Is this a change in an infallible teaching??

[polonius]

At the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1441, it was taught that:

“It [the Catholic 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.�

http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

Since this was proclaimed at an ecumenical council and this teaching was signed by the Pope, is it not considered to be infallible both as a matter of faith proclaimed by an ecumenical council as well as an ex-cathedra teaching of the Pope?

If so, how could it be changed or has it been?

[Divine Insight]

For me this is easy to understand in terms of the Catholic Cult. Their theology is that the Catholic Church is "The Body of Christ". And they believe that the only way to heaven is through Christ, so unless you are a member of "The Body of Christ" there's no way you can have accepted Christ.

I think the Catholic Church is a good example of the true political roots of Christianity. The idea of these religious cults is to "own God" so that unless you are a member of the cult you risk certain damnation.

The original Judaism started this whole "ownership of God" by proclaiming that their God commands that you place no other Gods before him lest you be damned.

Christianity has simply taken this idea and transferred it over to Christ. Then they use Christ as their "ownership of God". Unless you accept Christ (as per how their cult proclaims) you will be damned. This is why the Catholic Church has tried to make Catholicism "exclusive". If you don't join "The Body of Christ" which is the Catholic Church then you are not merely rejecting the Church, but you are obviously rejecting Christ too.

All of the Abrahamic religions tend to be extremely exclusive in this way, the Jews demand that no other Gods shall be placed before their God YHVH, Yahweh, Jehovah, Andonai, etc. It doesn't matter what name they use, if you aren't worshiping their God you'll be damned.

The Christians succeeded in placing Christ before Yahweh or Jehovah. In fact, through the use of the "Trinity" they claim that Jesus was Jehovah in the flesh.

The Muslims proclaim "Allah" to be the only and only correct God of this religion that they hold up the Qur'an as his infallible WORD and commandments, etc.

All of these Abrahamic religions are just middle eastern cultures that were all trying to take ownership of "God" so that if you refuse to cower down to their specific religious cults you'll be "Damned" but this obvious jealous God who won't tolerate any other Gods being placed before him.

Jesus is just an extension of this very same possessive idea. This is how these religious cults survive. They have their followers cowering down in fear that if they dare to renounce the God of their version of the Abrahamic religions they will be damned.

So Catholicism is really no different from the others. They were just "clever" enough to proclaim that the Catholic Church is "The Body of Christ". Don't forget, if you go to their church they will have you go through a ritual where they give you a cracker what will miraculously become "The Body of Christ" when you swallow it.

A lot of Protestant Churches actually perform this ritual as well.

Of course the Catholic Church would have you believe that if you are given a cracker by anyone other than an ordained Catholic Priest then it's "just a cracker".

You need to come to the Catholic Church which is "The Body of Christ" to get the genuine magic cracker.

[marco]

At the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1441, it was taught that:.......Since this was proclaimed at an ecumenical council and this teaching was signed by the Pope, is it not considered to be infallible both as a matter of faith proclaimed by an ecumenical council as well as an ex-cathedra teaching of the Pope?

The pronouncement of Papal infallibility came at the 1869-70 Church Council which laid down the terms for a pope pronouncing infallibly. It is anachronistic to return to 1441 and try to apply the 19th century Edict when there's nothing to suggest the strict terms were met, especially since the then Pope would not have been aware he was voicing some infallible statement. Intention to speak infallibly would I think be a requirement.

[polonius]

No. The First Vatican Council did not create papal infallibility. It merely declared that it exists when the criteria were met.

Decrees of Vatican I
Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff
1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
This holy see has always maintained this,
the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. [b"]We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma [/b]that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

3. It should be noted that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception preceded the the First Vatican Council at which papal infallibility, which had always existed, was "defined."


Also, there is a second type of infallibility, that of Ecumenical Councils.

cf. CCC 891: "The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council."

“The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as canons, and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching.�

Hence, there is no new dogma beyond the apostolic deposit of faith.

[marco]

No. The First Vatican Council did not create papal infallibility. It merely declared that it exists when the criteria were met.

It outlined the very limited contexts in which an ex cathedra statement had force.
The 1854 bull from Pius ix, Ineffabilis Deus, that defined the Immaculate Conception, seems to have met the criteria. It is supposed that the Unam Sanctam bull of 1302, by Pope Boniface viii also met the criteria but it is shrouded in political dispute. It is of course not correct to regard all previous papal announcements as infallible.

[polonius]

April 9, 2017 Unam Sanctam

Marco posted:

It outlined the very limited contexts in which an ex cathedra statement had force.

The 1854 bull from Pius ix, Ineffabilis Deus, that defined the Immaculate Conception, seems to have met the criteria. It is supposed that the Unam Sanctam bull of 1302, by Pope Boniface viii also met the criteria but it is shrouded in political dispute. It is of course not correct to regard all previous papal announcements as infallible.

RESPONSE:

“seems to have met the criteria�??? “Also met the criteria but "it is shrouded in political dispute�???

Since such papal ex cathedra infallible pronouncements are “irreformable,� (cannot be altered in any way) apologists try to get out of this problem of infallible by using absurd statements such as claiming, no matter how clear the words and concepts are, the pope never really meant what he clearly said! He only “seems to have met the criteria�!

Another infallible pronouncement, Unam Sanctam, which established the docrine that obedience to the Pope was an absolute requirement for salvation further restricted salvation only to Catholics who were obedient to the Pope.

So only obedient Catholics could be saved,

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Decrees of Vatican I
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

[polonius]

https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility

“Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).�

But didn’t the Catholic bishops support the moral justification of slave ownership until comparatively recently?
Reference: http://anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaveryc ... church.pdf

In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." [Instruction 20, June 1866]

Reference: Pharsea, Bind and Loose

Addendum:

If anyone is interested in what the "just titles" to slave ownership were (there were four), I can provide a reference (which is abstracted on the web).

The most common "just title" to morally of lawful slave ownership was that of owning a female slave who gave birth. The "just title" morally justified the female slave's owner to sell or exercise perpetual ownership of the child. This was still in effect at the time of the American Civil War and thereafter.

And remember, to be saved Catholics and everyone else had to be obedient to the pope,. If not, they went to hell according to Catholic teaching.

[onewithhim]

Gosh, it's strange now that the present pope has indicated that people outside the Church can be saved. He's very on the fence about that, according to what I've read. I wonder what Francis says about the infallibility of past popes.


.