Simon, Pope Eugene wrote -
"(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..".
What you say (which I agree was the intention of V2) may apply to heretics and schismatics, it cannot possibly have applied to pagans and the Jews of Eugene's day. How can the men, women and children brought up in a pagan or even Jewish environment ALL have received an understanding of the Catholic truth? Whatever else that pope may have said (except he were a dire communicator) he will not have qualified his assertion that they all must burn in Hell
"unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock". That can only pertain to their physical incorporation into the Church
Why not acknowledge the Church at the time did not have the understanding then that she has today concerning providence, in particular what Newman referred to as "universal revelation" whose reasoning so influenced that Holy Council? Bear in mind you have been communicating with someone who longs with all his heart that the whole of Christendom come under the auspices of the Bishop of Rome; yet your line of reasoning does not convince,I find it frankly somewhat devious, yet I have no doubt whatsoever you are being faithful to the Church's apologetic line (which worries me all the more). The reason I believe the opportunity has never been greater to convince the separated brethren concerning the true nature of their "Reformation"(apart from the prophecy I have received indicating it is about to happen and I am to be involved in it) is that in this internet age there is simply no hiding place for those Evangelical pastors and teachers (and such was I) who would ignorantly mislead or wilfully deceive their flock about the sacerdotal, sacramental and synergistic nature of gospel salvation as it was handed on from the Apostles and their immediate appointees. This I have sought to do in my e-book [click blog], a format which facilitates rapid linking to biblical Greek/Hebrew text and the witness of the early Fathers. In such a context kinder publishing is as radical a development as the printing press was for the Reformers, only this time, linked to such a comprehensive data source and being interactive it is more likely to validate those who are holding to the Truth.
Yet it will work both ways - the Church too must be utterly truthful and transparent, not just because that is right and just, but to do otherwise would simply not wash with those from my former ilk who will seek to do to Rome what I am doing with you but with opposing convictions and the greatest venom. I've said more than enough on the subject this thread, but if at some time in the future you wish to discuss further with me I would be happy to do so privately (by email), for I am sure we both wish for the same outcomes.
Richard.
Hi Richard,
There are a few points I'd like to address here
#1 - Infallibility is often misunderstood to mean that everything every part of the Church or every pope has ever said is infallibly true. That's not what infallibility means. Infallibility applies to the Church as a complete whole, not to any individual parts of the Church. So, for example, there were times such as the Arian controversy when the majority of the Church was lead astray into Heresy including the majority of the leaders in the eastern Church. The Church, as a whole, however, never succumbed to Arianism and it eventually was stamped out.
Likewise with Pope. His infallibility is an extension of the infallibility of the whole Church. It only extends to dogmatic proclamations he makes that are binding on the entire Church. It does not include everything he believes or says, or even teaches.
#2 - Teachings of the Church which are accepted and are true still have to be understood in the context of the WHOLE of Church teaching, not individually taken apart from the whole. So when you come across any statement like the one you are quoting here it must be understood in the context of the whole of Church teaching, not simply on its own. The backdrop of the rest of Church teaching shows us how we must understand the statement. If we divorce it from that, then just like with the bible, we can end up interpreting it anyway we want.
#3 - What Pope Eugene said there is true and the Church would still agree with that statement today.
What you are doing is trying to interpret that statement as an absolute stricture on salvation and it shouldn't be taken that way. This is not a modern reinterpretation, this is a current of understanding that goes back to the earliest days of the Church.
Let me illustrate by using a current example, there are Christians who believe that Jews are saved via Judaism as God's chosen people and the gospel of Jesus Christ is not intended nor necessary for them. This teaching is heresy. There is no way of salvation in Judaism and Jews who reject Christ will not be saved.
That is the normal rule. However saying that is the rule doesn't mean that there are no exceptions. The Church recognizes and has since the early days of the Church that there are cases of invincible ignorance etc where people accepted as much of the truth as they had the opportunity to have and in such a case God's mercy may save them etc.
what it seems like you are trying to do is make the exception into the rule. The exception is only an exception because there IS a rule and the rule is precisely what Pope Eugene said.
Let me use a scriptural example.
Jesus told Nicodemus that "unless you be born again you cannot see the kingdom of heaven" and he equated being born again with baptism (as Paul also did) This would condemn millions of unborn children to hell if it were taken as a stricture with no exceptions. Some people do try to take it hat way, but they always end up being forced to make exceptions.
That is the normal rule. You have to be baptized in order to be saved. However the Church has always recognized that there are exceptions when baptism was impossible and so on.
If you understand V2 to mean that Christianity is not the only way of salvation and that people of all religions are going to be saved simply by being good adherents of their own faith, then you are misunderstanding V2.
What you have here is not a disagreement, but rather a difference of focus. Pope Eugene is focusing on the rule, and V2 pointed out that there are exceptions. Neither idea is new and neither idea has been changed or rejected.