These beliefs have since changed on both sides of the divide, as Christian faith groups have become more accepting of other denominations. Even beliefs about Hell itself have moderated; it is now seen by many religious groups to be simply a place of isolation from God.
Dante has a pagan get saved. In his tale, which no one is expected to take literally, the pagan in question is, resuscitated and baptized, and then allowed to die again, so that he can be saved. He did not get in trouble for writing this. And the meaning is clear: The boundaries of the Church are known to God, not to us.
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.”
This where one has to use one's head. Hint: View this as a definition of the Church, NOT just a statement about who gets saved and who doesn't. Christ does not have more than one body. The saved are members of the body.
Mutatis mutandis with Boniface's bull.
You can insist on reading it as if it says: "If you do not, before you die, submit yourself to the Pope, they're gonna set the oven to 'extra crispy.'" OR you can read it as I do, that if all those whom God chooses also had the grace to see that BY THAT CHOICE of GOD's they are subject to the Roman Pontiff, they're walk would have a whole lot more consolations than it does.
As to Pope Eugene: I DO think there is a special burden on tthose borught up in the Catholic Church to study and to travel far, if need be, to find the best advice and counsel before they apostasize.
But I do not think that God is a vindictive jerk trying to make it hard for those he loves. He understands better than you or I do that being brought up in dysfunctional families and dysfunctional parishes amounts to having the rational faculty and the will under unceasing attack. He knows when someone errs about WHERE truth and justice lie, and erring about that, chooses the wrong path.
And such invincibly ignorant apostates cannot really be held to be in mortal sin because they were misled by a buynch of really lousy Catholics who used religion as cover for their proposing their lousy, neurotic, problems.
I still think that when you say:,br>There has been considerable movement by the Roman Catholic Church concerning the salvation status of non-Catholics. The church has gradually changed from an exclusivist to an inclusivist position,
you are not putting the experience of your earlier life in the right slot in the hierarchy of truth.
Does that not put you in the pre-destinationist camp? Other FRoman Catholics have vociferously denied any Catholic belief in pre-destination.
And such invincibly ignorant apostates cannot really be held to be in mortal sin because they were misled by a buynch of really lousy Catholics who used religion as cover for their proposing their lousy, neurotic, problems.
In essence, then, nothing in the Catholic church has really change in regards to those outside of it going to hell. All Vatican II did was make a few exceptions to the teaching that weren't there before. It never came out and explicitly denied the teachings of the Catholic church for the proceeding 1500 years, that is that those outside the Catholic church are going to hell.
There has been considerable movement by the Roman Catholic Church concerning the salvation status of non-Catholics. The church has gradually changed from an exclusivist to an inclusivist position,
So, in effect, the RCC is gradually changing its doctrine. Which is right then? What it taught for the first 1500 years of its existence? Or what has been taught recently? Since truth is truth and stands by itself and is not subject to change, then tell me, which is right? Before or after Vatican II?