The Identity of God.

[shunyadragon]

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

[robrecht]

This was well addressed by Pope Benedict in his letter in 2005

plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis

[robrecht]

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

[robrecht]

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.

here, here, here, and here. 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]

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

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]

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 . . .

here, here, here, and here. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.