PDA

View Full Version : The Identity of God.



37818
03-27-2014, 06:53 PM
The term God does not give us God's identity. But God nevertheless has a very real identity. This identity if it is not God, there is no God. In other words this identity is very real.

The universe is not God. And the universe, meaning: everything that exists. Now consider the question "does God exist?" The problem with this question and that the universe being everything that exists, it makes such a God part of His creation. Which of course He is not. The universe being God's creation.

Now the tautology Existence exists, is a simple self-evident truth. Now space is a type of existence. Every material thing exists in space in some way. Even the non-material things which make up the material things. (Such as electromagnetic energy and gravity.)

Now the things in space do not make space.

Now our simple tautology existence exists. Everything real has existence of some kind. Since different things are not the same things, they which have existence are not the existence which self exists.

The self existent existence is omnipresent, and possesses everything and anything which is real.

Existence defines what is true. Truth being what really exists.

The self existent existence needs no God.

Now that self existent existence is the very identity of God. God's Hebrew name means "Self Existent."

The self-existent existence is the true ontological proof of God. Being it is God's identity.

Something more here: Self existent is not caused and is eternal in not having any beginning nor end. And being eternal is a an immutability.

Noting existence defines what is true. And truth is immutable - absolute. It does not change. The law of non-contradiction.

But our created universe is temporal. Was caused, all causes are temporal. So whether there is only one discrete cause for the universe or an infinite series leading up to the universe that is now. Either case requires an uncaused cause.

Now an uncaused cause has two natures. Uncaused is eternal. And a cause is always temporal. So it requires an agent which is both the uncaused, which we identify as the self existent existence. And that the agent is also temporal being a cause. Which is another entity different from being uncaused. This agent is both uncaused and a cause. And that these two entities being both the same and different in being a common uncaused. The common uncaused nature constitutes a third entity being an uncaused essence.

We have the self existent existence.
Which precedes everything - which constitutes the fundamental order - which is both uncaused and a cause in of itself.
Both the uncause existence and the uncaused order/cause are two entities being one uncaused essence constituting a third entity which make those three the one entity we know as God.

Self Existent, uncaused entity (The Hebrew Name: Yahweh.)
The uncaused order/cause being both uncaused and temporal. (the Logos)
And the one uncaused essence - which makes the three entities the one entity. (the Holy Spirit)

Christianbookworm
03-27-2014, 06:58 PM
Sounds good. But can I please play Devil's Advocate and ask how your proof proves the Christian God and not the one of the deists?
(I am a Christian, just want to encourage discussion with some devil advocating. Even though I'm not so good at philosophy. I just had one class in college.)

Christianbookworm
03-27-2014, 07:46 PM
Are you playing devil's advocate in the thread you made in the apologetic section?

shunyadragon
03-28-2014, 05:05 AM
If you are dealing with the possibilities of the nature of a 'Source' some call god(s) there may be a possible dialogue here in Plilosophy, but I am not this is the correct forum, nonetheless I will provide my case on What is the nature of God?' In a separate section of Comparitive Religions I proposed a discussion that does lead to this question, assuming the fallible 'human perspective,' Some of the assumptions that I base my logic are as follows:

The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

The second assumption is truth as well as knowledge is relative from the human perspective, and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.

The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions are too inconsistent to be there be a reliable doctrine or dogma concerning nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, and fourth assumptions.

The Pixie
03-28-2014, 05:08 AM
Now that self existent existence is the very identity of God.
This needs to be established (and pointing out how it is labelled in hebrew does not do that).

But our created universe is temporal. Was caused, all causes are temporal. So whether there is only one discrete cause for the universe or an infinite series leading up to the universe that is now. Either case requires an uncaused cause.
Again, you need to establish that the universe was caused. It could have appeared spontaneously, it could be eternal (the Big Bang indicates our space-time had a start, but our space-time could exist in a larger continuum).

shunyadragon
03-28-2014, 05:09 AM
In response to your argument concerning caused and uncaused, being a basis for the nature of the 'Source,' is more part of the argument for the existence of god(s), not necessarily the nature of God. From the natural perspective the cause is the inherent nature of the Laws of Nature and our physical existence that could possibly be eternal.

robrecht
03-28-2014, 05:12 AM
... God's Hebrew name means "Self Existent."...

Self Existent, uncaused entity (The Hebrew Name: Yahweh.)

...Are you sure about that?

shunyadragon
03-28-2014, 10:32 AM
Are you sure about that?

This represents a highly interpretive meaning of Yahweh. In other words quit a stretch of meaning. Yes, if God exists God is obviously a self-existent uncaused entity.

seer
03-28-2014, 10:52 AM
The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions are too inconsistent to be there be a reliable doctrine or dogma concerning nature of the Divine.

You claim that God is unknowable, then turn around and claim that you know something about God - that He is unknowable? And so what if different religions differ on the nature of God? It doesn't follow that one of them isn't correct.

shunyadragon
03-28-2014, 01:04 PM
You claim that God is unknowable, then turn around and claim that you know something about God - that He is unknowable? And so what if different religions differ on the nature of God? It doesn't follow that one of them isn't correct.

Incomplete, as far as what I believe, and what I consider that humans may know about God. No, it is unlikely that any one is correct considering the fallible nature of humans and the inconsistency of the beliefs of different religions, it is more likely that no one religion is correct to the degree that they claim.

You have been around long enough to understand the apophatic view of God.

seer
03-28-2014, 01:37 PM
Incomplete, as far as what I believe, and what I consider that humans may know about God. No, it is unlikely that any one is correct considering the fallible nature of humans and the inconsistency of the beliefs of different religions, it is more likely that no one religion is correct to the degree that they claim.

You have been around long enough to understand the apophatic view of God.

Saying that we have an incomplete view of God is not the same as saying these He is unknowable. Of course He is not unknowable, as Christ said, he who sees me sees the Father. So we certainly can know a great deal about God and His character - if not everything.

shunyadragon
03-28-2014, 01:50 PM
Saying that we have an incomplete view of God is not the same as saying these He is unknowable. Of course He is not unknowable, as Christ said, he who sees me sees the Father. So we certainly can know a great deal about God and His character - if not everything.

This does not represent an understanding of the differences between the apophatic versus cataphatic view of the nature of what may be known of God. For example: Defining God as Trinitarian is a cataphatic understanding of God by traditional Christian Doctrine. The Jewish and Baha'i view that God's nature is unknowable to the extent that God cannot be defined as Trinitarian is an apophatic view of God.

robrecht
03-28-2014, 01:58 PM
This does not represent an understanding of the differences between the apophatic versus cataphatic view of the nature of what may be known of God. For example: Defining God as Trinitarian is a cataphatic understanding of God by traditional Christian Doctrine. The Jewish and Baha'i view that God's nature is unknowable to the extent that God cannot be defined as Trinitarian.
The Christian dogma of the Trinity is in some senses kataphatic, but in other senses apophatic. Speaking of three persons of the Trinity is kataphatic, perhaps even anthropomorphic for some, but it is certainly apophatic in nonetheless affirming the complete monotheistic mystery of the simplicity (incomprehensible, unable to be defined) of God.

shunyadragon
03-28-2014, 02:13 PM
The Christian dogma of the Trinity is in some senses kataphatic, but in other senses apophatic. Speaking of three persons of the Trinity is kataphatic, perhaps even anthropomorphic for some, but it is certainly apophatic in nonetheless affirming the complete monotheistic mystery of the simplicity (incomprehensible, unable to be defined) of God.

Yes, Christianity may have apophatic (mysteries) beliefs concerning God, but the difference between the apophatic view and kataphatic view is the basis of the difference between traditional Christianity and other beliefs. The Islamic view of God, Buddhist view of the unknowable 'Source', the Taoist view of the Tao, and Hindu view of the Brahman all represent apophatic views of a 'Source' some call God(s). All these views acknowledge that the attributes of the 'Source,' such as love, wisdom and justice, may be known as well as revealed laws, but the 'Source' itself remains unknowable and undefinable by Doctrine and Dogma.

Also the exclusive beliefs of Christianity, and even to the point as God may be exclusively 'personally known' or 'saved' through their Doctrines and Dogmas of belief of individual churches remains a distinct Kataphatic extension of the belief in the Christian Trinity.

robrecht
03-28-2014, 03:49 PM
Yes, Christianity may have apophatic (mysteries) beliefs concerning God, but the difference between the apophatic view and kataphatic view is the basis of the difference between traditional Christianity and other beliefs. The Islamic view of God, Buddhist view of the unknowable 'Source', the Taoist view of the Tao, and Hindu view of the Brahman all represent apophatic views of a 'Source' some call God(s). All these views acknowledge that the attributes of the 'Source,' such as love, wisdom and justice, may be known as well as revealed laws, but the 'Source' itself remains unknowable and undefinable by Doctrine and Dogma.

Also the exclusive beliefs of Christianity, and even to the point as God may be exclusively 'personally known' or 'saved' through their Doctrines and Dogmas of belief of individual churches remains a distinct Kataphatic extension of the belief in the Christian Trinity.
I guess it depends on how you define 'traditional Christianity'. I would not define it so narrowly and I'm in pretty good company on this in terms of traditional Christian thinkers through the past couple of thousand years.

shunyadragon
03-28-2014, 06:35 PM
I guess it depends on how you define 'traditional Christianity'. I would not define it so narrowly and I'm in pretty good company on this in terms of traditional Christian thinkers through the past couple of thousand years.

I have no problem with the Trinity being the foundation Doctrine of traditional Christianity, including the Roman church, Orthodox churches and most Protestant churches. This by no means that all denominations believe in the Trinity, nor does it assume all Christians believe in the trinity.

To make one thing clear is that the apophatic concept of the unknowable God concerns the nature of God from the human perspective, and not that humanity cannot have knowledge of the attributes of God.

The belief that salvation and knowledge of God is exclusively Christian or of one church or another primarily based on the Trinity and the Apostles Creed is the most common view in history, and reflects specifically the Doctrine and Dogma of The Roman church, which holds that salvation is for only the sincere ones within the church, the sincere ones who have no knowledge of the Church, and those sincere who die below the age of consent. This does not assume all Christians believe this, but it is the dominant teaching throughout most of Christianity.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 04:45 AM
I have no problem with the Trinity being the foundation Doctrine of traditional Christianity, including the Roman church, Orthodox churches and most Protestant churches. This by no means that all denominations believe in the Trinity, nor does it assume all Christians believe in the trinity.

To make one thing clear is that the apophatic concept of the unknowable God concerns the nature of God from the human perspective, and not that humanity cannot have knowledge of the attributes of God.

The belief that salvation and knowledge of God is exclusively Christian or of one church or another primarily based on the Trinity and the Apostles Creed is the most common view in history, and reflects specifically the Doctrine and Dogma of The Roman church, which holds that salvation is for only the sincere ones within the church, the sincere ones who have no knowledge of the Church, and those sincere who die below the age of consent. This does not assume all Christians believe this, but it is the dominant teaching throughout most of Christianity.That is no longer the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and it never was the view of many, including some of the bright lights that I look to for the best insights into the history of Christian thought. In my opinion, in evaluating the theology of Christianity, or any other religion or philosophy, it is better to fully grasp the thought of a few representative figures of great insight rather than looking for the least common denominator of the many. I would be the very first to agree that there is a lot of bad theology out there. But, more importantly, Christianity and all other religions, are more than theology. Myth is deeper than theology and praxis embodies and animates an even more comprehensive and dynamic worldview. The best parts of Christianity, and every other worldview, is active love and respect for our fellow man and all creation. In my opinion.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 04:57 AM
That is no longer the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and it never was the view of many, including some of the bright lights that I look to for the best insights into the history of Christian thought. In my opinion, in evaluating the theology of Christianity, or any other religion or philosophy, it is better to fully grasp the thought of a few representative figures of great insight rather than looking for the least common denominator of the many. I would be the very first to agree that there is a lot of bad theology out there. But, more importantly, Christianity and all other religions, are more than theology. Myth is deeper than theology and praxis embodies and animates an even more comprehensive and dynamic worldview. The best parts of Christianity, and every other worldview, is active love and respect for our fellow man and all creation. In my opinion.

'Your opinion' does not count much in the face of the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church that has not changed and actually cannot be changed, despite the superficial nicities spoken Profoundly by Pope Francis. The next post will cite directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church concerning the exclusivity of salvation as defined by the church. I may follow up with citations from other churches as well. More liberal views of some churches do broaden their view of salvation to those that believe sincerely in the Apostles Creed.

Again, I cannot speak for ALL Christians, only the Doctrine and Dogma of the churches.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 05:28 AM
'Your opinion' does not count much in the face of the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church that has not changed and actually cannot be changed, despite the superficial nicities spoken Profoundly by Pope Francis. The next post will cite directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church concerning the exclusivity of salvation as defined by the church. I may follow up with citations from other churches as well. More liberal views of some churches do broaden their view of salvation to those that believe sincerely in the Apostles Creed.

Again, I cannot speak for ALL Christians, only the Doctrine and Dogma of the churches.
I am not merely speaking of my opinion, but I will be happy to look at your posts.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 11:23 AM
I am not merely speaking of my opinion, but I will be happy to look at your posts.

I studied to be Priest of the Roman church for about a year when I finished High School, and concept of what it is to be save was of interest to me. The following a brief reference concerning which I will cite more, including Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

A Catholic dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (literally "no salvation outside the Church") has sometimes been interpreted as denying salvation to non-Catholic Christians as well as non-Christians, though Catholic teaching has long stressed the possibility of salvation for persons invincibly ignorant (through no fault of their own) of the Catholic Church's necessity and thus not culpable for lacking communion with the Church. In the 20th century this inclusive approach was expressed in the condemnation of Feeneyism and in the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, which said that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator," although this is ambiguous and numerous interpretations have arisen. Vatican II further affirmed that salvation could be available to people who had not even heard of Christ (cf. Acts 17:23)— but that all who gain salvation do so only by membership in the Catholic Church, whether that membership is ordinary (explicit) or by extraordinary means (implicit).[1]

While affirming the teaching of Lumen Gentium (the 1964 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that came out of the Second Vatican Council) that the Roman Catholic Church "is the single Church of Christ"[2] and that "[t]his Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church,"[3] Dominus Iesus offers further comments on what it means for the true Church to "subsist in" the Roman Catholic Church. The document states that, "[w]ith the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that 'outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth.'

The bolded is what I acknowledged as possible salvation outside the church as defined within the church.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 11:55 AM
I studied to be Priest of the Roman church for about a year when I finished High School, and concept of what it is to be save was of interest to me. The following a brief reference concerning which I will cite more, including Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

A Catholic dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (literally "no salvation outside the Church") has sometimes been interpreted as denying salvation to non-Catholic Christians as well as non-Christians, though Catholic teaching has long stressed the possibility of salvation for persons invincibly ignorant (through no fault of their own) of the Catholic Church's necessity and thus not culpable for lacking communion with the Church. In the 20th century this inclusive approach was expressed in the condemnation of Feeneyism and in the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, which said that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator," although this is ambiguous and numerous interpretations have arisen. Vatican II further affirmed that salvation could be available to people who had not even heard of Christ (cf. Acts 17:23)— but that all who gain salvation do so only by membership in the Catholic Church, whether that membership is ordinary (explicit) or by extraordinary means (implicit).[1]

While affirming the teaching of Lumen Gentium (the 1964 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that came out of the Second Vatican Council) that the Roman Catholic Church "is the single Church of Christ"[2] and that "[t]his Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church,"[3] Dominus Iesus offers further comments on what it means for the true Church to "subsist in" the Roman Catholic Church. The document states that, "[w]ith the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that 'outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth.'

The bolded is what I acknowledged as possible salvation outside the church as defined within the church.

There are indeed differing interpretations of Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html), and even at the time of it's composition and ratification, it could be understood differently by its various authors (several of whom would go on to become bishops, cardinals, and pope) and by the prelates who ratified it and themselves disagreed, but it is clear that it unambiguously affirms the possibility of salvation for those who sincerely seek God, regardless of their formal membership in the Catholic church or any church or even for those who do not believe in God. Continuing arguments about the meaning of 'subsistit in' are irrelevant to this. And we do not see any limitation of sincerity to those below the age of consent and certainly no mention of the necessity of belief in the Apostles Creed.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 12:31 PM
There are indeed differing interpretations of Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html), and even at the time of it's composition and ratification, it could be understood differently by its various authors (several of whom would go on to become bishops, cardinals, and pope) and by the prelates who ratified it and themselves disagreed, but it is clear that it unambiguously affirms the possibility of salvation for those who sincerely seek God, regardless of their formal membership in the Catholic church or any church or even for those who do not believe in God. Continuing arguments about the meaning of 'subsistit in' are irrelevant to this. And we do not see any limitation of sincerity to those below the age of consent and certainly no mention of the necessity of belief in the Apostles Creed.

Does not address the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church as specifically cited. The only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated).
Yes, this includes those who sincerely seek God, but through no fault of their own do not achieve the knowledge of the One True Church,

You will have to more specific in citing documents of the Roman Church for your response to be meaningful. Actually your response has a high fog index. Please be specific if the Grace of Salvation is extended to others beyond what I have described above.

Actually, unlike past ages, by far most of the people of the world have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church with full knowledge of the Roman Church. What in the view of the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church would there be any chance for them for salvation?

robrecht
03-29-2014, 01:03 PM
Does not address the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church as specifically cited. The only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated).
Yes, this includes those who sincerely seek God, but through no fault of their own do not achieve the knowledge of the One True Church,

You will have to more specific in citing documents of the Roman Church for your response to be meaningful. Actually your response has a high fog index. Please be specific if the Grace of Salvation is extended to others beyond what I have described above.

Actually, unlike past ages, by far most of the people of the world have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church with full knowledge of the Roman Church. What in the view of the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church would there be any chance for them for salvation?Can you please cite your references and provide quotes regarding those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated? I provided a link to the most authoritative source for current Catholic teaching about salvation outside the church and it does not make any reference to these categories. I cannot cite what is not there.

As for those who have who have rejected the Roman Catholic Church, are you claiming that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that those people cannot be saved? Can you please quote your source on this?

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 01:09 PM
As for those who have who have rejected the Roman Catholic Church, are you claiming that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that those people cannot be saved? Can you please quote your source on this?

All ready cited, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (literally "no salvation outside the Church")

This is covered in the in the Doctrines and Dogma as 'Salvation' for those who have no knowledge of the One True Church 'through no fault of their own.' I will cite more, but important question 'Are you knowledgeable about the specifics of the Doctrine and Dogma documents of the Roman Church, and the implications of who is given the 'Grace of Salvation?'

robrecht
03-29-2014, 01:16 PM
All ready cited, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (literally "no salvation outside the Church"(I'm sorry, but a Wikipedia article about a Latin phrase of Cyprian of Carthage, and how it has been variously understood by some in the Church is not really a source of Catholic doctrine.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 01:19 PM
... Will cite more, but important question are you knowledgeable about the specifics of the Doctrine and Dogma documents of the Roman Church, and the implications of who is given the 'Grace of Salvation?'Yes, I have some basic familiarity, which is why I linked you to the most authoritative teaching of the Catholic church regarding this.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 01:29 PM
I'm sorry, but a Wikipedia article about a Latin phrase of Cyprian of Carthage, and how it has been variously understood by some in the Church is not really a source of Catholic doctrine.

It is by far adequate for you to go on and read the document itself. As I said. I would cite more, but this is not like making instant coffee (yuckety yuck yuck!!!). Wiki is of course brief, but you should not 'curse the source' unless you go on and actually read the referred documents themselves.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 01:32 PM
It is by far adequate for you to go on and read the document itself. As I said. I would cite more, but this is not like making instant coffee (yuckety yuck yuck!!!). Wiki is of course brief, but you should not 'curse the source' unless you go on and actually read the referred documents themselves. I have read the document and I linked you to it. I did not curse Wikipedia, but tried to refer you to the original source.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 01:39 PM
I was going to be selective, but I believe the whole document is warranted:



EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)

Today's pluralistic and godless society creates an environment of indifference in matters of religion in order to achieve a false and empty unity and liberty. It is said that everyone must be allowed to believe as they see fit and do what makes them happy. The implication is that God is not very concerned about whether one believes in what is true, for all will be saved as long as they are "nice." Some come to this conclusion by asserting that there does not exist any objective truth for us to adhere to, which in turn leads to a denial of the existence of God. Others say that there exist only a few basic objective truths that we need to believe in order to be saved. Both opinions miss the plain reality of the order established by God – the Catholic Church is the unique divine institution given to us for the salvation of mankind.

This assertion implies that all non-Catholic religions are false and that only the Catholic Church contains the entire deposit of Truth given to the Apostles by Christ. Although these statements are denied and scorned by today's world, they are fully in accord with common sense and the constant teaching of the Church. While it is true that non-Catholics can gain admittance to the Church through the baptisms of blood and desire without having been formally admitted through baptism of water, yet these are still saved in the Church and because of the Church. The New Testament makes clear the need to attach oneself to the truths taught by the Catholic Faith. Christ gave to the Apostles the entire deposit of faith ("The Holy Ghost will teach you all things" John 14:26), told them to pass it on to the world ("Going therefore, teach ye all nations" Matt. 28:19), and threatened damnation for those who did not believe them ("He who believes not will be condemned" Mark 16:16). He would not have condemned to hell the disbelievers if either it was not important to believe all that the Apostles taught or if He was not certain that the Apostles were teaching the truth ("He that heareth you heareth Me" Luke 10:16). The Apostles themselves knew that all who believed in any way different from their infallible teaching would perish – "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8).

Christ did not intend for only men who lived in the Apostles' lifetime to know and live the Truth. He ensured that the deposit of faith would be passed on throughout the generations so that all might have an opportunity to believe all that He entrusted to the Apostles – "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20). His truth, the actual truth, never changes, and it is as important to hold it today as it was in the first century. It is only by holding to what is true that we can love and serve God and be saved, for false principles lead to evil actions. Since there is only one truth and it is unchanging and indispensable, it is impossible for more than one of the systems of belief or religions that exist in the world to lead to salvation. Any other position negates the words of Our Lord.

It is certainly through the Catholic Church that Our Lord has guided men to keep the deposit entrusted to the Apostles throughout the centuries. It is the Catholic Church that defeated the many heresies against the nature and person of Christ, long before Protestant denominations appeared, such as Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Apollonarism, etc.. – all of these had to be opposed vigorously with the true doctrine before they were extirpated, and some still exist today. It is the Catholic Church that holds to the same doctrines that the Fathers, who had the words of the Apostles "resounding in their ears", taught and defended and which all but the schismatics reject today – auricular confession, veneration of images, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the existence of seven sacraments, the Church as the final arbiter of all doctrinal disputes, and many more. It is only the Catholic Church that has not changed and it is only She that has existed since the time of Christ.

The Church has always been aware that she has been given by Christ the entire deposit of revelation to guard until the last day and thus asserts the infallibility of her Supreme Pastor, appointed by Christ to be His Vicar on earth, and also that salvation can be found only within her maternal bosom. Whenever the Pope, 1.) using his full apostolic authority, 2.) defines, 3.) as supreme teacher of all Christians, 4.) a matter of faith or morals 5.) that must be held by the universal Church, he is infallible and is expressing a doctrine that is part of the deposit of the faith entrusted to the Apostles and which has been believed always and everywhere by Catholics.

The Catholic Church has solemnly defined three times by infallible declarations that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The most explicit and forceful of the three came from Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, who proclaimed ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

The other two infallible declarations are as follows: There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as "part" of the Church of Christ. This doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the Popes throughout the centuries.

Further, it is dogmatically set forth that no authority in the Church, no matter how highly placed, may lawfully attempt to change the clear meaning of this (or any) infallible dogma. Vatican I taught: "The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding." This same Vatican I defined solemnly that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine.

This reference will be split, because of limits to posting length. Please note, nothing Pope Francis can say can alter or change this infallible Doctrine.

This Doctrine does not address the issue of those 'who no fault of their own' have no knowledge of the 'One True Church.'

This I will address next.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 01:43 PM
continued from previous post.



Naturally, the truth that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church has been supported by all the saints from every age. Following are several examples:

St. Irenaeus (130-202), Bishop and Martyr: "The Church is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them . . . . We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come . . . . Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons."

St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

St. Fulgentius (468-533), Bishop: "Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604): "The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved."

St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226): "All who have not believed that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God are doomed. Also, all who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and do not believe it is really the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord . . . these also are doomed!"

St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), the Angelic Doctor: There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church."

St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716): "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes."

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "Outside the Church there is no salvation...therefore in the symbol (Apostles Creed) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins"...For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church."

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church ... How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!"

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian Faith. These and like ERRORS, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science."

The greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring others to the truth. The Catholic Faith is a gift from God, one that can be shared, one that gives life and salvation. Mother Church, being solicitous for the welfare of all mankind, has always sought to bring all into the One Fold (John 10:16), and to unite all in the profession of the one Faith given to us by Christ through the Apostles. If She were to hide the truth, or be content to leave others in their error, She would be cruel and indifferent.

This is a great lesson for Catholics, for many do not esteem the priceless value of their Faith as they should. It must be given to others at every opportunity; it must be passed on to those who languish without the true sacraments, who struggle to interpret the Bible without an infallible teaching authority, or who lead often immoral lives without the guidance of the "pillar and ground of truth" (I Tim. 5"15).

Let all Catholics then, be both like the martyrs of old, who died rather than relinquish one doctrine of their Catholic Faith, and like the great missionaries, who endured extreme privations and sufferings in order to bring salvation to even one soul. It is only a firm belief in the importance of the Catholic Faith for salvation that motivated these heroic actions and it is only such a faith that can "overcome the world" today (I John 5:4).

robrecht
03-29-2014, 01:58 PM
I was going to be selective, but I believe the whole document is warranted:



EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)

... This assertion implies that all non-Catholic religions are false ...

This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as "part" of the Church of Christ. This doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the Popes throughout the centuries.

Further, it is dogmatically set forth that no authority in the Church, no matter how highly placed, may lawfully attempt to change the clear meaning of this (or any) infallible dogma. Vatican I taught: "The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding." This same Vatican I defined solemnly that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine.

This reference will be split, because of limits to posting length. Please note, nothing Pope Francis can say can alter or change this infallible Doctrine.

This Doctrine does not address the issue of those 'who no fault of their own' have no knowledge of the 'One True Church.'

This I will address next.Shuny, do you happen to know who wrote this document?

37818
03-29-2014, 02:02 PM
Sounds good. But can I please play Devil's Advocate and ask how your proof proves the Christian God and not the one of the deists?
(I am a Christian, just want to encourage discussion with some devil advocating. Even though I'm not so good at philosophy. I just had one class in college.)

The ancient Hebrews worshiped their God by the Name which means "self Existent" (Strong's Hebrew dictionary number 3068) And has been variously translated, "the LORD," "The Eternal," "Jehovah," and "Yahweh" or "Yahvah." The Jewish faith is the basis of the Christian faith (John 4:22). Self existent existence is in need of no kind of God, so unless this is the very identity of God, there is none.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 02:36 PM
Please note highlighted:

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:01 PM
Please note highlighted:

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity. Shuny, why don't you quote the current authoritative teaching of the Catholic church? Despite this tract being approved by Bernadeane Carr, the Catholic church very clearly does not teach that Protestants need to return to the Catholic church in order to be saved. Why not take a look at the dogmatic documents of Vatican II or the later catechism?

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 03:08 PM
Inculpable ignorance - This is brief descriptive citation with references. More to follow:

In its statements of this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God";[6] that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control";[6] and that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life."[8]

Inculpable ignorance is not a means of salvation.[18] But if by no fault of the individual ignorance cannot be overcome (if, that is, it is inculpable and invincible), it does not prevent the grace that comes from Christ, a grace that has a relationship with the Church, saving that person.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:12 PM
Inculpable ignorance - This is brief descriptive citation with references. More to follow:

In its statements of this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God";[6] that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control";[6] and that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life."[8]

Inculpable ignorance is not a means of salvation.[18] But if by no fault of the individual ignorance cannot be overcome (if, that is, it is inculpable and invincible), it does not prevent the grace that comes from Christ, a grace that has a relationship with the Church, saving that person. Check the references to church documents: 1854 and 1863. Does not shed much light more recent Catholic teaching.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 03:15 PM
Concerning Vatican II Salvation outside the church.

"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."

Many liberal theologians with from inside the Roman Church and outside often cite Vatican II as somehow radially changing church doctrine, particularly EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, but this is not true. Like Pope Francis, the Vatican II made many carefully coached statements of tolerance, but the bottom line is also given in the Vatican II if you read the whole document.

Eventually Pope Francis, like all popes before him have to give papal address confirming EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS and defining the doctrinal view of ecumenism of the Roman Church.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 03:19 PM
Shuny, why don't you quote the current authoritative teaching of the Catholic church? Despite this tract being approved by Bernadeane Carr, the Catholic church very clearly does not teach that Protestants need to return to the Catholic church in order to be saved. Why not take a look at the dogmatic documents of Vatican II or the later catechism?

I will cite them also, but nonetheless the EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS is an infallible doctrine of the Roman Church that cannot be changed, and actually if you carefully read the whole Vatican II, it does confirm EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, and give the details of salvation outside the church as I cited in a previous post

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:21 PM
Concerning Vatican II Salvation outside the church.

"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."

Many liberal theologians with from inside the Roman Church and outside often cite Vatican II as somehow radially changing church doctrine, particularly EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, but this is not true. Like Pope Francis, the Vatican II mad many carefully coached statements of tolerance, but the bottom line is also given in the Vatican II if you read the whole document.Where does it say that Protestants must rejoin the Catholic Church in order to be saved? Where does it speak about those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated?

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:23 PM
I will cite them also, but nonetheless the EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS is an infallible doctrine of the Roman Church that cannot be changed, and actually if you carefully read the whole Vatican II, it does confirm EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, and give the details of salvation outside the church as I cited in a previous postPlease quote where it says that Protestants must rejoin the Catholic Church in order to be saved? Please quote where it speaks about those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated?

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:30 PM
Eventually Pope Francis, like all popes before him have to give papal address confirming EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS and defining the doctrinal view of ecumenism of the Roman Church. Now we are moving from your opinion and interpretation to prophecy. I will look forward to Pope Francis confirming your interpretation!

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 03:30 PM
Ecumenism and the Roman Church

The Introduction states the desire for ecumenism, but . . .

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

From CHAPTER I - CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES ON ECUMENISM

The Church, then, is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it:(16) for it serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace(17) as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above.(18)

In summary

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

. . . all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 03:32 PM
Now we are moving from your opinion and interpretation to prophecy. I will look forward to Pope Francis confirming your interpretation!

This has nothing to do with prophecy. It has to do with the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church, which Pope Francis cannot change.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:34 PM
This has nothing to do with prophecy. It has to do with the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church, which Pope Francis cannot change.In your opinion.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 03:34 PM
Shuny, do you happen to know who wrote this document?

Basically the Roman Church wrote the document. do you doubt it's legitimacy as it states as an infallible document of the Roman Church? I may follow up and research this, but what would be the purpose?

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:36 PM
Ecumenism and the Roman Church ... Still no mention of those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated. Still no mention of the necessity of Protestants to convert to Catholicism in order to be saved. An expression of desire for Christian unity, sure.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:37 PM
Basically the Roman Church wrote the document. do you doubt it's legitimacy as it states as an infallible document of the Roman Church? I may follow up and research this, but what would be the purpose?You should know whom you are citing. It is not a source of current Catholic teaching.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 03:43 PM
Concerning the mentally ill





1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 03:58 PM
Please quote where it says that Protestants must rejoin the Catholic Church in order to be saved? Please quote where it speaks about those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated?

Given those sources. Please read them. See the last post for more on the mentally ill.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 03:59 PM
Concerning the mentally ill





1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. Shuny this is about conditions which make mortal sin impossible. One pathological disorder could be mental illness, but these citations from 1850 and 1860 are not modern teaching about the necessity of Protestants to join the Catholic Church in order to be saved. Nor is it current teaching defining salvation for those of other religions or of no religion.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 04:01 PM
You should know whom you are citing. It is not a source of current Catholic teaching.

Please provide a source that would support the claim that this not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. There is a long list of popes over the years that have confirmed this belief.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 04:01 PM
Given those sources. Please read them. See the last post for more on the mentally ill.Already read them and already responded to your post about conditions rendering mortal sin impossible. Your derogatory opinion of contemporary Catholic teaching has not been verified.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 04:08 PM
Please provide a source that would support the claim that this not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. There is a long list of popes over the years that have confirmed this belief.
It is simply not a document of the Roman Catholic Church. It can be found on a few ultraconservative websites, but none that I have seen seem to give any source. It cites no statements more recent than 1953 so it does not even purport to be an expression of current teachings. If you want to claim that it is an accepted infallible document of the current Roman Catholic Church, I think it is up to you to support this claim. I am not sure I can prove a negative.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 04:10 PM
The International Theological Commission of the Vatican in two of its position papers has referred to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII. The Letter mentions, the dogma and says it is infallible. Here is the text of the dogma.(1)

In this text of the dogma the Vatican is affirming the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the literal interpretation of the popes, the Church Councils, Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), Dominus Iesus 20, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845, 846 etc. Pope Pius XII referred to the dogma as an infallible teaching.

However the ITC (2) assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit and known to us and so they believe it contradicts the thrice defined dogma.

As mentioned in an earlier post on this blog invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma.

There can be no explicit, defacto, known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So it is not an issue with respect to the dogma, unless, it is made an issue and made to appear as explicit and known.

See article for a list of recent popes that have confirmed the infallibility of this document including a correct reading of the Vatican II. This reference basically confirms everything I have cited.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 04:19 PM
The International Theological Commission of the Vatican in two of its position papers has referred to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII. The Letter mentions, the dogma and says it is infallible. Here is the text of the dogma.(1)

In this text of the dogma the Vatican is affirming the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the literal interpretation of the popes, the Church Councils, Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), Dominus Iesus 20, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845, 846 etc. Pope Pius XII referred to the dogma as an infallible teaching.

However the ITC (2) assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit and known to us and so they believe it contradicts the thrice defined dogma.

As mentioned in an earlier post on this blog invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma.

There can be no explicit, defacto, known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So it is not an issue with respect to the dogma, unless, it is made an issue and made to appear as explicit and known.

See article for a list of recent popes that have confirmed the infallibility of this document including a correct reading of the Vatican II. This reference basically confirms everything I have cited.Seriously, a blog? Read the document cited there:


67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).

69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).

70. Thus the original meaning is restored to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful.31 Once this expression is integrated into the more universal extra Christum nulla salus, it is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all men to salvation.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 04:54 PM
Seriously, a blog? Read the document cited there:

Look at the blog carefully. Are you actually claiming this reference does note cite the The International Theological Commission of the Vatican in 2012 correctly? You need to better then this. The cite even lists the other popes that confirmed doctrine.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 05:01 PM
Look at the blog carefully. Are you actually claiming this reference does note cite the The International Theological Commission of the Vatican in 2012 correctly? You need to better then this.No, I'm trying to get you to actually read the document that it cites.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 05:44 PM
No, I'm trying to get you to actually read the document that it cites.

I will give you a break and cite this from the document:

It is precisely this universality that constitutes the Church as a universal sacrament of salvation (nn. 62-79). The question arises whether the church has significance only for its members or for everyone. Given the fact that the second answer is more relevant, the need of the Church for salvation is understood in two ways: the need to belong to her and the need of ministry of the Church at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God. Enlightened by the new perspectives offered by the Second Vatican Council, the old statement of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus illuminates the question of the affiliation to the Church as the body of Christ, the justification of all, and especially, the salvific mission of the Church in her threefold martyria, leitourgia and diakonia. In virtue of her witness, the Church proclaims the Good News to all. In her liturgy, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery and as such “fulfils her mission of priestly service in representing all humankind. In a way that, in accord with God’s will, it is efficacious for all men, it makes present the representation of Christ who "was made sin" for us (2 Cor 5:21) (n.77). In her diakonia of service of the neighbour she gives witness to the benevolent gift of God to men. It is clear that highlighting these aspects of the Church's function as a universal sacrament of salvation does not attempt to exhaust the complexity of this subject.

Actually this probably not the only citation of this, but these documents tend to long and wordy. More to come.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 05:55 PM
I have no problem with this as still enforsing EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALLUS. It just gives some explanation of interpretation details. No fundamental changes in the basic doctrine. Note my citation from Vatican II.

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).
69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).
70. Thus the original meaning is restored to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful.31 Once this expression is integrated into the more universal extra Christum nulla salus, it is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all men to salvation.

As far as this goes the doctrine remains intact. The concept of the Universal call of all men to the One True Church is obviously not in contradiction with the doctrine.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 06:03 PM
You should know whom you are citing. It is not a source of current Catholic teaching.

Some of my citations refer to current thinking of the Roman Church.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:06 PM
I will give you a break and cite this from the document:

It is precisely this universality that constitutes the Church as a universal sacrament of salvation (nn. 62-79). The question arises whether the church has significance only for its members or for everyone. Given the fact that the second answer is more relevant, the need of the Church for salvation is understood in two ways: the need to belong to her and the need of ministry of the Church at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God. Enlightened by the new perspectives offered by the Second Vatican Council, the old statement of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus illuminates the question of the affiliation to the Church as the body of Christ, the justification of all, and especially, the salvific mission of the Church in her threefold martyria, leitourgia and diakonia. In virtue of her witness, the Church proclaims the Good News to all. In her liturgy, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery and as such “fulfils her mission of priestly service in representing all humankind. In a way that, in accord with God’s will, it is efficacious for all men, it makes present the representation of Christ who "was made sin" for us (2 Cor 5:21) (n.77). In her diakonia of service of the neighbour she gives witness to the benevolent gift of God to men. It is clear that highlighting these aspects of the Church's function as a universal sacrament of salvation does not attempt to exhaust the complexity of this subject.

Actually this probably not the only citation of this, but these documents tend to long and wordy. More to come.

Give me a break? I have been trying to get you to read the actual documents of the church and not interpretations by those who reject the progress that has been made. Read what you yourself cited. Do you really see your opinion cited there?

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE=robrecht;36890]Give me a break? I have been trying to get you to read the actual documents of the church and not interpretations by those who reject the progress that has been made. Read what you yourself cited. Do you really see your opinion cited there?[/QUOTE

Sorry, your combative negative attitude does not deserve a break. Your own reference confirms the doctrine, and my reference is a 2012 reference that considers it a doctrine valid in today's church.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:16 PM
Some of my citations refer to current thinking of the Roman Church.Yes, finally. Now let's see if they really say what you think they do. But before we do that, have you abandoned your claim that this is actually "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today"?

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)
https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 06:19 PM
“Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside of the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only ark of salvation, that the one who does not enter this is going to perish in the deluge. But nevertheless we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

The Church's understanding of the significance of the phrase: "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is expressed in its Catechism of the Catholic Church as follows:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14). 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" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:19 PM
[QUOTE=robrecht;36890]Give me a break? I have been trying to get you to read the actual documents of the church and not interpretations by those who reject the progress that has been made. Read what you yourself cited. Do you really see your opinion cited there?[/QUOTE

Sorry, your combative negative attitude does not deserve a break. Your own reference confirms the doctrine, and my reference is a 2012 reference that considers it a doctrine valid in today's church.I am neither combative nor negative. Merely trying to help you understand what the current church teaches, contrary to your derogatory interpretations. Your references and mine certainly do not confirm your opinion of the current interpretation of the doctrine.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 06:24 PM
[QUOTE=shunyadragon;36891]I am neither combative nor negative. Merely trying to help you understand what the current church teaches, contrary to your derogatory interpretations. Your references and mine certainly do not confirm your opinion of the current interpretation of the doctrine.

I referenced the current Catechism and Vatican II, and came back with your reference. Your ignoring the current references.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:25 PM
I have no problem with this as still enforsing EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALLUS. It just gives some explanation of interpretation details. No fundamental changes in the basic doctrine. Note my citation from Vatican II.

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).
69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).
70. Thus the original meaning is restored to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful.31 Once this expression is integrated into the more universal extra Christum nulla salus, it is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all men to salvation.

As far as this goes the doctrine remains intact. The concept of the Universal call of all men to the One True Church is obviously not in contradiction with the doctrine.You are not really understanding. You say that the doctrine remains intact. Did you miss the part about restoring the original meaning?

Here's a link to the actual document, where you can actually look at the footnotes:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1997_cristianesimo-religioni_en.html

Note how the anti-Protestant interpretation of the phrase is reinterpreted not only with respect to it's meaning in Cyprian, where it is meant to encourage those already in the church, but it is traced to it's original source in Origen, where the church outside of which there is no salvation is the spiritual church, essentially the Ark of Heaven that precedes all creation, which eventually saves all.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 06:27 PM
Yes, finally. Now let's see if they really say what you think they do. But before we do that, have you abandoned your claim that this is actually "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today"?

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)
https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml

Yes, by my current references it the standard of the church for the day.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 06:29 PM
You are not really understanding. You say that the doctrine remains intact. Did you miss the part about restoring the original meaning?

Here's a link to the actual document, where you can actually look at the footnotes:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1997_cristianesimo-religioni_en.html

Note how the anti-Protestant interpretation of the phrase is reinterpreted not only with respect to it's meaning in Cyprian, where it is meant to encourage those already in the church, but it is traced to it's original source in Origen, where the church outside of which there is no salvation is the spiritual church, essentially the Ark of Heaven that precedes all creation, which eventually saves all.

My references still stand in the Catechism and the current documents of the church. I responded this reference that the universal call for salvation is not in conflict with the doctrine, and the doctrine still stands as described in the current Catechism.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:30 PM
“Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside of the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only ark of salvation, that the one who does not enter this is going to perish in the deluge. But nevertheless we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

The Church's understanding of the significance of the phrase: "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is expressed in its Catechism of the Catholic Church as follows:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14). 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" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16). Where does it say that Protestants must convert to Catholicism to be saved? Where does it interpret "those who, through no fault of their own" in terms of those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated? No where, Frank. You should acknowledge that you were misrepresenting the current teaching of the Catholic church.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:32 PM
My references still stand in the Catechim and the current documents of the church.It does not seem as if you understand these current documents if you stand by your initial derogatory interpretations.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:34 PM
Yes, by my current references it the standard of the church for the day.It seems like you are dodging my question. I did not ask you about your current references, which I pointed you to, by the way. I am asking if you have you abandoned your claim that this is actually "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today"?

This:
EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)
https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 06:43 PM
Where does it say that Protestants must convert to Catholicism to be saved? Where does it interpret "those who, through no fault of their own" in terms of those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated? No where, Frank. You should acknowledge that you were misrepresenting the current teaching of the Catholic church.

All the references refer to 'No salvation outside the Church' without discrimination for anyone in particular outside the One True Church.

I gave you a reference concerning the mentally ill and so far you have ignored it.




http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM][/url] 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

You my friend are the one misrepresenting the Roman Church. Your ignoring also the current catechism.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:53 PM
All the references refer to 'No salvation outside the Church' without discrimination for anyone in particular outside the One True Church.

I gave you a reference concerning the mentally ill and so far you have ignored it.I did not ignore your reference to a pathological condition making mortal sin impossible. See my response here: here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=36864&viewfull=1#post36864) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=36866&viewfull=1#post36866).

All the modern references refer to 'no salvation outside the church' with a changed meaning, a restored meaning, ie, not the same meaning as you want to apply to it, as no longer addressing people outside the church and within documents that explicitly do not require Protestants to convert to Catholicism in order to be saved. And the doctrine is not discussed with the exceptions that you outlined, namely, those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated. Why can't you see that?

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 06:58 PM
It seems like you are dodging my question. I did not ask you about your current references, which I pointed you to, by the way. I am asking if you have you abandoned your claim that this is actually "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today"?

This:
EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)
https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml

Most definitely not abandoned the fact that EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church) is the current document of the Roman Church. When they stop teaching the doctrine in all the Catechisms around the world, you may have some basis for your claim.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 06:58 PM
You my friend are the one misrepresenting the Roman Church. Your ignoring also the current catechism.
I have nowhere misrepresented the current teaching of the Catholic church. And I did not ignore the current catechism, which as you may recall, I asked you to refer to. And when you quoted from it, I asked you here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=36900&viewfull=1#post36900) where in your quote it says anything about Protestants needing to convert to Catholicism to be saved? And where it interprets "those who, through no fault of their own" in terms of those below the age of consent, those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated?

robrecht
03-29-2014, 07:00 PM
Most definitely not abandoned the fact that EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church) is the current document of the Roman Church. When they stop teaching the doctrine in all the Catechisms around the world, you may have some basis for your claim.Seriously, again? This document, Frank, this one:

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)
https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml

Do you now accept that this document (the one in your link immediately above this sentence) is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today"?

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 07:08 PM
Question of age of concent:

Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 07:11 PM
Question of age of concent:

Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).

This says nothing about "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" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16)." Does that sound like people below the age of consent?

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 07:18 PM
Seriously, again? This document, Frank, this one:

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)
https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml

Do you now accept that this document (the one in your link immediately above this sentence) is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today"?

The EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church) is the current Doctrine of the Roman Church. There have been more recent interpretation, but the Document remains the heart of doctrine taught in all the Catechisms used in the world.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 07:21 PM
This says nothing about "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" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16)." Does that sound like people below the age of consent?



I was editing and adding, and you missed this. As above it is adults that are responsible for their sins.



1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 07:45 PM
The EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church) is the current Doctrine of the Roman Church. There have been more recent interpretation, but the Document remains the heart of doctrine taught in all the Catechisms used in the world.
Once again, Frank, I am not speaking here of your misunderstanding of the current doctrine of the church, but whether or not you now accept the the fact that the document you linked to is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today"?

It seems clear what happened. You came across what you thought was an official document of the church and you based your argument upon this misunderstanding.

Nonetheless it is good that you are now acknowledging above that there has been a more recent interpretation. This is progress over your earlier view that "the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church that has not changed and actually cannot be changed". As I have shown you, the original meaning of this phrase has been restored. That restored sense is what is used in the catechism.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 07:50 PM
I was editing and adding, and you missed this. As above it is adults that are responsible for their sins.



1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. Of course it is adults who are responsible for their sins. It is also adults who are able to be saved without converting to the Catholic faith or joining the Catholic Church.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 08:20 PM
Once again, Frank, I am not speaking here of your misunderstanding of the current doctrine of the church, but whether or not you now accept the the fact that the document you linked to is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today"?

It seems clear what happened. You came across what you thought was an official document of the church and you based your argument upon this misunderstanding.

Nonetheless it is good that you are now acknowledging above that there has been a more recent interpretation. This is progress over your earlier view that "the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church that has not changed and actually cannot be changed". As I have shown you, the original meaning of this phrase has been restored. That restored sense is what is used in the catechism.

The more recent interpretation only has a marginal effect on the meaning of Doctrine. Fundamentally the doctrine remains the foundation of the Roman Church and cannot be changed in its Fundamental meaning. The original meaning remains intact in all the catechisms around the world. 'THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, unless one is ignorant of no fault of their own.

shunyadragon
03-29-2014, 08:21 PM
Of course it is adults who are responsible for their sins. It is also adults who are able to be saved without converting to the Catholic faith or joining the Catholic Church.

Then it is resolved those under the age of consent are saved according to the Catachism of the Roman Church. The age of consent in the Roman Church is the age of Confirmation.

robrecht
03-29-2014, 08:31 PM
The more recent interpretation only has a marginal effect on the meaning of Doctrine. Fundamentally the doctrine remains the foundation of the Roman Church and cannot be changed in its Fundamental meaning. The original meaning remains intact in all the catechisms around the world. 'THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, unless one is ignorant of no fault of their own.It has a much more than marginal effect on what you represented. Protestants do not have to convert to the Catholic faith and join the Catholic church in order to be saved.

By the way, I hope you now realize, even if you will not admit it, that the document you linked to is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today".

robrecht
03-29-2014, 09:08 PM
Then it is resolved those under the age of consent are saved according to the Catachism of the Roman Church. The age of consent in the Roman Church is the age of Confirmation.The catechism still speaks of 'the age of reason' and it is applied to both first reception of the Eucharist as well as Confirmation. You do realize that Protestants also practice baptism, right? And you left out the ancient maxim that we are bound by the sacraments, not God, hence the necessity of baptism was never properly seen as a limitation upon God's ability to save.

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 04:46 AM
The catechism still speaks of 'the age of reason' and it is applied to both first reception of the Eucharist as well as Confirmation. You do realize that Protestants also practice baptism, right? And you left out the ancient maxim that we are bound by the sacraments, not God, hence the necessity of baptism was never properly seen as a limitation upon God's ability to save.

Yes, it speaks to an 'Age of Reason,' but that does not address the issue.

There is an important issue that you have failed to address. Yes, the Vatican II makes statements that some characteristics, elements and attributes Salvation may exist in churches and religions outside the One True Church, but nowhere does it say that those out side the One True Church may be saved. The only long standing exceptions remain salvation for those that are ignorant because of no fault of their own. The basic Doctrine of 'There is no Salvation outside the Church' still stands.

Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved?

Please note, again . . .



The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 04:48 AM
It has a much more than marginal effect on what you represented. Protestants do not have to convert to the Catholic faith and join the Catholic church in order to be saved.

Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved?

Please note, again . . .



The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.


By the way, I hope you now realize, even if you will not admit it, that the document you linked to is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today".

I do not believe it did. Please cite the specific place where it says this.

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 05:40 AM
A more explicit description of this church doctrine is provided here, with appropriate citations:



Any explication of the teaching of Vatican II therefore has to be incorporated into the whole story of the Church’s teaching both before and since the Council. One very good example of this is the way in which the Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the teaching “extra ecclesia nulla salus” By quoting the Council document Lumen Gentium, the Catechism assures us that the dogma still stands, but significantly nuanced:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church, which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it [LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5].

That final sentence is, of course, the clincher, but it is important that we appreciate what the Council declared in Lumen Gentium. It affirmed:
• That Christ is unique and the only mediator and way of salvation
• That the Church is necessary for salvation
• That faith and baptism are both necessary for salvation
• That these three statements are connected because the Church is the Body of Christ, and baptism is the means of entry into the Church.

Nevertheless, rather than consigning all those outside the Church to wholesale damnation, the Council Fathers declared that only those who are aware of the necessity of the Church yet still refuse to enter or remain in it “could not be saved”. The Catechism attempts to “reformulate positively” the teaching extra ecclesiam, saying that “it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC §846). This essentially is the message of the Declaration Dominus Iesus (2000) as well.

robrecht
03-30-2014, 06:47 AM
Yes, it speaks to an 'Age of Reason,' but that does not address the issue.

There is an important issue that you have failed to address. Yes, the Vatican II makes statements that some characteristics, elements and attributes Salvation may exist in churches and religions outside the One True Church, but nowhere does it say that those out side the One True Church may be saved. The only long standing exceptions remain salvation for those that are ignorant because of no fault of their own. The basic Doctrine of 'There is no Salvation outside the Church' still stands.

Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved?

Please note, again . . .



The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.
This is not an issue that I have failed to address because up until now I have merely been correcting your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of current Catholic doctrine. Your question here does not necessarily address the issue in a helpful manner because it begs the question of what is meant by 'the One True Church'. You should look at the variety of meanings of church, especially in the writings of Origen, to understand the original meaning of the phrase, as opposed to the meaning that it acquired subsequently in an understanding that is no longer taught by the Church. Current teaching, since Vatican II, prefers to use broader language such as the People of God and the various ways in which people may be understood to be part of or related to the People of God. Likewise, the phrase 'those who are ignorant because of no fault of their own' is rich in meaning and should not be too narrowly defined and discarded as only speaking of infants, those who have no knowledge of the church, and those who are mentally ill or incapacitated. But, nonetheless, to answer your question in the problematic language that you prefer to use, where is specifically said that those outside the One True Church may be saved, you need look no further than your own quoted diocesan level tract: "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church."

robrecht
03-30-2014, 06:49 AM
... I do not believe it did. Please cite the specific place where it says this.You are asking for me to cite where the document you provided says that it is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". Thanks for this wonderfully amusing way to begin my day! I'm pretty sure that the document does not say anywhere that it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. But, just because it does not say it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today does not mean that it is therefore an infallible document of the Roman Church today! The great majority of all documents that exist in the world, virtually all of them, those which do not expressly deny being current infallible documents of the Roman Church, are nonetheless not thereby to be considered current infallible documents of the Roman Church.

robrecht
03-30-2014, 06:52 AM
A more explicit description of this church doctrine is provided here, with appropriate citations:



Any explication of the teaching of Vatican II therefore has to be incorporated into the whole story of the Church’s teaching both before and since the Council. One very good example of this is the way in which the Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the teaching “extra ecclesia nulla salus” By quoting the Council document Lumen Gentium, the Catechism assures us that the dogma still stands, but significantly nuanced:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church, which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it [LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5].

That final sentence is, of course, the clincher, but it is important that we appreciate what the Council declared in Lumen Gentium. It affirmed:
• That Christ is unique and the only mediator and way of salvation
• That the Church is necessary for salvation
• That faith and baptism are both necessary for salvation
• That these three statements are connected because the Church is the Body of Christ, and baptism is the means of entry into the Church.

Nevertheless, rather than consigning all those outside the Church to wholesale damnation, the Council Fathers declared that only those who are aware of the necessity of the Church yet still refuse to enter or remain in it “could not be saved”. The Catechism attempts to “reformulate positively” the teaching extra ecclesiam, saying that “it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC §846). This essentially is the message of the Declaration Dominus Iesus (2000) as well. Yes. All of this is ultimately based on Lumen Gentium 14 and, as noted, the phrase has been significantly nuanced, addressing those within the Church. This section of the document is not to be misunderstood as attempting to express the current teaching of the Church on the relation to the People of God of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, nonreligious, and atheists, which is found in Lumen Gentium 15-16

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 07:57 AM
You are asking for me to cite where the document you provided says that it is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". Thanks for this wonderfully amusing way to begin my day! I'm pretty sure that the document does not say anywhere that it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. But, just because it does not say it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today does not mean that it is therefore an infallible document of the Roman Church today! The great majority of all documents that exist in the world, virtually all of them, those which do not expressly deny being current infallible documents of the Roman Church, are nonetheless not thereby to be considered current infallible documents of the Roman Church.

You made a claim, and did not back it up. The above represents circular double talk.

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 08:16 AM
Yes. All of this is ultimately based on Lumen Gentium 14 and, as noted, the phrase has been significantly nuanced,

Disagree, there is no indication that the phrasr has been 'significantly' nuanced. There has been clarification and interpretation to consider specific grounds for salvation outside the One True Church, and some allowance of 'elements, attributes, and characteristics of Salvation in churches and religions outside the church, but nothing that would indicate that there is Salvation outside the One True Church.

Your side stepping the clear and specific meaning Lumen Gentium 14. You have failed to cite anthing that would indicate that the 'nuanced' meaning would allow Salvation outside the Roman Church.


. . . addressing those within the Church. This section of the document is not to be misunderstood as attempting to express the current teaching of the Church on the relation to the People of God of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, nonreligious, and atheists, which is found in Lumen Gentium 15-16

Here is where you are appealing to wishful thinking and a high fog index to support your argument without any specific reference. The reference is clear and specific. THERE IS NOT SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Lumen Gentium 15-16 does not help your case. You have to cite your sources and explain your case based on these sources, not just make claims. These references you cite explain that there are elements, characteristics and attributes of Salvation in other churches and religions outside the One True Church. There is absolutely nothing in 15 and 16 that considers Salvation outside the Church. There are references to who may be included in the 'Plan of Salvation,' and those who have no knowledge of the Church, but (14) is specifically clear and without equivocation as to who may be 'Saved.' Those who knowingly believe in Heresy, and schisms of Christianity are not Saved.

My references are specific and unequivocal as to the fact that there is No Salvation Outside the Church. You are avoiding and trying to go around these references.

robrecht
03-30-2014, 08:25 AM
You made a claim, and did not back it up. The above represents circular double talk.Exactly what claim are you claiming I made?

robrecht
03-30-2014, 08:36 AM
Disagree, there is no indication that the phrasr has been 'significantly' nuanced. Then you are disagreeing with your own source. Take that up with David Schütz, please, not me.


There has been clarification and interpretation to consider specific grounds for salvation outside the One True Church, and some allowance of 'elements, attributes, and characteristics of Salvation in churches and religions outside the church, but nothing that would indicate that there is Salvation outside the One True Church.

Your side stepping the clear and specific meaning Lumen Gentium 14. You have failed to cite anthing that would indicate that the 'nuanced' meaning would allow Salvation outside the Roman Church. Nonsense. I quoted your own source back to you, even 'though its level of authority should not be exaggerated: "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church."


Here is where you are appealing to wishful thinking and a high fog index to support your argument without any specific reference. The reference is clear and specific. THERE IS NOT SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Lumen Gentium 15-16 does not help your case. You have to cite your sources and explain your case based on these sources, not just make claims. These references you cite explain that there are elements, characteristics and attributes of Salvation in other churches and religions outside the One True. There is absolutely nothing in 15 and 16 that considers Salvation outside the Church.

My references are specific and unequivocal as to the fact that there is No Salvation Outside the Church. You are avoiding and trying to go around these references.Nonsense. I believe you are the one playing with words and not recognizing changes in nuance and interpretation. I have never denied or evaded the teaching of the Church in Lumen Gentium 14, but it should not be confused as addressing the same questions and people as are addressed in Lumen Gentium 15-16. Nor should one ignore the reinterpretation of the phrase as used in Lumen Gentium 14, recovering its original meaning, a reinterpretation that you want to minimize.

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 02:40 PM
Exactly what claim are you claiming I made?

Here
By the way, I hope you now realize, even if you will not admit it, that the document you linked to is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today".

You responded:





You are asking for me to cite where the document you provided says that it is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". Thanks for this wonderfully amusing way to begin my day! I'm pretty sure that the document does not say anywhere that it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. But, just because it does not say it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today does not mean that it is therefore an infallible document of the Roman Church today! The great majority of all documents that exist in the world, virtually all of them, those which do not expressly deny being current infallible documents of the Roman Church, are nonetheless not thereby to be considered current infallible documents of the Roman Church.

You made a claim, and did not back it up. The above represents circular double talk.

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 02:44 PM
Then you are disagreeing with your own source. Take that up with David Schütz, please, not me.

Nonsense. I quoted your own source back to you, even 'though its level of authority should not be exaggerated: "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church."

Correct, those ignorant of the One True Church of no fault of their own may be saved. Please give specific citations where others then these souls may be saved. Still waiting . . .


Nonsense. I believe you are the one playing with words and not recognizing changes in nuance and interpretation. I have never denied or evaded the teaching of the Church in Lumen Gentium 14, but it should not be confused as addressing the same questions and people as are addressed in Lumen Gentium 15-16. Nor should one ignore the reinterpretation of the phrase as used in Lumen Gentium 14, recovering its original meaning, a reinterpretation that you want to minimize.

You have not as of yet cited anywhere in contemporary documents where those that have full knowledge of the Roman Church and maintain a heretical or schismatic choice are saved, i.e. Protestants and Muslims. I have given my citations and they are clear and specific. Still waiting . . .

robrecht
03-30-2014, 03:18 PM
Correct, those ignorant of the One True Church of no fault of their own may be saved. Please give specific citations where others then these souls may be saved. Still waiting . . .

You have not as of yet cited anywhere in contemporary documents where those that have full knowledge of the Roman Church and maintain a heretical or schismatic choice are saved, i.e. Protestants and Muslims. I have given my citations and they are clear and specific. Still waiting . . . I've already pointed out to that you too narrowly restrict the phraseology regarding 'those who through no fault of their own ...'. I pointed you long ago to Lumen Gentium, and specifically to LG 15-16 that clearly speaks of Jews, Protestants, Muslims, other religious believers, and atheists. Your citations were initially quite poor and when you finally cited some good sources they clearly do not imply what you seem to think they do.

Here is the status questionis as far as I see it:

Shuny’s Thesis:


#22: “The only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated).”

“Actually, unlike past ages, by far most of the people of the world have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church with full knowledge of the Roman Church.”
So I asked you to quote your sources of current church teaching that these people, by far most of the people in the world, cannot be saved? You have continually failed to cite current Catholic teaching as saying that Protestants, let alone Jews, Muslims, members of other religions, and atheists must join the Catholic Church in order to be saved. Nor have you been able to cite current Catholic teaching as saying that the only allowance for salvation outside the church is limited to those who have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated).

I cited for you the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, you cited a Wikipedia article (#20) and an anonymous document from the Our Lady of the Rosary Library (#s 29, 30, more on that later), a tract (#33), another Wikipedia article referencing statements from 1854 and 1863 (#35), and then finally got around to citing something from my link to Lumen Gentium, but disagreeing with the interpretation of this document by “many liberal theologians” and predicting that eventually Pope Francis will abandon his “many carefully coached statements of tolerance” and will have to confirming your traditional (but not original) interpretation of extra ecclesiam null salus. You cited another Vatican document on ecumenism (#42) but failed to show how it supported your thesis (#46), two statements from 1859 and 1860 about mortal sin but in no way addressing salvation outside the church (#48)

Eventually (#54), you cited a blog that agreed with the excommunicated Father Feeney and specifically and strongly disagreed with the official teaching of the church as taught by two documents of the Church’s International Theological Commission and the Roman Vicariate.

So in #55, I tried to get you to actually read the Church’s 1997 International Theological Commission document, Christianity and the World Religions, which the blogger criticized, and which shows that the phrase is now being emphasized as parenetical, restoring its original meaning (citing Origen), integrating it into a more universal understanding that is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all to salvation. When you did look at this document in #59, you claimed that these were mere “interpretation details. No fundamental changes in the basic doctrine,” and later you said there was only a “marginal effect ” on meaning (#84). But in #93, you cited David Schütz as saying that the catechism, by citing Lumen Gentium 14, used the phrase in a “significantly nuanced” manner. When I made the same point, you disagreed with me (and your own source) and said “there is no indication that the phrasr has been 'significantly' nuanced.”

If your most recent source is wrong, and the phrase has not been significantly nuanced, you should be able to cite authoritative church teaching that says that the great majority of the people in the world (eg, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, members of other religions, and atheists) have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church, with full knowledge of the Roman Church, and therefore cannot be saved. And that the only allowance for salvation outside the church is those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated). Of course, you cannot.

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 03:21 PM
More from Vatican II

Their conflicting thoughts would accuse them if they suspected but ignored the fact that God required them to be members of His Church. Not wanting to know the truth is just as bad as knowing it and rejecting it. As Vatican II put it "Hence, those cannot be saved, who knowing that the Catholic Church was founded through Jesus Christ, by God, as something necessary, still refuse to enter it or remain in it" (Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity no. 7). Their conflicting thoughts would excuse them if they truly sought God but were unaware of this requirement.

You would be committing a mortal sin by deluding others that 'schism' with knowledge of ones obligation to the One True Church remaining outside the church is a mortal sin

robrecht
03-30-2014, 03:37 PM
Here

You responded:

You made a claim, and did not back it up. The above represents circular double talk.It is still not clear what claim you are claiming I made. But here is my take on your attempts to avoid taking responsibility for your poor sourcing (see above)

Shuny’s Thesis and Its Source

#22: “The only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated).”

“Actually, unlike past ages, by far most of the people of the world have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church with full knowledge of the Roman Church.”

The Accepted Infallible Document of the Church Today?
I asked you to quote your sources for this being current teaching, which you claimed to have already done. Eventually, in #s 29-30, you quoted your document entitled, “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)” (https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml). I asked you if you even knew who wrote this document (and also suggested that it would be better to actually quote the current authoritative teaching of the Catholic church, suggesting the dogmatic documents of Vatican II or even the later catechism). In #45, you asked if I doubted the document’s “legitimacy as it states as an infallible document of the Roman Church?” Again in #51, you asked me prove that this document is “not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today.” In #54, you cited a pro-Feeney blog that you claimed “confirmed the infallibility of this document,” but perhaps beginning to draw back from any fuller claim that it is “an infallible document of the Roman Church today.”

A Ray of Hope Before Sundowning
Happy to see this apparent backtracking, I try to confirm, and, happily, in #67, you, say ‘yes,’ and thus literally seemed to abandon any possible claim to this being “an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today”, and instead you merely refer to “the standard of the church for the day.” I tried to confirm this in #72, but in #75 you said, “Most definitely not abandoned the fact that EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church) is the current document of the Roman Church.” Perturbed and baffled, I tried again in #77, and you waffled in #80, saying only that it is the doctrine and only that “the Document remains the heart of doctrine”. In #82, I once again tried to clarify that my question here refers not to doctrine but to the document itself and asked if you now realize that this is “not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today”? In #84, you ignored this question, so, giving up on ever getting a straight answer from you, I ended the night in #86 merely ‘hoping’ that you realize in your heart of hearts, even if you will not admit it, that the document you linked to is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today".

With the Morning Comes No Dawn
This morning, you very bizarrely said (#89), “I do not believe it did. Please cite the specific place where it says this.” I, of course, cannot cite where it says something that it never does say precisely because it is not and does not claim to be an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. Precisely my point. Neither one of us even know who wrote the document. But you nonetheless accuse me of engaging in circular double-talk (#94). In all sincerity, for your own sake, Frank, it would be so much easier if you would just realize your mistake and own up to it rather than continuing to play such games.

robrecht
03-30-2014, 03:43 PM
More from Vatican II

Their conflicting thoughts would accuse them if they suspected but ignored the fact that God required them to be members of His Church. Not wanting to know the truth is just as bad as knowing it and rejecting it. As Vatican II put it "Hence, those cannot be saved, who knowing that the Catholic Church was founded through Jesus Christ, by God, as something necessary, still refuse to enter it or remain in it" (Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity no. 7). Their conflicting thoughts would excuse them if they truly sought God but were unaware of this requirement.

You would be committing a mortal sin by deluding others that 'schism' with knowledge of ones obligation to the One True Church remaining outside the church is a mortal sin Seriously, Mr. StayCatholic Shuny? Are you going to try and make the case that Jews, Protestants, Muslims, members of other religions, and atheists all know and believe that the Catholic Church was founded by God as something necessary for salvation but nonetheless refuse to enter it?

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 07:29 PM
Seriously, Mr. StayCatholic Shuny? Are you going to try and make the case that Jews, Protestants, Muslims, members of other religions, and atheists all know and believe that the Catholic Church was founded by God as something necessary for salvation but nonetheless refuse to enter it?

Seriously???? This response is ridiculous.

Heck, as a Baha'i I am a heretic as far as the Roman Church is concerned, and eternally doomed to Hell, what ever that is.

Back to reality, my extensive citation including Vatican II and other sources to justify the view that “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church” remains the infallible doctrine of the Roman Church. The Catechism, Vatican II, and the Lumen Gentium 14, all agree as well as the scholars of the Roman Church I cited.

shunyadragon
03-30-2014, 07:37 PM
It is still not clear what claim you are claiming I made. But here is my take on your attempts to avoid taking responsibility for your poor sourcing (see above)

Shuny’s Thesis and Its Source


The Accepted Infallible Document of the Church Today?
I asked you to quote your sources for this being current teaching, which you claimed to have already done. Eventually, in #s 29-30, you quoted your document entitled, “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church)” (https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml). I asked you if you even knew who wrote this document (and also suggested that it would be better to actually quote the current authoritative teaching of the Catholic church, suggesting the dogmatic documents of Vatican II or even the later catechism). In #45, you asked if I doubted the document’s “legitimacy as it states as an infallible document of the Roman Church?” Again in #51, you asked me prove that this document is “not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today.” In #54, you cited a pro-Feeney blog that you claimed “confirmed the infallibility of this document,” but perhaps beginning to draw back from any fuller claim that it is “an infallible document of the Roman Church today.”

A Ray of Hope Before Sundowning
Happy to see this apparent backtracking, I try to confirm, and, happily, in #67, you, say ‘yes,’ and thus literally seemed to abandon any possible claim to this being “an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today”, and instead you merely refer to “the standard of the church for the day.” I tried to confirm this in #72, but in #75 you said, “Most definitely not abandoned the fact that EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church) is the current document of the Roman Church.” Perturbed and baffled, I tried again in #77, and you waffled in #80, saying only that it is the doctrine and only that “the Document remains the heart of doctrine”. In #82, I once again tried to clarify that my question here refers not to doctrine but to the document itself and asked if you now realize that this is “not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today”? In #84, you ignored this question, so, giving up on ever getting a straight answer from you, I ended the night in #86 merely ‘hoping’ that you realize in your heart of hearts, even if you will not admit it, that the document you linked to is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today".

With the Morning Comes No Dawn
This morning, you very bizarrely said (#89), “I do not believe it did. Please cite the specific place where it says this.” I, of course, cannot cite where it says something that it never does say precisely because it is not and does not claim to be an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. Precisely my point. Neither one of us even know who wrote the document. But you nonetheless accuse me of engaging in circular double-talk (#94). In all sincerity, for your own sake, Frank, it would be so much easier if you would just realize your mistake and own up to it rather than continuing to play such games.

I responded with clear and specific references in the Vatican II and the Lumen Gentium (14) that the doctrine remains intact as an infallible document of the Roman Chursh, which I do not consider 'Catholic' because I am a heretic.

robrecht
03-30-2014, 10:22 PM
Seriously???? This response is ridiculous.

Heck, as a Baha'i I am a heretic as far as the Roman Church is concerned, and eternally doomed to Hell, what ever that is. Precisely! Your interpretation has been reduced to absurdity, it is indeed ridiculous. That is what happens when one applies your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the church's teaching to the very text that you just cited.

Read your own last quotation from the StayCatholic website: "As Vatican II put it "Hence, those cannot be saved, who knowing that the Catholic Church was founded through Jesus Christ, by God, as something necessary, still refuse to enter it or remain in it" (Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity no. 7). Their conflicting thoughts would excuse them if they truly sought God but were unaware of this requirement.

You should also be able to see the difference between your misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and Lumen Gentium 14: "... Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Likewise in the formulation of the catechism and the International Theological Commission: Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

That is why Gaudium et spes, 22 can say:

"All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.(31) For, since Christ died for all men,(32) and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.

On the other hand, you say merely that "The only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church ..." No it is offered to all men (and women) outside the church in a mysterious and unseen manner known only to God. It is not a question of merely having knowledge of the church's existence or or even having an awareness of its teaching (however convoluted yours might be), that would prevent one from being saved, or not having no such knowledge, would excuse one. One has to know that the church was founded by God as necessary for salvation and yet still refuse to enter it. You cannot say that Jews, Protestants, Muslims, members of other religions, and atheists all know that the Catholic Church was founded by God as something necessary for salvation but nonetheless refuse to enter it. That would indeed be ridiculous. Reductio ad absurdum.


Back to reality, my extensive citation including Vatican II and other sources to justify the view that “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church” remains the infallible doctrine of the Roman Church. The Catechism, Vatican II, and the Lumen Gentium 14, all agree as well as the scholars of the Roman Church I cited. You clearly have not understood what you have cited. You do not even agree that some of what you have cited has correctly interpreted current church teaching, eg, you disagree with David Schütz's interpretation which you cited, you disagree with the Church's International Theological Commission that you cited, not to mention the evil "liberal theologians", and even Pope Francis' understanding of the doctrine.

And, even though you cannot bring yourself to admit to admit the truth, the document you initially quoted, entitled, EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (No Salvation Outside the Church) (https://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml) is “not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today.”

Yours may indeed be a case of invincible ignorance. Don't worry, while that may sound like a bad thing, it's actually a good thing for admitted heretics. It means you just cannot ever be convinced of the actual truth of some knowledge or behavior considered necessary for salvation, thus you may still go to heaven, at which time, however, you will be able to see how wrong you are.

robrecht
03-30-2014, 10:46 PM
I responded with clear and specific references in the Vatican II and the Lumen Gentium (14) that the doctrine remains intact as an infallible document of the Roman Chursh, which I do not consider 'Catholic' because I am a heretic. But you misinterpret it. You do not acknowledge the importance of the 'new perspective' which 'limited the validity' of the phrase, the 'recovered original meaning' that is 'no longer contradictory' to 'the universalist understanding of Christ and the church', and the 'significant' way in which the this phrase has been reinterpreted. As for the doctrine remaining in tact, how could the church's own International Theological Commission, which you cite, apparently without reading, that "exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church."

OingoBoingo
03-30-2014, 11:06 PM
Yours may indeed be a case of invincible ignorance.

You ain't kiddin.

MaxVel
03-31-2014, 12:40 AM
Precisely! Your interpretation has been reduced to absurdity, it is indeed ridiculous. {...snip....}

You clearly have not understood what you have cited. {...snip...}

And, even though you cannot bring yourself to admit to admit the truth, {...snip....}

Yours may indeed be a case of invincible ignorance. {...snip....}

Unfortunately, the above comments are a reflection of a pretty common pattern in Shunyadragon's posting.

Everyone makes mistakes and misunderstands things now and then, but most people can (eventually) admit that they were wrong.

robrecht
03-31-2014, 01:39 AM
Unfortunately, the above comments are a reflection of a pretty common pattern in Shunyadragon's posting.

Everyone makes mistakes and misunderstands things now and then, but most people can (eventually) admit that they were wrong.So true. I experience joy when I acknowledge that I was mistaken about something. It means I'm still capable of learning things. I love learning stuff.

shunyadragon
03-31-2014, 04:54 AM
But you misinterpret it. You do not acknowledge the importance of the 'new perspective' which 'limited the validity' of the phrase, the 'recovered original meaning' that is 'no longer contradictory' to 'the universalist understanding of Christ and the church', and the 'significant' way in which the this phrase has been reinterpreted. As for the doctrine remaining in tact, how could the church's own International Theological Commission, which you cite, apparently without reading, that "exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church."

These are assertions, which I responded to by specific quotations from the Vatican II, Catachism, Lumen Gentium (14) and scholars that you chose to ignore. Nothing above substantiates your argument. So far nothing specific from you that anyone is saved outside the church other then those that are ignorant through no fault of their own. The Vatican II is clear and specific on standards of salvation outside the church is, and includes no other cases.

Again, again and again . . .



"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.

robrecht
03-31-2014, 05:08 AM
These are assertions, which I responded to by specific quotations from the Vatican II, Lumen Gentium (14) and scholars that you chose to ignore. Nothing above substantiates your argument. So far nothing specific from you that anyone is saved outside the church other then those that are ignorant through no fault of their own. The Vatican II is clear and specific on standards of salvation outside the church is, and includes no other cases.

Again, again and again . . .



"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.
I'm sorry, which scholars are you claiming I ignored? Your citation simply does not mean what you think it does. It does not support your thesis. You cannot possibly claim that Jews, Protestants, Muslims, those of other religious faiths, agnostics, and atheists all know that the Catholic Church is founded as necessary by God through Christ, and nonetheless refuse to enter it. Nor can you find a single authoritative church document or scholar who takes this position.

shunyadragon
03-31-2014, 06:01 AM
I'm sorry, which scholars are you claiming I ignored? Your citation simply does not mean what you think it does. It does not support your thesis. You cannot possibly claim that Jews, Protestants, Muslims, those of other religious faiths, agnostics, and atheists all know that the Catholic Church is founded as necessary by God through Christ, and nonetheless refuse to enter it. Nor can you find a single authoritative church document or scholar who takes this position.

Voluntary ignorance does not justify your claim. The citations are clear and specific.

Again, Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved other then through the ignorance of the church?

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM



"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.

robrecht
03-31-2014, 06:32 AM
Voluntary ignorance does not justify your claim. The citations are clear and specific.
You have neglected to tell me which of your scholars you claim I have ignored. I have made no specific claim that needs to be backed up. I have merely pointed you to the correct documents which present the current authoritative teaching of the Catholic church and corrected your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of same. The interpretation of these texts is not my own but rather that of the Vatican dicastery, the Church's International Theological Commission, the last six popes, and all theologians I have known, as well as every Catholic I have ever met over several decades, and some 25 years of Catholic education. I do not agree with every Catholic doctrine or dogma, but I do not misrepresent or misunderstand them.

robrecht
03-31-2014, 06:43 AM
Voluntary ignorance does not justify your claim. The citations are clear and specific.

Again, Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved other then through the ignorance of the church?

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM



"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.Go and read my previous explanation to you of this text. You are ignoring the current teaching about the universalist understanding of this phrase and of the church as the universal sacrament of salvation, the sign and instrument of communion with God and of the unity of all humanity. It would be good for you to read completely the documents cited for you.

shunyadragon
03-31-2014, 09:24 AM
Go and read my previous explanation to you of this text. You are ignoring the current teaching about the universalist understanding of this phrase and of the church as the universal sacrament of salvation, the sign and instrument of communion with God and of the unity of all humanity. It would be good for you to read completely the documents cited for you.

Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post

Voluntary ignorance does not justify your claim. The citations are clear and specific.

Again, Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved other then through the ignorance of the church?

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM



"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.



Your explanation is insufficient, not authoritative, and anecdotal at best. Need specific references for you to justify your argument. I have given mine. You have provided nothing.

robrecht
03-31-2014, 10:30 AM
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
Your explanation is insufficient, not authoritative, and anecdotal at best. Need specific references for you to justify your argument. I have given mine. You have provided nothing.
Nonsense, Frank. I have done nothing but cite authoritative sources for you. You've even begun to cite from some of them yourself, after apparently tacitly abandoning your original anonymous document from Our Lady of the Rosary Library. Now if you would just read these sources that you yourself have cited, you would not be able in good conscience to say that 'my' explanation is insufficient and not authoritative or that it is even 'my explanation'. I already suggested that you do so. Not sure why you prefer ignorance. Just read. I would have expected you to have done so already.

shunyadragon
03-31-2014, 11:03 AM
Nonsense, Frank. I have done nothing but cite authoritative sources for you. You've even begun to cite from some of them yourself, after apparently tacitly abandoning your original anonymous document from Our Lady of the Rosary Library. Now if you would just read these sources that you yourself have cited, you would not be able in good conscience to say that 'my' explanation is insufficient and not authoritative or that it is even 'my explanation'. I already suggested that you do so. Not sure why you prefer ignorance. Just read. I would have expected you to have done so already.

Nonsense, I cited where the exceptions are given specificaly as noted in the Catachism and Vatican II documents. They are specific, and the doctrine is consider still in place as cited here.

Voluntary ignorance does not justify your claim. The citations are clear and specific.

Again, Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved other then through the ignorance of the church?

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM



"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.

robrecht
03-31-2014, 11:32 AM
"Again, Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved other then through the ignorance of the church?"

In part, it depends on how you define 'ignorance', and ignorance 'of what'. What you keep citing without understanding is this phrase: "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." Thus we are not simply speaking of "ignorance of the church," as you say, but ignorance of the knowledge that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. Do you not even understand these very words that you keep citing over and over again?

37818
03-31-2014, 12:08 PM
This needs to be established (and pointing out how it is labelled in hebrew does not do that). See Strong's Hebrew Dictionary number 3068. the self-Existent. And is typically translated "the LORD."

[There is] no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.



Again, you need to establish that the universe was caused. It could have appeared spontaneously, it could be eternal (the Big Bang indicates our space-time had a start, but our space-time could exist in a larger continuum).Space-time as we know it has an origin. Our universe's existence consists of space-time. Even if we can show that space-time is of an infinite series, it is not "self existent" in that it is contingent on "matter." Without matter space-time cannot be measured, let along there would be nothing for which the speed of light to be the speed of light.

shunyadragon
03-31-2014, 02:26 PM
Space-time as we know it has an origin. Our universe's existence consists of space-time. Even if we can show that space-time is of an infinite series, it is not "self existent" in that it is contingent on "matter." Without matter space-time cannot be measured, let along there would be nothing for which the speed of light to be the speed of light.

Space/Time and Energy/Matter as we know it does begin with the beginning of our universe. There is not any direct evidence that this represents the absolute beginning of only one universe as opposed to many or an infinite number of possible universes. The theories that currently fit the knowledge we have now support the existence of a multi-verse cosmos. What has not been demonstrated is what that origin is and what existed before the origin of our universe. Beyond the evolving knowledge of physics and cosmology, which may give us a peck behind the curtain, everything else is conjecture. Infinite series in and of it self has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Space/Time is not dependent on matter. Space/Time and Energy/Matter are dependent on the Laws of Nature that determine the nature of the Universe. As far the knowledge of science is concerned the Laws of Nature are self existent. There is no evidence that anything existed before the Laws of Nature.

This again, does not appear to be part of an argument concerning 'What is the nature of God?' It is more apart of arguments for the existence of God.

shunyadragon
03-31-2014, 04:05 PM
"Again, Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved other then through the ignorance of the church?"

In part, it depends on how you define 'ignorance', and ignorance 'of what'. What you keep citing without understanding is this phrase: "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." Thus we are not simply speaking of "ignorance of the church," as you say, but ignorance of the knowledge that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. Do you not even understand these very words that you keep citing over and over again?

As for knowing the meaning of the words, no problem. The knowledge of Christ and the Roman Church as well is pretty universal, not totally of course, because there remain many people who no fault of their own, do not know. The Roman Church considers it the responsibility of those who know of Christ and the Roman Church, because humans have the will to do so, to investigate and understand their obligation if they are able to. The statement, 'no fault of their own' is important, because it requires that for some reason the people do not have access to the knowledge, which is possible.

The Doctrine was specifically qualified to allow "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church"

If you assert 'we are not simply speaking "ignorance of the church" as, 'not me.' but as described in Vatican II, and the Catachism, Yes, you like me have cited that the doctrine has been nuanced and exceptions have been defined, but you need to be specific and cite your source as to who else may be saved, beyond that which have been specifically defined in the Catachism and Vatican II. This is what you have completely failed to do. Still waiting . . .

The Vatican II and the Catachism are specific as to what exceptions to the doctrine have been defined as follows.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.

robrecht
04-01-2014, 03:32 PM
... Still waiting . . .In Boston for a couple of days. Will respond when I get back.

robrecht
04-02-2014, 11:15 PM
As for knowing the meaning of the words, no problem. The knowledge of Christ and the Roman Church as well is pretty universal, not totally of course, because there remain many people who no fault of their own, do not know. The Roman Church considers it the responsibility of those who know of Christ and the Roman Church, because humans have the will to do so, to investigate and understand their obligation if they are able to. The statement, 'no fault of their own' is important, because it requires that for some reason the people do not have access to the knowledge, which is possible.

The Doctrine was specifically qualified to allow "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church"

If you assert 'we are not simply speaking "ignorance of the church" as, 'not me.' but as described in Vatican II, and the Catachism, Yes, you like me have cited that the doctrine has been nuanced and exceptions have been defined, but you need to be specific and cite your source as to who else may be saved, beyond that which have been specifically defined in the Catachism and Vatican II. This is what you have completely failed to do. Still waiting . . .

The Vatican II and the Catachism are specific as to what exceptions to the doctrine have been defined as follows.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.

I have merely tried to point you to current Catholic teaching and tried to explain it to you. I have done that very patiently. If you think I've failed, that's your prerogative, but I don't see how you can put that on me. You cited lousy sources. I gave you the right sources (and the accepted interpretation). I can't help it if you don't read them, Frank.

You are incorrect in your assumption as to what has been defined in the catechism regarding who may be saved because you have not read it and hence you are taking this statement out of context. If you had read just a little more of the catechism, you would have not made this mistake.

Just a few paragraphs before (838):

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, [b]but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter[/u]."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

Do you seriously think that the catechism in 838 is denying the possibility of salvation to Protestants and Orthodox? Then read a little more of the catechism:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Likewise, the church’s relationship to Muslims and members of other religions precedes the changed interpretation and reformulation of extra ecclesiam nulla salvatum, which only applies to those who believe that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God (846).

If you would prefer to acquire a more theological, and not merely catechetical, understanding of church doctrine, I would continue to suggest you read the dogmatic and pastoral statements of Vatican II, the interpretations of the International Theological Commission, papal encyclicals, and the writings of competent theologians, both those who were responsible for writing the texts of Vatican II some 50 years ago but also those who continue to interpret both the source texts as well as the faith of modern Christians in the contemporary world.

shunyadragon
04-03-2014, 03:49 AM
I have merely tried to point you to current Catholic teaching and tried to explain it to you. I have done that very patiently. If you think I've failed, that's your prerogative, but I don't see how you can put that on me. You cited lousy sources. I gave you the right sources (and the accepted interpretation). I can't help it if you don't read them, Frank.

You are incorrect in your assumption as to what has been defined in the catechism regarding who may be saved because you have not read it and hence you are taking this statement out of context. If you had read just a little more of the catechism, you would have not made this mistake.

I was raised in the Roman Church and you were not, and I have read all the references cited over the past 40 years. There is nothing wrong with the references I cited.


Just a few paragraphs before (838):

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, [b]but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter[/u]."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

Do you seriously think that the catechism in 838 is denying the possibility of salvation to Protestants and Orthodox? Then read a little more of the catechism:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Likewise, the church’s relationship to Muslims and members of other religions precedes the changed interpretation and reformulation of extra ecclesiam nulla salvatum, which only applies to those who believe that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God (846).

If you would prefer to acquire a more theological, and not merely catechetical, understanding of church doctrine, I would continue to suggest you read the dogmatic and pastoral statements of Vatican II, the interpretations of the International Theological Commission, papal encyclicals, and the writings of competent theologians, both those who were responsible for writing the texts of Vatican II some 50 years ago but also those who continue to interpret both the source texts as well as the faith of modern Christians in the contemporary world.

There is a distinct problem of your understanding the references you cite. They do not deal with the criteria of who is saved and who is not in the Roman Church. They deal with "elements of sanctification and of truth" 273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."' This does not represent the potential of salvation. It deals with elements of sanctification that could lead those outside the One True Church to the Chruch so that they then may be saved. You're also neglecting the fact that beliefs in heresy and schisms are mortal sins that would exclude others in other churches and religions outside the Church with knowledge of the Church from salvation.

It is you may friend that either misunderstand or live in the delusion of hope, and do not understand the the Roman Church.

robrecht
04-03-2014, 04:48 AM
I was raised in the Roman Church and you were not, and I have read all the references cited over the past 40 years. There is nothing wrong with the references I cited.

There is a distinct problem of your understanding the references you cite. They do not deal with the criteria of who is saved and who is not in the Roman Church. They deal with "elements of sanctification and of truth" 273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."' This does not represent the potential of salvation. It deals with elements of sanctification that could lead those outside the One True Church to the Chruch so that they then may be saved. You're also neglecting the fact that beliefs in heresy and schisms are mortal sins that would exclude others in other churches and religions outside the Church with knowledge of the Church from salvation.

It is you may friend that either misunderstand or live in the delusion of hope, and do not understand the the Roman Church.
You don't think that "Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation" represents the potential for salvation? Seriously?

As for anecdotal experience of the Catholic Church, why do you value yours more than mine? That you believe that I was not raised in the Catholic Church sadly proves the weight you give to your assumptions or perhaps your lack of reading comprehension and retention. I will keep you in my prayers.

shunyadragon
04-03-2014, 08:16 AM
You don't think that "Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation" represents the potential for salvation? Seriously?

Seriously!! "Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation," which is for the means of ALL to join the One True Church in Unity for salvation, which is the only means of salvation. This is clearly meaning when the whole of the Catachism and Vatican II is taken in complete context.

Your still ignoring that by far most separated souls you have hope for must face the mortal sins of heresy and schism with full knowledge of the Roman Church.


As for anecdotal experience of the Catholic Church, why do you value yours more than mine?

Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Your anecdotal interpretation of these passages is in clear contradiction to the Doctrine and Dogma of Roman Church, which I cited from the Vatican II and the Catachism.


That you believe that I was not raised in the Catholic Church sadly proves the weight you give to your assumptions or perhaps your lack of reading comprehension and retention. I will keep you in my prayers.

That narrows the motivation. Your most likely living in a delusion of hope, based on a selective anecdotal interpretation of parts of the Catachism and Vatican II.

robrecht
04-03-2014, 09:30 AM
Seriously!! "Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation," which is for the means of ALL to join the One True Church in Unity for salvation, which is the only means of salvation. This is clearly meaning when the whole of the Catachism and Vatican II is taken in complete context.

Your still ignoring that by far most separated souls you have hope for must face the mortal sins of heresy and schism with full knowledge of the Roman Church.



Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Your anecdotal interpretation of these passages is in clear contradiction to the Doctrine and Dogma of Roman Church, which I cited from the Vatican II and the Catachism.

That narrows the motivation. Your most likely living in a delusion of hope, based on a selective anecdotal interpretation of parts of the Catachism and Vatican II.
As for the mortal sins of heresy & schism, you are ignoring what I just cited: "818 However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

I am not being sarcastic. Nor am I being delusional.

robrecht
04-03-2014, 09:44 AM
As for the mortal sins of heresy & schism, you are ignoring what I just cited: "818 However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

I am not being sarcastic. Nor am I being delusional.
As for the initial sin of separation, even this is not to be attributed merely to those in schism, "for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.269" (817)

shunyadragon
04-03-2014, 01:57 PM
As for the mortal sins of heresy & schism, you are ignoring what I just cited: "818 However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

I am not being sarcastic. Nor am I being delusional.

Still does not address the issue of the mortal sin of heresy and schism. Considering others as brothers and sisters outside the One True Church, does not address the issue of Salvation. My case has been made.

robrecht
04-03-2014, 02:21 PM
Still does not address the issue of the mortal sin of heresy and schism. Considering others as brothers and sisters outside the One True Church, does not address the issue of Salvation. My case has been made. Only if you completely ignore my side of the discussion and try to change the subject. I have nowhere tried to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that those who commit mortal sins are saved without repentance.

shunyadragon
04-03-2014, 06:05 PM
Only if you completely ignore my side of the discussion and try to change the subject. I have nowhere tried to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that those who commit mortal sins are saved without repentance.

I have not ignored your arguments. I disagree with you, because your avoiding basic doctrines and dogma of the Roman Church concerning Salvation.

Heresy and schisms are mortal sins, and that includes the believers of all most all other churches and religions who have knowledge of the church.

robrecht
04-03-2014, 06:27 PM
I have not ignored your arguments. I disagree with you, because your avoiding basic doctrines and dogma of the Roman Church concerning Salvation.

Heresy and schisms are mortal sins, and that includes the believers of all most all other churches and religions who have knowledge of the church.With respect to other churches, you are directly contradicting 818, which I will cite again for your benefit: "... one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] ..." Those you accuse of mortal sin, the Catholic Church says cannot be so charged.

shunyadragon
04-03-2014, 06:42 PM
With respect to other churches, you are directly contradicting 818, which I will cite again for your benefit: "... one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] ..." Those you accuse of mortal sin, the Catholic Church says cannot be so charged.

Disagree. When they become of the age of consent they are then responsible for recognizing the church if they have the knowledge for what it claims as the One True Church, the only source of salvation.

There is a great effort beginning with the Vatican II to try and open up dialogue and diplomacy in a constructive way. One way is an attempt to acknowledge the positive aspects of other churches and religions, but the purpose remains that they enter the One True Church. You neglect and note bolded:

"819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity"

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Te purpose of "Catholic unity" is salvation. Taking the whole in context, the bottom line begins at 846.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

robrecht
04-03-2014, 07:09 PM
Disagree. When they become of the age of consent they are then responsible for recognizing the church for what it claims as the One True Church, the only source of salvation.

There is a great effort beginning with the Vatican II to try and open up dialogue and diplomacy in a constructive way. One way is an attempt to acknowledge the positive aspects of other churches and religions, but the purpose remains that they enter the One True Church. You neglect and note bolded:

"819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity"

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Te purpose of "Catholic unity" is salvation. Taking the whole in context, the bottom line begins at 846.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."I have not ignored any of these statements. In fact, it was I who directed you to these statements in the first place. You are literally infantilizing the Protestant churches in a way that the Catholic Church simply does not. The call to Christian unity does not implicitly accuse of mortal sin in the way that you suppose. Otherwise, the current Church doctrine would not now explicitly restrict the traditional maxim only to those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. This explicitly excuses those who do not believe that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God.

shunyadragon
04-04-2014, 03:14 PM
I have not ignored any of these statements. In fact, it was I who directed you to these statements in the first place. You are literally infantilizing the Protestant churches in a way that the Catholic Church simply does not. The call to Christian unity does not implicitly accuse of mortal sin in the way that you suppose. Otherwise, the current Church doctrine would not now explicitly restrict the traditional maxim only to those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. This explicitly excuses those who do not believe that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God.

Read again my friend and read carefully the bottom line. Your living a delusion. You did not bring anything new to the table, but you did leave out the highlighted, which lead in to the bottom line.

The Roman church has a long history of church leaders and theologians that describe and define the problem of schism and heresy, and nothing in the Vatican II documents has changed this. The Church is still dealing with recent schism in the same manner.

robrecht
04-04-2014, 03:40 PM
Read again my friend and read carefully the bottom line. Your living a delusion. You did not bring anything new to the table, but you did leave out the highlighted and the lead in to the bottom line.What do you think I 'left out'? The obligation and sacred right of the church to evangelize all men? The fact that in ways known only to him God leads those who are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him? In no way do I leave that out; it is of foundational importance to the accepted understanding of current church teaching.

As for bringing something to the table, I pointed you to actual documents of the church expressing current teaching and not your reference to an anonymous and outdated document which is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". I've also tried to explain the current teaching to you but you are still relying on your out of date understanding.

JimL
04-04-2014, 05:41 PM
The term God does not give us God's identity. But God nevertheless has a very real identity. This identity if it is not God, there is no God. In other words this identity is very real.

The universe is not God. And the universe, meaning: everything that exists. Now consider the question "does God exist?" The problem with this question and that the universe being everything that exists, it makes such a God part of His creation. Which of course He is not. The universe being God's creation.

Now the tautology Existence exists, is a simple self-evident truth. Now space is a type of existence. Every material thing exists in space in some way. Even the non-material things which make up the material things. (Such as electromagnetic energy and gravity.)

Now the things in space do not make space.

Now our simple tautology existence exists. Everything real has existence of some kind. Since different things are not the same things, they which have existence are not the existence which self exists.

The self existent existence is omnipresent, and possesses everything and anything which is real.

Existence defines what is true. Truth being what really exists.

The self existent existence needs no God.

Now that self existent existence is the very identity of God. God's Hebrew name means "Self Existent."

The self-existent existence is the true ontological proof of God. Being it is God's identity.

Something more here: Self existent is not caused and is eternal in not having any beginning nor end. And being eternal is a an immutability.

Noting existence defines what is true. And truth is immutable - absolute. It does not change. The law of non-contradiction.

But our created universe is temporal. Was caused, all causes are temporal. So whether there is only one discrete cause for the universe or an infinite series leading up to the universe that is now. Either case requires an uncaused cause.

Now an uncaused cause has two natures. Uncaused is eternal. And a cause is always temporal. So it requires an agent which is both the uncaused, which we identify as the self existent existence. And that the agent is also temporal being a cause. Which is another entity different from being uncaused. This agent is both uncaused and a cause. And that these two entities being both the same and different in being a common uncaused. The common uncaused nature constitutes a third entity being an uncaused essence.

We have the self existent existence.
Which precedes everything - which constitutes the fundamental order - which is both uncaused and a cause in of itself.
Both the uncause existence and the uncaused order/cause are two entities being one uncaused essence constituting a third entity which make those three the one entity we know as God.

Self Existent, uncaused entity (The Hebrew Name: Yahweh.)
The uncaused order/cause being both uncaused and temporal. (the Logos)
And the one uncaused essence - which makes the three entities the one entity. (the Holy Spirit)
The problem with this is the human baggage you apply to the philosophical discription. Being, God, Yahweh, logos, holy spirit, are all human terms which imply much more than an eternal, self existing, uncaused essense.

shunyadragon
04-04-2014, 06:04 PM
What do you think I 'left out'? The obligation and sacred right of the church to evangelize all men? The fact that in ways known only to him God leads those who are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him? In no way do I leave that out; it is of foundational importance to the accepted understanding of current church teaching.

As for bringing something to the table, I pointed you to actual documents of the church expressing current teaching and not your reference to an anonymous and outdated document which is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". I've also tried to explain the current teaching to you but you are still relying on your out of date understanding.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

robrecht
04-05-2014, 04:18 AM
I studied to be Priest of the Roman church for about a year when I finished High School, and concept of what it is to be save was of interest to me. The following a brief reference concerning which I will cite more, including Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

...
I was raised in the Roman Church and studied for a year for the Saint Franciscan order in 1965. ... Have you done any formal study of Catholic doctrine or theology since college seminary as a freshman in 1965? Care to cite any theologians who defend your interpretation of current Catholic teaching?

shunyadragon
04-05-2014, 12:37 PM
Have you done any formal study of Catholic doctrine or theology since college seminary as a freshman in 1965? Care to cite any theologians who defend your interpretation of current Catholic teaching?

I have no problem with the Vatican II and Catechism, but I will check on references.

robrecht
04-05-2014, 12:47 PM
I have no problem with the Vatican II and Catechism, but I will check on references.As I mentioned above, it will also be helpful to check on the interpretation of those who authored the documents.

shunyadragon
04-05-2014, 12:50 PM
Have you done any formal study of Catholic doctrine or theology since college seminary as a freshman in 1965? Care to cite any theologians who defend your interpretation of current Catholic teaching?

I believe your just dodging the bullet of reality of the doctrine as written. In the formal training I had at the time the Vatican II was the biggest thing since the invention of the wheel were studied in detail.

I consider R C Sproul gives a good explanation of Vatican II. This whole article is worth a read.

I think this misunderstanding has been driven primarily by confusion over the significance of Vatican Council II (1962–65). It was only the second ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church since Trent, the other being Vatican Council I (1869–70). So, these councils are rare events, and the church and the world were surprised when Pope John XXIII convened Vatican II.

The statements produced by Vatican I referred to Protestants as schismatics and heretics. In marked contrast, the rhetoric of Vatican II was kind, warm, and appeasing. Protestants were called “separated brethren.” John’s passion, which he set forth in a pastoral letter, was that the Lord’s sheepfold would be one. There should be unity under one shepherd, he said, with all Christians returning to Holy Mother Church under the Roman pontiff. John was seen as kind, avuncular, and warm, so people jumped to the conclusion that Rome had changed its theology. However, many overlooked the fact that John ruled out any debate about justification at Vatican II.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church.



The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

robrecht
04-05-2014, 01:24 PM
I believe your just dodging the bullet of reality of the doctrine as written. In the formal training I had at the time the Vatican II was the biggest thing since the invention of the wheel were studied in detail.

I consider R C Sproul gives a good explanation of Vatican II. This whole article is worth a read.

I think this misunderstanding has been driven primarily by confusion over the significance of Vatican Council II (1962–65). It was only the second ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church since Trent, the other being Vatican Council I (1869–70). So, these councils are rare events, and the church and the world were surprised when Pope John XXIII convened Vatican II.

The statements produced by Vatican I referred to Protestants as schismatics and heretics. In marked contrast, the rhetoric of Vatican II was kind, warm, and appeasing. Protestants were called “separated brethren.” John’s passion, which he set forth in a pastoral letter, was that the Lord’s sheepfold would be one. There should be unity under one shepherd, he said, with all Christians returning to Holy Mother Church under the Roman pontiff. John was seen as kind, avuncular, and warm, so people jumped to the conclusion that Rome had changed its theology. However, many overlooked the fact that John ruled out any debate about justification at Vatican II.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church.



The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.
Unfortunately, your sources do not support your theses (#22):

“The only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated).”

"Actually, unlike past ages, by far most of the people of the world have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church with full knowledge of the Roman Church. What in the view of the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church would there be any chance for them for salvation?

Sure, Pope John XXIII longed that there would be unity under one shepherd, no one would contest this, but he did not say that there was no chance for salvation for most people of the world who have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church. And neither did Vatican II nor the authoritative interpretations thereof. Nor does this diocesan track that we've already discussed. It says very clearly that "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847)" and it does not limit this possibility only to those who have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated).” As I mentioned above, it would be more helpful if you look first at those theologians who actually composed the authoritative documents of the church.

shunyadragon
04-05-2014, 06:23 PM
Unfortunately, your sources do not support your theses (#22):

I believe the sources I cited support me well. You are avoiding the bottom line.


“The only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated).”

"Actually, unlike past ages, by far most of the people of the world have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church with full knowledge of the Roman Church. What in the view of the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church would there be any chance for them for salvation?

Sure, Pope John XXIII longed that there would be unity under one shepherd, no one would contest this, but he did not say that there was no chance for salvation for most people of the world who have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church. And neither did Vatican II nor the authoritative interpretations thereof. Nor does this diocesan track that we've already discussed. It says very clearly that "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847)" and it does not limit this possibility only to those who have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated).” As I mentioned above, it would be more helpful if you look first at those theologians who actually composed the authoritative documents of the church.

Please clarify the above highlighted as to where it specifies other cases?

Pope John XXIII did not need to say it the Vatican II documents are clear.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

robrecht
04-06-2014, 09:49 AM
I believe the sources I cited support me well. You are avoiding the bottom line. What 'bottom line' are you referring to?


Please clarify the above highlighted as to where it specifies other cases? It does not highlight other cases. Nor need it. Nowhere does it say that there are no other possibilities. That is the point. In addition, by saying "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church, it certainly allows for those who have only been partially but not fully initiated into the Catholic church, hence those who have been baptized into Christ in other Christian churches.


Pope John XXIII did not need to say it the Vatican II documents are clear. Their meaning is indeed very clear to its authors. Apparently not as clear to you.


"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you. Once again, you are ignoring the Protestant churches as instruments of salvation. And, once again, the limitation above is a much higher bar than what you have admitted to: Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. Protestants, Muslims, followers of other religions, agnostics and atheists who know about the Church, and yet who do not believe it to be founded as necessary by God are in no way excluded.


Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity." Once again, he is speaking of those who commit the sins of heresy or schism, but, as you know, we are not speaking of those cases, nor is the catechism when it explicitly says that "one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ" and that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin.

I have already responded to your several citations of this diocesan tract. Brom is indeed a bishop who allowed the tract to be posted, and even ignoring the scandal that surrounds him, I am not sure of his theological credentials, but he does not meet the criteria I suggested to you several times now, namely the theologians who wrote the documents that you are misinterpreting.

shunyadragon
04-06-2014, 11:29 AM
What 'bottom line' are you referring to?

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."


It does not highlight other cases. Nor need it. Nowhere does it say that there are no other possibilities. That is the point. In addition, by saying "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church, it certainly allows for those who have only been partially but not fully initiated into the Catholic church, hence those who have been baptized into Christ in other Christian churches.

Your arguing a fallacy looking for ghosts of a negative. I will continue to highlight as you continue to sidestep the references. The Vatican II and Catechism are specific as to the circumstances that one may be saved 'Outside the Church.' Still waiting . . . for you to refer specifically, with references as to what the other possible circumstances there are for salvation 'Outside the Church.'

The issue of 'Salvation' is critical and the documents are specific and need be.


Their meaning is indeed very clear to its authors. Apparently not as clear to you.

Their meaning is indeed very clear to its authors. Apparently not as clear to you. Still waiting . . .


Once again, you are ignoring the Protestant churches as instruments of salvation.

I am not ignoring it. I responded fully to your argument ignoring the bottom line of Salvation Outside the Church.


And, once again, the limitation above is a much higher bar than what you have admitted to: Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. Protestants, Muslims, followers of other religions, agnostics and atheists who know about the Church, and yet who do not believe it to be founded as necessary by God are in no way excluded.

If you wish to define a higher bar, you need to be more specific in citing sources for this higher bar. I have more than cited sufficient that the bar of salvation has not changed


Once again, he is speaking of those who commit the sins of heresy or schism, but, as you know, we are not speaking of those cases, nor is the catechism when it explicitly says that "one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ" and that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin.

Once again and again and again we are dealing heresy and schism as to one of the specific reasons that the bar has not changed. 'There is no Salvation Outside the church, unless one is involuntarily ignorant of the One True Church.'

[quote]I have already responded to your several citations of this diocesan tract. Brom is indeed a bishop who allowed the tract to be posted, and even ignoring the scandal that surrounds him, I am not sure of his theological credentials, but he does not meet the criteria I suggested to you several times now, namely the theologians who wrote the documents that you are misinterpreting.

Fallacy, Attacking the 'source,' and failing to respond to the message, which is clear. If you question his qualifications, check his biography.

robrecht
04-06-2014, 11:53 AM
Added comment:
... Fallacy, Attacking the 'source,' and failing to respond to the message, which is clear. I most certainly did respond to the message: "Once again, he is speaking of those who commit the sins of heresy or schism, but, as you know, we are not speaking of those cases, nor is the catechism when it explicitly says that "one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ" and that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin."

robrecht
04-06-2014, 11:54 AM
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 ... I may have lost count, Frank, but I think you have now quoted §§ 846ff from the catechism some eight times now. It is kind of silly for you to keep citing these same paragraphs over and over again. Clearly, I interpret them very differently from you and my interpretation is merely the accepted interpretation of popes and the ITC. I know, I know, you think that Pope Francis will be forced one day to abandon his carefully coached statements. Let's wait and see if that happens.


Still waiting . . . for you to refer specifically, with references as to what the other possible circumstances there are for salvation 'Outside the Church.' I have already cited the example of those born into and raised in Protestant churches. Unlike you, I am not going to continue to cite this over and over again.


If you wish to define a higher bar, you need to be more specific in citing sources for this higher bar. I have more than cited sufficient that the bar of salvation has not changed I have but will not continue to cite this higher bar: "... knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."


Their meaning is indeed very clear to its authors. Apparently not as clear to you. Still waiting . . . Please cite an author of Lumen Gentium that agrees with your interpretation.

Otherwise, it appears to be pointless to keep reading your repetitious misinterpretations. You cannot admit that your initial source was not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. I do not expect you to see how your repeated misinterpretations of actual, current documents of the church are also out of date and not the standard interpretation.

shunyadragon
04-06-2014, 04:29 PM
Added comment:I most certainly did respond to the message: "Once again, he is speaking of those who commit the sins of heresy or schism, but, as you know, we are not speaking of those cases, nor is the catechism when it explicitly says that "one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ" and that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin."

Disagree, this part of the argument you are choosing to sidestep around. I addressed this before: "one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ" and that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin." This refers to those as yet ignorant of the Church below the age of consent, or otherwise without knowledge of the Roman Church. Your repeating yourself with answering the important questions.

shunyadragon
04-06-2014, 04:33 PM
I may have lost count, Frank, but I think you have now quoted §§ 846ff from the catechism some eight times now. It is kind of silly for you to keep citing these same paragraphs over and over again. Clearly, I interpret them very differently from you and my interpretation is merely the accepted interpretation of popes and the ITC. I know, I know, you think that Pope Francis will be forced one day to abandon his carefully coached statements. Let's wait and see if that happens.

I have already cited the example of those born into and raised in Protestant churches. Unlike you, I am not going to continue to cite this over and over again.

I have but will not continue to cite this higher bar: "... knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

Please cite an author of Lumen Gentium that agrees with your interpretation.

There is not one author for the Lumen Gentium . This document clearly states my case, as well as the Vatican II. I gave adequate sources and your ignoring them.


Otherwise, it appears to be pointless to keep reading your repetitious misinterpretations. You cannot admit that your initial source was not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. I do not expect you to see how your repeated misinterpretations of actual, current documents of the church are also out of date and not the standard interpretation.

Otherwise, it appears to be pointless to keep reading your repetitious misinterpretations.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

robrecht
04-06-2014, 04:38 PM
Disagree, this part of the argument you are choosing to sidestep around. I addressed this before: "one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ" and that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin." This refers to those as yet ignorant of the Church below the age of consent, or otherwise without knowledge of the Roman Church. Your repeating yourself with answering the important questions.You did not address it well. No, it does not merely refer to those below the age of consent, which would be a nonissue, since you admit that the extra ecclesiam phrase would no longer even be applicable to those below the age of consent, so why would the issue of Protestant churches being instruments of salvation even apply here? But the catechism clearly does not merely limit itself to those below the age of consent because it explicitly speaks of 'those that are brought up in the faith of Christ.' You seem to want to say this only applies to those who are brought up in the faith of Christ up to but not beyond the age of reason, but that is merely your reading your own view into the text.

robrecht
04-06-2014, 04:39 PM
Ter is not one author for the Lumen Gentium . No, there were seven, but I only asked you to name one that agrees with your interpretation.

shunyadragon
04-06-2014, 06:44 PM
No, there were seven, but I only asked you to name one that agrees with your interpretation.

Your being far to simplistic as to wrote the Lumen Gentium. In reality sections were written by groups and contributors like Marie Rosaire Gagnebet who were influential in certain chapters in consultation and reviewed by the Bishops, who would often send sections back with comments for revision. In reality it was written and redacted collectively by the hierarchy of the Roman Church. Pope Benedict XVI was also involved at the time.

robrecht
04-06-2014, 06:46 PM
Your being far to simplistic as to wrote the Lumen Gentium. In reality sections were written by groups and contributors like Marie Rosaire Gagnebet who were influential in certain chapters in consultation and reviewed by the Bishops, who would often send sections back with comments for revision. In reality it was written and redacted collectively by the hierarchy of the Roman Church. Pope Benedict XVI was also involved at the time.Of course, there was lots of consultation, but seven primary authors. If you like, just pick the one most responsible for our question under discussion. Or any single author, whichever one you prefer.

shunyadragon
04-06-2014, 06:58 PM
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy – Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.

‘Identity of the Catholic faith’
The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.

“I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “But it’s important always to point out that there’s the official position and there’s the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.”

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.

“This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an ‘internal constitutive principle’ of the very existence of a particular church,” the commentary said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

“However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith,” the commentary said.

‘Not backtracking on ecumenical commitment’
The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.

“The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment,” Di Noia told Vatican radio.

“But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.”

shunyadragon
04-06-2014, 07:01 PM
Of course, there was lots of consultation, but seven primary authors. If you like, just pick the one most responsible for our question under discussion. Or any single author, whichever one you prefer.

Disagree this is an oversimplification. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote.

robrecht
04-06-2014, 07:36 PM
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy – Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.

‘Identity of the Catholic faith’
The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.

“I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “But it’s important always to point out that there’s the official position and there’s the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.”

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.

“This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an ‘internal constitutive principle’ of the very existence of a particular church,” the commentary said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

“However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith,” the commentary said.

‘Not backtracking on ecumenical commitment’
The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.

“The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment,” Di Noia told Vatican radio.

“But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.”Frank, why don't you cite the actual document, rather than this inaccurate press report, for which you do not even supply a link? If you would cite the actual document, or at least read it, you would quickly see your error.

robrecht
04-06-2014, 07:37 PM
Disagree this is an oversimplification. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote.Oh my, you can't even find a single author that agrees with your interpretation of this document?

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 04:33 AM
Frank, why don't you cite the actual document, rather than this inaccurate press report, for which you do not even supply a link? If you would cite the actual document, or at least read it, you would quickly see your error.


If you disagree cite the document and show me the error.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 04:35 AM
Oh my, you can't even find a single author that agrees with your interpretation of this document?

Oh my!!!!!! The document was not written by just seven men. If you believe so please site your source, and be specific about what they wrote, names and references..

robrecht
04-07-2014, 04:50 AM
Shuny's inaccurate press report:


It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”

No, the document does not say anything whatsoever about the Christian denominations not having the means of salvation. In fact, it quotes Vatican II to say practically the opposite:

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

And, of course, Dominus Iesus said the same thing:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

robrecht
04-07-2014, 04:51 AM
Oh my!!!!!! The document was not written by just seven men. If you believe so please site your source, and be specific about what they wrote, names and references.. I did not limit you to the seven principle authors; cite any of the many more who were consulted or otherwise substantively contributed to the final content. Just one out of however many you think contributed to the drafts or final version.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 04:52 AM
If you disagree cite the document and show me the error.Is it really too much to expect that you read the documents that you say support your misinterpretation?

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 05:27 AM
Please note the following from the text below - "The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church."



RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS
REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH


"In this document the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is responding to a number of questions concerning the overall vision of the Church which emerged from the dogmatic and ecumenical teachings of the Second Vatican Council. This Council ‘of the Church on the Church’ signalled, according to Paul VI, “a new era for the Church” in which “the true face of the Bride of Christ has been more fully examined and unveiled.”[1] Frequent reference is made to the principal documents of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II and to the interventions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, all of which were inspired by an ever deepening understanding of the Church herself, and many of which were aimed at clarifying the notable outpouring of post-conciliar theology – not all of which was immune from imprecision and error.

This present document is similarly inspired. Precisely because some contemporary theological research has been erroneous, or ambiguous, the Congregation’s intention is to clarify the authentic meaning of certain ecclesiological statements of the Magisterium. For this reason the Congregation has chosen to use the literary genre of Responsa ad quaestiones, which of its nature does not attempt to advance arguments to prove a particular doctrine but rather, by limiting itself to the previous teachings of the Magisterium, sets out only to give a sure and certain response to specific questions.

The first question asks if the Second Vatican Council changed the previously held doctrine on the Church.

The question concerns the significance of what Paul VI described in the above mentioned quotation as ‘the new face’ of the Church offered by Vatican II.

The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church. It merely deepened this doctrine and articulated it in a more organic way. This is, in fact, what Paul VI said in his discourse promulgating the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium when he affirmed that the document had not changed traditional doctrine on the Church, but rather “that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.”[2]

There is also a continuity between the doctrine taught by the Council and that of subsequent interventions of the Magisterium which have taken up and deepened this same doctrine, which itself constitutes a development. In this sense, for instance, the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Dominus Iesus merely reaffirmed the conciliar and post-conciliar teachings without adding or taking away anything.

In the post-conciliar period, however, and notwithstanding these clear affirmations, the doctrine of Vatican II has been, and continues to be, the object of erroneous interpretations at variance with traditional Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Church: either seeing in it a ‘Copernican revolution’ or else emphasising some aspects almost to the exclusion of others. In reality the profound intention of the Second Vatican Council was clearly to insert the discourse on the Church within and subordinate to the discourse on God, therefore proposing an ecclesiology which is truly theo-logical. The reception of the teaching of the Council has, however, often obscured this point, relativising it in favour of individual ecclesiological affirmations, and often emphasising specific words or phrases which encourage a partial and unbalanced understanding of this same conciliar doctrine.

Regarding the ecclesiology of Lumen gentium, certain key ideas do seem to have entered into ecclesial consciousness: the idea of the People of God, the collegiality of the bishops as a re-evaluation of the ministry of bishops together with the primacy of the Pope, a renewed understanding of the individual Churches within the universal Church, the ecumenical application of the concept of the Church and its openness to other religions; and finally the question of the specific nature of the Catholic Church which is expressed in the formula according to which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - of which the creed speaks - subsistit in Ecclesia catholica.

In the following questions this document examines some of these ideas, especially the specific nature of the Catholic Church together with what is implied ecumenically from this understanding.

The second question asks what is meant by the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.

When G. Philips wrote that the phrase “subsistit in” had caused ‘rivers of ink’[3] to be spilt, he would probably never have imagined that the discussion would continue for so long or with such intensity as to have provoked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to publish this present document.

This publication, based on the conciliar and postconciliar texts which it cites, reflects the concern of the Congregation to safeguard the unity and unicity of the Church, which would be compromised by the proposal that the Church founded by Christ could have more than one subsistence. If this were the case we would be forced, as the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae puts it, to imagine “the Church of Christ as the sum total of the Churches or the ecclesial Communities – which are simultaneously differentiated and yet united”, or “to think that the Church of Christ no longer exists today concretely and therefore can only be the object of research for the Churches and the communities.”[4] If this were the case, the Church of Christ would not any longer exist in history, or would exist only in some ideal form emerging either through some future convergence or through the reunification of the diverse sister Churches, to be hoped for and achieved through dialogue.

The Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concerning a book of Leonardo Boff is even more explicit. In response to Boff’s assertion that the one Church of Christ “is able to subsist in other Christian Churches”, the Notification states that “the Council chose the word “subsistit” specifically to clarify that the true Church has only one “subsistence”, while outside her visible boundaries there are only “elementa Ecclesiae” which – being elements of the same Church – tend and lead to the Catholic Church.”[5]

The third question asks why the expression “subsistit in” was used rather than the verb “est”.

It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism. In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.

In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The Council wished to teach that we encounter the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete historical subject in the Catholic Church. The idea, therefore, that subsistence can somehow be multiplied does not express what was intended by the choice of the term “subsistit”. In choosing the word “subsistit” the Council intended to express the singularity and non “multipliability” of the Church of Christ: the Church exists as a unique historical reality.

Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries."

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 05:32 AM
I did not limit you to the seven principle authors; cite any of the many more who were consulted or otherwise substantively contributed to the final content. Just one out of however many you think contributed to the drafts or final version.

Well, back peddling more then a bit. Pope Benedict was involved, and please read the document posted above. There were not specifically seven authors of the document.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 05:44 AM
Shuny's inaccurate press report:



No, the document does not say anything whatsoever about the Christian denominations not having the means of salvation. In fact, it quotes Vatican II to say practically the opposite:

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

And, of course, Dominus Iesus said the same thing:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

The press release is accurate, and you have failed to document otherwise.

Old turf. All your references involve the Roman Church's efforts in an ecumenical outreach to the 'separated brethren' outside the One True Church to bring them back to the fold, and not to consider that there is Salvation Outside the Church out side that which was specifically defined in the Vatican II and Lumen Gentium. The strategy was to use common ground to promote constructive dialogue for this purpose. None of this deals with the bottom line as what is the 'True Nature' of Salvation outside the One True Church, as Pope Benedict XXIII clarifies in his 2007 letter.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 05:57 AM
Well, back peddling more then a bit. Pope Benedict was involved, and please read the document posted above. There were not specifically seven authors of the document.
So, why not stop back peddling and tell us which of the authors you had in mind.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 06:00 AM
The press release is accurate, and you have failed to document otherwise.

Old turf. All your references involve the Roman Church's efforts in an ecumenical outreach to the 'separated brethren' outside the One True Church to bring them back to the fold, and not to consider that there is Salvation Outside the Church out side that which was specifically defined in the Vatican II and Lumen Gentium. The strategy was to use common ground to promote constructive dialogue for this purpose. None of this deals with the bottom line as what is the 'True Nature' of Salvation outside the One True Church, as Pope Benedict XXIII clarifies in his 2007 letter.
Part of the common ground was the obvious issue that the Protestant denominations were instruments of salvation.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 06:14 AM
Please note the following from the text below - "The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church." Irrelevant since our debate has not been about the doctrine about the church but about the the church's view on the possibility of salvation for Protestants, Jews, Muslims, followers of other religions, and agnostic/atheists.

The press release is inaccurate because it does not say, nor did Dominus Iesus say, that Protestant and other Christian denominations did not have the “means of salvation.” The words in quotation marks do not even appear in the document, which does in fact affirm that the separated churches and communities have were instruments of salvation.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 06:48 AM
Part of the common ground was the obvious issue that the Protestant denominations were instruments of salvation.

Instruments of salvation, does not translate to Salvation. The only purpose of the 'instruments of salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethern' to Salvation in the One True Church.'

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 06:52 AM
Is it really too much to expect that you read the documents that you say support your misinterpretation?

Airball!!!! Pope Benedict's letter is cited and specific, and it clearly agrees with the press release.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 06:52 AM
Instruments of salvation, does not translate to Salvation. The only purpose of the 'instruments of salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethern' to Salvation in the One True Church.'
According to your interpretation. Clearly the Catholic Church desires this and is trying to make this happen (not always effectively), but they do not limit God's purpose to this.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 06:54 AM
Irrelevant since our debate has not been about the doctrine about the church but about the the church's view on the possibility of salvation for Protestants, Jews, Muslims, followers of other religions, and agnostic/atheists.

The press release is inaccurate because it does not say, nor did Dominus Iesus say, that Protestant and other Christian denominations did not have the “means of salvation.” The words in quotation marks do not even appear in the document, which does in fact affirm that the separated churches and communities have were instruments of salvation.

Your playing the three Stooges, Duck, Bob and Weave. Pope Benedict' letter is specific. 'There is no change in Church Doctrine.

Again the purpose of 'Instruments of Salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethren' back to the 'One True Church' and Salvation within the Roman Church.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 06:58 AM
According to your interpretation. Clearly the Catholic Church desires this and is trying to make this happen (not always effectively), but they do not limit God's purpose to this.

Of course, they do not limit 'God's purpose' in Salvation, but nonetheless, by Doctrine in the Vatican II 'There is no Salvation outside the Roman Church,' except as specifically described.

How about you come up with specific references for 'Salvation' outside that which is specifically defined in the Vatican II and the Constitution.

These seven authors? you mentioned, you have cited nothing from them nor even given their names. The reality is there are no seven specific authors.

"The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church." Pope Benedict XVI

robrecht
04-07-2014, 07:12 AM
Your playing the three Stooges, Duck, Bob and Weave. Pope Benedict' letter is specific. 'There is no change in Church Doctrine.

Again the purpose of 'Instruments of Salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethren' back to the 'One True Church' and Salvation within the Roman Church.
Nice try, but why not finish your quote. There is no change in doctrine on the church, which is not our topic of discussion. The document does however refer to development of the doctrine as in deepening, making explicit what was previously only assumed, and clarifying what was previously uncertain.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 07:16 AM
Nice try, but why not finish your quote. There is no change in doctrine on the church, which is not our topic of discussion. The document does however refer to development of the doctrine as in deepening, making explicit what was previously only assumed, and clarifying what was previously uncertain.

This does not represent a meaningful response. The question of 'Salvation' has never been uncertain, nor has the doctrine ever changed.

IT is very much the topic of the discussion. Yes, 'the document does however refer to development of the doctrine as in deepening, making explicit what was previously only assumed, and clarifying what was previously uncertain,' but this refers to the role of the church concerning ecumenism, NOT Salvation. Concerning the issue of 'Salvation Outside the Church' the documents clarified specifically who may be saved outside the Roman Church.

Again the purpose of 'Instruments of Salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethren' back to the 'One True Church' and Salvation within the Roman Church.

"The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church." Pope Benedict XVI

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

robrecht
04-07-2014, 07:27 AM
Of course, they do not limit 'God's purpose' in Salvation, but nonetheless, by Doctrine in the Vatican II 'There is no Salvation outside the Roman Church,' except as specifically described.

How about you come up with specific references for 'Salvation' outside that which is specifically defined in the Vatican II and the Constitution.

These seven authors? you mentioned, you have cited nothing from them nor even given their names. The reality is there are no seven specific authors.

"The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church." Pope Benedict XVI
I already have but you resist the clear meaning. I could cite my sources on the seven principal authors, and I will later, but I think it is more important for you to back up your (implied?) claim that your interpretation was understood to be the intended meaning by the authors. If you did not intend such a claim, let me know.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 07:38 AM
I already have but you resist the clear meaning. I could cite my sources on the seven principal authors, and I will later, but I think it is more important for you to back up your (implied?) claim that your interpretation was understood to be the intended meaning by the authors. If you did not intend such a claim, let me know.

No you have not, again be specific, your nebulous foggy implied claim has no substance whatsoever. My claims have been specifically and accurately cited, specifically defining 'Salvation,' yours have not. Again, and please respond with substance with references the refer specifically to 'Salvation.'

This does not represent a meaningful response. The question of 'Salvation' has never been uncertain, nor has the doctrine ever changed.

IT is very much the topic of the discussion. Yes, 'the document does however refer to development of the doctrine as in deepening, making explicit what was previously only assumed, and clarifying what was previously uncertain,' but this refers to the role of the church concerning ecumenism, NOT Salvation. Concerning the issue of 'Salvation Outside the Church' the documents clarified specifically who may be saved outside the Roman Church.

Again the purpose of 'Instruments of Salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethren' back to the 'One True Church' and Salvation within the Roman Church.

"The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church." Pope Benedict XVI

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."



Highlighted still waiting . . .

robrecht
04-07-2014, 07:41 AM
This does not represent a meaningful response. The question of 'Salvation' has never been uncertain, nor has the doctrine ever changed.

IT is very much the topic of the discussion. Yes, 'the document does however refer to development of the doctrine as in deepening, making explicit what was previously only assumed, and clarifying what was previously uncertain,' but this refers to the role of the church concerning ecumenism, NOT Salvation.

Again the purpose of 'Instruments of Salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethren' back to the 'One True Church' and Salvation within the Roman Church.

"The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church." Pope Benedict XVI

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."What is this, the tenth time you've cite these paragraphs from the catechism, which I pointed you to, by the way, to get you to understand that your source was not in fact an infallible document or the Roman church today, which you've still failed to admit, and now you will go on denying that your press report was inaccurate and should not replace a reading of the actual document. It would indeed help if you had a better understanding of the church's doctrine on the church, but I specifically excluded this from the topic of our discussion at the outset. If you claim this has been the topic of our discussion, then this is just another documented misunderstanding on your part. Your determination of the meaningfulness of my responses are no more reliable.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 08:06 AM
What is this, the tenth time you've cite these paragraphs from the catechism, which I pointed you to, by the way, to get you to understand that your source was not in fact an infallible document or the Roman church today, which you've still failed to admit, and now you will go on denying that your press report was inaccurate and should not replace a reading of the actual document. It would indeed help if you had a better understanding of the church's doctrine on the church, but I specifically excluded this from the topic of our discussion at the outset. If you claim this has been the topic of our discussion, then this is just another documented misunderstanding on your part. .

Your determination of the meaningfulness of my responses are no more reliable.

It remains a part of the discussion since the very beginning, and will always remain a part of the discussion. No you have not demonstrated that it is no longer an infallible document of the church as reinforced by Benedict XVI. It was only nuanced and clarified , by the Vatican II and other later documents to clarify specific 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church, which I have cited in detail.

I will cite it 100 times if you continue to avoid the fact that it remains the doctrine that defines 'Salvation in the Roman Church.' 200 times if necessary, 300?

Still waiting for you to provide specific and accurate references that allow for 'Salvation' beyond that which I have specifically cited in the Vatican II, and other supported and relevant documents.

IT is very much the topic of the discussion. Yes, 'the document[s Vatican II and Lumen Gentium] does however refer to development of the doctrine as in deepening, making explicit what was previously only assumed, and clarifying what was previously uncertain,' but this refers to the role of the church concerning ecumenism, NOT Salvation. Concerning the issue of 'Salvation Outside the Church' the documents clarified specifically who may be saved outside the Roman Church.

Again the purpose of 'Instruments of Salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethren' back to the 'One True Church' and Salvation within the Roman Church.

"The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church." Pope Benedict XVI

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

robrecht
04-07-2014, 08:17 AM
Your determination of the meaningfulness of my responses are no more reliable.

It remains a part of the discussion since the very beginning, and will always remain a part of the discussion.

I will cite it 100 times if you continue to avoid the fact that it remains the doctrine that defines 'Salvation in the Roman Church.' 200 times if necessary, 300?

Still waiting for you to provide specific and accurate references that allow for 'Salvation' beyond that which I have specifically cited in the Vatican II, and other supported and relevant documents.
I don't believe I have said that your responses are not meaninful, nor have I called you deluded, but I do believe it is pointless to quote the same document even 100 times, let alone 200 or 300 times, once it has been established that we understand it differently. And I have never denied or avoided that 'it' remains parts of the doctrine of the church. That is merely another misrepresentation. But if you do not want to respond to my specific questions then I'm not sure you're really part of the same discussion.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 08:39 AM
I don't believe I have said that your responses are not meaninful, nor have I called you deluded, but I do believe it is pointless to quote the same document even 100 times, let alone 200 or 300 times, once it has been established that we understand it differently. And I have never denied or avoided that 'it' remains parts of the doctrine of the church. That is merely another misrepresentation. But if you do not want to respond to my specific questions then I'm not sure you're really part of the same discussion.

It has not been established that [the Roman Church] understands it differently. I have responded to your specific questions and claims. Your statements and quotations have referred to the nature of attributes of salvation outside the One True Church that lead the 'separated breathern' that would lead them to 'Salvation' within the One True Church.

I am still waiting for specific references, other then I cited and defined in the Vatican II, concerning 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church. This you have consistently failed to do and ignored or sidestepped references I gave from Brom, Benedict XVI and others that confirm my view. Benedict XVII was very specific in his letter in distinguishing the commitment to Ecumenism, and specifically restating the Doctrines of 'Salvation' which have not changed.

I think you need to read Benedict XVII letter again carefully:

"It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism. In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine."

"The fifth question asks why the ecclesial Communities originating from the Reformation are not recognised as ‘Churches’.

In response to this question the document recognises that “the wound is still more profound in those ecclesial communities which have not preserved the apostolic succession or the valid celebration of the eucharist”.[13] For this reason they are “not Churches in the proper sense of the word”[14] but rather, as is attested in conciliar and postconciliar teaching, they are “ecclesial Communities”.[15]

Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress in the communities concerned and even amongst some Catholics, it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of “Church” could possibly be attributed to them, given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

robrecht
04-07-2014, 09:43 AM
It has not been established that [the Roman Church] understands it differently. I have responded to your specific questions and claims. Your statements and quotations have referred to the nature of attributes of salvation outside the One True Church that lead the 'separated breathern' that would lead them to 'Salvation' within the One True Church.

I am still waiting for specific references, other then I cited and defined in the Vatican II, concerning 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church. This you have consistently failed to do and ignored or sidestepped references I gave from Brom, Benedict XVI and others that confirm my view. Benedict XVII was very specific in his letter in distinguishing the commitment to Ecumenism, and specifically restating the Doctrines of 'Salvation' which have not changed.

I think you need to read Benedict XVII letter again carefully:

"It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism. In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine."

"The fifth question asks why the ecclesial Communities originating from the Reformation are not recognised as ‘Churches’.

In response to this question the document recognises that “the wound is still more profound in those ecclesial communities which have not preserved the apostolic succession or the valid celebration of the eucharist”.[13] For this reason they are “not Churches in the proper sense of the word”[14] but rather, as is attested in conciliar and postconciliar teaching, they are “ecclesial Communities”.[15]

Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress in the communities concerned and even amongst some Catholics, it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of “Church” could possibly be attributed to them, given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."
You may think you have responded to my questions, but let me restate them so as to avoid any continuing confusion on your part:

Where does the Roman Catholic Church currently teach that Protestants must convert to Catholicism in order to be saved? Where does it limit its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated?

You may believe this is implied, you may believe that Pope Francis will be forced to teach this at some point in the future, or you may even find press reports saying that he has already done so, but until can point to specific texts that say this clearly, I see no reason to accept your interpretation over that of many others who I consider much more qualified to interpret Church teaching.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 01:30 PM
You may think you have responded to my questions, but let me restate them so as to avoid any continuing confusion on your part:

Where does the Roman Catholic Church currently teach that Protestants must convert to Catholicism in order to be saved? Where does it limit its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated?

I actually have responded to all this. What you have failed to do is on the positive show specifically where there are any other allowances for 'Salvation other then what is specifically defined in Vatican II. Still waiting . . .


You may believe this is implied, . . .

It is not implied, 'Salvation is specifically defined:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."


you may believe that Pope Francis will be forced to teach this at some point in the future, or you may even find press reports saying that he has already done so, but until can point to specific texts that say this clearly, I see no reason to accept your interpretation over that of many others who I consider much more qualified to interpret Church teaching.

This is my view that in history Popes have addressed this issue at one time or another, and not central to the argument. The only relevant point at present, he has not made any effort at this present to deny or alter the doctrine to specifically include the possibility of schismatic Protestants may be 'Saved' in any manner other than ignorance of the One True Church. For that matter no Pope in history has made any statement on this.

Ecumenism and the Roman Church

The Introduction states the desire for ecumenism, but . . .

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

From CHAPTER I - CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES ON ECUMENISM

The Church, then, is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it:(16) for it serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace(17) as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above.(18)

In summary

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

. . . all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 01:33 PM
Repeat, concerning Mentally Ill and others without knowledge of the One True Church:






1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 01:39 PM
It is precisely this universality that constitutes the Church as a universal sacrament of salvation (nn. 62-79). The question arises whether the church has significance only for its members or for everyone. Given the fact that the second answer is more relevant, the need of the Church for salvation is understood in two ways: the need to belong to her and the need of ministry of the Church at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God. Enlightened by the new perspectives offered by the Second Vatican Council, the old statement of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus illuminates the question of the affiliation to the Church as the body of Christ, the justification of all, and especially, the salvific mission of the Church in her threefold martyria, leitourgia and diakonia. In virtue of her witness, the Church proclaims the Good News to all. In her liturgy, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery and as such “fulfils her mission of priestly service in representing all humankind. In a way that, in accord with God’s will, it is efficacious for all men, it makes present the representation of Christ who "was made sin" for us (2 Cor 5:21) (n.77). In her diakonia of service of the neighbour she gives witness to the benevolent gift of God to men. It is clear that highlighting these aspects of the Church's function as a universal sacrament of salvation does not attempt to exhaust the complexity of this subject.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 01:45 PM
I have no problem with this as still enforsing EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALLUS. It just gives some explanation of interpretation details. No fundamental changes in the basic doctrine. Note my citation from Vatican II.


67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).
69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).
70. Thus the original meaning is restored to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful.31 Once this expression is integrated into the more universal extra Christum nulla salus, it is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all men to salvation.

As far as this goes the doctrine remains intact. The concept of the Universal call of all men to the One True Church is obviously not in contradiction with the doctrine. The doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus being nuanced and clarified in no way precludes that it does not remain valid.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 01:51 PM
Question of age of concent:





Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).



1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 02:29 PM
Repeat, concerning Mentally Ill and others without knowledge of the One True Church:

...
It is pointless to repeat this. No one denies that the Catholic church has long taught that Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent, presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, and of its opposition to God's law, and that it implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Nor is it disputed that unintentional ignorance, external pressure, or pathological disorders can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. This is indeed part of the reason why the Church does not consider Protestants, Muslims, atheists, etc, to be be necessarily guilty of a mortal sin of heresy or schism since they do not consider not belonging to the Catholic Church to be sinful, opposed to God's law, etc. Thus the extra ecclesiam phrase does not apply to these people because they do not believe that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. This is why I have asked you to show where the Catholic Church limits its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' only to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated. Do you now understand what I have asked you for?

robrecht
04-07-2014, 02:30 PM
I actually have responded to all this. What you have failed to do is on the positive show specifically where there are any other allowances for 'Salvation other then what is specifically defined in Vatican II. Still waiting . . . Sorry, but I have never claimed that the Church teaches of other allowances for "salvation other than what is specifically defined in Vatican II". Must be a typo on your part. I find it hard to believe that you have completely failed to understand my position all this time.

[Deleted: Quotation of same paragraphs from catechism for the 12th time]


This is my view that in history Popes have addressed this issue at one time or another, and not central to the argument. The only relevant point at present, he has not made any effort at this present to deny or alter the doctrine to specifically include the possibility of schismatic Protestants may be 'Saved' in any manner other than ignorance of the One True Church. For that matter no Pope in history has made any statement on this. No effort is required on his part to alter the common understanding of Vatican II that he himself holds.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 02:30 PM
It is precisely this universality that constitutes the Church as a universal sacrament of salvation (nn. 62-79). The question arises whether the church has significance only for its members or for everyone. Given the fact that the second answer is more relevant, the need of the Church for salvation is understood in two ways: the need to belong to her and the need of ministry of the Church at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God. Enlightened by the new perspectives offered by the Second Vatican Council, the old statement of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus illuminates the question of the affiliation to the Church as the body of Christ, the justification of all, and especially, the salvific mission of the Church in her threefold martyria, leitourgia and diakonia. In virtue of her witness, the Church proclaims the Good News to all. In her liturgy, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery and as such “fulfils her mission of priestly service in representing all humankind. In a way that, in accord with God’s will, it is efficacious for all men, it makes present the representation of Christ who "was made sin" for us (2 Cor 5:21) (n.77). In her diakonia of service of the neighbour she gives witness to the benevolent gift of God to men. It is clear that highlighting these aspects of the Church's function as a universal sacrament of salvation does not attempt to exhaust the complexity of this subject. Note the part about representing all humankind, ie, even those who are not members of the Catholic Church, in a way that, in accord with God's will, is efficacious for all men. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

robrecht
04-07-2014, 02:32 PM
Question of age of concent:



Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).



1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Also pointless to keep repeating this. Issue is not whether or not Church condemns unbaptized babies. I have asked you to show where the Catholic Church limits its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' only to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 02:52 PM
Note the part about representing all humankind, ie, even those who are not members of the Catholic Church, in a way that, in accord with God's will, is efficacious for all men. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

Likely, that is the claim of the Roman Church. So what?

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 02:56 PM
Also pointless to keep repeating this. Issue is not whether or not Church condemns unbaptized babies. I have asked you to show where the Catholic Church limits its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' only to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated.

I already gave you the references that limit 'Salvation' as defined by the Vatican II. There are absolutely no other exceptions indicated. The problem is that you have consistently failed to provide any references that there are any documentation where other exceptions to 'Salvation' in the Roman Church only.'

Ah . . . where are these references to the supposed seven authors?

I have given Brom as a reference to the problem of heresy and schism, and your dodging it. It is a legitimate authoritative reference by a major theologian.

Pope Benedict XVI's letter is also clear and specific.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 07:10 PM
Note the part about representing all humankind, ie, even those who are not members of the Catholic Church, in a way that, in accord with God's will, is efficacious for all men. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

This was well addressed by Pope Benedict in his letter in 2005



The third question asks why the expression “subsistit in” was used rather than the verb “est”.

It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism. In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.

In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The Council wished to teach that we encounter the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete historical subject in the Catholic Church. The idea, therefore, that subsistence can somehow be multiplied does not express what was intended by the choice of the term “subsistit”. In choosing the word “subsistit” the Council intended to express the singularity and non “multipliability” of the Church of Christ: the Church exists as a unique historical reality.

Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 07:23 PM
This was well addressed by Pope Benedict in his letter in 2005



The third question asks why the expression “subsistit in” was used rather than the verb “est”.

It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism. In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.

In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The Council wished to teach that we encounter the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete historical subject in the Catholic Church. The idea, therefore, that subsistence can somehow be multiplied does not express what was intended by the choice of the term “subsistit”. In choosing the word “subsistit” the Council intended to express the singularity and non “multipliability” of the Church of Christ: the Church exists as a unique historical reality.

Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries. Frank, I have never contested this. It is irrelevant to our discussion. But since you quoted it, you may was well read it: "it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries." This is in accord with what I have been saying all along.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 07:25 PM
Note the part about representing all humankind, ie, even those who are not members of the Catholic Church, in a way that, in accord with God's will, is efficacious for all men. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?


Likely, that is the claim of the Roman Church. So what?Likely? You yourself just linked to it, but you're not sure if it is or is not the claim of the Catholic Church?

Do you have doubts because it is written by the former president of the International Theological Commission and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith (formerly the Holy Office of the Inquisition) who was criticized by your Feeneyite blogger, the one whom you thought confirmed 'the infallibility of your [anonymous] document' from Our Lady of the Rosary Library, the blogger who 'basically confirmed everything you had cited'? I can understand your hesitation if you still think this blogger is correct in his criticisms of current church documents. But, it should give you pause, if you still think he is correctly representing current church teaching. Recall that Feeney was excommunicated because of his overly rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam.

So what? It rejects the Feeneyite exclusivist understanding of extra ecclesiam, instead affirming the original, parenetical understanding that is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all humanity to salvation. This view of the universal and effective salvific will of God grounds the church's view of how Christ in some sense saves even those who are outside the physical church but nonetheless spiritually part of the church, the mystical Body of Christ. This is also why the ‘subsists in’ doctrine of the church is irrelevant to our question. Read the cited documents, without the Feeneyite bias of your blogger friend, and you should be able to see this.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 07:30 PM
I already gave you the references that limit 'Salvation' as defined by the Vatican II. There are absolutely no other exceptions indicated. The problem is that you have consistently failed to provide any references that there are any documentation where other exceptions to 'Salvation' in the Roman Church only.' My references, which are now also your references, are very clear to most people. Which is why I asked if you could cite theologians, preferably any of the authors of Lumen Gentium, who agree with your interpretation.


Ah . . . where are these references to the supposed seven authors? I have not given it to you yet. I want to see how well you can do on your own. You agreed with me that the authors of the document should understand its meaning. So can you name any of the authors who agree with your interpretation? I asked you first. But, as I promised, I will give you my reference. No need to panic.


I have given Brom as a reference to the problem of heresy and schism, and your dodging it. It is a legitimate authoritative reference by a major theologian. Too funny! One, even ‘though it is not a disputed point, I have not dodged it, but rather addressed it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=36846&viewfull=1#post36846), here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=36990&viewfull=1#post36990), here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=39741&viewfull=1#post39741), and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=39956&viewfull=1#post39956). Two, he did not write the tract but merely in his capacity as bishop allowed it to be distributed. Three, as for being a major theologian, he has an MDiv from St. John Seminary, in Camarillo, California. This is just too funny. Go ahead and cite it 100, 200, 300 times, I see no reason to continue to respond, but it will continue to entertain for a long time.

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 08:47 PM
Likely? You yourself just linked to it, but you're not sure if it is or is not the claim of the Catholic Church?

Do you have doubts because it is written by the former president of the International Theological Commission and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith (formerly the Holy Office of the Inquisition) who was criticized by your Feeneyite blogger, the one whom you thought confirmed 'the infallibility of your [anonymous] document' from Our Lady of the Rosary Library, the blogger who 'basically confirmed everything you had cited'? I can understand your hesitation if you still think this blogger is correct in his criticisms of current church documents. But, it should give you pause, if you still think he is correctly representing current church teaching. Recall that Feeney was excommunicated because of his overly rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam.

So what? It rejects the Feeneyite exclusivist understanding of extra ecclesiam, instead affirming the original, parenetical understanding that is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all humanity to salvation. This view of the universal and effective salvific will of God grounds the church's view of how Christ in some sense saves even those who are outside the physical church but nonetheless spiritually part of the church, the mystical Body of Christ. This is also why the ‘subsists in’ doctrine of the church is irrelevant to our question. Read the cited documents, without the Feeneyite bias of your blogger friend, and you should be able to see this.

It does not address the issue at hand. Who is considered possibly saved outside the One True Church. "Yes, Christ in some sense saves even those outside the physical church. but nonetheless spiritually apart of the church."

As cited in numerous places, this is only defined as those who have no knowledge of the One True Church. This is what you have failed to comprehend, and you have failed to demonstrate that this inclusion of 'others outside the One True Church' includes anyone else. Still waiting . . .

shunyadragon
04-07-2014, 08:54 PM
My references, which are now also your references, are very clear to most people. Which is why I asked if you could cite theologians, preferably any of the authors of Lumen Gentium, who agree with your interpretation.

I cited Brom and Pope Benedict XVI which is sufficient, and the Vatican II and the Lumen Gentium. You are conflating 'elements of salvation' outside the church with Salvation in the Roman Church, which is not a valid argument as Pope Benedict XVI described in detail.


I have not given it to you yet. I want to see how well you can do on your own. You agreed with me that the authors of the document should understand its meaning. So can you name any of the authors who agree with your interpretation? I asked you first. But, as I promised, I will give you my reference. No need to panic.

I don't believe that there were seven specific authors as you claim. There were far too many people involved for this to work. If anyone it is the College of Cardinals and the Pope that are responsible for the final approval of the Vatican II. Still waiting . . .


Too funny! One, even ‘though it is not a disputed point, I have not dodged it, but rather addressed it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=36846&viewfull=1#post36846), here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=36990&viewfull=1#post36990), here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=39741&viewfull=1#post39741), and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1447-The-Identity-of-God&p=39956&viewfull=1#post39956). Two, he did not write the tract but merely in his capacity as bishop allowed it to be distributed. Three, as for being a major theologian, he has an MDiv from St. John Seminary, in Camarillo, California. This is just too funny. Go ahead and cite it 100, 200, 300 times, I see no reason to continue to respond, but it will continue to entertain for a long time.

Not funny at all! It remains the barrier that those outside the Roman Church, with knowledge of the Roman Church cannot be saved as long as they remain outside the Roman Church.

Your willful ignorance concerning the nature of Salvation outside the Roman Church is neither funny nor amusing, it is tragic.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 09:57 PM
It does not address the issue at hand. Who is considered possibly saved outside the One True Church. "Yes, Christ in some sense saves even those outside the physical church. but nonetheless spiritually apart of the church."

As cited in numerous places, this is only defined as those who have no knowledge of the One True Church. This is what you have failed to comprehend, and you have failed to demonstrate that this inclusion of 'others outside the One True Church' includes anyone else. Still waiting . . .Why do you always fail to cite the most explicit language? Not just 'those who have no knowledge of the church', but 'those who know that that the Catholic church was founded by God as necessary and yet refuse to enter or remain'? Don't you see the difference? It is significant. Especially when you consider the traditional maxim of canon law regarding the interpretation of canons of law and doctrine. Restrictive canons are to be interpreted strictly and permissive canons are to be interpreted liberly. Thus it matters a great deal if a legal or doctrinal canon is expressed positively or negatively; exceptions need not and should not be spelled out with carefully worded negatively worded statements, lest its character be confused. Thus when the doctrine is expressed negatively such that those who know that that the Catholic church was founded by God as necessary and yet refuse to enter or remain cannot be saved that means only those who know that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God and yet yet refuse to enter or remain should be considered as unable to be saved and it is one should understand that this clearly means that all others may be saved. To list positive examples or exceptions to this negative canon would risk being misunderstood as only allowing some exceptions and therby disallowing any exceptions not listed in an exhaustive list. This is the legal risk of listing some but not all possible exceptions. This is clearly spelled out in the introductory chapters of the code of canon law--look it up if you are unaware of this and do not believe me.

robrecht
04-07-2014, 10:15 PM
I cited Brom and Pope Benedict XVI which is sufficient, and the Vatican II and the Lumen Gentium. You are conflating 'elements of salvation' outside the church with Salvation in the Roman Church, which is not a valid argument as Pope Benedict XVI described in detail. No, not at all. I am not conflating elements of salvation or means of salvation outside of the church with salvation in the Roman Catholic Church. I have not said anything remotely similar to that. The doctrine whereby those outside of the visible church and yet in some sense known only to God in spiritual union with the mystical body of Christ does not confuse this issue. Absolutely nothing that Benedict said contradicts this. You seem to think that the debate around 'subsists in' negates this, but it does not. Similarly, the tract that Brom approved for distribution also does not contradict this. Neither 'Brom' nor the church claims that all Protestants outside the Catholic church are necessarily guilty of a mortal sin of heresy or schism.


I don't believe that there were seven specific authors as you claim. There were far too many people involved for this to work. If anyone it is the College of Cardinals and the Pope that are responsible for the final approval of the Vatican II. Still waiting . . . Whether or not you believe an historian (it is not my claim) who identifies seven primary authors of Lumen Gentium or your or others want to variously define what constitutes authorship and who should be considered an author or substantive contributor is beside the point. When you said that the authors understood the meaning of the document, whomever you understood to be those authors, pick any one of them. If you now want to claim that it's just too complicated to consider anyone to be an author or substantive contributor to the document, then it seems your claim that the authors understood the meaning of the document becomes meaningless. But, as I promised, I will eventually share my historical source with you. Surprised you have not found it already.


Not funny at all! It remains the barrier that those outside the Roman Church, with knowledge of the Roman Church cannot be saved as long as they remain outside the Roman Church. And yet you cannot find a clear statement of this in the official documents of the church. Again, you leave off the crucial part of the negative canon that says they must know that the Catholic church is founded by God as necessary. By leaving that out, you miss the point.


Your willful ignorance concerning the nature of Salvation outside the Roman Church is neither funny nor amusing, it is tragic.No, it is really very funny that you think so.

shunyadragon
04-08-2014, 05:34 AM
No, not at all. I am not conflating elements of salvation or means of salvation outside of the church with salvation in the Roman Catholic Church. I have not said anything remotely similar to that.

What you are conflating is the presence of elements of salvation outside the Roman Church with 'Salvation inside the Church. Pretty much most of your citations refer to 'elements of salvation' outside the Roman Church.


The doctrine whereby those outside of the visible church and yet in some sense known only to God in spiritual union with the mystical body of Christ does not confuse this issue.

The statement 'in some sense known only to God' does confuse the issue it is too vague, and does not reflect the actual references I cited. I guess 'only known to God' is always possible, but that would not be how the Doctrine of Salvation is described within and outside the Roman Church as cited.


Absolutely nothing that Benedict said contradicts this. You seem to think that the debate around 'subsists in' negates this, but it does not. Similarly, the tract that Brom approved for distribution also does not contradict this. Neither 'Brom' nor the church claims that all Protestants outside the Catholic church are necessarily guilty of a mortal sin of heresy or schism.

Neither Brom nor Benedict XVI allowed 'Salvation' outside the Church, or some Protestants, in any other manner then clearly defined by the references I cited. In these citations there is no exceptions of any Protestants with knowledge of the Roman Church that are not guilty of the mortal sin of schism, and those Churches and religions that do not believe in the Trinity or the Bible as believed by the Roman Church would be guilty of Heresy. The references are clear and specific.


Whether or not you believe an historian (it is not my claim) who identifies seven primary authors of Lumen Gentium or your or others want to variously define what constitutes authorship and who should be considered an author or substantive contributor is beside the point. When you said that the authors understood the meaning of the document, whomever you understood to be those authors, pick any one of them. If you now want to claim that it's just too complicated to consider anyone to be an author or substantive contributor to the document, then it seems your claim that the authors understood the meaning of the document becomes meaningless. But, as I promised, I will eventually share my historical source with you. Surprised you have not found it already.

The processes of developing and redacting the Lumen Gentium are not 'complicated,' they are very orderly and specific within the hierarchy. First, they must consider the historical doctrines and dogma of the Church and not contradict or change essential Doctrine and Dogma. The foundation was Vatican I. The two main issues the Roman Church faced were (1) The diplomatic relations and other manner of relationships with other religions, churches and secular institutions outside the Roman Church. (2) Ecumenism and developing constructive dialogue with churches outside the Roman Church. The main changes from Vatican I deal with these issues. As cited from the Vatican II, Lumen Gentium , Pope Benedict XVI and Brom, the Doctrine of Salvation outside the Roman Church does not change, and except for clarification of the Doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus remains intact as stated in Vatican II.


And yet you cannot find a clear statement of this in the official documents of the church. Again, you leave off the crucial part of the negative canon that says they must know that the Catholic church is founded by God as necessary. By leaving that out, you miss the point.

I am not leaving out any thing. You are misreading what you claim as the 'crucial part of the negative canon.' There is no problem with the Roman Church as founded by God as necessary. The way you use this is confusing, because the Doctrine of the Roman Church concerning 'Salvation' within and outside the Church is clear and specific, and does not involve 'negative canon' in the key references I citied.

The problem still remains you have not cited clear and specific references where 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church is possible, ie some Protestants, other then as cited in the references I cited. Again, The statement 'in some sense known only to God' does confuse the issue it is too vague.


No, it is really very funny that you think so.

You were the one who appeared amused and consider it funny. I considered it tragic.

robrecht
04-08-2014, 06:59 AM
What you are conflating is the presence of elements of salvation outside the Roman Church with 'Salvation inside the Church. Pretty much most of your citations refer to 'elements of salvation' outside the Roman Church.No, Frank. Just because the church speaks of the presence of elements of salvation outside the Catholic church does not mean that I have conflated that with salvation inside the church. You may have misunderstood some of my statements. If you could cite where you think I've done so, perhaps I could better explain why I am not doing what you think I am doing.


The statement 'in some sense known only to God' does confuse the issue it is too vague, and does not reflect the actual references I cited. I guess 'only known to God' is always possible, but that would not be how the Doctrine of Salvation is described within and outside the Roman Church as cited. The statement is not mine but is part of the church doctrine that I have cited for you. Would you like me to cite this again? Glad you now recognize this possibility. And, no, of course, this is not understood as salvation within the Roman Catholic Church.


Neither Brom nor Benedict XVI allowed 'Salvation' outside the Church, or some Protestants, in any other manner then clearly defined by the references I cited. In these citations there is no exceptions of any Protestants with knowledge of the Roman Church that are not guilty of the mortal sin of schism, and those Churches and religions that do not believe in the Trinity or the Bible as believed by the Roman Church would be guilty of Heresy. The references are clear and specific. I'm afraid you have misunderstood these references despite my best efforts to explain them to you.


The processes of developing and redacting the Lumen Gentium are not 'complicated,' they are very orderly and specific within the hierarchy. First, they must consider the historical doctrines and dogma of the Church and not contradict or change essential Doctrine and Dogma. The foundation was Vatican I. The two main issues the Roman Church faced were (1) The diplomatic relations and other manner of relationships with other religions, churches and secular institutions outside the Roman Church. (2) Ecumenism and developing constructive dialogue with churches outside the Roman Church. The main changes from Vatican I deal with these issues. As cited from the Vatican II, Lumen Gentium , Pope Benedict XVI and Brom, the Doctrine of Salvation outside the Roman Church does not change, and except for clarification of the Doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus remains intact as stated in Vatican II. As your own source indicated (do you now no longer agree with him?), the clarification is significant.


I am not leaving out any thing. You are misreading what you claim as the 'crucial part of the negative canon.' There is no problem with the Roman Church as founded by God as necessary. The way you use this is confusing, because the Doctrine of the Roman Church concerning 'Salvation' within and outside the Church is clear and specific, and does not involve 'negative canon' in the key references I citied. Sorry, Frank, but you have quoted this negative canon some twelve times, apparently all the while not understanding its clear import.


The problem still remains you have not cited clear and specific references where 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church is possible, ie some Protestants, other then as cited in the references I cited. Again, The statement 'in some sense known only to God' does confuse the issue it is too vague. See above. I am sorry you find Catholic teaching too vague, but that's life. The most explicit language is very clear to everyone else I've ever known, and I've known very many world class theologians, a few bishops and cardinals, and even had a private audience with the pope, though we did not discuss this doctrine.


You were the one who appeared amused and consider it funny. I considered it tragic.You may have misunderstood. I did not think it was you who find it amusing or funny. I said that I certainly do find it very amusing that you think that I am willfully ignorant and that you consider this tragic.

shunyadragon
04-08-2014, 07:15 PM
The statement is not mine but is part of the church doctrine that I have cited for you. Would you like me to cite this again? Glad you now recognize this possibility. And, no, of course, this is not understood as salvation within the Roman Catholic Church.

It is not a part of the Church Doctrine that deals with defining Salvation.


As your own source indicated (do you now no longer agree with him?), the clarification is significant.

False, the clarification of the doctrine is not significant, unless you can come up with something specific which you have consistently failed to do.


Sorry, Frank, but you have quoted this negative canon some twelve times, apparently all the while not understanding its clear import.

The concept of negative canon does not deal with any changes for 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church.


See above. I am sorry you find Catholic teaching too vague, but that's life. The most explicit language is very clear to everyone else I've ever known, and I've known very many world class theologians, a few bishops and cardinals, and even had a private audience with the pope, though we did not discuss this doctrine.

The Catholic Doctrine is not vague, it is your use of it that increases the fog index to suit your own agenda. You tend quote things out of context. Stick to one fact you have failed to do: Please refer specifically how 'Salvation outside the Church has been changed. Where are the seven authors?


You may have misunderstood. I did not think it was you who find it amusing or funny. I said that I certainly do find it very amusing that you think that I am willfully ignorant and that you consider this tragic.

Then you need to improve your written English.

shunyadragon
04-08-2014, 07:27 PM
Thus when the doctrine is expressed negatively such that those who know that that the Catholic church was founded by God as necessary and yet refuse to enter or remain cannot be saved that means only those who know that the Catholic church was founded as necessary by God and yet refuse to enter or remain should be considered as unable to be saved and it is one should understand that this clearly means that all others may be saved. To list positive examples or exceptions to this negative canon would risk being misunderstood as only allowing some exceptions and thereby disallowing any exceptions not listed in an exhaustive list. This is the legal risk of listing some but not all possible exceptions. This is clearly spelled out in the introductory chapters of the code of canon law--look it up if you are unaware of this and do not believe me.

I am perfectly aware of it.

I believe your sidestepping the issue with a play on words out of context of the whole. The above highlighted is not a way out for those outside the church who have knowledge of the Roman Church. If there is a 'sincere' lack of knowledge through no fault of their own, then there is a possibility of salvation, as defined by the Doctrine of Salvation within and outside the Church.

Your use of the term 'negative canon' needs clarification if your using in terms of the Doctrines concerning 'Salvation.' If you would provide a reference to a definition on how you use this term.

robrecht
04-08-2014, 08:15 PM
It is not a part of the Church Doctrine that deals with defining Salvation. Of course it is. It describes how God saves people. Or rather it says that God saves people in ways that we cannot know, in ways known only to God. This allows God's universal and effective salvific will to save people without their being members of the Catholic church, without their being subject to the Roman Pontiff.


False, the clarification of the doctrine is not significant, unless you can come up with something specific which you have consistently failed to do. Luckily, I don't need to come up with anything because I was just quoting your own source, which is why I asked if you still agreed with him.


The concept of negative canon does not deal with any changes for 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church.

The Catholic Doctrine is not vague your use of it increases the fog index to suit your own agenda. You tend quote things out od context. Stick to one fact you have failed to do: Please refer specifically how 'Salvation outside the Church has been changed. If you recall my position, I do not necessarily consider the teaching to have changed, depending upon how the earlier teaching was understood, and it has been variously understood. Clearly, some in the past understood extra ecclesiam in an ultra-rigorist fashion, eg, Boniface VIII, but, as I've said, there were always those who had a more open, optimistic approach. With respect to how Boniface VIII understood the phrase, or, to a lesser extent, how you understand it, the view has changed. But this multifarious view of change is not important here. What is important, is what the church currently teaches very clearly. And the negative canon is perhaps the most explicit expression of this, at least for those who understand it.


Then you need to improve your written English. OK, let's see if we can make this clearer for you:

Frank 1: Your willful ignorance concerning the nature of Salvation outside the Roman Church is neither funny nor amusing, it is tragic.

robrecht 1: No, it is really very funny that you think so.

Frank 2: You were the one who appeared amused and consider it funny. I considered it tragic.

robrecht 2: You may have misunderstood. I did not think it was you who find it amusing or funny. I said that I certainly do find it very amusing that you think that I am willfully ignorant and that you consider this tragic.

You seem to understand 'that you think so' in robrecht 1 as somehow meaning 'that you think its funny'. You assume that 'that you think so' did not properly refer back to what you in fact thought. But, of course, I knew exactly what you thought. You had just said what you thought. It was not difficult in any way. No reason for you to assume that I misunderstood. But, at any rate, Frank, I apologize that you found the phrase difficult and I will strive to be more explicit. So let me rephrase robrecht 1 for you:

No, it is not tragic; it is really funny that you think it is tragic. I do not think it is tragic. Rather, as I said, I think it is really funny. You think it is tragic. I think it is funny that you think it is tragic. Better? Does the repetition of the context in every phrase help?

Now, when you said above, "You tend quote things out od context," I do not assume that you meant this literally. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am confident that what you really meant is that 'You quote things out of context'.

robrecht
04-08-2014, 08:16 PM
I am perfectly aware of it.

I believe your sidestepping the issue with a play on words out of context of the whole. The above highlighted is not a way out for those outside the church who have knowledge of the Roman Church. If there is a lack of knowledge through no fault of their own, then there is a possibility of salvation, as defined by the Doctrine of Salvation within and outside the Church. No, it is not a play on words. It is the current teaching of the Catholic church. It makes much more explicit what previously was not so clear to some, including some popes.

If you care about understanding and clearly expressing the teaching of the Catholic church it would be best for you to use the more explicit statement:

It is not just 'knowledge of the Roman Church' ...

but 'knowing that the Catholic church was founded by God as necessary.

Do you see how the latter expression is much more explicit, how it identifies specifically and exactly what knowledge it is necessary to know in order to not be excused?

shunyadragon
04-09-2014, 04:36 AM
No, it is not a play on words. It is the current teaching of the Catholic church. It makes much more explicit what previously was not so clear to some, including some popes.

If you care about understanding and clearly expressing the teaching of the Catholic church it would be best for you to use the more explicit statement:

It is not just 'knowledge of the Roman Church' ...

but 'knowing that the Catholic church was founded by God as necessary.

No, there is no significant change. The above is simply a rewording of the same thing. Every person must still face the question, 'Are they 'sincere' in their 'lack of knowledge of the 'One True Church,' so that their lack of knowledge is due to 'no fault of their own.'

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."


Do you see how the latter expression is much more explicit, how it identifies specifically and exactly what knowledge it is necessary to know in order to not be excused?

Absolutely No! If you're argument is based on this, you're grasping on straws to justify your own agenda.

Several points not yet supported (1) Seven authors? references to support your argument that the above is a significant change in Doctrine. (2) Reference defining 'negative canon' as you use it in this argument.

robrecht
04-09-2014, 05:14 AM
No, there is no significant change. The above is simply a rewording of the same thing. Every person must still face the question, 'Are they 'sincere' in their 'lack of knowledge of the 'One True Church,' so that their lack of knowledge is due to 'no fault of their own.'

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."



Absolutely No! If you're argument is based on this, you're grasping on straws to justify your own agenda.
Most people can see that the latter statement is clearly more explicit.

Note also that what you've bolded in 847 (quoted now for the 13th time?) is a positive, more general statement, speaking about a different population, ie, those who do not know Christ and his Church. There is no need to be more explicit with respect to this population. Those who do not even know of the Church or of Christ would of course not be expected to know that the Church was founded as necessary by God. The manner in which God leads these people to eternal salvation is more mysterious, known only to God. But the more explicit statement in 846, which relates to how the extra ecclesiam phrase is now to be clearly understood as it relates to those who are either already in the Church or know it well enough to believe that it was founded by God as necessary. This extra ecclesiam phrase is no longer to be applied to those who are ignorant of Christ and his church. And for those who are not ignorant of Christ and his church, this phrase is clarified to mean that only those that know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, and who nevertheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it, those people, in the opinion of the Council Fathers, are those cannot be saved.

Why try to introduce an ad hominem element about my supposed agenda? What agenda do you think is driving my understanding of Church doctrine, which is the clearly the accepted understanding? My only agenda here is to explain to you what the current teaching of the Catholic church is. I am not personally invested in its teaching. I clearly disagree with Church teaching on several key issues, even this one. I am not saying that the teaching is right or wrong. But even though I disagree with the Catholic church's teachings, I see that as no reason or motive to misrepresent them.

OingoBoingo
04-09-2014, 05:14 AM
Then you need to improve your written English.

:lmbo:

shunyadragon
04-09-2014, 05:21 AM
Most people can see that the latter statement is clearly more explicit.

Note also that what you've bolded in 847 (quoted now for the 13th time?) is a positive, more general statement, speaking about a different population, ie, those who do not know Christ and his Church. There is no need to be more explicit with respect to this population. Those who do not even know of the Church or of Christ would of course not be expected to know that the Church was founded as necessary by God. The manner in which God leads these people to eternal salvation is more mysterious, known only to God. But the more explicit statement in 846, which relates to how the extra ecclesiam phrase is now to be clearly understood as it relates to those who are either already in the Church or know it well enough to believe that it was founded by God as necessary. This extra ecclesiam phrase is no longer to be applied to those who are ignorant of Christ and his church. And for those who are not ignorant of Christ and his church, this phrase is clarified to mean that only those that know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, and who nevertheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it, those people, in the opinion of the Council Fathers, are those cannot be saved.

Why try to introduce an ad hominem element about my supposed agenda? What agenda do you think is driving my understanding of Church doctrine, which is the clearly the accepted understanding? My only agenda here is to explain to you what the current teaching of the Catholic church is. I am not personally invested in its teaching. I clearly disagree with Church teaching on several key issues, even this one. I am not saying that the teaching is right or wrong. But even though I disagree with the Catholic church's teachings, I see that as no reason or motive to misrepresent them.

I do not accept this interpretation, no I do not consider this to addressing different populations; the text does not confirm this. The standards of 'knowledge' outside the 'One True Church' remains universal. The criteria of 'sincerity,' and 'through no fault of their own.' remain. In the modern world of mass media, and the fact that the Roman Church remains the largest church publicizing their message and the necessity of the Roman Church through every means possible, your argument becomes increasingly mote.

Several points not yet supported (1) Seven authors? references to support your argument that the above is a significant change in Doctrine. (2) Reference defining 'negative canon' as you use it in this argument.

The agenda? It is common among liberal believers in the Roman Church and Protestant Churches to try and broaden the Doctrine of 'Salvation' to go beyond that which is clearly defined in the Doctrine of the Roman Church. There is also the illusion that Vatican II in some way proposed that the Church of Christ extended beyond the physical Roman Church in the same vane of expanding the possibility of 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church. This is clearly an illusion based on the hope of Ecumenism, and that the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church has actually changed. It most definitely has not.

robrecht
04-09-2014, 12:02 PM
I do not accept this interpretation, no I do not consider this to addressing different populations; the text does not confirm this. The standards of 'knowledge' outside the 'One True Church' remains universal. The criteria of 'sincerity,' and 'through no fault of their own.' remain. In the modern world of mass media, and the fact that the Roman Church remains the largest church publicizing their message and the necessity of the Roman Church through every means possible, your argument becomes increasingly mote.

Several points not yet supported (1) Seven authors? references to support your argument that the above is a significant change in Doctrine. (2) Reference defining 'negative canon' as you use it in this argument.

The agenda? It is common among liberal believers in the Roman Church and Protestant Churches to try and broaden the Doctrine of 'Salvation' to go beyond that which is clearly defined in the Doctrine of the Roman Church. There is also the illusion that Vatican II in some way proposed that the Church of Christ extended beyond the physical Roman Church in the same vain of expanding the possibility of 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church. This is clearly an illusion based on the hope of Ecumenism, and that the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church has actually changed. It most definitely has not.

As to the differing populations, this is not a matter of interpretation but an undeniable part of the text, which you have cited so frequently. §847 explicitly says of the traditional extra ecclesiam statement, that "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church," and then formulates a statement that is aimed at those people, repeating the very same designation of these people: "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."

So who then is addressed by the traditional extra ecclesiam statement. This was already very clear in §846. It is addressed to 'those to whom Christ is present in his body, which is the Church' and, again, this population is mentioned again in Lumen Gentium's much more explicit restatement of the traditional maxim: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. Obviously not the same population in discussed in §847 who do not know Christ, his gospel, and his Church could never be faced with a decision to enter or remain in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps this would be clearer to you if, when you quote these two sections, you do not remove the paragraph division between §846 and §847.

No one would ever dispute that the the criteria of 'sincerity' and 'through no fault of their own' remain.

As for the modern world of mass media, and the fact that the Roman Catholic Church remains the largest church publicizing its message through every means available, this actually makes the more explicit restatement in §846 more relevant (ie, less moot or mote) insofar as it is aimed at 'those to whom Christ is present in his body, which is the Church' and 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, and who nonetheless would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

I will not forget to provide you with my reference to the seven principal authors of the Lumen Gentium draft. I checked a book where I thought I read it, but haven't found it there yet. I do know of another source, but I may wait until I can track down a better reference at the local University library.

The significance of the clarification was already made clear in your own source, but if you no longer agree with your own source, I have also already mentioned Boniface VIII to you, who gave a very different but even more explicit definition of of the traditional extra ecclesiam statement:

"We are obliged by the faith to believe and hold -- and we do firmly believe and sincerely confess -- that there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins… For this authority, although given to a man and exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine, given at God's mouth to Peter and established on a rock for him and his successors in Him whom he confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. Whoever therefore resists this power thus ordained of God, resists the ordinance of God… Furthermore we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff."

Do you see how that is a little different from current Catholic teaching?

A canon, among other things, is just a traditional term for an individual authoritative statement of a Church council, eg, the canons of the Council of Trent; if I recall it comes from the Greek for 'measure'. Although I base no argument on this, by negative canon, I merely mean a canon that is negative in import, eg, an anathema. In this case, there is no formal anathema, but the import is clearly negative in that traditional maxim is still being used to define very stringently those who cannot be saved: Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. The traditional manner of interpreting such canons, whether they be from Councils or canon law (sometimes based on conciliar statements), that restrictive canons should be interpreted strictly, as can still be illustrated in one of the introductory cannons of the current code of canon law, Canon 18: "Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation." All other laws are to be given a broad interpretation, as can still be illustrated by Canon 36 §1: "An administrative act must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others, or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation." Insofar as the teachings of Vatican II were not intended to introduce new anathemas, and the revision of canon law was left to a postconciliar commision, there is even less reason to give a broad interpretation of the statement that indicates who cannot be saved or an overly strict or exclusive interpretation of statements that describe who can be saved and how they are saved, eg, in a manner known only to God is about as broad and open-ended of an 'definition' as possible. Those who are trained in Church doctrine, law, and interpretation of official church documents are quite familiar with this kind of 'ecclesiastical speak'.

You cannot demonstrate that I am driven by this agenda that you attribute to me. As I said above, my only agenda here is to explain to you what the current teaching of the Catholic church is. I am not personally invested in its teaching. I clearly disagree with Church teaching on several key issues, even this one. I am not saying that the teaching is right or wrong. But even though I disagree with the Catholic church's teachings, I see that as no reason or motive to misrepresent them.

shunyadragon
04-09-2014, 02:00 PM
As to the differing populations, this is not a matter of interpretation but an undeniable part of the text, which you have cited so frequently. §847 explicitly says of the traditional extra ecclesiam statement, that "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church," and then formulates a statement that is aimed at those people, repeating the very same designation of these people: "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."

So who then is addressed by the traditional extra ecclesiam statement. This was already very clear in §846. It is addressed to 'those to whom Christ is present in his body, which is the Church' and, again, this population is mentioned again in Lumen Gentium's much more explicit restatement of the traditional maxim: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. Obviously not the same population in discussed in §847 who do not know Christ, his gospel, and his Church could never be faced with a decision to enter or remain in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps this would be clearer to you if, when you quote these two sections, you do not remove the paragraph division between §846 and §847.

No one would ever dispute that the the criteria of 'sincerity' and 'through no fault of their own' remain.

As for the modern world of mass media, and the fact that the Roman Catholic Church remains the largest church publicizing its message through every means available, this actually makes the more explicit restatement in §846 more relevant (ie, less moot or mote) insofar as it is aimed at 'those to whom Christ is present in his body, which is the Church' and 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, and who nonetheless would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

I will not forget to provide you with my reference to the seven principal authors of the Lumen Gentium draft. I checked a book where I thought I read it, but haven't found it there yet. I do know of another source, but I may wait until I can track down a better reference at the local University library.

The significance of the clarification was already made clear in your own source, but if you no longer agree with your own source, I have also already mentioned Boniface VIII to you, who gave a very different but even more explicit definition of of the traditional extra ecclesiam statement:

"We are obliged by the faith to believe and hold -- and we do firmly believe and sincerely confess -- that there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins… For this authority, although given to a man and exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine, given at God's mouth to Peter and established on a rock for him and his successors in Him whom he confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. Whoever therefore resists this power thus ordained of God, resists the ordinance of God… Furthermore we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff."

A canon, among other things, is just a traditional term for an individual authoritative statement of a Church council, eg, the canons of the Council of Trent; if I recall it comes from the Greek for 'measure'. Although I base no argument on this, by negative canon, I merely mean a canon that is negative in import, eg, an anathema. In this case, there is no formal anathema, but the import is clearly negative in that traditional maxim is still being used to define very stringently those who cannot be saved: Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. The traditional manner of interpreting such canons, whether they be from Councils or canon law (sometimes based on conciliar statements), that restrictive canons should be interpreted strictly, as can still be illustrated in one of the introductory cannons of the current code of canon law, Canon 18: "Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation." All other laws are to be given a broad interpretation, as can still be illustrated by Canon 36 §1: "An administrative act must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others, or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation." Insofar as the teachings of Vatican II were not intended to introduce new anathemas, and the revision of canon law was left to a postconciliar commision, there is even less reason to give a broad interpretation of the statement that indicates who cannot be saved or an overly strict or exclusive interpretation of statements that describe who can be saved and how they are saved, eg, in a manner known only to God is about as broad and open-ended of an 'definition' as possible. Those who are trained in Church doctrine, law, and interpretation of official church documents are quite familiar with this kind of 'ecclesiastical speak'.

You cannot demonstrate that I am driven by this agenda that you attribute to me. As I said above, my only agenda here is to explain to you what the current teaching of the Catholic church is. I am not personally invested in its teaching. I clearly disagree with Church teaching on several key issues, even this one. I am not saying that the teaching is right or wrong. But even though I disagree with the Catholic church's teachings, I see that as no reason or motive to misrepresent them.

My only agenda here is to explain to you what the current teaching of the Roman Church is. Fundamentally it has not changed. Still waiting for sources outside the documents that support your interpretation. I have read and I am familiar with all your citations, and they do not change the basic bottom line.

You mentioned again "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"

This how it applies to ALL of humanity. Simply the English below translates directly to the Latin. There is not any specific reference that different populations are treated differently.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."


Several points not yet supported (1) Seven authors? (2) References to support your argument that the above is a significant change in Doctrine. (3) Reference defining 'negative canon' as you use it in this argument.


Do you see how that is a little different from current Catholic teaching?

Clarification may be a little different, but this is not what you're arguing. No, I do not see a significant difference nor is there any specific defining different populations as having different obligations in response to the universal standard of 'knowledge,' 'sincerity,' and 'through no fault of their own.'

shunyadragon
04-09-2014, 02:34 PM
Please explain how Pope Boniface VII has a different interpretation.



Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

shunyadragon
04-09-2014, 02:53 PM
A canon, among other things, is just a traditional term for an individual authoritative statement of a Church council, eg, the canons of the Council of Trent; if I recall it comes from the Greek for 'measure'. Although I base no argument on this, by negative canon, I merely mean a canon that is negative in import, eg, an anathema. In this case, there is no formal anathema, but the import is clearly negative in that traditional maxim is still being used to define very stringently those who cannot be saved: Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. The traditional manner of interpreting such canons, whether they be from Councils or canon law (sometimes based on conciliar statements), that restrictive canons should be interpreted strictly, as can still be illustrated in one of the introductory cannons of the current code of canon law, Canon 18: "Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation." All other laws are to be given a broad interpretation, as can still be illustrated by Canon 36 §1: "An administrative act must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others, or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation." Insofar as the teachings of Vatican II were not intended to introduce new anathemas, and the revision of canon law was left to a postconciliar commision, there is even less reason to give a broad interpretation of the statement that indicates who cannot be saved or an overly strict or exclusive interpretation of statements that describe who can be saved and how they are saved, eg, in a manner known only to God is about as broad and open-ended of an 'definition' as possible. Those who are trained in Church doctrine, law, and interpretation of official church documents are quite familiar with this kind of 'ecclesiastical speak'.

This was among the hot topics in 1965. You will definitely need other outside authoritative reference to support you on this, when you use this argument on the issue of 'Salvation.'

robrecht
04-09-2014, 08:11 PM
This was among the hot topics in 1965. You will definitely need other outside authoritative reference to support you on this, when you use this argument on the issue of 'Salvation.'Again, it is not an argument, more an illustration of how 'ecclesio-speak works. Die Kirchesprache. The meaning is apparent from the words, but it helps if one has the training in the way ecclesial professionals think. I have no need whatsoever for 'other authoritative reference' to support me on this.

It may have been a hot topic in a high school or freshman college seminary staffed by old, conservative teachers that were struggling to wrap their minds around so much change going on around them. The way I remember it was everybody felt so much better that the church had clarified some of this old doctrine and that people could have open minds and exercise common sense. Most already thought along these lines anyway and had been encouraged by Feeney's excommunication.

robrecht
04-09-2014, 09:26 PM
My only agenda here is to explain to you what the current teaching of the Roman Church is. Why do you feel a need to deny an agenda. I have not accused you of having an agenda. You might; I'm not saying you don't, but such ad hominem's rarely aid a discussion, especially on the Internet.


Fundamentally it has not changed. Still waiting for sources outside the documents that support your interpretation. I don't know where you got the idea that I had promised to give you secondary sources. 'My interpretation' is merely the standard, accepted understanding of the text. Some people, like you I guess, may want to put a label on it and call it liberal, but those labels are not always helpful either. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, there are lots of ambiguous, contradictory, disputed, and even some controversial elements in these compromise texts, but this fundamental point is pretty darn obvious. I've only seen it disputed by those who strongly disagree strongly with Vatican II and frequently have left the church because of it or retired into a cranky corner of discontent. Their strong opposition and longing for the clarity of Boniface VIII is a strong witness in favor of the common interpretation being rather obvious to most people.


You mentioned again "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"

This how it applies to ALL of humanity. Simply the English below translates directly to the Latin. There is not any specific reference that different populations are treated differently. The differing interpretation for the two fundamentally different groups, and the explicit lack of application to those who do not know the church or the gospel of Christ is crystal clear in the text. I don't think there's any point in further discussion. I think it is absolutely obvious and you think it is completely missing. But, if you want to keep quoting the same paragraphs 100, 200, even 300 times, I can't stop you. Maybe the thread starter has an opinion. But if you are going to keep quoting the same thing over and over and over again, you could at least try to correctly divide the paragraphs correctly. That will help others to read the text properly.

§846 interprets the saying in a very strict sense for those who are either in the church already or well aware of it and are confronted with a decision to remain or join. These are the people 'to whom Christ is present in his body, the church.' Among these people, the saying is only applied negatively to those who know that the Church was founded by God and yet leave or refuse to enter it.

§847 discusses those who, unlike those in the previous section, do not know Christ or his gospel. The extra ecclesiam saying is explicitly said to not be directed at them. For this group it is explicitly said that they can be saved if they 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.

It strains credulity that you cannot see how the traditional maxim is applied very differently to these two groups of people. To the first group it is applied in a very restricted sense. And to the second group it is not even applied at all.

[Deleted Shuny's 14th repetition of the same three paragraphs of the catechism, still not separating §846 and §847 correctly.]


Several points not yet supported (1) Seven authors? (2) References to support your argument that the above is a significant change in Doctrine. (3) Reference defining 'negative canon' as you use it in this argument. I did promise to track down my reference to the 7 principle authors of the Lumen Gentium draft. As a favor to you. In addition to your own reference that quotes the significantly different nuance, I have also referred you to the very different statement of Boniface VIII. I may try, one last time, to point out the differences to you. Not tonight 'though. I have already referred you to the canons that illustrate the different ways of interpreting these different types of statements.


Clarification may be a little different, but this is not what you're arguing. No, I do not see a significant difference nor is there any specific defining different populations as having different obligations in response to the universal standard of 'knowledge,' 'sincerity,' and 'through no fault of their own.' Yes, I see a more important clarification than you do. More than just a little in my opinion. But at least you are admitting that there may be a little bit of difference. I will try to build on that, maybe tomorrow.

shunyadragon
04-10-2014, 03:32 PM
I want to add something that came up in another thread concerning how the Roman Church views the question of who may perform Sacraments that would be accepted by the Roman Church, because normally the Sacraments are required for Salvation in the normal sense. I had to review several sources on this issue. As far as I can see the Sacrament performed outside the Roman Church for almost all churches is Baptism. As far as the Roman Church is concerned almost anyone may perform a Baptism if the motivation is 'sincere' in light of the basic Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church concerning the nature of the Churches beliefs. Some Baptisms of some Churches are not recognized. If someone converts to the Roman Church and has a record of a previous acceptable Baptism, they will not be Baptized again.

The rest of the Sacraments performed outside the Roman Church are not recognized as far as I can determine. The age of consent in the Roman Church when someone is eligible for confirmation is the point where the Church considers the individual capable of having the knowledge necessary to be responsible for a 'sincere' judgment concerning the necessity of the Roman Church.

There is an important concept in the Roman Church concerning the 'sincerity' of the individual in their ability to have knowledge of the Roman Church.

robrecht
04-12-2014, 06:29 AM
Please explain how Pope Boniface VII has a different interpretation.



Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

First, Boniface requires all to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. I am not an historian of this period, but I think it is commonly held that Boniface was at least in part motivated by political interests to maintain some vision of spiritual and papal supremacy over all temporal power, more so than would typically be attributed to John XXIII, then Paul VI, and the rest of the bishops assembled at Vatican II, or the subsequent popes, and I suspect most bishops. What is meant by Boniface when he says that every human creature must be subject to the Roman pontiff? Read some history and I think you will learn that those who refused to be subject to him could be excommunicated, even their descendants excommunicated, and subject to imprisonment. Whole villages were destroyed, for the sins of a few who did not go along with his attempts to exercise what he saw as a just intervention into the temporal affairs of others, and those who contested the legitimacy of his election. From what little history I know, I have the impression that Boniface’s conception all human creatures being subject to him did not include the necessity of honoring fundamental and inviolable personal rights of all, including, eg, equal secular rights for women.

In contrast, current teaching makes no claims over temporal rulers. There is no requirement to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Even Jesuits, for example, who may take a special vow of obedience to the pope, or those who take a more general vow of obedience in other religious orders, all are nonetheless always bound first and foremost by their own conscience and the commandment of love, recognizing the rightful autonomy of creatures. There is still a Swiss Guard at the Vatican, but I have not heard of any recent military conflicts with the military forces of other nations or even powerful city-states. For the most part, I think even the local villages are relatively safe from the Pope’s Swiss Guard these days.

Secondly, Boniface simply applies the traditional maxim to all human creatures. He makes no distinction between those, on the one hand, to whom Christ is present, those who are confronted with a decision to join or remain in the church, who know that the church was founded as necessary by God as necessary for salvation, and those, on the other hand, who do not even know of Christ and his church, even those who do not believe in God. Not making such a distinction between these two extremes of all people, he thus also does not apply the traditional maxim differently, or not at all, to such different populations. He certainly does not speak of ‘how some are not able to accept the gospel or enter the church on account of social and cultural conditions, and yet salvation, not only offered to all, is made concretely available and accessible to them. For example, those brought up in other religious traditions are understood by popes today to be able to be saved somehow through the grace of Christ in a mysterious way known only to God and these people, who obviously are not formally part of the church, nonetheless are somehow, mysteriously related to the church. These people are ‘enlightened by grace in a way that is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation, enabling each person to attain salvation’.

This I think presents a profound contrast between Boniface VIII and modern popes, for example, John Paul II, who most would acknowledge as fundamentally conservative, and yet able to understand the clear words of Vatican II in the manner I have illustrated above, and I have not even mentioned Boniface’s failure to accord honor to the orthodox churches of the East, and his attitude toward other rebellious or heretical Christian groups of the time, or to the Jews as part of the people of God.

shunyadragon
04-16-2014, 02:05 PM
First, Boniface requires all to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. I am not an historian of this period, but I think it is commonly held that Boniface was at least in part motivated by political interests to maintain some vision of spiritual and papal supremacy over all temporal power, more so than would typically be attributed to John XXIII, then Paul VI, and the rest of the bishops assembled at Vatican II, or the subsequent popes, and I suspect most bishops. What is meant by Boniface when he says that every human creature must be subject to the Roman pontiff? Read some history and I think you will learn that those who refused to be subject to him could be excommunicated, even their descendants excommunicated, and subject to imprisonment. Whole villages were destroyed, for the sins of a few who did not go along with his attempts to exercise what he saw as a just intervention into the temporal affairs of others, and those who contested the legitimacy of his election. From what little history I know, I have the impression that Boniface’s conception all human creatures being subject to him did not include the necessity of honoring fundamental and inviolable personal rights of all, including, eg, equal secular rights for women.

I do not believe that the fundamental statements by Boniface have changed, what has changed is how the Roman Church deals with relationships with the secular governments, Theocracies of other religions and churches. other nstitutions, and non-Roman Church relationships to the other churches and religions of the world for the specific purpose of improving the dialogue for returned the 'separated brethren' to the Roman Church through what is communication in ecumenism.


In contrast, current teaching makes no claims over temporal rulers. There is no requirement to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Even Jesuits, for example, who may take a special vow of obedience to the pope, or those who take a more general vow of obedience in other religious orders, all are nonetheless always bound first and foremost by their own conscience and the commandment of love, recognizing the rightful autonomy of creatures. There is still a Swiss Guard at the Vatican, but I have not heard of any recent military conflicts with the military forces of other nations or even powerful city-states. For the most part, I think even the local villages are relatively safe from the Pope’s Swiss Guard these days.

Disagree, such relationships over 'temporal rulers' remain as in the relationship to such countries as Costa Rica. This type of relationship remains the ideal and desire of the Roman Church. The changes that came about in the Vatican II are more facing the realities of the modern world and how the Vatican can relate diplomatically and practically in today's non-Roman Church world.


Secondly, Boniface simply applies the traditional maxim to all human creatures. He makes no distinction between those, on the one hand, to whom Christ is present, those who are confronted with a decision to join or remain in the church, who know that the church was founded as necessary by God as necessary for salvation, and those, on the other hand, who do not even know of Christ and his church, even those who do not believe in God. Not making such a distinction between these two extremes of all people, he thus also does not apply the traditional maxim differently, or not at all, to such different populations. He certainly does not speak of ‘how some are not able to accept the gospel or enter the church on account of social and cultural conditions, and yet salvation, not only offered to all, is made concretely available and accessible to them.

For example, those brought up in other religious traditions are understood by popes today to be able to be saved somehow through the grace of Christ in a mysterious way known only to God and these people, who obviously are not formally part of the church, nonetheless are somehow, mysteriously related to the church. These people are ‘enlightened by grace in a way that is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation, enabling each person to attain salvation’.

I do not believe this 'For example' is valid under the Roman Church Dogma of the past nor the present. There may be some 'mysterious' related to the Roman Church and in some way may be saved, but this is a nebulous interpretive gray area, and cannot be used realistically to describe the dogma concerning 'Salvation outside the Roman Church.'

By Roman Church Dogma and Doctrine the 'age of consent,' sincerity, and the ability to have knowledge of the One True Church remains the standard as to those that may be saved outside the Roman Church.


This I think presents a profound contrast between Boniface VIII and modern popes, for example, John Paul II, who most would acknowledge as fundamentally conservative, and yet able to understand the clear words of Vatican II in the manner I have illustrated above, and I have not even mentioned Boniface’s failure to accord honor to the orthodox churches of the East, and his attitude toward other rebellious or heretical Christian groups of the time, or to the Jews as part of the people of God.

I do not believe that a profound contrast or significant difference can be justified taking into consideration the Dogma and Doctrine found in the Vatican II and other contemporary Church Documents.

I do not advocate the extreme rigid views of Fenneyism, but the main doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus remains intact with specified clarification.

robrecht
04-18-2014, 08:33 AM
I do not believe that the fundamental statements by Boniface have changed, what has changed is how the Roman Church deals with relationships with the secular governments, Theocracies of other religions and churches. other nstitutions, and non-Roman Church relationships to the other churches and religions of the world for the specific purpose of improving the dialogue for returned the 'separated brethren' to the Roman Church through what is communication in ecumenism.

Disagree, such relationships over 'temporal rulers' remain as in the relationship to such countries as Costa Rica. This type of relationship remains the ideal and desire of the Roman Church. The changes that came about in the Vatican II are more facing the realities of the modern world and how the Vatican can relate diplomatically and practically in today's non-Roman Church world. Where does Boniface's statement make exception for those below the 'age of consent,' those with sincerity, and those without the ability to have knowledge of the church? He says simply that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Furthermore, it is theologically naïve not to understand the meaning of statements within their historical context. Can you show how Pope Francis understands that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in the same way that Boniface understood this statement? Do you see Francis requiring subjection to him in the same way that Boniface did? Do you think that Boniface understood every human creature being subject to the Roman Pontiff included an acknowledgment of the necessity of honoring fundamental and inviolable personal rights of all, including, eg, equal secular rights for women?


I do not believe this 'For example' is valid under the Roman Church Dogma of the past nor the present. There may be some 'mysterious' related to the Roman Church and in some way may be saved, but this is a nebulous interpretive gray area, and cannot be used realistically to describe the dogma concerning 'Salvation outside the Roman Church.'

By Roman Church Dogma and Doctrine the 'age of consent,' sincerity, and the ability to have knowledge of the One True Church remains the standard as to those that may be saved outside the Roman Church.

I do not believe that a profound contrast or significant difference can be justified taking into consideration the Dogma and Doctrine found in the Vatican II and other contemporary Church Documents.

I do not advocate the extreme rigid views of Fenneyism, but the main doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus remains intact with specified clarification. You may not believe my fairly literal paraphrase of John Paul II's encyclical is valid within the Roman Catholic Church (let me know if you actually need a link), but unless you want to claim that he is heretical as contemporary Feeneyites and other traditionalists do, I think you have to accept it as part of the Church's teaching. Yes, it is frequently nebulous and vague in many ways, but this is intentional, for they are affirming something that in some ways is known only to God, but there is not real doubt about the their affirmation (however vague) of the possibility of salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

robrecht
04-18-2014, 04:15 PM
Not sure when I will be able to get to the university library to cite better sources, but in the meantime I have found all of the names of the seven principal authors of Lumen Gentium on line. As you may know, Cardinal Suenens, whom I was lucky enough to have dinner with one night, solicited John XXIII’s support in rejecting much of the preparatory work that was being done prior to the Council. When it became clear in the first session that the schema on the church was going to be rejected by the Council, Suenens asked Gérard Philips (in consultation with other theologians) to start working on an alternative draft. Eventually, there were several such alternative drafts, some of which were dependent upon an early draft by Philips. The bishops of the subcommittee of the Doctrinal Commission responsible for preparation of the new draft appointed seven theologians to prepare the draft to be submitted to the Council, using Philips’ draft as the base text and working in elements of other drafts. These seven principal authors of Lumen Gentium were:

Gérard Philips
Karl Rahner
Jean Danielou
Marie-Rosaire Gagnebet
André Naud
Charles Balić
Gustave Thils

Bishop Andre Marie Charue, a member of the subcommittee recorded in his notes:

"Je fais admettre Philips comme president du groupe des experts. Y sont nommes sept periti, un par eveque: Philips (Namur), Rahner (Vienna), Danielou (Toulouse), Gagnebet (Browne), Naud (Montreal), Balic (Parente). J'ai obtenu de Mgr. Schroffer qu'il prenne Thils. Ils ont comme mission: 1) Donner un texte; 2) Base Philips."

Later on Daniélou was replaced by Yves Congar and Gustave Thils was replaced by Charles Moeller.

By the way, several of my professors were students of a number of these theologians.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lumen+gentium's+%22subsistit+in%22+revisited%3A+th e+Catholic+Church+and...-a0189703853 (Cf Note 35)

shunyadragon
04-18-2014, 06:48 PM
Where does Boniface's statement make exception for those below the 'age of consent,' those with sincerity, and those without the ability to have knowledge of the church? He says simply that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Furthermore, it is theologically naïve not to understand the meaning of statements within their historical context. Can you show how Pope Francis understands that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in the same way that Boniface understood this statement? Do you see Francis requiring subjection to him in the same way that Boniface did? Do you think that Boniface understood every human creature being subject to the Roman Pontiff included an acknowledgment of the necessity of honoring fundamental and inviolable personal rights of all, including, eg, equal secular rights for women?

I am not specifically referring to Boniface or any one pope or other person of authority. I am referring to the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. As for Pope Francis, he has not been around long enough, and I have to wait and see. Nonetheless it is unlikely that Pope Francis will not and likely cannot change the Doctrine and Dogma of the church.


You may not believe my fairly literal paraphrase of John Paul II's encyclical is valid within the Roman Catholic Church (let me know if you actually need a link), but unless you want to claim that he is heretical as contemporary Feeneyites and other traditionalists do, I think you have to accept it as part of the Church's teaching. Yes, it is frequently nebulous and vague in many ways, but this is intentional, for they are affirming something that in some ways is known only to God, but there is not real doubt about the their affirmation (however vague) of the possibility of salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

The vagueness and nebulous of these statements takes it out of the consideration of heresy, and no I do not consider it a fundamental teaching of the Roman Church. I have no problem with salvation outside the Roman Church as defined by Vatican II, and other relevant church documents.

robrecht
04-18-2014, 07:00 PM
I am not specifically referring to Boniface or any one pope or other person of authority. I am referring to the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. As for Pope Francis, he has not been around long enough, and I have to wait and see. Nonetheless it is unlikely that Pope Francis will not and likely cannot change the Doctrine and Dogma of the church. You were previously speaking of Boniface, although I understand why you don't want to anymore.


The vagueness and nebulous of these statements takes it out of the consideration of heresy, and no I do not consider it a fundamental teaching of the Roman Church. I have no problem with salvation outside the Roman Church as defined by Vatican II, and other relevant church documents.Sorry, but a papal encyclical is part of the teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you consider it to be or not.

shunyadragon
04-18-2014, 07:31 PM
You were previously speaking of Boniface, although I understand why you don't want to anymore.

No problem talking about Boniface.


Sorry, but a papal encyclical is part of the teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you consider it to be or not.

Not in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.

robrecht
04-18-2014, 08:02 PM
No problem talking about Boniface.

Not in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.In your opinion and in the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists who accuse the last six popes of heresy. You may not consider them heretical but I am inclined to accept their interpretation (and that of well respected Cardinals and periti at Vatican II) of church doctrine over yours.

See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):

"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."

shunyadragon
04-19-2014, 04:59 AM
In your opinion and in the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists who accuse the last six popes of heresy. You may not consider them heretical but I am inclined to accept their interpretation (and that of well respected Cardinals and periti at Vatican II) of church doctrine over yours.

I already stated clearly that I reject Feeneyism. Please in the future cite me accurately and not with venom and derision.

[quoote] See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):

"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."[/QUOTE]

Please cite this so that I put it in context. I read some of Cardinal Dulles' stuff and based on what I read I need context.

robrecht
04-19-2014, 06:10 AM
I already stated clearly that I reject Feeneyism. Please in the future cite me accurately and not with venom and derision.

[quoote] See, eg, the interpretation of Cardinal Dulles, a very well respected theologian who specialized in ecclesiology (and whom I was also lucky enough to have dinner with):

"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."

Please cite this so that I put it in context. I read some of Cardinal Dulles' stuff and based on what I read I need context.Frank, there was no venom or derision in my words. I acknowledged here that you do not accuse the most recent popes as heretical, but you do in fact believe, as do also the Feeneyites and other traditionalists, that the view expressed by John Paul II in his encyclical is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. This is your opinion. It is also the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists. That is all I was saying here. You yourself cited a Feeneyite as 'confirming the infallibility of this document [from the Our Lady of Rosary Library] including a correct reading of the Vatican II', and said that "this reference basically confirms everything I have cited." Like you, not all Feeneyites accuse the recent popes of heresy. You are free to differentiate yourself from Feeneyites however you wish, and I am in no way contesting this. But I am only following your lead in noting the points you share in common with Feeneyites and other traditionalists.

Here is the whole essay by Cardinal Dulles: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8

shunyadragon
04-20-2014, 04:58 AM
Frank, there was no venom or derision in my words. I acknowledged here that you do not accuse the most recent popes as heretical, but you do in fact believe, as do also the Feeneyites and other traditionalists, that the view expressed by John Paul II in his encyclical is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church in terms of the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. This is your opinion. It is also the opinion of Feeneyites and other traditionalists. That is all I was saying here. You yourself cited a Feeneyite as 'confirming the infallibility of this document [from the Our Lady of Rosary Library] including a correct reading of the Vatican II', and said that "this reference basically confirms everything I have cited." Like you, not all Feeneyites accuse the recent popes of heresy. You are free to differentiate yourself from Feeneyites however you wish, and I am in no way contesting this. But I am only following your lead in noting the points you share in common with Feeneyites and other traditionalists.

Here is the whole essay by Cardinal Dulles: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8

It is important to put your quote in context of the previous paragraphs, as well as other essays, to realize that Cardinal Dulles was referring to the potential who may be saved. In fact it is important put all of the essays of Cardinal Dulles' to understand his views completely concerning the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church in today's world.


"We cannot take it for granted that everyone is seeking the truth and is prepared to submit to it when found. Some, perhaps many, resist the grace of God and reject the signs given to them. They are not on the road to salvation at all. In such cases, the fault is not God’s but theirs. The references to future punishment in the gospels cannot be written off as empty threats. As Paul says, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7).

We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth. Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God.

Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of believers to help these seekers by word and by example. Whoever receives the gift of revealed truth has the obligation to share it with others. Christian faith is normally transmitted by testimony. Believers are called to be God’s witnesses to the ends of the earth."

Cardinal Dulles

The criteria for who may be saved outside as well as inside the Roman Church remains well defined in the Vatican II and other documents, clarified but not changed. The criteria remains dependent on knowledge and sincerity of the seeker. It is of course a given that as we as mortals cannot know what is ultimately in the heart and soul of any individual, or the ultimate compassion of God concerning who is saved and not saved, but this nonetheless does not change the doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.

The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':

"The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation."

and . . .

"One might ask at this point whether there has been any shift in Catholic theology on the matter. The answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light. An example would be the fictional sermon on hell that James Joyce recounts in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man . This kind of preaching fosters an image of God as an unloving and cruel tyrant, and in some cases leads to a complete denial of hell or even to atheism."

The above I agree with in that it does explicitly rejects Fenneyism.

It is clear that many are becoming more aware that we have entered a new age since the mid 1800's when the more universal Baha'i Faith, in which a more universal compassionate concept of salvation, with the belief that the relationship of Revelation and Salvation is Universal with all humans throughout history. The religions of the past, including the Roman Church and Christianity represent more an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine then a conflicting many varied claims of infallible Doctrines and Dogmas.

robrecht
04-20-2014, 05:22 AM
It is important to put your quote in context of the previous paragraphs, as well as other essays, to realize that Cardinal Dulles was referring to the potential who may be saved. Yes, the potential to be saved for Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc, without necessarily converting to Roman Catholicism. This is indeed what we have been discussing. It seems you now agree.


In fact it is important put all of the essays of Cardinal Dulles' to understand his views completely concerning the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church in today's world.

"We cannot take it for granted that everyone is seeking the truth and is prepared to submit to it when found. Some, perhaps many, resist the grace of God and reject the signs given to them. They are not on the road to salvation at all. In such cases, the fault is not God’s but theirs. The references to future punishment in the gospels cannot be written off as empty threats. As Paul says, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7).

We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth. Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God.

Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of believers to help these seekers by word and by example. Whoever receives the gift of revealed truth has the obligation to share it with others. Christian faith is normally transmitted by testimony. Believers are called to be God’s witnesses to the ends of the earth."

Cardinal Dulles

The criteria for who may be saved outside as well as inside the Roman Church remains well defined in the Vatican II and other documents, clarified but not changed. The criteria remains dependent on knowledge and sincerity of the seeker. It is of course a given that as we as mortals cannot know what is ultimately in the heart and soul of any individual, or the ultimate compassion of God concerning who is saved and not saved, but this nonetheless does not change the doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.

The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':

"The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation."

and . . .

"One might ask at this point whether there has been any shift in Catholic theology on the matter. The answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light. An example would be the fictional sermon on hell that James Joyce recounts in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man . This kind of preaching fosters an image of God as an unloving and cruel tyrant, and in some cases leads to a complete denial of hell or even to atheism."

The above I agree with in that it does explicitly rejects Fenneyism. What exactly do you understand to be Feeneyism?


It is clear that many are becoming more aware that we have entered a new age since the mid 1800's when the more universal Baha'i Faith, in which a more universal compassionate concept of salvation, with the belief that the relationship of Revelation and Salvation is Universal with all humans throughout history. The religions of the past, including the Roman Church and Christianity represent more an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine then a conflicting many varied claims of infallible Doctrines and Dogmas. But, as I'm sure you would agree, Baha'i adherents should not misunderstand or misrepresent the teaching of the other religions they look down upon. Is that last part accurate? Is it the case that (some?) Bahai' adherents 'look down upon' other religions? Would you agree that the Baha'i (religion? faith? philosophy?) is also an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine?

shunyadragon
04-20-2014, 05:48 AM
Yes, the potential to be saved for Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc, without necessarily converting to Roman Catholicism. This is indeed what we have been discussing. It seems you now agree.

Careful. I do not agree with your understanding of these issues. If you read ALL of Cardinal Dulles' essay in context, he does not agree with you either.

Vatican II and Cardinal Dulles make explicit and clear statement in this regard that your sidestepping.

The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':

"The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation." and . . .

"One might ask at this point whether there has been any shift in Catholic theology on the matter. The answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light. An example would be the fictional sermon on hell that James Joyce recounts in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man . This kind of preaching fosters an image of God as an unloving and cruel tyrant, and in some cases leads to a complete denial of hell or even to atheism."

The question as to how salvation 'outside the Roman Church is possible where the 'explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation' is not necessary as defined in Vatican II.



What exactly do you understand to be Feeneyism? Feeneyism is a very radical rejection of any Salvation outside the Church. It does not accept Baptism outside the Church, and does not accept for the most part any Salvation outside the Church as defined and clarified in Vatican II. In fact it considers Vatican II as heresy.

This statement addresses Fenneyism: 'The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation.'




But, as I'm sure you would agree, Baha'i adherents should not misunderstand or misrepresent the teaching of the other religions they look down upon.

Is that accurate? Is it the case that (some?) Bahai' adherents 'look down upon' other religions, or have I misunderstood?

The Baha'i Faith places the different religions and beliefs in higher regard, and a more universal spiritual positive nature then anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity. Your qualification of '(some?) Baha'i adherents' lacks a useable context of what a religion believes. It may be said that (some?) adherents of any religion and belief may believe anything. No context here for further discussion.




Would you agree that the Baha'i (religion? faith? philosophy?) is also an evolving fallible human view of our spiritual relationship with the Divine?

Yes, in the context of how Revelation is believed in the Baha'i Faith. ALL our fallible human view of the Divine will always remain a human view of the Divine.

This relates to the difference in a fundamental basis of a religion as kataphatic as opposed to an apophatic view of God and the understanding of scripture, Doctrine and Dogma.

robrecht
04-20-2014, 05:56 AM
Careful. I do not agree with your understanding of these issues. If you read ALL of Cardinal Dulles' essay in context, he does not agree with you either. I certainly do not disagree with Dulles' characterization of Catholic teaching.


Feeneyism is a very radical rejection of any Salvation outside the Church. It does not accept Baptism outside the Church, and does not accept for the most part any Salvation outside the Church as defined and clarified in Vatican II. In fact it considers Vatican II as heresy. Some Feeneyites would disagree with this characterization.


The Baha'i Faith places the different religions and beliefs in higher regard, and spiritual positive nature then anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity. Your qualification of '(some?) Baha'i adherents' lacks a useable context of what a religion believes. It may be said that (some?) adherents of any religion and belief may believe anything. No context here for further discussion. It is a question asked in such a way as not to be offensive. Do you look down upon other religions? I also think you are underestimating the views of some Roman Catholic theologians.

shunyadragon
04-20-2014, 06:15 AM
I certainly do not disagree with Dulles' characterization of Catholic teaching.

I believe I have cited Cardinal Dulles views in his essays in clearer manner then you did referencing one paragraph. The Dogma of the Roman Church concerning salvation remains conditional on 'Sincerity,' 'Desire' and 'Knowledge.'


Some Feeneyites would disagree with this characterization.

Some? High fog index again.




It is a question asked in such a way as not to be offensive. Do you look down upon other religions?

bolded: NO! The way you worded this previously lacks context for further discussion. The context of your statement and question needs more context to be remotely a question of true dialogue. HOW are you referring to 'looking down' in a context of Baha'i beliefs?

I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal spiritual context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation is offensive, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion.


I also think you are underestimating the views of some Roman Catholic theologians.

Separate issue. Don't not mix apples and oranges.

shunyadragon
04-20-2014, 06:30 AM
FATHER FEENEY AND THE IMPLICITUM VOTUM ECCLESIAE]

by Brian W. Harrison

Part A. Who Is In Fact ‘Outside The Church’?

Introduction


It is now over sixty years since the so-called “Boston Heresy Case” involving Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) shook the U.S. Church and sent more than a few tremors round other parts of the Catholic world. The case eventually influenced the doctrinal teaching of Vatican Council II’s principal document, the 1964 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Dealing with the prospects for eternal salvation of those who are sincerely unaware of the truth of Catholicism, the Council references a rather low-key1 censure of Feeney’s doctrine, sent fifteen years earlier by the Vatican’s Holy Office to Archbishop (later Cardinal) Richard Cushing of Boston.2

The key point in this doctrinal ruling was that the ancient dogmatic formula, “No salvation outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)”, must not be understood to exclude from salvation all those who die as non-Catholics (that is, without consciously professing the Roman Catholic faith). The reason is that some of these persons, the Holy Office affirmed, developing Pope Pius XII’s teaching several years earlier in the 1943 Encyclical Mystici Corporis,3 may in fact be joined to the true Church by a link – seemingly tenuous, but sufficient for salvation – that consists in a merely implicit and unconscious desire (implicitum votum Ecclesiae) to enter the Catholic fold. This desire, however, will have to be such as includes supernatural acts of faith and charity.4

In spite of Vatican II’s footnote confirming this Holy Office decision, the controversy which flared as a result of Fr. Feeney’s severe interpretation of the aforesaid dogma has never really been laid to rest. At least, not in the United States, where small but convinced and articulate groups of Catholics continue to defend and propagate Feeney’s distinctive teaching. This can be adequately summarized in the following proposition postulating two requirements for reaching eternal life:

robrecht
04-20-2014, 06:34 AM
I believe I have cited Cardinal Dulles views in his essays in clearer manner then you did referencing on paragraph. Anyone can cite more of his views. I cited only the part that I considered directly relevant to our initial point of discussion, ie, whether or not Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc, may be saved without joining the Roman Catholic Church.


Some? Yes. I already gave you the example of the blogger that you referred to as 'confirming the infallibility of this document [from the Our Lady of Rosary Library] including a correct reading of the Vatican II', and said that "this reference basically confirms everything I have cited." One can always define 'Feeneyite/Feeneyism' differently, which is why I asked you for your definition, but I use the term to include those who agree with Father Feeney's views as they understand and explain them. This may differ from the characterization of his views by others.


bolded: NO! The way you worded this previously lacks context for further discussion. The context of your statement and question needs more context to be remotely a question of true dialogue. HOW are you referring to 'looking down' in a context of Baha'i beliefs? I purposefully did not want to misrepresent the beliefs of some or all Baha'i adherents and did not even know whether to refer to 'it' as a religion, faith, or philosophy, hence my other question. It is merely an invitation for you to present your own explanation of the Baha'i religion/faith/philosophy and how you may or may not look down upon other religions, however you may want to use/reject/define that phrase. It is fine if you do not want to discuss this. I merely gave you an invitation.


I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion. I'm not sure what you mean exactly.


Separate issue. Don not mix apples and oranges. I think it is a very important issue, and very much related to my perspective on our discussion. You did say "anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity." You do not have to discuss this if you do not want to.

robrecht
04-20-2014, 09:07 AM
The following is from another essay by Cardinal Dulles 'The population of Hell':

"The constant teaching of the Catholic Church supports the idea that there are two classes: the saved and the damned. Three general councils of the Church (Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439) and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) have taught that everyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the eternal punishments of hell. This belief has perdured without question in the Catholic Church to this day, and is repeated almost verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC §1022, 1035). Several local councils in the Middle Ages, without apparently intending to define the point, state in passing that some have actually died in a state of sin and been punished by eternal damnation."Lest this be misunderstood, it may be helpful to some if I quote more from this essay of my friend, Cardinal Dulles, who agrees with another Cardinal of the Church:


"The most sophisticated theological argument against the conviction that some human beings in fact go to hell has been proposed by Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved?” He rejects the ideas that hell will be emptied at the end of time and that the damned souls and demons will be reconciled with God. He also avoids asserting as a fact that everyone will be saved. But he does say that we have a right and even a duty to hope for the salvation of all, because it is not impossible that even the worst sinners may be moved by God’s grace to repent before they die. He concedes, however, that the opposite is also possible. Since we are able to resist the grace of God, none of us is safe. We must therefore leave the question speculatively open, thinking primarily of the danger in which we ourselves stand.

At one point in his book Balthasar incorporates a long quotation from Edith Stein, now Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, who defends a position very like Balthasar’s. Since God’s all-merciful love, she says, descends upon everyone, it is probable that this love produces transforming effects in their lives. To the extent that people open themselves to that love, they enter into the realm of redemption. On this ground Stein finds it possible to hope that God’s omnipotent love finds ways of, so to speak, outwitting human resistance. Balthasar says that he agrees with Stein.

This position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar’s position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost. But the position is at least adventurous. It runs against the obvious interpretation of the words of Jesus in the New Testament and against the dominant theological opinion down through the centuries, which maintains that some, and in fact very many, are lost."

Unhappily, I never met Cardinal Balthasar, who actually died a couple of days prior to the ceremony, but I did read his earlier book. It is worth noting that he was in some disfavor prior to Vatican II but that even after the council he was generally considered among the relatively conservative of the leading Catholic theologians of his time. Avery goes on to cite a statement of John Paul II indicating that he had "at least an openness to the opinion that we may hope for the salvation of all." In his own opinion, "the Pope seems to have shifted his position, adopting in effect that of Balthasar":


"Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it."

Cardinal Dulles goes on to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved’ (1 Timothy 2:4)” (CCC §1821). At another point the Catechism declares: “The Church prays that no one should be lost” (CCC §1058).

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-population-of-hell

shunyadragon
04-20-2014, 10:04 AM
Anyone can cite more of his views. I cited only the part that I considered directly relevant to our initial point of discussion, ie, whether or not Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc, may be saved without joining the Roman Catholic Church.

I have never had a problem that they 'may be saved,' but the conditions as to how they may be saved are well defined in Vatican II and the other Doctrines and Dogma of the Roman Church.



I purposefully did not want to misrepresent the beliefs of some or all Baha'i adherents and did not even know whether to refer to 'it' as a religion, faith, or philosophy, hence my other question. It is merely an invitation for you to present your own explanation of the Baha'i religion/faith/philosophy and how you may or may not look down upon other religions, however you may want to use/reject/define that phrase. It is fine if you do not want to discuss this. I merely gave you an invitation.

First the Baha'i is a religion centered on Mount Carmel in Haifa Israel, which began in 1844 in present day Iran. Second, the derogatory statement is the wrong way to introduce a discussion on the Baha'i. It is relevant to the thread in the vein of the concept od 'What is the Identity of God?' in contrasting religions that have a fundamental kataphatic view of a 'Source' some call God(s) like Christianity, and other religions that are fundamentally apophatic like the Baha'i Faith, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism in the Vedic traditions of the Brahman. Though in contemporary Buddhism many try to define the absence of the 'Source', ie Zen, and contemporary Hindu beliefs which try to define and animate God(s).


I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

Exactly what I said, the origin of this accusation has to be from other religions, which object to the Baha'i Faith. It is a justified questions as to why and the origin of this negative phrase and the context of those that believe it.


I think it is a very important issue, and very much related to my perspective on our discussion. You did say "anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity." You do not have to discuss this if you do not want to.

This, "anything found in the Roman Church or the rest of Christianity, including most other ancient religions like Judaism and Islam." is quite literally true as far as the Doctrine, Dogma, and historical relationships with other religions.

robrecht
04-20-2014, 10:20 AM
I have never had a problem that they 'may be saved,' but the conditions as to how they may be saved are well defined in Vatican II and the other Doctrines and Dogma of the Roman Church. So you've been saying all along that Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc, may be saved without joining the Roman Catholic Church?


First the Baha'i is a religion centered on Mount Carmel in Haifa Israel, which began in 1844 in present day Iran. Second, the derogatory statement is the wrong way to introduce a discussion on the Baha'i. It is relevant to the thread in the vein of the concept od 'What is the Identity of God?' in contrasting religions that have a fundamental kataphatic view of a 'Source' some call God(s) like Christianity, and other religions that are fundamentally apophatic like the Baha'i Faith, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism in the Vedic traditions of the Brahman. Though in contemporary Buddhism many try to define the absence of the 'Source', ie Zen, and contemporary Hindu beliefs which try to define and animate God(s). You may begin the discussion any way you like? I asked you if the phrase was accurate? All you have to say is 'no', if it is not accurate?


Exactly what I said, the origin of this accusation has to be from other religions, which object to the Baha'i Faith. It is a justified questions as to why and the origin of this negative phrase and the context of those that believe it. The origin of what accusation? The idea that Baha'i view other religions as less evolved, from their own perspective that is more evolved? Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent, but I do not view that as an accusation.

But I was asking you about your statement: "I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion."

Is the accusation you are referring to contained therein?

shunyadragon
04-20-2014, 10:49 AM
So you've been saying all along that Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc, may be saved without joining the Roman Catholic Church?

ONLY, as clearly defined by the Dogma defined in Vatican II, and other documents including as described by Cardinal Dulles, and no this has not been a significant deviation from the Doctrine 'There is No Salvation Outside the Church. Again, 'Desire,' Sincerity,' and 'Knowledge' remain the criteria of well defined and limited exceptions.


You may begin the discussion any way you like? I asked you if the phrase was accurate? All you have to say is 'no', if it is not accurate?

No, the phrase is not accurate.


The origin of what accusation? The idea that Baha'i view other religions as less evolved, from their own perspective that is more evolved? Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent, but I do not view that as an accusation.

The answer to the question is best served by questions: does Christianity 'look down on' Judaism? Does Islam 'look down on' Judaism and Christianity? Does Buddhism 'look down' on Hinduism?


But I was asking you about your statement: "I can imagine that many including believers in the Roman Church, believe that placing all the religions of the world in a more universal context, then their individual exclusive views of issues of salvation, but that is their problem, and not a problem with the Baha'i view of religion."

If this would even remotely a realistic view of the modern Roman Church or Christianity in general, it is one that is forming in very recent history. Considering the historical relationship between the Roman Church, and Judaism, and Islam this is difficult to accept. The problem again is what (some?) believers in the Roman Church believe, and the problem again and again is that the Dogma of Salvation of the Roman Church does not accept this, in part because the "Catholic" nature of the human relationship with God is defined as through the Church only, with fairly narrowly defined exceptions.


Is the accusation you are referring to contained therein?

The Doctrine of Salvation is in some ways similar in the criteria of 'Desire,' 'Sincerity' and 'Knowledge,' but lacking is the 'Salvation,' of individuals is not as defined specifically through necessity of belief in the Doctrine and Dogma itself. Also, the Baha'i Faith lacks the defining of the Dogmas and Doctrines defining God and the Religion, separate from other religions. Religions and Faiths are more of a collective of all humanity in a continuum in the journey toward God.

robrecht
04-20-2014, 12:15 PM
I want to go back to this statement, particularly regarding "the conditions as to how they may be saved".


I have never had a problem that they 'may be saved,' but the conditions as to how they may be saved are well defined in Vatican II and the other Doctrines and Dogma of the Roman Church.

The statements you made originally, with which I disagreed are these (emphasis mine):


16: "... the Doctrine and Dogma of The Roman church, which holds that salvation is for only the sincere ones within the church, the sincere ones who have no knowledge of the Church, and those sincere who die below the age of consent."

22: "The only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated)."

And the implications you outlined in the same post:


"Please be specific if the Grace of Salvation is extended to others beyond what I have described above.

Actually, unlike past ages, by far most of the people of the world have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church with full knowledge of the Roman Church. What in the view of the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church would there be any chance for them for salvation?"

So I asked you, "Where does it say that Protestants must rejoin the Catholic Church in order to be saved?" "Please quote where it says that Protestants must rejoin the Catholic Church in order to be saved?" "Still no mention of the necessity of Protestants to convert to Catholicism in order to be saved."

Your response: "Given those sources. Please read them."

But you repeatedly refused to acknowledge that your initial source was not an infallible document of the Roman Church today (45,51,54,67,75,80,84,89,94,105,106[no response]).

Once we got you reading the actual documents of the church, you disagreed with my literal interpretation of the documents, even claimed that I was deluded and leading people astray. My 'interpretation' with respect to those who do have knowledge of the Catholic church is to understand the texts literally, ie, that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is only applied to those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God (§846). As it happens, this is exactly the same interpretation as Cardinal Dulles (no surprise there), ie, other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.

My interpretation is that, unlike Pope Boniface, who applies the traditional maxim to all human creatures needing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, the Catholic church currently does not even apply this maxim to those who do not know of the Church (§847). You did not accept my interpretation and did not consider this to be addressing different populations, even 'though it clearly says "this affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church" (§847). You did not believe that the fundamental statements by Boniface have changed. So I asked you:


Where does Boniface's statement make exception for those below the 'age of consent,' those with sincerity, and those without the ability to have knowledge of the church?"

Can you show how Pope Francis understands that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in the same way that Boniface understood this statement? Do you see Francis requiring subjection to him in the same way that Boniface did?

Do you think that Boniface understood every human creature being subject to the Roman Pontiff to include an acknowledgment of the necessity of honoring fundamental and inviolable personal rights of all, including, eg, equal secular rights for women?

No answer, except to say that you are no longer speaking of Boniface or any one pope or any one person of authority.

And now you would have us believe that you have really agreed with Cardinal Dulles (and me) all along? But, guess what, Cardinal Dulles and I still disagree with your original statements. It is not true that "... the Doctrine and Dogma of The Roman church, [] holds that salvation is for only the sincere ones within the church, the sincere ones who have no knowledge of the Church, and those sincere who die below the age of consent." It is not true that "the only allowance for salvation outside the church is defined as: Those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated)."

Rather, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, those following other religions, agnostics and atheists, as you yourself point out, "by far most of the people of the world have rejected the Roman Church as the One True Church with full knowledge of the Roman Church", and the Catholic church does now teach that the grace of salvation is indeed extended to others beyond what you have described above and not "for only the sincere ones within the church, the sincere ones who have no knowledge of the Church, and those sincere who die below the age of consent."

robrecht
04-20-2014, 12:57 PM
ONLY, as clearly defined by the Dogma defined in Vatican II, and other documents including as described by Cardinal Dulles, and no this has not been a significant deviation from the Doctrine 'There is No Salvation Outside the Church. Again, 'Desire,' Sincerity,' and 'Knowledge' remain the criteria of well defined and limited exceptions. No doubt, you do not consider this a concession, but it is literally an admission that my interpretation, which is exactly that of Cardinal Dulles, was and still is accurate and not deluded.


No, the phrase is not accurate. Thank you.


The answer to the question is best served by questions: does Christianity 'look down on' Judaism? Does Islam 'look down on' Judaism and Christianity? Does Buddhism 'look down' on Hinduism? I will happily answer your questions, but I'm not sure if you answered mine. I suspect most Christians and Muslims do indeed look down upon their 'parent' religions, but they should not in my opinion. My knowledge of Buddhism is very limited so I cannot give a well informed answer there. Now, if I may repeat my reformulated question to you: Do Baha'i view other religions as less evolved, from their own perspective that is more evolved? Is that also inaccurate? With respect to my other questions, do you consider Baha'i to be a religion, a faith, a philosophy, none or some or all of the above?


If this would even remotely a realistic view of the modern Roman Church or Christianity in general, it is one that is forming in very recent history. Considering the historical relationship between the Roman Church, and Judaism, and Islam this is difficult to accept. The problem again is what (some?) believers in the Roman Church believe, and the problem again and again is that the Dogma of Salvation of the Roman Church does not accept this, in part because the "Catholic" nature of the human relationship with God is defined as through the Church only, with fairly narrowly defined exceptions. I'm still not sure if I grasp what you mean by "this" but I suspect you are characterizing, correctly by the way, the Roman Catholic church's mainstream theology as expressing an exclusive Christocentric view of salvation, even as somehow mediated through the Church albeit sometimes in some mysterious manner known only to God, which nonetheless allows them to also believe in the universal and efficacious salvific will of God for all humanity. That latter part is sometimes considered ecclesiocentric but not really exclusivist. A strange combination of exclusivism and universalism. It can only be held together by a high Christology that affirms Jesus as the preexistent Son of God participating in the creative activity of God. The universal element can be seen as only recently coming into the mainstream but there were elements dating at least as far back as St Paul, who saw Christ in these terms and as a second Adam. In my opinion, all theology must be theocentric, but, perhaps paradoxically, I agree with those theologians who see these and all dogmatic and doctrinal affirmations as kataphatic theology, which is inferior to apophatic theology. My view is certainly not mainstream, but it is not at all unusual among theologians. It is more common in the Catholic West to see kataphatic and apophatic theology as part of a necessary dialectic but not necessarily explicitly affirming the superiority of apophatic theology. Some elements of the Protestant West would be rather strongly opposed to apophatic theology, 'though they may affirm it implicitly and indirectly sometimes, while other quietist elements of Protestant West are very much enthralled with apophatic theology, although this may also be implicit. Most Christians, East or West, don't consciously care about theology at all, and I very much respect that view, but still these people as engaging nonetheless in a kind of 'seat-of-pants' theological praxis. With respect to practical ecclesiology, as opposed to theology in the strict sense, I agree with Yves Congar vs Paul VI.


The Doctrine of Salvation is in some ways similar in the criteria of 'Desire,' 'Sincerity' and 'Knowledge,' but lacking is the 'Salvation,' of individuals is not as defined specifically through necessity of belief in the Doctrine and Dogma itself. Also, the Baha'i Faith lacks the defining of the Dogmas and Doctrines defining God and the Religion, separate from other religions. Religions and Faiths are more of a collective of all humanity in a continuum in the journey toward God. Most of the theologians I have studied with and know interpersonally or collegially would agree with this. As I said above, some would consider this theocentric and apophatic, and some would even maintain some affinity with various kinds of panentheism. I am particularly fond of John Scottus Eriugena's lack of distinction between the natural and supernatural and the usefulness of revelation for those who need it.

shunyadragon
04-22-2014, 05:41 PM
No doubt, you do not consider this a concession, but it is literally an admission that my interpretation, which is exactly that of Cardinal Dulles, was and still is accurate and not deluded.

Thank you.

I will happily answer your questions, but I'm not sure if you answered mine. I suspect most Christians and Muslims do indeed look down upon their 'parent' religions, but they should not in my opinion. My knowledge of Buddhism is very limited so I cannot give a well informed answer there. Now, if I may repeat my reformulated question to you: Do Baha'i view other religions as less evolved, from their own perspective that is more evolved? Is that also inaccurate? With respect to my other questions, do you consider Baha'i to be a religion, a faith, a philosophy, none or some or all of the above?



I will apply to more of this post, but first I would like to clarify some general concepts of 'Salvation' in the Roman Church. I never said that there was no possibility of those outside the 'One True Church' have no chance of salvation. There are too many hurtles of Mortal Sins such as Herecy, and other issues then knowledge that those outside the Roman Church must face. First what is most clearly defined in the Vatican II and other documents is 'Normal' Salvation, and this remains the 'Standard,' other then what you refer to 'Extraordinary Salvation' as in the following:

1943 Encyclical Mystici Corporis, 'may in fact be joined to the true Church by a link – seemingly tenuous, but sufficient for salvation – that consists in a merely implicit and unconscious desire (implicitum votum Ecclesiae) to enter the Catholic fold. This desire, however, will have to be such as includes supernatural acts of faith and charity.'

It is also true that no human knows the destiny of any soul, inside nor outside the Roman Church, and the possibility of up to the last second of life a change in heart in terms of 'Desire' and 'Sincerity,' or intervention by God. The Mysterious intervention of God is always possible, but I do not believe this should be banked on for anyone inside nor outside the Church. I believe that pretty much all references to Salvation remain conditional on 'Desire,' 'Sincerity' and 'Knowledge,' not withstanding the qualifier of the knowledge of the 'Necessity of the Roman Church.

I believe the interesting point Cardinal Dulles paraphrased made still holds, 'there has not been much change as some think.'

I believe your dwelling on the possibility of 'Salvation' in extraordinary circumstances outside the clear criteria of 'Normal Salvation defined in Vatican II, and essential to the identity of the Roman Church is grasping at straws of the vain hope for actual change.

robrecht
04-22-2014, 06:24 PM
I will apply to more of this post, but first I would like to clarify some general concepts of 'Salvation' in the Roman Church. I never said that there was no possibility of those outside the 'One True Church' have no chance of salvation.Nor did I ever think that you said this. I have identified exactly which statements of yours incorrectly characterize the current teaching of the Catholic church.


There are too many hurtles of Mortal Sins such as Herecy, and other issues then knowledge that those outside the Roman Church must face. First what is most clearly defined in the Vatican II and other documents is 'Normal' Salvation, and this remains the 'Standard,' other then what you refer to 'Extraordinary Salvation' as in the following:

1943 Encyclical Mystici Corporis, 'may in fact be joined to the true Church by a link – seemingly tenuous, but sufficient for salvation – that consists in a merely implicit and unconscious desire (implicitum votum Ecclesiae) to enter the Catholic fold. This desire, however, will have to be such as includes supernatural acts of faith and charity.'

It is also true that no human knows the destiny of any soul, inside nor outside the Roman Church, and the possibility of up to the last second of life a change in heart in terms of 'Desire' and 'Sincerity,' or intervention by God. The Mysterious intervention of God is always possible, but I do not believe this should be banked on for anyone inside nor outside the Church. I believe that pretty much all references to Salvation remain conditional on 'Desire,' 'Sincerity' and 'Knowledge,' not withstanding the qualifier of the knowledge of the 'Necessity of the Roman Church.

I believe the interesting point Cardinal Dulles paraphrased made still holds, 'there has not been much change as some think.'

I believe your dwelling on the possibility of 'Salvation' in extraordinary circumstances outside the clear criteria of 'Normal Salvation defined in Vatican II, and essential to the identity of the Roman Church is grasping at straws of the vain hope for actual change.

I have not referred to 'Extraordinary Salvation'. Lumen Gentium and Guadium et Spes, the two documents from Vatican II that we have discussed, do not use the language of a implicitum votum Ecclesiae, 'normative salvation', or 'extraordinary salvation'. Some do use this kind of language. Nor was I ever speaking of anyone of anyone inside, let alone outside, of the church 'banking on' God's mysterious intervention. Even those inside the church refer to the sacraments as mysteries. That's just the way God is. Mysterious. I concentrate on salvation outside the church no more and no less than Cardinal Dulles when describing the teaching of the current Catholic church.

I agree with Cardinal Dulles that 'there has not been as much change as some think', but we would both still disagree with the statements of yours that I identified as incorrectly characterizing the current teaching of the Catholic church. And 'not as much change as some think (note the comparative) does not mean 'no actual change'.

shunyadragon
04-22-2014, 06:55 PM
The Baha'i Faith and the relationship to other religions and beliefs. The Baha'i Faith believes that the human evolution of the spirit parallels the natural evolution of the physical we witness in the cycles of natural world throughout the physical history of our existence. Change and evolution in cycles is the natural way of Creation and Revelation.

'These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.' Baha'ullah.

'The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh, the followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society.' Shoghi Effendi

'The Changeless Faith of God'

When Bahá'ís say that the various religions are one, they do not mean that the various religious creeds and organizations are the same. Rather, they believe that there is only one religion and all of the Messengers of God have progressively revealed its nature. Together, the world's great religions are expressions of a single unfolding Divine plan, "the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future."

There is no clear delineation between religions as one is different or lesser then another. It is like an eternal river of Revelation inseparable from the continuous process of Creation.

go with the flow the river knows . . .

robrecht
04-22-2014, 07:08 PM
Thanks, Frank. Interesting. It seems like you distinguish between founders of religions as messengers of God, which are part of this progressive revelation, but not necessarily their followers. Thus one could certainly consider certain sects or even mainstream swaths of a particular religion as less evolved and thus inferior. Is there any discussion of that by Bahá'ís?

shunyadragon
04-22-2014, 07:23 PM
Nor did I ever think that you said this. I have identified exactly which statements of yours incorrectly characterize the current teaching of the Catholic church.

I was clarifying, not changing. I still hold to my citations refer to the 'Normal Salvation as taught by the Roman Church.


I have not referred to 'Extraordinary Salvation'. Lumen Gentium and Guadium et Spes, the two documents from Vatican II that we have discussed, do not use the language of a implicitum votum Ecclesiae, 'normative salvation', or 'extraordinary salvation'. Some do use this kind of language. Nor was I ever speaking of anyone of anyone inside, let alone outside, of the church 'banking on' God's mysterious intervention. Even those inside the church refer to the sacraments as mysteries. That's just the way God is. Mysterious. I concentrate on salvation outside the church no more and no less than Cardinal Dulles when describing the teaching of the current Catholic church.

I did not say you described it as such. I describe it as such based on a clear understanding of Vatican II and the documents referenced.


I agree with Cardinal Dulles that 'there has not been as much change as some think', but we would both still disagree with the statements of yours that I identified as incorrectly characterizing the current teaching of the Catholic church. And 'not as much change as some think (note the comparative) does not mean 'no actual change'.

I do not believe I have overstated the clear Dogma stated in Vatican II. There is more cited by Cardinal Dulles.

"While repeatedly insisting that Christ is the one mediator of salvation, Vatican II shows forth a generally hopeful view of the prospects of non-Christians for salvation. Its hopefulness, however, is not unqualified: “Rather often, men, deceived by the evil one, have become caught up in futile reasoning and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or, some there are who, living and dying in a world without God, are subject to utter hopelessness.” The missionary activity of the Church is urgent for bringing such persons to salvation."

"We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth. Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God."

robrecht
04-22-2014, 08:02 PM
I was clarifying, not changing. I still hold to my citations refer to the 'Normal Salvation as taught by the Roman Church. But you did not represent your statements as only speaking of normative as opposed to extraordinary salvation. And your statements did refer to the salvation of those who had never heard of the church, which also would be nonnormative. The problem I see with your statements was not that they were normative but a combination of normative and some nonnormative, but not all of the nonnormative, eg, the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians, and you also seemed to be excluding those of other religions or no religion or belief in God who know of the church but did not enter it. That's a pretty big doughnut hole, and as you yourself point out it is only getting bigger in today's world of mass communication.


I did not say you described it as such.Actually you did, but I suspected when you said, "... other then what you refer to 'Extraordinary Salvation'," that this was meant as an impersonal 'you'--I just wanted to make sure this was clear. I personally do not like the use of normative and extraordinary but I use it because it now seems to be a preferred category of yours.


I describe it as such based on a clear understanding of Vatican II and the documents referenced. But the Vatican II documents do not use the language of a implicitum votum Ecclesiae, 'normative salvation', or 'extraordinary salvation'. If I recall correctly (and oftentimes I do not), some of this language was in the preparatory commission's documents that were rejected. The theology of the language that was used is sometimes different in nuance and reflects the theological perspectives of some of the periti and I think it corrects some of the supernatural language of Pius XII (a big bugaboo of Chenu and de Lubac, and for good reason). Note that Cardinal Dulles also thinks that this language has some importance: "Wisely, in my opinion, the popes and councils have avoided talk about implicit faith, a term that is vague and ambiguous." Still, some theologians will still use the older language or the normative/extraordinary language to try and clarify points. I don't like it for a few different reasons, but not because it vague and ambiguous because the newer language is also obviously vague and ambiguous at some of these same points. But the explicit exclusionary language around the extra ecclesiam saying is explicit for good reason.


I do not believe I have overstated the clear Dogma stated in Vatican II. There is more cited by Cardinal Dulles.

"While repeatedly insisting that Christ is the one mediator of salvation, Vatican II shows forth a generally hopeful view of the prospects of non-Christians for salvation. Its hopefulness, however, is not unqualified: “Rather often, men, deceived by the evil one, have become caught up in futile reasoning and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or, some there are who, living and dying in a world without God, are subject to utter hopelessness.” The missionary activity of the Church is urgent for bringing such persons to salvation."

"We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth. Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God."You really do not need to cite Dulles to me. I know his interpretation of Vatican II. I disagree with him sometimes, but not about his interpretation of these documents. I have pointed out where you have misrepresented the clear teaching of the Church, both where it is highly explicit and where it is still vague and mysterious.

37818
01-18-2015, 09:25 AM
The term God does not give us God's identity. But God nevertheless has a very real identity. This identity if it is not God, there is no God. In other words this identity is very real.

The universe is not God. And the universe, meaning: everything that exists. Now consider the question "does God exist?" The problem with this question and that the universe being everything that exists, it makes such a God part of His creation. Which of course He is not. The universe being God's creation.

Now the tautology Existence exists, is a simple self-evident truth. Now space is a type of existence. Every material thing exists in space in some way. Even the non-material things which make up the material things. (Such as electromagnetic energy and gravity.)

Now the things in space do not make space.

Now our simple tautology existence exists. Everything real has existence of some kind. Since different things are not the same things, they which have existence are not the existence which self exists.

The self existent existence is omnipresent, and possesses everything and anything which is real.

Existence defines what is true. Truth being what really exists.

The self existent existence needs no God.

Now that self existent existence is the very identity of God. God's Hebrew name means "Self Existent."

The self-existent existence is the true ontological proof of God. Being it is God's identity.

Something more here: Self existent is not caused and is eternal in not having any beginning nor end. And being eternal is a an immutability.

Noting existence defines what is true. And truth is immutable - absolute. It does not change. The law of non-contradiction.

But our created universe is temporal. Was caused, all causes are temporal. So whether there is only one discrete cause for the universe or an infinite series leading up to the universe that is now. Either case requires an uncaused cause.

Now an uncaused cause has two natures. Uncaused is eternal. And a cause is always temporal. So it requires an agent which is both the uncaused, which we identify as the self existent existence. And that the agent is also temporal being a cause. Which is another entity different from being uncaused. This agent is both uncaused and a cause. And that these two entities being both the same and different in being a common uncaused. The common uncaused nature constitutes a third entity being an uncaused essence.

We have the self existent existence.
Which precedes everything - which constitutes the fundamental order - which is both uncaused and a cause in of itself.
Both the uncause existence and the uncaused order/cause are two entities being one uncaused essence constituting a third entity which make those three the one entity we know as God.

Self Existent, uncaused entity (The Hebrew Name: Yahweh.)
The uncaused order/cause being both uncaused and temporal. (the Logos)
And the one uncaused essence - which makes the three entities the one entity. (the Holy Spirit):bump: