The Identity of God.

[robrecht]

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]

Then you need to improve your written English.

[shunyadragon]

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]

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.

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 ecclesiamLumen 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 itis 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 ecclesiamthey could not be saved who

[shunyadragon]

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 ecclesiamLumen 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 itis 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 ecclesiamthey could not be saved who

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]

Please explain how Pope Boniface VII has a different interpretation.

[shunyadragon]

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]

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]

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.

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.

discusses those who, unlike those in the previous section, do not know Christ or his gospel. The extra ecclesiam

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]

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]

Please explain how Pope Boniface VII has a different interpretation.

[shunyadragon]

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.

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.

[robrecht]

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

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]

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 Gentiumhttp://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lumen+.....-a0189703853 (Cf Note 35)

[shunyadragon]

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

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.