P
pnewton
Guest
It is interesting to see here in the pre-Vatican II literature the basis for the reformulation of this in Lumen Gentium. It speaks to the hermaneutics of continuity.
- Status
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Pope John Paul II spoke in a General Audience on " the problem of the salvation of those who do not visibly belong to the Church."
He said that “the gift of salvation cannot be limited to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all…”
"Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ – ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ – stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition…
"The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical ‘Redemptoris Missio,’ salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. Redemptoris Missio, n. 10).
"It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded. In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a ‘yes’ to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that ‘sine ecclesia nulla salus’ – ‘without the Church there is no salvation.’ Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.”
He said that “the gift of salvation cannot be limited to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all…”
"Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ – ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ – stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition…
"The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical ‘Redemptoris Missio,’ salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. Redemptoris Missio, n. 10).
"It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded. In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a ‘yes’ to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that ‘sine ecclesia nulla salus’ – ‘without the Church there is no salvation.’ Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.”
A
Aramis
Guest
Actually, at least since the 1917 CIC, they are neither fully outside nor fully inside the church.
Valid sacraments means they are part of the Church Universal - even if they are a disobedient part.
that, since 1917, Orthodox priests are not reordained, merely incardinated and vested, when individually coming into union shows a level of “inside the church”.
But note also that the 1917 code, like the current one, puts all the validly baptized into the Church to some degree or another.
L
Lucky7
Guest
I found this on this topic:
*The “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.
Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn’t make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It’s not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it’s not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn’t even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma.*
So, it gives you the best chance of the truth short of the actual documents. Although I like what this book seems to offer, I’ll admit that I still want to see Church teaching as stated infallibly in the actual documents.
Does anyone know what the name of the document is that speaks of EENS (1) pre-Vatican II as well as the document that discusses it in (2) Vatican II? I think I’m at a point that I will have to read the actual documents myself to get the answers I am looking for.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I believe this to be wise. In fact, that is part of what I advocated in the other thread on this which is going on. Take some time, read the doctrine as it was proclaimed, and then read the modern presentations of that doctrine in continuity with it. Its probably best to read them in the sequence of time in which they were written or proclaimed. The things presented later, were built upon, and relied upon the understanding of that which came before it. In addition, arguments were based upon the scriptural understand
However, there is no one specific document that you can look to prior to Vatican II. The doctrine of EENS was originally proclaimed by St. Cyprian of Carthage in the 300’s and many Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and Councils spoke following that. Some specific sources (there are several others as well I am sure) which were prior to Vatican II worth looking into are: Fourth Lateran Council
The Council of Florence
Unam sanctam
Mystici Corporis
St. Cyprian
St. Jerome
St. Augustine
St. Fulgentius
St. Thomas
L
Lucky7
Guest
Oh boy.
I think I will start with Lumen Gentium having already seen/read some of the quotes, etc on these forums from pre-Vatican II (so I think I have a general feel for what the focus was then). I know one thing I would like to see if it includes is the idea of the necessity of non-Catholics to be in a state of grace (which would be more difficult outside of the Church).But thank you for the list. As time allows I will try to read it too.
J
jwinch2
Guest
It is a whole bunch of stuff, isn’t it?Oh boy.
But thank you for the list. As time allows I will try to read it too.
When I first came into the Church, I thought that the CCC explained everything that the Church knew about a given topic.
Let me try an analogy.
Reading on a particular doctrine from just the CCC is like reading a book chapter on the brain out of a very high quality textbook, versus reading all of the thousands of research studies which led the writers of the book to present the brain in the manner that they did. One can certainly learn the basics through reading the chapter, and the understanding gained may not be wrong. However, it is also fair to say that one will never have the full and complete understanding of what we know about the brain without going back to read the original research. For the vast majority of people however who do not have questions beyond a certain level, reading the book chapter will be enough to satisfy their needs.The same goes for the catechism. I would guess that 99% of Catholics have no desire or need to read anything beyond the CCC, and they are not wrong for being in that position. The doctrines all make sense to them and they are busy living out their lives of Faith as best they can. However, on occasion someone desires to go deeper and to have a more full understanding of the topic. In that situation, like the the book chapter which was not wrong on anything, simply reading the same thing over and over again will not take someone past a certain point when it comes to depth of understanding. At that point, one needs to go back and examine the sources to see how the original author presented things. Heck, that’s one of the reasons that the CCC references things throughout the entire book, so that people can go read the references and come to a fuller understanding!
Does that make any sort of sense at all, am I just screwing you up?
Since that list seems to be too much for you right now, you might be able to get away with a good pre-Vatican II catechism to start with so that you can do your comparison. You have already said that you find the explanation from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma to be unclear, so we can scratch that one. However, perhaps you might check out the Catechism of the Council of Trent for a description which works for you. I have also heard good things about My Catholic Faith, but I have not read it.
I’m sure others will have some ideas as well.
+Pax
L
Lucky7
Guest
No, you have not screwed me up…lol. That makes perfect sense. I, too, was once satisfied with “just the CCC” (and for most things I still am). I happen to think it is unfortunate that the new CCC doesn’t say a whole lot about “Outside the Church there is No Salvation”. If I’m not mistaken that section has only 2 paragraphs. For something so important and potentially so controversial, you would think more would have been included for us average, lay Catholics. I think the fact that it is not talked about much in the catechism adds to my frustrations lately.It is a whole bunch of stuff, isn’t it?
When I first came into the Church, I thought that the CCC explained everything that the Church knew about a given topic.
Let me try an analogy.
The same goes for the catechism. I would guess that 99% of Catholics have no desire or need to read anything beyond the CCC, and they are not wrong for being in that position. The doctrines all make sense to them and they are busy living out their lives of Faith as best they can. However, on occasion someone desires to go deeper and to have a more full understanding of the topic. In that situation, like the the book chapter which was not wrong on anything, simply reading the same thing over and over again will not take someone past a certain point when it comes to depth of understanding. At that point, one needs to go back and examine the sources to see how the original author presented things. Heck, that’s one of the reasons that the CCC references things throughout the entire book, so that people can go read the references and come to a fuller understanding!
Does that make any sort of sense at all, am I just screwing you up?
Since that list seems to be too much for you right now, you might be able to get away with a good pre-Vatican II catechism to start with so that you can do your comparison. You have already said that you find the explanation from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma to be unclear, so we can scratch that one. However, perhaps you might check out the Catechism of the Council of Trent for a description which works for you. I have also heard good things about My Catholic Faith, but I have not read it.
I’m sure others will have some ideas as well.
+Pax
I think going to a previous Catechism would definitely be a good starting place (although I have also heard that you can’t take any Catechism as infallible…maybe I’m wrong about that). Of course, previous catechisms are not set up like the newer one (with an index of topics, references to documents, bible verses etc). I happen to think that is one of the best things about our new CCC.
P
pnewton
Guest
I would say rather it would contain all that a Catholic needs to know, and then some. I also own the conpendium to the CCC and it is considerably larger than the catechism itself. It has all the referenced footnotes.It is a whole bunch of stuff, isn’t it?
When I first came into the Church, I thought that the CCC explained everything that the Church knew about a given topic.
A
Agnusstick
Guest
Having read the comments of Fr Rosica, my questioning is rather about the need to set the things straight in the wake of VII. I am not a traditionalist, however it becomes very clear that either the Church changes her Catechism according to whatever implications VII has, or a new Council is needed in order to adamantly reestablish the ancient teachings. The actual state of vacillation can have serious consequences.
Just look at this quote from Fr Rosica:
“What is meant by this thesis of the anonymous Christian is also taught in “Lumen Gentium,” the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Vatican II (no.16). According to this document those who have not yet received the gospel and this without any fault of their own are given the possibility of eternal salvation…God ‘in the unknown ways’ of his grace can give the faith without which there is no salvation even to those who have not yet heard the preaching of the gospel”.
Can anybody explain how can we be sure that ‘the unknown ways’ of the Grace simply preclude salvation for those that HAVE heard the preaching of the Gospel and still are not Catholics or anonymous Christians? As a matter of fact, why can’t we replace ‘Christian-’ with ‘Catholic-’ in Fr Rosica’s statement:
"A non-Christian may reject a Christian’s presentation of the gospel of Christ. That however, does not necessarily mean that the person has truly rejected Christ and God. Rejection of Christianity may not mean the rejection of Christ. For if a given individual rejects the Christianity brought to him through the Church’s preaching, even then we are still never in any position to decide whether this rejection as it exists in the concrete signifies a grave fault or an act of faithfulness to one’s own conscience. We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity and who, in spite of a certain encounter with Christianity, does not become a Christian, is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition. "
Because, if we should do that openly, we should also have a different Catechism, and a different definition of Church for EENS to be true. As Pope John Paul II put it, “it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.” If it is a mystery, what’s the point in nailing it down to parrish lists+0.0001% of the people never having heard the Gospel?
C
clem456
Guest
Everything the Church has ever taught on this subject is of one substance with what is written in Lumen Gentium. If one reads these documents looking for inconsistencies with earlier documents, you will surely find them. If one reads with faith and trust, then docility.Oh boy.
But thank you for the list. As time allows I will try to read it too.
I see your eek emoticon.
You want to know what is really frightening? To paraphrase your bold above:
Church teaching includes the idea of the necessity of -Catholics- to be in a state of grace. People who should know the value of obedience to the Church might have a higher bar to clear to achieve a state of grace. And when you use the word difficult in regard to other people, keep in mind you are speaking about a salvation that is an impossibility -for all of us-, without faith and trust in Jesus Christ and his Church.
So what does the word difficult mean relative to “outsiders” when it is impossible for all of us without help? Is it difficult for you? It is for me.
Should we who are helpless without Christ be in the business of throwing up roadblocks for others?
This is not the spirit in which our mother the Church proposes these doctrines.
C
clem456
Guest
These documents may be helpful for those with an advanced academic aptitude in theology or history. For the spiritual welfare of those reading now, Lumen Gentium presents all the above in the context of the “living teaching office” of the Church. So, all of the above is presented, in it’s full understanding. It’s not as if the Church gives it’s full understanding of the truth while leaving behind the truth from the documents you source. It’s all in there. A Catholic would do well to know what the Church IS saying, as the Church now says all that was said before, in what it IS NOW saying. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church. The Holy Spirit is not bound by time and place.
“I am the vine, you are the branches”. It’s all one substance.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican website):
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
J
jwinch2
Guest
The person I responded to specifically ASKED for the documents where the doctrine was developed so that they could compare them to how the doctrine is presented now, and I responded.
This is the second time you have responded to me in this manner when all I am doing is responding to another person’s request. A person asks for the pre-Vatican II documents, and I am supposed to tell them to just read Vatican II? Gee, that makes sense.
In addition, the idea that one needs a background in history or theology to read the documents from an earlier time in the Church is ridiculous. They no more need one for those as they do the documents of Vatican II, yet you have no problem telling people to read those. If anything, many of writings from earlier councils are easier to read as they are far more direct in their statements.
Finally, Pope Benedict has specifically encouraged the faithful to read the documents of Vatican II in continuity with Sacred Tradition. So, your suggestion that all which needs to be read is the documents themselves, is false.
J
jwinch2
Guest
For 99% of people, I completely agree. However, there are going to be people occasionally who find the CCC confusing or have questions about how the doctrines were originally presented, etc. This can easily be seen in the number of threads here on CAF and elsewhere where people do not understand various phrases in the CCC or where people strongly disagree as to how to interpret them. This is very common actually. In those cases, going to the source material can help to put things in their proper context.
C
clem456
Guest
Please read my post again so you can respond to it without the distortions.
J
jwinch2
Guest
You first. Please explain to me how responding to a request for the documents which taught a dogma prior to Vatican II with those actual documents is wrong.
L
Lucky7
Guest
You know Clem, the posts you write to me always sound so condescending. OK, I get it. You are the trustworthy, perfect Catholic. I also get that you look down upon my need to research ALL of the documents (pre as well as post VII) of the church on this topic. You can stop reprimanding me now. Please stop.Everything the Church has ever taught on this subject is of one substance with what is written in Lumen Gentium. If one reads these documents looking for inconsistencies with earlier documents, you will surely find them. If one reads with faith and trust, then docility.
I see your eek emoticon.
You want to know what is really frightening? To paraphrase your bold above:
Church teaching includes the idea of the necessity of -Catholics- to be in a state of grace. People who should know the value of obedience to the Church might have a higher bar to clear to achieve a state of grace. And when you use the word difficult in regard to other people, keep in mind you are speaking about a salvation that is an impossibility -for all of us-, without faith and trust in Jesus Christ and his Church.
So what does the word difficult mean relative to “outsiders” when it is impossible for all of us without help? Is it difficult for you? It is for me.
Should we who are helpless without Christ be in the business of throwing up roadblocks for others?
This is not the spirit in which our mother the Church proposes these doctrines.
As for my comment regarding it being “difficult” for non-Catholics I was referring to the part in the OP that specifically states that it is “difficult, if not impossible” for non-Catholics to remain in the state of grace. The OP was clearly making a distinction between those in the Chruch who have the benefits of the sacraments, etc and those who do not.
But, yes, it is difficult for all of us to remain in a state of grace. I dont’ need you to keep reminding me of that fact. However, by the grace of God, I have confession and the other sacraments to help keep me on the right road. Those who do not have the sacraments have a more difficult time of it.
You don’t see me judging you for not having to do the same research as me. I would appreciate the same consideration.
S
Sirach2
Guest
I have seen you present this a few times already, but I find no source that says this. Rather, EWTN’s Nat’l Cath. Register, Pope Benedict had this to say:
There is no mention (that I could find) that supports your comment. Rather, BXVI seems to be saying in all the sources I checked, that the documents are the “letter” of the Council and one needs to draw from **them **(not from older sources) its authentic spirit and true legacy. You almost imply that they may be erroneous unless one understands the older documents from which they proceed.
I agree with Clem, especially since you have publicly stated your difficulty with V-2, preferring to set it aside in favor of the old.
J
jwinch2
Guest
:yawn:
The simple truth of the matter is that, on a thread where the topic is EENS prior to Vatican II, a person asked for the documents prior to Vatican II which discussed EENS. I answered with suggestions as to which documents discussed this.
A
Agnusstick
Guest
The simple fact that there is a discussion about EENS before Vatican 2 seems the most important issue after Vatican 2. This must be a clear sign that Vatican 2 is not clearly understood. Normally, this should not be discussed at all, as on this topic we can read between the lines that Grace is not possible without true obedience to the Church. Which also promulgated Vatican 2 documents, which must be in continuity with all the teachings of the Church. But when it comes to explain to the world what the Holy Father meant in a homily, a Vatican high rank priest delivers explanations including VII arguments, seeming to contradict EENS. OK, maybe the man was simply wrong or used the wrong words – this is also a way to wipe the problem away and blame it to everybody’s poor understanding of the Magisterium, bishops, priests and simple faithful. But to me this looks like a kind of obedience that can be very close to blindness. Sorry if I’m too blunt, it’s just because I really feel this is a crucial problem.
- Status