No Salvation Outside The Church?

[AnneElliot]

Tom,

I hope you understand that the last sentence of Lumen Gentium 16 is key to understanding the rest of LG 16.

The discussion about absolutes is not a red herring. Whether or not dogmas need interpretation OR whether dogmas are the interpretation is very relevant to this thread. In fact, in might hinge on it.

 

[davidv]

DavidV,

Since itinerant refuses to answer the question I will respond as I’d intended if he meant to disregard dogmas as “truths fallen from heaven” (which you above stated was not true of dogmas).

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
Pope Pius X, Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists:
“22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.”

Dogma is, by nature, a definition. It IS the authoritative/official interpretation of the Church regarding doctrine.
“And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation…”
newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

OK. And?

 

[AnneElliot]

OK. And?

It is perfectly legitimate to call dogmas “truths fallen from heaven”. And dogmas ARE the interpretation of the Church’s doctrines.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Even so, we still have the same need to correctly interpret. For example, what kinds of situations constitute murder, as opposed to justifiable homicide, such as delf-defense against an unjust attack?

Murder - the intentional taking of an innocent human life.

 

[davidv]

It is perfectly legitimate to call dogmas “truths fallen from heaven”.

Why? Where did they land? Who found them after they fell?

And dogmas ARE the interpretation of the Church’s doctrines.

Where did you get this definition? It seems contradictory to this selection from the CCC:

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50
90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”

50 Cf. Jn 8:31-32.
51 Cf. Vatican Council IS 3016:nexus mysteriorum; LG 25.

Based on this, a dogma is a truth contained in divine Revelation. It also seems to indicate that dogma and doctrine are used interchangibly (article 90), and not in the way you expressed it above.

 

[JM3]

DavidV,

Since itinerant refuses to answer the question I will respond as I’d intended if he meant to disregard dogmas as “truths fallen from heaven” (which you above stated was not true of dogmas).

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
Pope Pius X, Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists:
“22. The** dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven.** They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.”

Dogma is, by nature, a definition. It IS the authoritative/official interpretation of the Church regarding doctrine.
“And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation…”
newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

Then you say this:

"It is perfectly legitimate to call dogmas “truths fallen from heaven”.

Do you, then, oppose Pope Pius X?

 

[AnneElliot]

Why? Where did they land? Who found them after they fell?

As I posted previously, Pope Pius X condemned the errors of the modernists who claimed that dogmas were not truths fallen from heaven (cf. #22).
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Where did you get this definition? It seems contradictory to this selection from the CCC:
Based on this, a dogma is a truth contained in divine Revelation. It also seems to indicate that dogma and doctrine are used interchangibly (article 90), and not in the way you expressed it above.

“dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation”
newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

Dogma is a truth contained in Divine Revelation. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas… there are different levels of Church teaching (teaching=doctrine) or “hierarchy of truths” as most theology text books would term it. (For instance, the Church clearly teaches that Mary is our Advocate, but this has not been formally defined… it is a doctrine (teaching) of the Faith, but not a dogmatic statement).

A Catholic Dictionary I have defines it thus:
“Doctrine- Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful… Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.”

Let’s look at another non-controversial (I hope!) dogma of the Faith: the Immaculate Conception.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (=dogma)

Does this need interpretation? Is it plain, clear, and simple? Direct? Does it require a nuance so that it says the opposite of what it says?

 

[AnneElliot]

Then you say this:

"It is perfectly legitimate to call dogmas “truths fallen from heaven”.

Do you, then, oppose Pope Pius X?

Of course not, #22 (that dogmas are not truths fallen from heaven) is a position that Pope Pius X is condemning, not espousing. It is one of the **errors **of the Modernists to deny that dogmas are truths fallen from heaven.

 

[JM3]

Feeney’s ‘return’ to the church was hollow. Since he was not required to recant the question remains, did he possess true contrition for his sins of disobedience? Without this, of course, his ‘return’ is null and void. I think his tombstone is indicative of his lack of contrition. That being the case his return would be hollow. Isn’t it ironic that the man who espoused extra ecclesiam, nulla salus would die outside the church?

The excommunication of Father Feeney was lifted in 1972. He died in 1978, a full member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I find your condemnation of Father Feeney undocumented and uncharitable.

You should worry about your own ‘true contrition’.

 

[JM3]

Of course not, #22 (that dogmas are not truths fallen from heaven) is a position that Pope Pius X is condemning, not espousing. It is one of the **errors **of the Modernists to deny that dogmas are truths fallen from heaven.

Then you should make your posts more clearer and state exactly what you are saying and what you mean.

Confusing people will not bring them to God.

 

[AnneElliot]

Then you should make your posts more clearer and state exactly what you are saying and what you mean.

Confusing people will not bring them to God.

I posted the title of the document from which it came: *Syllabus **Condemning **the ***Errors **of the Modernists. I thought that was clear in itself. It was not my intention to confuse anyone, I apologize.

 

[Pitcharan]

Then you (AnneElliot) say this: It is perfectly legitimate to call dogmas “truths fallen from heaven”.

It is perfectly legitimate to say so; however it is most illegitimate to privately interpret or derive meaning from a church dogma, which is totally in contrast to the teaching of the CC. And it is even more illegitimate to shamelessly propagate the views of an excommunicated heretic and put forth deliberately false arguments that the excommunication was for disobedience and not for heresy.

How can the Church’s formulation of a Dogma (which by definition, is defining a true of the Faith) be ambiguous? Is not the very nature of Dogma to clearly define a truth of the Faith?

The Dogmas of the Church are “truths fallen from Heaven”

Yes. But documented by imperfect humans in all their frailty and linguistic limitations.

 

[AnneElliot]

AnneElliot;6985357:

The Dogmas of the Church are “truths fallen from Heaven”

Yes. But documented by imperfect humans in all their frailty and linguistic limitations.

What do you mean to imply by your statement here? I don’t want to assume that you are claiming the Church could error regarding dogmatic definitions… since they are “documented by imperfect humans in all their frailty and linguistic limitations”

 

[JM3]

it is perfectly legitimate to say so; however it is most illegitimate to privately interpret or derive meaning from a church dogma, which is totally in contrast to the teaching of the cc. And** it is even more illegitimate to shamelessly propagate the views of an excommunicated heretic and put forth deliberately false arguments that the excommunication was for disobedience and not for heresy**.

prove it!!!

 

[Pitcharan]

What do you mean to imply by your statement here? I don’t want to assume that you are claiming the Church could error regarding dogmatic definitions… since they are “documented by imperfect humans in all their frailty and linguistic limitations”

There is no need to assume about church erring. God appointed frail humans to do His work and they use human language which is imperfect. Our linguistic limitations are NO error. However, delibrate private interpretation to attribute a meaning contrary to the meaning intended by the author, is serious ERROR

 

[Pitcharan]

prove it!!!

Search this thread and you’ll find that others have already done it.

 

[JM3]

Search this thread and you’ll find that others have already done it.

ahh, what we older people call a ‘cop out’.

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant,

You missed the point. The point is that, even if lethal force is used, the intention matters. Killing is wrong, but a parent who uses lethal force to protect their child is not culpable of sinning against the fifth commandment. There’s a difference. Do you agree?

Guffaw! I did not miss the point.

Intention is important in every specifically human and thus moral act. But that was not the original issue. I have not forgotten what the original issue was about regarding “Thou shalt not kill”.

 

[itinerant1]

Murder - the intentional taking of an innocent human life.

That is the correct general principle or rule.

Society must correctly understand, however, what constitutes an “innocent human life”. And societies do err in their judgments.

 

[itinerant1]

Feeney’s ‘return’ to the church was hollow. Since he was not required to recant the question remains, did he possess true contrition for his sins of disobedience? Without this, of course, his ‘return’ is null and void. I think his tombstone is indicative of his lack of contrition. That being the case his return would be hollow. Isn’t it ironic that the man who espoused extra ecclesiam, nulla salus would die outside the church?

This discussion should not be about what we guess to be Fr. Feeney’s private disposition, which is known only to God. The issue should remain focussed on whether what is called “Fenneyism” was determined, in some official manner by the Church, to be heretical.

I previously quoted from and also posted links to articles that answer in the affirmative. Furthermore, the authors of said articles also see every indication that Fr. Feeney sincerely repented and was reconciled to the Church before he died. That is good enough for me. Suppose for a moment that Fr. Feeney never repented. It matters not in regard to whether his narrow interpretation of *extra ecclesiam, nulla salus *was a serious theological error.