Talk:Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Article supporting Feenyism? 2 SSPX 3 Universal Salvation and Baptism of desire 4 Most important thing 5 Dominus Iesus 6 It's a Dogma!

[edit] Article supporting Feenyism?

WHOA there, this article is completely non-NPOV supporting Feenyism, almost all definitions used in the article are strawmen designed to support that philosophy.

Stuff saying that the bapitism of blood concept is from the 80's is complete nonsense: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406611.htm http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406612.htm

[edit] SSPX

Better to put this on the talk page.

I'm pretty sure the comment that "but those arguing for the strictest interpretation of EENS" is unnecessary.

Yes, you're right.

I think many people would prick up their ears at hearing that someone thought the Society of Saint Pius X was famous and successful. Infamous maybe, but successful at what?

I'm not saying they're famous and successful in general -- not many Protestants etc will have heard of them -- but as far as traditionalist Catholic groups go I think they're the most famous and successful. Anyone who's interested in T.C. will know about them and (I'd say) have to admit they've been more successful than any one else.

Also, many traditionalists distance themselves from this group due to it's sedevacantism and the Ordination of Bishops without permission.

Some dislike them for causing trouble, as they see it, but the SSPX aren't sedevacantist. They don't like the liberalism of the present pope and hierarchy, but that's a different thing: you can disagree with the pope and still recognize him as a legitimate pope. Jacquerie27 10:33 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Jtocci's reply: Alright, I think I see what you're saying. More successful as far as membership. Well, I would say you know when they're around, that doesn't make them more numerous, just more obvious. My experience with the SSPX was only with those who were sedevacantist as well, and I never researched them so I probably shouldn't comment further. I defer to your better judgement. (I like prominent better though.) User:jtocci Jun 14, '03

Yes, it is pretty addictive, and thanks a lot for improving this article. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Salvation and Baptism of desire

I am slowly attempting to make this article NPOV. It needs to be remembered that there are really two seperate contraversies surrounding the EENS dogma:

• Some people especially modernists simply don't believe it, and believe in things like universal salvation. This may come in the form of claiming to believe it but defining baptism of desire to mean essentially everyone becomes baptized

• Contraversies over the validity of baptism of blood and desire.

[edit] Most important thing

The most important thing, really, is what the current church hierarchy teaches. Has there been any pronouncements on this topic by a current or recent church official, acting in an official capacity -- the higher the better. e.g., any statements by a recent Pope (e.g. John Paul II -- Benedict has been around too briefly to say much as Pope yet...), or my the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or any of the Bishops? --samuel katinsky(too lazy to login)

The most important recent documents would be the Vat 2 documents on Ecumenism and non Christian religions.DaveTroy 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominus Iesus

I expanded the section referring to Dominus Iesus, since the previous version gave the impression that its interpretation of EENS excludes all Non-Catholics and Non-Christians from the possibility of being saved, which is clearly not true. Gugganij 21:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, section Official Church Teaching could be a bit more systematic. Gugganij 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's a Dogma!

The Catholic Church has on numerous occasions declared EENS to be an infallible dogma of the Church. See: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

DominvsVobiscvm 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The following quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia will, hopefully, help DominvsVobiscvm distinguish between a definitive belief of the Church (which may be called a material dogma, but is not a dogma in the strict sense) and a defined dogma.

"Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term."[1]

"We are bound to believe revealed truths irrespective of their definition by the Church, if we are satisfied that God has revealed them. When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith."[2]

"It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to know whether or not a theological definition has been issued; but very few words are needed to show that the assertion is without foundation. At times, doubt will remain about the definitive nature of a decree, but as a rule no possibility of doubt is consistent with the terminology of a definitive decree. Thus in the doctrinal teaching of a general council, anathema attached to condemned errors is a certain sign of an infallible definition. Words also like those in which Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin give irrefutable proof of the definitive nature of the decree: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful." No set form of words is necessary; any form which clearly indicates that the four requisite conditions are present suffices to show that the decree is a definition in the strict sense. It should be noted that not everything contained in a definition is infallibly defined. Thus, arguments from Scripture, tradition, or theological reason, do not come under the exercise of definitive authority. Incidental statements, called obiter dicta, are also examples of non-definitive utterances. Only the doctrine itself, to which those arguments lead and which these obiter dicta illustrate, is to be considered as infallibly defined."[3]

The phrase from the Fourth Lateran Council quoted in the article is not a definition of a dogma, such as "If anyone denies ... let him be anathema" (and moreover is an obiter dictum), but it can certainly be seen as expressing a definitive belief of the Church, and obviously would be quoted if the Church ever did decide to define this teaching as a dogma.

Lima 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts. The above Vatican instruction repeatedly refers to it as a "dogma."

A doctrine need not be defined with the words "anathema sit" to be made a dogma. I don't know of a single manual of dogmatic theology that states that EENS is not dogma, and Dr. Ott certainly lists it as such in his "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," as Does Fr. Hardon in his "Catholic Catechism," and so does every book I've ever read that brings up this subject, and as does the Vatican above. It's dogma, precisely because it has been formally proposed as a definitive belief by the Church, in several acts of her extraordinary Magisterium, to be held by all the faithful. A collection of such statements can be found here, although the interpretation of them given by the Feenyites is incorrect: http://www.catholicism.org/magisterium.html

"The above Vatican instruction repeatedly (???) refers to it as a 'dogma'." In fact, only once, I think. And as a material dogma, that is, something that is part of the deposit of faith, something Catholics must believe, but not something that has been formally defined. But DominvsVobiscvm still has not said when and in what words it was theologically defined and made a dogma in the strict sense.

Only when DominvsVobiscvm can show his statement is verifiable is he entitled to insert his statement in the article. Until then he should respect the status quo.

Lima 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. Pope Boniface VIII: "Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." See the link above at Catholicism.Org; the dogma has also been defined by two Ecumenical Councils, in the professions of faith they wrote up and promulgated for the Christian faithful.

Thanks are due to DominvsVobiscvm for now verifying his statement, or at least something like it, and proving himself a good Wikipedian. Lima 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Aw, shucks.

Seriously, though, I just have to clarify that there is "set formula" by which the Church considered itself bound in order to dogmatize an article of faith. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this, as will any manual of dogmatic theology. What is necessary is the intention on the part of the Supreme Magisterium to define a dogma; such was the case, for example, when the Nicene Fathers promulgated the Nicene Creed. The Creed itself is dogmatic, since it was clearly the intention of the Council to bind Catholics to those particular beliefs. I don't know how else to support this except by referring the reader to a thorough book on the subject, like Dr. Ludwig Ott's classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is not yet available online.