically apply it to the present outside of what the Vatican thinks. To me that sounds like an abuse of history whose aim is to score rhetorical hit-points.

I wonder if I am breaking one of the sacred rules of conversation by writing a reply in this thread. The rule I am thinking about is the one that warns one not to give credibility by replying to a patently incredible proposition.

Anyway, I shall make this as short as I can.

Unam Sanctam comes from 1302 AD. At the time the only Church in the west was the Catholic Church. The papal bull deals with papal supremacy. It has a historical context that a reader needs to know to make sense of the document.

The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that Christians who are not in communion with the holy see can be saved by the grace of God. Some folk on GT like to pretend otherwise. Best stick with what the Church explicitly states rather than be deceived by something concocted by people who have no official capacity to teach Catholic doctrine.

God bless.

PS: Tzaousios, thanks for your reply. It is good and useful.

unsubscribed.

 

[Habakk]

A second question. Do today's Catholics still believe their Pope or did he make a fallible infallible declaration?

That is either an oxymoron or a logical paradox.

Lastly, how many actually believe the Popes' opinion on their salvation? Obviously I do not. Do Eastern Orthodox? How about Anglicans? What about Lutherans? Baptists? Etc?

As Baptists, Pentecostals and other similar churches are essentially based on reformed theology, the answer is obvious.

 

[Standing Up]

I wonder if I am breaking one of the sacred rules of conversation by writing a reply in this thread. The rule I am thinking about is the one that warns one not to give credibility by replying to a patently incredible proposition.

It's only incredible to you because you ignored the following Councils (Lateran and Florence) that confirmed Unam Sanctum.

Anyway, I shall make this as short as I can.

Unam Sanctam comes from 1302 AD. At the time the only Church in the west was the Catholic Church. The papal bull deals with papal supremacy. It has a historical context that a reader needs to know to make sense of the document.

See what I mean? This view was explicitely addressed in the OP. Two of Rome's councils specifically confirmed US.

The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that Christians who are not in communion with the holy see can be saved by the grace of God. Some folk on GT like to pretend otherwise. Best stick with what the Church explicitly states rather than be deceived by something concocted by people who have no official capacity to teach Catholic doctrine.

God bless.

PS: Tzaousios, thanks for your reply. It is good and useful.

unsubscribed.

Given you've completed ignored Rome's two councils that confirm US, it is easy to understand why no one might believe your bolded (by you) comment.

Rather than unsubscribe, maybe you can support at least one of the comments in your reply.

PS. The Roman Church does teach those can be saved apart from Christ. This is also non-scriptural and non-traditional. Is that what you had in mind?

 

[Standing Up]

How is it erroneous? You would have to prove that the Vatican takes and applies Unam Sanctam in the same way that it as well as the Orthodox take and apply Nicaea in the present context (as in 2013).

Why? They prove it themselves because they still believe it. Maybe MoreCoffee declares US null and void, but does he speak for the Roman Church?

You have already heard where Catholics have indicated that it is not taken and applied in the present. From what I can tell, it does not work because the Vatican does not take and apply Unam Sanctam to its present statement on salvation. Thus, one would have to decontextualize it and anachronistically apply it to the present outside of what the Vatican thinks. To me that sounds like an abuse of history whose aim is to score rhetorical hit-points.

You mean like MoreCoffee? See my reply to him.

Feel free to also support Rome's position by showing us where their doctrine (submit to the Pope for salvation) is declared null and void from Unam Sanctum, Council of Florence, and Council of Lateran.

 

[Standing Up]

I suspect you already know full well the answer to your last question.

That is either an oxymoron or a logical paradox.



As Baptists, Pentecostals and other similar churches are essentially based on reformed theology, the answer is obvious.

I don't think the answer obvious. Making pleasant logical conversation is one thing, but supporting Roman errors like requiring submission to its Pope to be saved is quite another.

 

[tz620q]

Thought this of interest. Many are familiar with the Roman Pope's declaration in Unam Sanctum.

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Internet History Sourcebooks Project


In case some folks erroneously believe Unam Sanctum (US) only applied to a certain time and place, like they might reject Nicea for the same reason (applied only to a certain time and place), make no mistake, a couple hundred years later at the Lateran Council, US was reaffirmed:

I would like to discuss the difference between a principle (however vague), the formal statement of the principle, and an infallible declaration of the principle.

To me, Unam Sanctum and the documents from the Fifth Lateran Council are formal statements of a principle; but if you read them in the historical context of the situation and who their intended audience was (Philip IV for Unam Sanctum and the French that supported the Pragmatic Sanction for the Fifth Lateran Council), you will find that they do not meet, in my humble opinion, the definition of an infallible declaration.

I have a question about the source of the idea that someone's salvation depends on membership to a group (subject to Roman Pope in this case)? We would all agree salvation depends on being born-again, be in the Body of Christ, but from where did the new and different idea arise that salvation depends on being subject to a man?

The two documents that I referred to above are about obedience of certain professed Catholics to the head of the Catholic Church. It was about who held the ultimate authority over the Church in France, the King of France or the Pope. They are often used by modern day Protestants, who try to generalize them into infallible declarations and use them for apologetic purposes. For me, that is just sloppy apologetics considering that we have a much more recent and more general statement of principle within Lumen Gentium from the Second Vatican Council.

A second question. Do today's Catholics still believe their Pope or did he make a fallible infallible declaration?

Since I don't hold the statements in these documents to be infallible declarations, it is a moot point.

 

[Albion]

I have a question about the source of the idea that someone's salvation depends on membership to a group (subject to Roman Pope in this case)? We would all agree salvation depends on being born-again, be in the Body of Christ, but from where did the new and different idea arise that salvation depends on being subject to a man?

A second question. Do today's Catholics still believe their Pope or did he make a fallible infallible declaration?

Lastly, how many actually believe the Popes' opinion on their salvation? Obviously I do not. Do Eastern Orthodox? How about Anglicans? What about Lutherans? Baptists? Etc?

I can see asking the first question. I suspect that few Catholics will even attempt an answer because there is no convincing way that they can affirm the alleged infallibility of the councils without compromising on their cherished "Church that never has changed" functional myth. And as for Orthodox Christians and Protestants, why would we even think these would accept Unam Sanctam as infallible?

 

[Albion]

It was about who held the ultimate authority over the Church in France, the King of France or the Pope. They are often used by modern day Protestants, who try to generalize them into infallible declarations and use them for apologetic purposes. For me, that is just sloppy apologetics considering that we have a much more recent and more general statement of principle within Lumen Gentium from the Second Vatican Council.

Ah. Two possible explanations.

1. He didn't mean it. and
2. An infallible council can be fallible (if overruled by another infallible council or Papal decree?).

Remember that we're not speaking of Unam Sanctam and, now, Vatican II only. StandingUp also mentioned that Unam Santam was reaffirmed by another council.

 

[tz620q]

Ah. Two possible explanations.

1. He didn't mean it. and
2. An infallible council can be fallible (if overruled by another infallible council or Papal decree?).

Remember that we're not speaking of Unam Sanctam and, now, Vatican II only. StandingUp also mentioned that Unam Santam was reaffirmed by another council.

I can see a lot more possible explanations than two. One being what I proposed that the statements were limited in context and audience and not meant as infallible declarations binding on all the faithful. In that regards, the statements were definitely meant to convey to their audience what is unequivocably stated; but do not meet the definition of infallible declarations as outlined in 1870.

In quoting Unam Sanctum, the Fifth Lateran Council could have been referring to the principle without using Unam Sanctum as an infallible document.

 

[Albion]

I can see a lot more possible explanations than two.

Possibly, but those are the two that you seemed to emphasize in that particular post.

One being what I proposed that the statements were limited in context and audience and not meant as infallible declarations binding on all the faithful.

I covered that in my point #1. The Pope's wording doesn't say anything about his declaration being limited in the ways you are suggesting to us, so that's a "He didn't mean it."

In that regards, the statements were definitely meant to convey to their audience what is unequivocably stated; but do not meet the definition of infallible declarations as outlined in 1870.

I don't recall Vatican I being part of this discussion so far.

In quoting Unam Sanctum, the Fifth Lateran Council could have been referring to the principle without using Unam Sanctum as an infallible document.

Sure, but the point is that the church--by one or another of its infallible mechanisms --has reversed its stand.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's only incredible to you because you ignored the following Councils (Lateran and Florence) that confirmed Unam Sanctum.



See what I mean? This view was explicitely addressed in the OP. Two of Rome's councils specifically confirmed US.



Given you've completed ignored Rome's two councils that confirm US, it is easy to understand why no one might believe your bolded (by you) comment.

Rather than unsubscribe, maybe you can support at least one of the comments in your reply.

PS. The Roman Church does teach those can be saved apart from Christ. This is also non-scriptural and non-traditional. Is that what you had in mind?

First question I have: What "Roman Church" The Diocese of Rome? Other than the diocese headed by Pope Francis, I know of no "Roman Church."

The pope's statement is infallible, and correct. There is no salvation outside of Christ's Church. That was confirmed by the two councils, and is still true today. The context, as spoken of briefly by MC, was a time when some parts of the Church were going off in their own direction. We understand "The Church" differently today, meaning that you're stuck on your own definitition of what the Church is, which we do not share.

Regarding the teaching that those can be saved apart from Christ, we don't hold that definitively, we do leave it up to God.

 

[tz620q]

I covered that in my point #1. The Pope's wording doesn't say anything about his declaration being limited in the ways you are suggesting to us, so that's a "He didn't mean it."

They do if you read more than the cut and paste versions that are quoted in the OP. If you read the full document or section of the document plus take into account the historical purpose of the documents then it seems clear to me as it would have been clear to the people who drafted them. By the way, the Council of Florence (Basle) and the Fifth Lateran Council documents are conciliar documents, not papal documents. So they cannot be said to state the words of the Pope.

I don't recall Vatican I being part of this discussion so far.


Sure, but the point is that the church--by one or another of its infallible mechanisms --has reversed its stand.

I find the definition from Vatican I on what entails an infallible declaration to be the only firm basis for discussing any of this. Anything else is just polemics.

 

[Albion]

They do if you read more than the cut and paste versions that are quoted in the OP. If you read the full document or section of the document plus take into account the historical purpose of the documents then it seems clear to me

Whoa. Don't try to slide that whopper by us like that.

I was paying close attention to your words when you were saying to read the whole document, etc. but when you got to the "take into account the historical purpose" stuff, you were just trying to invent some excuse and this one clearly does not work. It isn't supported by historians, and it isn't hinted at by the document itself.

By the way, the Council of Florence (Basle) and the Fifth Lateran Council documents are conciliar documents, not papal documents. So they cannot be said to state the words of the Pope.

The original question concerned the Church's claims to infallibility, I believe. It quite clearly was not confined to Papal utterances.

 

[Standing Up]

Whoa. Don't try to slide that whopper by us like that.

I was paying close attention to your words when you were saying to read the whole document, etc. but when you got to the "take into account the historical purpose" stuff, you were just trying to invent some excuse and this one clearly does not work. It isn't supported by historians, and it isn't hinted at by the document itself.


The original question concerned the Church's claims to infallibility, I believe. It quite clearly was not confined to Papal utterances.

Right? Folks with that argument probably also dismiss Nicea or Vat II. But yeah, I covered that too in the OP.

 

[Standing Up]

First question I have: What "Roman Church" The Diocese of Rome? Other than the diocese headed by Pope Francis, I know of no "Roman Church."

If you click on any of those links in the OP, you'll find Rome referring to itself as the Roman Church.

The pope's statement is infallible, and correct. There is no salvation outside of Christ's Church. That was confirmed by the two councils, and is still true today. The context, as spoken of briefly by MC, was a time when some parts of the Church were going off in their own direction. We understand "The Church" differently today, meaning that you're stuck on your own definitition of what the Church is, which we do not share.

So, the Pope made an infallible declaration about the Church, but the Church has changed. Hmmm...

Regarding the teaching that those can be saved apart from Christ, we don't hold that definitively, we do leave it up to God.

Yeah, that's kinda a side issue that is more recent ...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Whoa. Don't try to slide that whopper by us like that.

I was paying close attention to your words when you were saying to read the whole document, etc. but when you got to the "take into account the historical purpose" stuff, you were just trying to invent some excuse and this one clearly does not work. It isn't supported by historians, and it isn't hinted at by the document itself.


The original question concerned the Church's claims to infallibility, I believe. It quite clearly was not confined to Papal utterances.

There are no contradictions in Church doctrines. The only time "infallibility" has any effect is when the Church speaks to the whole faithful in matters of faith and morals.

 

[tz620q]

Whoa. Don't try to slide that whopper by us like that.

I was paying close attention to your words when you were saying to read the whole document, etc. but when you got to the "take into account the historical purpose" stuff, you were just trying to invent some excuse and this one clearly does not work. It isn't supported by historians, and it isn't hinted at by the document itself.

Are we not all called to read a document within it's historical context? How else can we be sure that we understand the purpose of the author?

I think we are at a point in this discussion where we have to separate these documents which were written hundreds of years apart and talk specifics. If you have historians to quote, then please do. I will try to find my own sources and maybe we can progress beyond the normal intractable positions.

The original question concerned the Church's claims to infallibility, I believe. It quite clearly was not confined to Papal utterances.

I'm sorry. I reread your posts and I was wrong when I took your saying "the Pope's words" to think that you were referring to both Unam Sanctum and the Fifth Lateran Council. I apologize.