Talk:Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Inculpable ignorance is not a means of salvation according to Rev. Michael Muller

41. Will those heretics be saved, who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the dictates of their conscience?

Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person who lives up to the dictates of his conscience, and who cannot sin against the true religion on account of being ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation or justification.
If we sincerely wish not to make great mistakes in explaining the great revealed truth, "Out of the Church there is no salvation," we must remember:
  • 1. That there are four great truths of salvation, which everyone must know and believe in order to be saved; [I guess he means the Justice of God (rewards the good and punishes the wicked), Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption.]
  • 2. That no one can go to heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace;
  • 3. That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved;
  • 4. That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics.
Other questions
42. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that no one can be saved out of the Church?
On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity to assert most emphatically, that out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation possible; for Jesus Christ and His Apostles have taught this doctrine in very plain language. He who sincerely seeks the truth is glad to hear it, and embrace it, in order to be saved.
43. But is it not said in Holy Scripture: "He that feareth God, and worketh justice, is acceptable to Him "?
This is true. But we must remember that he who fears God, will also believe all the truths that God has revealed, as Cornelius did (Acts, Chapter X). He believes Jesus Christ when He speaks to us through the pastors of His Church. But he who does not believe all the truths that God has revealed, but instead believes and rejects whatever he chooses, does not fear God, and cannot work justice. "He that believeth not the Son of God" - Jesus Christ - "maketh Him a liar," says Saint John (I John 5:10); and will, on this account, be condemned to hell.


How is this to be incorporated into the article? --Akj150 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do anybody mind if I put this in the article?--Akj150 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What a shock!

Is it really the case that feeney is to be attached to a dogma which is traditionally associated with the "Father of Orthodoxy", Confessor and Doctor of the Church, Saint Athanasius? Has everyone forgotten the Athanasian Creed? And in reading the article, there is no mention of the fact that throughout church history there have been times of strict adherence to the dogma of no salvation outside the church, and that periods of liberal interpretation are followed by reform, which was the original purpose of the Athanasian Creed.


[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 thing, actually, is what the earliest Christians taught, not the most recent. 2nd Piston Honda 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominvsVobiscvm (talk • contribs)

"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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominvsVobiscvm (talk • contribs)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominvsVobiscvm (talk • contribs)

[edit] Papal infallibility of Unam Sanctam

The opening paragraph reads as though the papal infallibility of Unam Sanctam were an established fact, whereas this is a theological opinion. Any suggestions on how to rewrite it to accurately reflect a neutral point of view? -- Cat Whisperer 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See the "It's a dogma" discussion, just above. Lima 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of that discussion seems to me to be original research. I'm talking about published research by Catholic theologians, such as George Tavard's "The Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII" in Papal Primacy and the Universal Chruch (Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V), pp. 105-119, which concludes that Unam sanctam is not an exercise of papal infallibility. Or Klaus Schatz's survey of historical documents exercising papal infallibility, as reported in Papal infallibility#Instances of papal infallibility. -- Cat Whisperer 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I retired from the above discussion, because I felt that it was a waste of time and effort to insist against DominvsVobiscvm (who has since retired on his laurels) on the distinction between a truth of faith (a material dogma) and one that has been formally defined. (I could have said, for instance, that some believe the phrase that DominvsVobiscvm quoted was originally a scribe's summary that later got confused with the text of the bull.) Unless others join in, I prefer not to take any further active part in a discussion about a matter that even an anti-Feeneyism site such as this sees as (when rightly understood, of course) a de fide matter. Lima 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a few more days to see if anyone else has comments before I start editing, then. Thanks, -- Cat Whisperer 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Although this article as it is now would make a good Catholic POV, as an encyclopedia article, I find it to be too biased. I think we should look at other sources to verify the content.--~ Troy 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overly long and repetitive

This article seems to be designed to convince people who doubt that this is really dogma of the catholic church by sheer repetition. But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to win arguments. It only takes one quote from one Pope to make it dogma. Pick one. --192.68.228.4 22:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dogmatic nature of EENS

Whether EENS is a dogma is a disputed point among Catholic theologians; it is a matter of legitimate disagreement in the Church. Therefore, under Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, it is not permitted for this article to assert as a matter of fact that EENS is a dogma. I don't want to start an edit war, so before I do a second revert I'm asking here if there is any justification under Wikipedia policy for the current article making this assertion. -- Cat Whisperer 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Church?

What about the Eastern Orthodox Church? Catholic and Orthodox Churches started off as one church and the Pope recognizes the apostolic succession of the Orthodox church, so does that mean that both Catholic and Orthodox churches can provide salvation? --24.150.77.3 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Cyprian and Rome

Ironic that St Cyprian got into a flaming row with Bishop Stephen I of Rome over the latter's claim that the Bishop of Rome was de officio head of the whole church. Koro Neil (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed part

I've removed a part called Possible influence on Stalin, I don't see it having any connection with Nulla salus doctrine. The writer himself says the connection between the doctrine and said Communist principle is merely a theory, and I don't see how that is relevant to the doctrine. I would understand if one would find appropriate to put it in an article about the principle itself (if there is such), or maybe Communism, or even in an article about Stalin (although that is also a question), but it certainly doesn't belong here, thus the removal. If you are to put it back, state your reson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxcoder (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)