(The image above is the official regalia of the Papacy. The crossed keys represent the “keys to the kingdom”.)
Let me be clear up front: I am not “anti-Catholic” in any way. I have several Catholics in my circle of friends and one of my wife’s best friends is Catholic. Further, the Catholic Church does more for the poor than most other denominations. I often find myself defending Catholics against Protestants, especially those who – erroneously – think that “Catholics aren’t Christian”.
That said, I think the Roman Catholic Church does have serious doctrinal problems. I’m not even saying these doctrinal problems are worse than other denominations. I’m just saying they exist.
(Note: one of the most serious is the additional books in their Bible, and I have a whole article on The Bible: 66 books vs 73 and Why (the “Apocrypha” Explained).)
So, let’s get started.
The Law of Non-Contradiction
“two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense”
For example:
I can say: “Air exists” and you can say: “Air does not exist.” We can’t both be right at the same time in the same sense.
The Catholic Church claims they are infallible. Infallible means “free from the possibility of ever being wrong“. However, if the Catholic Church ever made two “Infallible” pronouncements that contradicted each other, then one must be wrong. If the Catholic Church was ever wrong, then they can’t be infallible.
So has the Catholic Church ever contradicted itself on an “infallible” doctrine?
Yes they have.
What Constitutes an “Infallible Doctrine”?
Before we can compare “infallible” doctrines of the Catholic Church, we must first define what an infallible doctrine is. I scoured the internet for a way to determine what Catholic doctrines are considered infallible and which are not. I finally found it in one of the Catholic Church’s Ecumenical Councils, specifically Vatican II.
(Note: for those who don’t know, an “ecumenical council” is an official gathering of the leadership of the Catholic church, specifically to explain or clarify doctrine. Typically, this is done in response to heresies that have become popular and thus require clarification. The Catholics would say the first ecumenical council was the Jerusalem council in Acts chapter 15.)
One of the Vatican II documents (Lumen Gentium, chapter 3, section 25, paragraph 2) explains how to know if a doctrine is “infallible”. The full text of Lumen Gentium is on the Vatican’s official website, but the relevant paragraph is copy/pasted below.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This 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, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.
There are several things you need to notice about this highly illuminating paragraph.
First, the use of the word “whenever”. So at any point in time, when the bishops and Pope (successor of Peter) are in agreement on one doctrinal position “in matters of faith and morals”, then it appears to automatically become infallible. The “automatic” part is arguable – and many Catholics have argued it – but the plain text seems clear.
Second, is the: “this is “even more clearly verified” when they gather together in an ecumenical council. So, it seems clear that what the Church declares in an Ecumenical council – by their own definition – constitutes an “infallible” pronouncement.
So, we will be looking for places where one ecumenical council contradicts another.
Sidebar: Is The Catechism “infallible”?
The vast majority of Catholics I’ve asked say no. The vast majority of internet articles on the Catechism – even from fairly official sources – say no. However, there’s a decent case that – by the Catholic Church’s own test – it should be considered “infallible” to Catholics.
Why?
Because the Pope at the time (John Paul II) invoked his “apostolic authority” and was in complete agreement with the “whole Episcopate (priesthood) of the Catholic Church“. Below are several excerpts from “Fidei Depositum” (the deposit of faith) written by Pope John Paul II. It was written specifically about the Catechism:
The project was the object of extensive consultation among all Catholic Bishops, their Episcopal Conferences or Synods, and of theological and catechetical institutes. As a whole, it received a broadly favourable acceptance on the part of the Episcopate. It can be said that this catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church.
…
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.
That seems to meet the requirements that:
- All the bishops and the “successor of Peter” (the Pope) be “in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”
- And that they be: “authentically teaching matters of faith and morals” as Vatican II said.
- The Pope even clearly invoked his “apostolic authority”.
I’d say that meets the test according to the plain language of Vatican II. I’m not a lawyer, but the plain reading seems clear.
Take that as you will.
Contradiction #1: Can non-Catholics be saved?
Throughout most of the Catholic Church’s history, they maintained that non-Catholics couldn’t be saved. Ever. This webpage has many quotes indicating this, but right now we only care about what the ecumenical councils say.
Let’s look.
The Council of Florence (mid 1400s)
“It 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.”
(Source)
I would like to point out the use of the word “schismatics” in that pronouncement. Schismatics are by definition those who had a schism (they split off) from the Catholic church. According to Catholics, that’s every other Christian denomination because Catholic theology claims that they are the true church. Certainly every protestant denomination is a schismatic from the Catholic church.
Clearly, non-Catholics – including non-Catholic Christians – can’t be saved according to the “infallible” pronouncement of the Catholic’s Church’s own Council of Florence…
Or can they?
The Second Vatican Council (mid 1900s), Lumen Gentium, Chapter 2, section 16.
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.
(Source)
The Catholic Church’s position has obviously softened on who can be saved. It has arguably softened to the point that you don’t even need to the gospel to be saved. Obviously, there are major issues with salvation apart from Christ, but that’s not the point here.
The point is the doctrine changed.
An “infallible” pronouncement made ~600 years ago contradicts another “infallible” pronouncement made ~60 years ago.
They can’t both be true.
Either:
- non-Catholics can be saved,
- OR
- non-Catholics can’t be saved.
You can’t have it both ways.
And just in case you think I’m misinterpreting the Catholic Church’s position, we can look at the Catechism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) affirms that non-Catholics can be saved multiple times.
CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC 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.” 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.
CCC 1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.
My point is not that the Catechism is infallible (because most Catholics argue it isn’t). My point is that the official “infallible” position of the Catholic Church conflicts with another of its own “infallible” ecumenical councils. Since the Catholic Church has two “infallible” positions that contradict each other, then the Catholic Church isn’t – and can’t be – infallible.
Having one contradiction alone is enough to disprove infallibility. However, there’s one more that’s worth looking at. It’s not quite a clash of two “infallible” pronouncements. However, it does show the Catholic Church’s position has changed on the requirements for salvation, and illustrates two other important things…
Let’s take a look.
Contradiction #2: Is baptism (with water) necessary for Salvation
The Council of Trent says the following in the 7th session, in the section on the canons of baptism (there are multiple canon sections in the 7th session)
CANON V. – If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
So according to Trent, if you aren’t baptized, you can’t be saved. Period. Full stop. End of story.
Further, it’s says that water (H2O) is necessary for baptism.
CANON II. – If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
Here’s the sticking point.
I would argue that “true and natural water” means actual water, aka H2O. So if you take Canon V and Canon II together, you must be baptized with water (H2O) to be saved.
EDIT: Some say that the Council of Trent actually teaches “Baptism of Desire” in Session 6, chapter 4. However, that Trent clearly repudiated “Baptism of Desire” can be confirmed for us by a Doctor of the Catholic Church who actually attended the Council of Trent, and even spoke during it. Let me repeat that: A doctor of the Catholic faith who attended and spoke at the Council of Trent says that Trent doesn’t allow for baptism of desire.
No, I’m not kidding
I would explain it, but it’ll probably be more meaningful coming from someone who’s a committed and devoted Catholic who clearly spent a lot of time devoted to proving this.
To be clear: I disagree entirely with the theology in the following video. I’m only embedding it here to establish the official Catholic position according to both councils and history.
The information presented makes it clear that Trent — even Session 6, chapter 4 — did not promote Baptism of Desire. The cannons do indeed mean what they say and “Baptism of Desire” is a heresy according to the official dogma of the Catholic Church.
If you are unconvinced, this video by the same fellow goes into much greater detail with far more information.
Now, the official dogma of the Catholic Church as established in the Council of Trent — that a man can’t be saved unless he has been baptized with water (H2O) — is directly contradicted by the Catechism. (which may or may not be “infallible”)
CCC 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.
CCC 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.
CCC 1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.
Or to quote from the much older Baltimore Catechism:
644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water
See the problem?
- The Council of Trent explicitly says that baptism is necessary for salvation. But the Catechism says baptism isn’t necessary for salvation (in some cases).
- The Council of Trent explicitly says that water is necessary for baptism. But the Catechism says water isn’t necessary for some baptisms.
This isn’t to prove a contradiction; it’s to show two related points.
Point #1 How Can You Know?
Let’s say – for the sake of argument – that the Catholic Church truly is “infallible in matters of faith and morals“. Let’s further say that the Catechism isn’t infallible, and only the canons of the official ecumenical councils count toward “infallible” doctrines.
Does that even matter?
I ask because the modern Catholic Church is teaching at least one doctrine that’s definitely wrong according to their own Council of Trent. (Baptism doesn’t always require water/h2O). Even if the Catholic Church is infallible, how would you know you’re getting accurate teaching at a parish level? If they’re teaching such grievous error in the Catechism – the official “deposit of faith” for the whole Catholic Church – then why should you trust anything but the ecumenical councils?
Virtually everyone in the entire Catholic Church – Pope, bishops, and priests alike – are all teaching something condemned as heresy ~500 years ago. How can you know whoever is teaching you is teaching proper, “infallible” Catholic doctrine? (Unless they only teach from the ecumenical Councils and the Bible)
It’s a problem worth considering, but leads to an even greater problem.
Point #2 Baptism of Blood/Desire = No Legitimate Clergy?
Let’s look at the canon of Trent again:
CANON II. – If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
Anathema.
If “anathema” sounds serious, that’s because it is. It’s the most serious form of excommunication, which actually separates a person from the Catholic church. (which prevented them from being saved for the vast majority of Catholic history).
But don’t take my word for it.
Here’s the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia on the topic of Anathema:
(And for Catholics, In 1907 it was given a Nihil Obstat by a Doctor of Sacred Theology, and an Imprimatur by an Archbishop. These certify that it’s free from doctrinal error and has the Catholic Church’s official seal of approval, though it’s not considered infallible.)
At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: “If any one says . . . let him be anathema”. 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. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and “that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven“. This distinction was introduced into the canons of the Church, as is proved by the letter of John VIII (872-82) found in the Decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII): “Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.”
Let’s make this connection.
- If you teach that “true and natural water” (H2O) isn’t necessary for Baptism, then you are under the penalty of Anathem…
- And If “Anathema” means you are cut off/excommunicated from the Catholic Church and are essentially declared to be a non-Catholic…
- Then all the Priests and Bishops who teach Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are (or should be) put under Anathema, and kicked out of the Catholic Church.
Here’s the problem: that’s virtually ALL of them.
The doctrines of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire (which don’t require water) are in the Catechism. Further, they’re not only in the modern Catechism, they’re also in the much older Baltimore Catechism. In America, the Baltimore Catechism was the standard Catholic school text from 1885 up until the middle of the last century. Since no one objected to it, the doctrine must’ve had the approval of the Catholic church.
So for at least 150 years, nearly every Catholic was taught a doctrine that – according to Trent – should place them under Anathema.
And priest were taught this.
Further, they taught it to others.
If you abide by the “infallible” canons of the Council of Trent, there aren’t any legitimate, non-Anathema-worthy Catholic Priests/Bishops left!
the Catholics claim the privilege of “infallibility in matters of faith and morals” based on what they call “apostolic succession”. They believe Peter was the first Pope, and that he had a legitimate successor which inherited the authority Jesus gave to Peter. They believe this authority was handed down from Pope to Pope in an unbroken line over the last ~2000 years, to the current Pope.
But what if this line was broken?
What if virtually every single priest and bishop for 150+ years has been teaching doctrines that made them worthy of Anathema? Wouldn’t the “line of apostolic succession” have been broken? Where does the Catholic Church get its authority if this line has been broken?
It’s a problem.
A huge one.
Conclusion
The Catholic Church “infallibly” declared that non-Catholics can’t be saved, then later changed its mind and “infallibly” declared that non-Catholics can be saved. Both can’t be true, and since they contradict each other the Catholic Church can’t be infallible.
Because the Council of Trent put under Anathema anyone who believes in “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire” (which don’t require water), all current Catholics who believe this way are – or should be – put under Anathema. This would break the line of “apostolic succession” from which the Catholic Church claims to derive its power of infallibility.
So no, they aren’t infallible.
However, that doesn’t necessarily prove anything else they believe is wrong. Their other doctrines must be examined piecemeal, one at a time, to see if they line up with scripture.
Some do, some don’t.
(Again, the modern Catholic Church does more for the poor than most other denominations. They certainly understand how to live out The Greatest Commandment in that way.)
If you are a Catholic reading this, I urge you as a fellow brother in Christ to become like the Bereans, after whom this website was named:
Acts 17:10-11
10 And immediately, the brothers sent away both Paul and Silas by night to Berea, who – when they arrived – went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 Now, these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica. They received the word with all eagerness; examining the scriptures every day to see if these things were so.
(The 66 books of scripture, not the expanded 73-book Catholic Bible. There’s an article on this website entitled: The Bible: 66 books vs 73 and Why (the “Apocrypha” Explained) )
Careful…If the Catholics read this and show it to the Pope…He might change his mind …and then you and I will be going straight to hell!!!
Most Catholics won’t even be interested to argue non do anythings about these kind of comments as they hv better things to do : )
I’m sorry to say but you’re wrong. The Catholic Church does not claim that they are infallible. The Office of the Pope is infallible, the pope himself is not infallible, and the church is not infallible, only the OFFICE OF THE POPE is infallible. And yes, I am Catholic and I have gone to Catholic school my entire life. We learned about religion and our religion everyday. I am not saying that I am better than you (like some people claim that we say) I am merely saying I probably know more about specifically the Catholic faith and that’s it.
From Vatican.va:
So… Please tell me where the Catholic church says they aren’t infallible?
Also, I have read the entire Catechism front-to-back, as well as many of the Ecumenical Councils, including all of Trent. You undoubtedly know more about day-to-day practice, but I have yet to meet the Catholic – including priests – who knows the official doctrine as set forth in the councils as well as I do.
Those excerpts from the CCC are obviously correct. However I do not believe that you fully understand them. The church teachings are not all in the CCC, otherwise the book would be impossibly thick. The church is only infallible when the pope speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) which has only been done once since it’s conception, during the First Vatican Council in 1870. It was invoked by Pope Pius XII in 1950 regarding the bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven. Please research this more, it sounds like you are very knowledgeable and have done tons of research. There are so many amazing articles about this topic but by the same token there are so many articles that are false or misguided or misleading (or any other synonym you want to use.) This is a very complex issue and can be hard to understand for someone outside the faith, and many inside the faith have issues understanding it.
Yes Ex Cathedra is considered infallible, but it’s not the only thing.
Please re-read the quote from Vatican II in the article. It clearly extends the prerogative of infallibility to the Bishops, though they must be in agreement with the Pope. Notice the use of the plural “they” in the quote; it’s “they” the Bishops, not “he” the Pope. I’m afraid you seem to be saying an Ecumenical Council – which was approved by the Pope – made a mistake about Catholic Doctrine. If that’s your claim, please source this claim with an authority in The Catholic Church which is greater than an Ecumenical Council.
If you can’t, then is it possible you were taught in error regarding this aspect of Catholic doctrine?
I simply do not know how to explain this issue to someone who is as close-minded as you. It seems you do not fully understand the very excerpts that you, yourself are quoting. The bishops are only infallible when restating infallible doctrines explained by the pope. This is simply too complex of an issue to argue over the internet. You say that you are not anti-Catholic but I have yet to see any article or paragraph on your website that supports this claim.
You made a truth claim, I’m merely looking for evidence of that truth claim. If you won’t provide evidence, you can’t expect to change someone’s mind (including mine). Can you provide evidence of some kind?
I like your write up. You seem to be knowledgeable but I’ll advise you to be careful with certain things especially in trying to say things against the Catholic church. It may go a long way to affect you.
Let me quote from your piece
“They can’t both be true.
Either:
non-Catholics can be saved,
OR
non-Catholics can’t be saved.”
Literally, everyone will conclude with what you have concluded on with regard to salvation and in relation to being Catholic or not.
Look at the date of the first article that said non Catholics will not be saved. Now, ask yourself if there were different Christians at that time. Remember, the church was one (Catholics) until there were divisions.
Pls if you don’t understand something, ask so that you are taught.
Thanks. I annoyed your write up anyway
Would like your comments on this admin. Thanks. Have a blessed day all. https://www.catholic.com/qa/whats-the-correct-understanding-of-no-salvation-outside-the-church
Notice he didn’t quote the whole passage from Florence, just the end. It specifically says near the beginning of the bit I quoted that “schismatics” can’t be saved. And since Catholic doctrine says they are the true church and every other denomination “split off” from them (i.e. they’re schismatics) I think the plain meaning is still very clear.
I think that article is a (poor) attempt to redefine the plain meaning of the council to make the Catholic church seem more open. I could be wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me.
I’m only half way through this, and already remembering the pain of trying to sift through all of the extra-biblical teachings of the roman catholic church myself…
This fact alone is contrary in nature to what Jesus said in Matthew 16:12 – “Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” Traditions of men.
What is a roman catholic church service except a weekly re-enactment of the traditions of men? A whopping 1-2 minutes of any given service is all I remember of the word being read (and not always in context), though it has been a long time since I have attended a service.
Jeff I agree with your thoughts on this topic, this is an incredibly insightful and right-on-point article. I have read it with great interest, word for word, thank you Berean Patriot. I myself was raised Catholic by my parents and for 42 years never questioned anything, recalling word for word the mass and all the lies taught from Catholic school grades 2 through high school graduation. The Truth of Jesus Christ and how we can all be Born Again was found after 42 years of painful lies and deception by the Catholic Church (catholic mentioned in the Bible simply means universal church, those saved by faith in christ, followers of Jesus), John 3:3 Except a man be Born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God, and John 14:6 I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me. The very words of Christ teach us what matters most is to be followers of Christ, accepting Him as your personal Savior, and your heart and mind will be transformed in Him alone. Without Christ we have no way to be with our perfect, Holy God. Rituals and rite, rambling prayers are as the heathen pray, we are to pray directly to God, confess directly to him, not a priest in a confessional, NOT to Mary, there is One mediator between God and man, that is the man Jesus Christ. GOD BLESS YOU ALL, I pray for you in your journey, seek His face, hear His voice, that is where you will find Salvation, His Grace and Mercy, not through any actions or works on our part, simply trusting and taking Jesus into your heart, not in a denomination nor a building, real the Word, the Bible, cathechisms are man’s changes to the pure words of our Lord, and highly distort God’s intentions for us. I have been saved now for 10 years and wanted to share with anyone who will hear, time is short Jesus is returning for those who trust in Him alone.
I’m a former protestant philosopher and apologist; I would be embarrassed if I had written this article as it is exposes the author’s ineptitude or deceitfulness. Which I cannot say but there is nothing here that is even remotely challenging as each assertion is a straw man.
Congratulations, you knocked down nothing regarding the Catholic Church and only showed the world that you are either inept or deceitful.
Your claim that the Council of Trent teaches against the concept of Baptism of Blood and Desire is false. You can clearly find in the Catechism of the Council of Trent the following passage:
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, *their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness*.
This is a clear example of the power of sincere desire being able to make up for one’s lack of baptism in an extraordinary manner being taught by proper authority. So unless you want to argue the Council Fathers of Trent were contradicting themselves immediately, you should make it clear the second half of your article and your interpretation about Baptism of Blood and Desire in the Church is false.
However, you are right in pointing out the contradictions between the Traditional Church (everything before Vatican II) and the statements of Vatican II. There is clear contradiction that Catholics have to reckon with, and the only conclusions are either a false Church has been set up deceiving most while the Traditional Church survives in the “catacombs” so to speak, or the claims of the Catholic Church herself are false. I side with the former.
First, the “Catechism of the Council of Trent” isn’t actually part of the Council of Trent, but rather produced later by an anti-reformation cardinal shortly after Trent. Sure it has some weight, but not even in the same league as the canons of Trent.
Second; man, it does seem like they contradicted themselves hundreds of years sooner than I thought (if it was authoritative). You can’t cay “You can’t be saved without baptism” and then say “You can be saved without baptism.” without contradicting yourself. If Trent itself contained an exception, that might be something. It doesn’t; not to my knowledge.
Thank you! I’ve gotten through a few articles now. Great presentation of your research. It seems to have been done with both gentleness and respect.
I commend you also for your replies to the thread, your restraint was admirable; even ignoring the ad hominem attack veiled in a straw man assertion must have been difficult. I commend you, brother.
Keep up the good fight and thank you again for sharing your findings.
Hello, I’m back. I found this article is a nice article as well… http://faith.nd.edu/show_module_fw2.aspx?sid=1210&gid=609&control_id=52960&nologo=1&cvprint=1&page_id=27457&crid=0&viewas=user
Baptism with water or without is entirely superfluous in this discussion. It starts from an unbiblical principle. Christ never said baptism was required to be saved. The whole starting premise of this discussion is incorrect to begin with so the discussion is moot. Catholic Church teaching that you must be baptized to be saved is not biblical so it matters not whether there is water or blood or desire.
I know the point of this article is infallibility, but the writer could have written from the knowledge that the bible says baptism is a way to express your gratitude for being saved. That required baptism is necessary to be saved is unbiblical so therefore any requirement the Catholic Church has is fallible because it doesn’t align with the Bible on this doctrine.
Just because a church claims their pope is in the apololistic line and has the same authority as the Apostles does not make it so. Where in the Bible did Jesus say that the Apostles could make up their own rules for salvation, and that their successors could do the same? The Apostles didn’t make up their own canon.
The fact that a church makes claims that are not biblical makes it therefore fallible, and the rest of their doctrine suspect which needs to be scrutinized. Especially due to the fact that they rely on an additional seven books written during the time of no prophets that they include in their bible but that’s another story.
I am a Catholic, and I am not a religious scholar of any sort, nor do I claim that I fully understand everything in the Holy Bible. But I did not need to finish reading your article about the Catholic churches chatechism and laws etc., to know that the Catholic church is not infallible. I do not remember the exact versers or even which books the things I will quote but I know I have read it and they can be found in the bible.
So many Catholics take SO MUCH PRIDE in telling the world that our origin and tradition go back to St.Peter, The Rock, the keeper of keys, the lead apostle, etc… It might be true. But that’s all there is to it..Empty Pride. Correct me if I am wrong but Lucifer’s downfall was his PRIDE wan’t it? Tradition doesn’t guarantee infallability.
And that “direct lineage” never proves the Catholic Church’s infallability. On the contrary, it proves that the “Church” is prone to mistakes. Peter was never depicted to be perfect. He betrayed Jesus by denying he knew Jesus.
Paul wrote in one of his letters that he corrected Peter in his face! Paul actually made the first “In Your Face!” statement! And it was against Peter. So Peter actually made a mistake! So, Peter, the chosen one of Christ to be the head of His “Church”, an apostle whom the Holy Spirit actually blessed, made mistakes, so what makes the “Church” think that they could not commit any? Seriously,not all priests and bishops and archbishops are blessed by the Holy Spirit. Some,if not most of them have the devil enter them. Judas,an original 12 had the devil enter him right in front of Jesus. Catholics can argue that it was the plan of God the Father. True, but it just points out the fact that even the “chosen ones” can be used by the devil. Then Christ prophesied that there will be false teachers even in the “Church”. So false teachers=false teachings=not infallible.
I am a Catholic and I know that not all Catholic teachings are true. The Bible clearly points at them.
Why would you continue to be Catholic if you know not all Catholic teachings are true? Jesus is the TRUTH. Satan isn’t messing around with lies that don’t matter.
Dear Bereanpatriot,
You really missed an important point here. There is an important caveat in the Catholic theology- Invincible Ignorance. Catholic church has always held that Non-Catholics can be saved, provided they are in a state of Ignorance (Take a look at what Aquinas has to say on that: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm#article2)
Now, the Council of Florence holds that the Church is necessary for Salvation- the essential component for culpability- it must be willing. So, the Church holds that those outside the Church can be saved if it is “by no fault of their own”.[Here is how Culpability works: CCC §1857 “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”]
This is certainly the position held by the Church throughout history- you have St. Justin Martyr(2nd century), St. Augustine(3rd cent.), St. Alphonseus Liguri(17th century) among others, holding on to the Anonymous Christian/ Virtuous Pagan theory. Even the Council of Trent held that Trinitarian Baptisms, even those performed by Heretics- have regenerative Character and cleanse you of Original Sin: “If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.”- (Council of Trent, Session 7, On Baptism, Canon 4)
As for Baptism, I think your ‘attack’ looks really stupid
“CANON II. – If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.”
Well, that for those who “SAY THAT Baptism is not of NECCESITY”. Now, Catholicism holds Baptismal Regeneration and the Absolute neccessity of a Proper Baptism to regenerate the Soul- but in case of Emergencies, the Church totally believes in the Baptism of Desire- Catholic theology holds that Baptism of Desire is what was given to the Thief on the Cross(Luke 23:43), since he had no access to Water Baptism. In the same Council that anathematised those who said that water baptism is not neccessary for salvation, it also affirmed the Baptism of Desire “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, *without them* or *without the desire of them* through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.”
-(Council of Trent, Session 7, On Sacraments in General, Canon 4)
A more clear statement: “By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or *the desire thereof*, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
-(Session 6, On Justification, Canon 4)
Look friend, when you argue on how the Church teaches X here and says Y there- and it’s a ‘contradiction’, then it’s no better than a really foolish Atheist saying that the Bible saying “You shall not Kill” in the Ten Commandments, and then goes on listing a whole range of places where one is not simply allowed, but commanded to kill, and all the places where Death Penalty is mandated in the Mosaic Law.
Except the Ten Commandments don’t say “you shall not kill”; they say “you shall not murder”; big difference. (When the KJV was translated, “kill” meant then what “murder” does today, but the word’s meaning changed over time.) Check the Hebrew word: it means “murder” in the sense of “unjustifiable homicide” and can’t be applied to a lawful/judicial execution.
Also, the concept of “invincible ignorance” is directly contradicted by the scriptures:
To quote an old proverb, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
To Trent, and the “without the desire of them” excerpt. As your source citation correctly says, that’s on the sacraments “in general”. Law always starts with the general and then moves to the specific. “In general” the desire of them is stated to be enough. But in specific as far as baptism goes, the desire is explicitly stated not to be enough.
Regardless of what any church father said, the Catholic councils are the official position of the church. Florence especially (but many others) make it clear that not Catholic = not saved. (at least until more recent history)
After 26 years of study and a DR. of Education in bible study, I have encountered numerous religions and read 100s of books. I find you are a complete idiot on the Bible, using your personal interpretation of passages no different than the Anti Baptist or now Baptist religion . The King James bible is a complete mess, Martin Luther wanted his own bible so he picked only what HE wanted. The Catholic church is the first church we all know this. I am a Christian and believe in GOD that is the real point. Not bashing doctrine or denominations. More important the first real bible had how many books?? You are saved by faith and believing in God, not by $ as most KJ bible churches believe.
A warning sir, if your comment had been one mere ounce more disrespectful I might’ve deleted it. You may express your thoughts here as long as you do so with civility. Name calling is not allowed.
To your comment, the canon of the OT scripture was decided by God Himself through the final three prophets of the OT, and is identical to the Protestant and Jewish canon. See my article The Bible: 66 books vs 73 and Why (the “Apocrypha” Explained).
Your “argument from authority” doesn’t provide proof that any particular point is wrong. If you believe my interpretation of Scripture is wrong, please show how. Further, if you’d read my article What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why?, you would know I don’t actually recommend the KJV as a primary translation.
1. Outside the Catholic Church means not bearing the grace of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him is in the Church even if he is not baptized. The Church is the mystical body of Christ (the Church). The Holy Spirit is the soul of the body of Christ. Any person who has the Holy Spirit in him is part of the mystical body Christ. What makes one a member of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
2.Baptism of water, baptism of desire and baptism of blood are called baptism but they are not the same. They are called baptism because they result in the grace of salvation i.e. the Holy Spirit being imparted into the soul which as already mentioned above makes one a member of the mystical body of Christ, the Church. Baptism of water is a sacrament. The other two baptisms are not. A sacrament has 1) matter and 2) form . The matter of the sacrament of baptism is the sprinkling or pouring of water. The form is the words uttered by the minister. Without either the matter or the form, it is not a sacrament. Without water or the words being uttered by minister, there is no baptism of water. The act cannot save.
In summary, the councils mentioned did not contradict each other. It’s only the understanding of the untrained which contradict each other.
In logic, there is what they call equivocal terms, words that are written or said in the same way but refer to different things, regardless of if they have something in common or not. Of such kind are baptism (of water), baptism (of desire) and baptism (of blood). They are three different things with similar effects 1) remission of sin 2)the sending of the Holy Spirit into the soul 3) divine adoption as a child of God 4) membership in the Church, the mystical body of Christ, and similar names. But they are different realities. The first is a sacrament. The other two are not. A sacrament is a sign and means of grace. They are deliberately resorted to impart and to obtain grace. The other two are not. Normally, when we say ‘baptized’, it has reference to baptism of water. When we say ‘martyred for the Christian faith’, it refers to baptism of blood. We normally don’t become aware of somebody being baptized through desire. It’s a theological term coined to refer to the possibility of salvation of those who are not members of the Church , to whom the Holy Spirit is given by God to those who obey him (Acts 5:32). Obedience to God is possible with everyone because of the natural law ( 10 commandments).
We can say that those who obey the natural law, obey God. Even those who are not baptized Catholics, by the help of the Holy Spirit may be inspired to actually strive to obey the commandments of God and to seek him (Acts 17:23).
Dear friend!
Great work … and my only response is of gratitude and encouragement, well done! And considering the few rebukes/questioning on your delivery here, from experience, Canadian and American Christians especially, are the first to argue and debate, and last to learn (Unfamiliar with James 1:19); caught up in their denominational proud doctrine, not founded in scripture, the devils doing, while fulfilling God’s warning in Galatians 5:15, and have mastered it well.
On the other hand, my Third World Nations ministry, thank you, Jesus, they have three favorite words; TELL ME MORE – and their growing daily, 7 days a week, even amidst the PlanDemic, amen!
Enough said!
Regarding the comment above: DR. Sosna JULY 14, 2021
Dr. Sosna, from a professional perspective, considering your boasting of 26+ years of study, I’m guessing, NOT! Why?
1/ your unprofessional conduct of immediate attack and disrespect
2/ you sound to satisfy Proverbs 29:20 “There is more hope for a fool than for someone who speaks without thinking.” [I use NLT by the way for ease of understanding by ‘ALL’ – and no there is no, ‘King James Onlyism’ or translation conspiracies – http://jamesdprice.com/kingjamesonlyism.html ]
3/ your being of such learned capacity appears as likely as me confronting an assailant before he attacks that “I’m a Third Dan-Blackbelt,” and his response being, “I am also, this should be interesting!” to which I would respond; “NO YOU’RE NOT, or you wouldn’t be instigating and/or challenging another human being – your call!”
We are to be like Christ, not anyone else, but of Christ – and respect, gratitude, and love top the list, and your response is the furthest, for which I believe you are capable of much more. Blessings -happy 2022 and beyond!
Consider the words of Cardinal Gibbons:
You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God’ revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error.
If, indeed, our Savior had visibly remained among us, no interpreter would be needed, since He would explain His Gospel to us; but as He withdrew His visible presence from us, it was eminently reasonable that He should designate someone to expound for us the meaning of His Word.
A Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal Infallibility, used the following language: “For my part, I have an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require.” This assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand the test of sound criticism.
Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for Him. You make every man his own Pope. If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible – and this is a privilege you do not claim – then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?
If God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? For would it not be most unreasonable in Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving him a means of ascertaining its precise import? Do you not reduce God’s Word to a bundle of contradictions, like the leaves of the Sybil, which gave forth answers suited to the wishes of every inquirer?
Of the hundred and more Christian sects now existing in this country, does not each take the Bible as its standard of authority, and does not each member draw from it a meaning different from that of his neighbor? Now, in the mind of God the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle: “An infallible Bible is enough for me,” and does it not proclaim the absolute necessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter? You tell me to drink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in passing through the medium of your interpretation?
How satisfactory, on the contrary, and how reasonable is the Catholic teaching on this subject! According to that system, Christ says to every Christian: Here, My child, is the Word of God, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who will expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its difficulties. Here are the waters of life, but I have created a channel that will communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without sediment of error. Here is the written Constitution of My Church. But I have appointed over it a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one “to whom I have given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,” who will preserve that Constitution inviolate, and will not permit it to be torn into shreds by the conflicting opinions of men. And thus My children will be one, as I and the Father are one.
-Cardinal Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, Baltimore: John Murphy Co., p. 135
Think about it. Christianity is not of human origin; rather, it is the revelation of God. This revelation was communicated by Christ, and by His Apostles (see 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 and 2 Corinthians 5:20). In order that this truth be preserved from error, Christ promised His guidance and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Church, the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). (See also Matthew 28:20, John 14:16-20, and John 16:12-15). That way, each of us can attain the truth of God’s revelation just as the Apostles did. Now the infallibility of the Church must be rightly understood. Whenever the Church infallibly defines a doctrine, it is expounding for us a truth that has been true all along, and believed to have been true all along. For example, the canon of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they were written. When Popes Damasus I and Innocent I confirmed them in the fourth and fifth centuries, respectively, they were not creating a new doctrine – just defining a preexisting one. This is just one example that the Church does not “make up” her doctrines as time goes on.
As for your two objections, you presented the law of non-contradiction pretty well, but did not apply it correctly. You wrote, and I’m going to copy and paste here, Throughout most of the Catholic Church’s history, they maintained that non-Catholics couldn’t be saved. Ever. Uh, no. This is one of the biggest lies about Catholicism, a doctrine that we have NEVER taught. In fact, when the Jansenists maintained that the Sacraments administered outside the Church were only objectively valid, but not subjectively effective (i.e., that no grace was given outside the Church), their teaching was condemned by Pope Clement XI. However, we hold that “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” This refers to heretical sects, in so far as they are sects. Merciful, almighty God would not eternally punish a believer of some heresy who earnestly believes in his religion and thinks that it will save him. This is an example of the implicit Baptism of Desire. A lot of people have a tough time with the Baptism of Desire, but it is alluded to in Scripture by the story of the good thief, and is explained in 1 John 4:7.
This circles back to the Baptism with water. Water (and invoking the Holy Trinity) is necessary for Baptism to be efficacious. If anyone says otherwise, well, let him be anathema. However, in special and unusual circumstances, there can be substitutions for natural Baptism. When a believer for some reason cannot receive the Baptism of Water, the effects of the sacrament may be conferred through the Baptism of Desire or the Baptism of Blood. An explicit Baptism of Desire consists of an act of perfect contrition (sorrow for one’s sins solely because they offend God, Who is all good) and an ardent wish to be Baptized. If someone doesn’t know the necessity of Baptism but wants to do all that is necessary for salvation, his desire is called implicit and is sufficient. Baptism of Blood is martyrdom (choosing to die for the Faith). Jesus says in Matthew 10:39, “Whoever finds his life shall lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” Anyone who would be willing to die for Christ is already prepared for Heaven, and for an unbaptized person to be martyred would certainly signify a saint.
The biggest problem with your article is your erroneous definition of infallibility. You said that
Infallible means “free from the possibility of ever being wrong“.
Check out these four articles from Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com). They should help you understand what the Catholic Church teaches about infallibility.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/infallibility
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/infallibility
https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility
https://www.catholic.com/video/when-is-the-pope-infallible
I apologize if this comment is tediously long, but please, this is an important concept that needs to be understood.
You point out the diversity of denominations, but it was God Himself who says that they are “necessary”.
The word translated “factions” there is usually translated “sects”, and translating it “denominations” wouldn’t be wrong.
To salvation outside the church, read the quote from the Council of Florence again. It’s explicit that no non-catholic – even a non-catholic who was martyred for his faith – can be saved. If you disagree, you need to tell me why the Catholic Councils are wrong, in which case you’ve defeated your own argument. Dying for the faith is often considered the peak of devotion to God, and yet the Council of Florence was explicit that even non-Catholic martyrs couldn’t be saved.
If you’re going to be Catholic, please be consistent and and submit to the Church’s teachings on the salvation of non-Catholics… which has changed so you get to say that non-Catholics, and even non-Christians can be saved if you like; see CCC 847 in the article.
The Church had used the Bible well before the Council of Florence, and the truth behind 1 John 4:7, Matthew 10:39, or any other verses has not changed. For a better understanding of what the Council meant, see the following link.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/whats-the-correct-understanding-of-no-salvation-outside-the-church
It is very helpful.
As for 1 Corinthians 11:19, using “sects” would seem ridiculous considering the context. 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 reads, “In giving this instruction, I do not praise the fact that your meetings are doing more harm than good. First of all, I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; there have to be factions among you in order that those who are approved among you may become known. When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you.”
Clearly St. Paul is not instructing them to split off into separate denominations, each of which has its own beliefs. Very shortly afterwards he goes on to explain the Mystical Body of Christ (12:12-31). 1 Corinthians 12:12 gives a great account of the unity of Christ’s Body:
“As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.”
See also John 10:1-21. In particular I want you to read verse 16 with regard to sects:
“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock, one Shepherd.”
That article doesn’t touch on the most important part of the quote, which is this:
That’s pretty clear. That article seems like an attempt to rationalize away the plain meaning of the council to make the Catholic Church seems less odious in modern times.
I didn’t say God instructed them to split, and of course He values unity, but He (writing through Paul) said that divisions/factions/sects (however you want to translate it) are “necessary”, or as that translation says: “there have to be”. They can and do work together though, and I’ve seen it repeatedly in my life where the churches in a town would get together and work together. Unity and factions at the same time, just saying.
In John 10:16, Jesus seems to be speaking of the gentiles. I really don’t see how that relates, since I would argue all true Christians are “one flock” with Jesus regardless of denomination.
Ignoring the context and intent of your references is dishonest.
Also, listing caveats, as well as expounding on principles or defining terms more fully and what they do or don’t encompass, doesn’t contradict general rules.
For example, the Council’s of Florence statement on who can be saved. That must be interpreted in light of all other Catholic doctrine, such as the Church’s stance on willful vs invincible ignorance, that the Sacraments are the “normal means” of grace, the schismatics who have valid but illicit sacraments, etc., which are all relevant here.
Also, the historical context is important. Consider the difference between the Lollards and your average Evangelical in the American South, who is not proximate to the Council in either time or space. Two different worlds when it comes to their rejection of Catholicism. The former had to willfully separate themselves from an all-encompassing Church. The latter, relatively isolated from the knowledge of what a Catholic even is (especially before the advent of the Internet, which is in living memory), only knows what grandpappy taught him. And when it comes to church splits, he only knows he belongs to the Umpteenth Baptist Church that he can see from his front porch. Sure, there may be fifty other denominational creeds in his region, but no one around teaches that it matters at the end of the day. When he asks his pastor about the Methodists and Presbyterians, his pastor gives him some politically correct answer. Besides, just last year, little Johnny married little Suzy from the Advent Christian church, and her brother married someone from the Church of God of Prophecy. So none of it matters, right?
As far as Baptism, that, again, is taken out of context. Did you check to see whether “Baptism” was being used in the one sense, or in the triple sense? And notice the Council explicitly mentions those who take John 3 as a mere metaphor. Saying that Catholics who believe in baptism of blood and baptism of desire when the *normal means* of grace is not available are in the same boat as the Pentecostal Holiness who see it as mere symbolism (such belief is what the Council meant) is laughable.
Are you sure this isn’t satire? Your attempts are more pathetic than that one YouTuber who tries to disprove the existence of God. He comes across as doing it for clicks, but you actually put in effort, fell short, and still promoted error.
You can’t learn what Catholicism actually stands for overnight. It’s riches are vast and deep, covering nearly two thousand years. And you especially can’t learn from mostly studying ignorant detractors.
I’m a convert from an independent Holiness, Pentecostal background to Catholicism. That was not a light decision, and my religious family gave me flack for it. They even cut me off for a while. I wouldn’t have done it unless it was the only option that made sense.
And please try to approach Catholicism from a stance other than, “Let me try to prove this wrong.” The way to find the proper context, in my experience, is to try to prove something right. You’ll either find an explanation for supposed contradictions, or you won’t. But you’re less likely to find them if you don’t look for them.
I did approach it honestly, that’s why I read the entire Council of Trent and the entire Catechism in my youth because some Catholic friends insisted the Catholicism was true. I spent a good year or three looking into it, and was unimpressed. (Clergy marriage was a big one. The Bible requires it but Trent says a priest can’t be validly married.)
If you want to make a contextual argument about the Council of Florence, then consider that the Lollards really aren’t that different from many modern Protestant denominations in most points. Most consider them proto-reformers as their beliefs are quite similar. If the church was infallible, you’d imagine that the Holy Spirit would’ve inspired a clause that allows Protestants to be saved if they could be saved according to Catholic theology. However, there’s no such clause. Instead we have a clear statement that not even non-Catholic martyrs can be saved. (I would say a similar thing about baptism)
Invincible ignorance isn’t an excuse either, since it’s explicitly taught against in the Bible; see Lev 5:17 and Luke 12:47-48. Ignorance might lessen the punishment, but can’t eliminate it according to Jesus.
Thank you for your articles and staying honest and open minded in your research. I pray God continues to use you and keep his hand on you, so that you may have peace and patience and kindness and not become prideful or arrogant. Also that those who come against you find truth in the work you have shown so that they may truly find Christ if they have not, or if they have that they find freedom from doctrine and the blessing of a personal relationship with The Father and our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Keep up such great work, brother. I have enjoyed reading and learning.
Thank you for the kinds words and especially the prayer. 🙂
wow bro,no one in the comment section can disprove you even tho there are a lot of comments here,those who oppose your first point either forget the “schismatics” part or the “unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives” part from council of florence,Great job
i want to make website like this for alologetics,how much do you spend per month for this?
Thanks (for your previous comment), and go ahead and send me an email via the contact page. Email is better for that to keep things on-topic.
Blessings to you Brother @BereanPatriot!
I am in awe of God’s grace upon you to have maintained self control, clarity and calmness towards those who literally disrespects.
You have laid down the facts and the essentials of the topic.
I am grateful to the Lord we serve that the Holy Spirit lead me to this article.
In my side of the family, only me and my children are followers and lovers of Christ Jesus for more than 2 decades now and counting till the next generation to come.
We trust our Lord to meet all our relatives and friends and people within our circle of influence where they are. We are looking forward to that day when they repent and ask for forgiveness as they will humbly respond in acceptance that JESUS is the only Mediator between God and man and that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works.
Praying for our God’s hedge of protection to surround you, your family and your ministry and that His favor and goodness follow you and everyone you cherish all the days of your lives!
I’m glad you enjoyed it and I really appreciate the prayer; thank you very much! 🙂
I’m only a curious party so don’t have a dog in this fight (yet anyway), but I don’t see these as huge falsifying Catholicism problems with the issues you bring up. As another commenter pointed out, that seems like a misreading around baptism and the Council of Trent and there are plenty of sources around all that from well before the council and after. I can’t write a quick post on no salvation outside the Church nor would I really be qualified to. What is outside? What is the Church? What were the interpretations at the time and between then and now? Yes, not all interpretations by all people at all times are identical or correct. I’d recommend reading Bishop George Hay to start with and then move on to Bellarmine, Aquinas, and Scotus. You’ll find the longer expositions there assuming you’re still curious about this years later ;). Also, these aren’t novel criticisms that Catholics haven’t heard before so I’m not sure why it’s presented as such.
So, the issue (and point of the article) isn’t “falsifying Catholicism”. It’s simply to show that Catholic Church’s “infallible” doctrine has changed and contradicts itself occasionally, and thus it isn’t actually infallible. That’s it. That’s the whole point of the article and I wasn’t intending to make another point. While these might not be “novel”, they are serious as it regards infallibility.
If I have misread Trent’s treatment of baptism, please quote the part of Trent that I missed/misunderstood which addresses baptism and shows that I’m wrong. I’m willing to change my mind, but I will need sufficient evidence first.
To salvation outside the church, can you explain how I’ve misunderstood the text of Florence? I’m happy to accept quotes by the men you mention, but they will need to deal clearly with the Council of Florence’s statements on the matter. (as well as similar statements going back 1500+ years)
Hey there! Very well done article, thank you. Apologies to you for the Catholics who commented and weren’t very charitable. I used to be protestant until discovering Catholicism, so I went through some of this.
I’d like to first comment only on your first example regarding non-Catholics being saved. The purpose of Florence was to reunite churches who had split from Rome and settle theological differences between churches.
I think that most Christians assumed Pagans wouldn’t be saved. Which is why the text emphasizes that it’s not just pagans it’s, “all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life”
The quote ends with “unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
Pagans, jews, heretics, schismatics, are examples of those who seemingly do not persevere in the unity of Catholic Church.
Vatican 2 does not change this teaching, or contradict it, but gives an example of how someone may be persevering in the bosom and unity of the catholic church without knowing it (invincible ignorance)
That a pagan or heretic or schismatic can be one of those things “through no fault of their own”
Basically Florence is saying “can’t be saved unless unified with the Catholic Church” and then Vatican 2 says “and here’s a way a non-Catholics may be unified with the Catholic Church”
I do agree that the Catholic Church needs to give clarity over this – and that the ambiguity is not helpful.
However, even with the difficulty in understanding these contradictions, I believe that the evidence FOR the Catholic Church’s infallible magisterium is much greater than the evidence AGAINST, and of course I am biased 🙂
Curious your thoughts.
So, a general first answer and then more specifics. I have noticed that modern Catholics tend to redefine terms to soften earlier Catholic teachings. The meaning of “schismatics” seems clear, as does the statement about even martyrs not able to be saved. Florence seems to include every single non-Catholic by casting the widest possible net.
If you read what Florence says about unity, you’ll see that a major issue was returning to unity with “the Greeks”. Phrases like: “to bring about the unity of the catholic faith between these churches” and “He cannot have God as his father If he does not hold the unity of the church i he who does not agree with the body of the church and the whole brotherhood, cannot agree with anyone” seem to entirely contradict your argument that non-Catholics can be in unity with the Catholic church. They were quite clear that “the Greeks” weren’t in unity with the Catholic church. Thus, according to the usage of “unity” inside of Florence itself, non-Catholics don’t seem to be in unity with the Catholic church and thus can’t be saved.
Perhaps the most clear repudiation of your position can be found in “Ineffabilis Deus“, the “infallible” pronouncement from the Pope about the Immaculate Conception. (For non-Catholics reading this comment: the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary was conceived without original sin.) Here’s the clearest example from its text:
“Ineffabilis Deus” also had statements about Mary referencing her supposed “freedom from every stain of sin” and “to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely” and most clearly that she was: “entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light“. Thus, it not only defined the Dogma of Immaculate Conception, but also that Mary was sinless her entire life. If you don’t believe these things, you are not in unity with the Catholic church and thus — according to Florence — cannot be saved.
And a quick note about “invincible ignorance”. I recommend that you read Leviticus 5:17, which flatly contradicts the idea of invincible ignorance. Luke 12:47-48 reinforces that repudiation, adding that ignorance can reduce the punishment but not eliminate it.
(immediately noticed an error in my comment. third paragraph first sentence I meant christians assumed pagans wouldn’t* be saved)
Fixed. 🙂 I’ll reply to the substance of the comment later.