Pre-Vatican 2 and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus...

[Brendan]

FYI, this is a really good look at EENS in the light of the Lumen Gentium

amazon.com/Will-Many-Saved-Implications-Evangelization/dp/0802868878/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370365982&sr=1-1&keywords=ralph+martin

In particular, Martin analyzes the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the document from the Second Vatican Council that directly relates to this question. Contrary to popular opinion, Martin argues that according to this text, the conditions under which people who have not heard the gospel can be saved are very often, in fact, not fulfilled, with strong implications for evangelization.

Dr. Martin teaches at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.
shms.edu/content/dr-ralph-martin

 

[jwinch2]

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.

I find the suggestion that Catholics should not read the documents of the Sacred Councils, Papal Encyclicals, Church Fathers, and Church Doctors who make up our Sacred Tradition to be entirely ridiculous. Why in the world would anyone wish to discourage such study? Do we have so many well catechized Catholics that one more would just be overkill?

Vatican II proclaimed no new doctrine, and the development of doctrine in such a way that it alters the previous sense or understanding of that doctrine is heretical. So, there should be no reason why reading the documents which were written prior to Vatican II is anything but beneficial to a Catholic looking to learn their Faith.

The idea that the Sacred Councils, Papal Encyclicals, Church Fathers, and Church Doctors who make up our Sacred Tradition were good and holy in 1964, but became somehow wrong to read in 1965 makes absolutely zero sense. When I see or hear suggestions that people should not or do not need to read those things, I cannot help but wonder what it is within Sacred Tradition which they do not wish you to see.

 

[clem456]

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.

No the OP did not ask for historical documents if you look. The OP presented a point of view.

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.

The OP was not asking for anything from you. But if he was, why would you not simply give him the following:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
and give him the full teaching of the Church as it is? Why would you want to direct anyone away from the full and current teaching of the Church?

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.
I didn’t say that one needs a degree to read them. I said they are helpful to those who have aptitude in that area. You answer the current questions and concerns of people searching for the full teaching of the Church with documents that although certainly true teaching, do not present the full teaching of the Church. That is puzzling. Why not steer them to the living teaching office of the Church, as your catechism says?

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.

No, it is not false. The full teaching of the Church on salvation is contained in Lumen Gentium, just as the grape is one with the entire vine that came before it. It is all one. The Magisterium proposes all that the Church has proposed and proposes. Do you dispute that? Most people will be lucky to find the time to read the full current teaching of the Church, let alone pour over the archives. Most of us do not have a vocation to study theology and Church history. Those who do, don’t seem to agree with you. We have pastors to place our trust in, as your Catechism says. And we could be spending in time in prayer and work, but no, here we are spending time and effort disputing the plainly and clearly stated wishes of the Church.

 

[Sirach2]

Oh dear Lord,
Jwinch2 is reporting your post, Clem. He loves to hit that button!

 

[jwinch2]

No the OP did not ask for historical documents if you look. The OP presented a point of view.

In this thread, I was not responding to the OP, but rather the person who I actually responded to who said:

Lucky7:

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.

The thread you just quoted from is one which has already been closed by the moderation staff, not this one.

 

[clem456]

I find the suggestion that Catholics should not read the documents of the Sacred Councils, Papal Encyclicals, Church Fathers, and Church Doctors who make up our Sacred Tradition to be entirely ridiculous.

Then you should stop putting the suggestion out there. Why do you feel the need to distort the words of others?

Why in the world would anyone wish to discourage such study? Do we have so many well catechized Catholics that one more would just be overkill?

Vatican II proclaimed no new doctrine, and the development of doctrine in such a way that it alters the previous sense or understanding of that doctrine is heretical. So, there should be no reason why reading the documents which were written prior to Vatican II is anything but beneficial to a Catholic looking to learn their Faith.

The idea that the Sacred Councils, Papal Encyclicals, Church Fathers, and Church Doctors who make up our Sacred Tradition were good and holy in 1964, but became somehow wrong to read in 1965 makes absolutely zero sense. When I see or hear suggestions that people should not or do not need to read those things, I cannot help but wonder what it is within Sacred Tradition which they do not wish you to see.

 

[jwinch2]

Most people will be lucky to find the time to read the full current teaching of the Church, let alone pour over the archives. Most of us do not have a vocation to study theology and Church history. Those who do, don’t seem to agree with you. We have pastors to place our trust in, as your Catechism says.

And yet here we have a person who specifically asked for the older documents. What most of us do or do not have a vocation to do or do or do not have time for is irrelevant to this conversation. We have an actual real live person, who is interested in reading the Sacred Tradition of the Church, this is not some theoretical exercise. If you are fine not reading anything before Vatican II, good for you. But please stop telling people they are wrong for doing so, or that it is wrong to answer someones request for such documents by providing the names of them, because neither of those things are true.

And we could be spending in time in prayer and work, but no, here we are spending time and effort disputing the plainly and clearly stated wishes of the Church.

And yet here we find you debating these exact things. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. However before you do so, please show us where the Church has clearly stated her wishes that we not read anything before Vatican II.

 

[Michael_Francis]

i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/23hofvljpg.gif
When you guys learn to discuss the issues and not each other then discussions like this can remain open.

 

[Agnusstick]

FYI, this is a really good look at EENS in the light of the Lumen Gentium

Well, first off I can’t help noticing the tone and general tendency of the “Most Helpful Customer Reviews” of Ralph Martin’s book: the major problem we have comes from Jesuits like Rahner, Balthasar and McBrien, who were universalists and corrupted the average faithful’s conception on hell and salvation. Maybe it is worth mentioning that the “Universalist!” tag is not universally applied to these theologians by people who really studied them, although a lot of problems can be identified in works exalting the Love of God in an absolute and unbalanced way, precisely when turning the blind eye to several very clear parts of the Word of God, and favoring speculations which clearly depart from the Scriptures. Acceptance of such speculations actually leaves no other option than to admit that Revelation was completely biased by disgruntled, hateful men hiding the Love away with their human thinking about God.
But EENS is not only about Love, it is primarily about the exclusive prerogative of the Son on Man – the Judgment. The question of how many shall be saved is masking the question of our actual capability and audacity to evaluate someone’s salvation. Can we do that? EENS seems to give us an infallible acid test. And with it comes also the power to judge the whole Church, whom we can only find good, triumphant, governed by the Holy Spirit and by Christ Himself. We judge where and how the Holy Spirit can and should and most evidently forever was and is blowing, along with the truth, our Catholic truth. We are not a bit concerned that by doing this we identify the mysterious Church of Christ, whose existance we are now forced to admit after VII, with our Catholic institutions, more or less adorned with unknown and anonymous members. We are not concerned that such anonymous members can only adhere to the Truth as a living Person, not to our mere institutional and doctrinal truth – and we insert this idea in conciliar documents, and now in public debates and media addresses from Vatican. We do not notice that, restricting the mysterious Church of Christ only to Catholics and anonymous Christians never having heard the Gospel by their own fault, we apply an arbitrary judgment not only to individuals, but also to Churches and churches. We are in danger to forget that EENS is not about anything else than permanently striving to become individual members of the mysterious Church of Christ. It is not about becoming or remaining Catholics. It is also about permanently striving to witness the miracle of having the Holy Spirit changing other people into such mystery members.

 

[jwinch2]

Well, first off I can’t help noticing the tone and general tendency of the “Most Helpful Customer Reviews” of Ralph Martin’s book: the major problem we have comes from Jesuits like Rahner, Balthasar and McBrien, who were universalists and corrupted the average faithful’s conception on hell and salvation.

Here is an interview by the author of the book. Perhaps it will help to separate his opinions from those of his reviewers. blogtalkradio.com/forwardboldly/2013/02/10/forward-boldly-guest-dr-ralph-martin-will-many-be-saved

Just a thought.

+Pax

 

[jwinch2]

Here is a nice and relatively short video from one of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. He specifically mentions one thing which seems to often go overlooked in this discussion, and that is the need for people who are outside of the visible body of the Church to be in a state of grace just like the ones who are inside. He doesn’t beat it into the ground or anything, he just mentions it and moves on with the rest of the doctrine.

youtube.com/watch?v=lD7LGjDUhbw

The obvious question then is how one stays in a state of grace throughout their life without the benefit of the sacraments, barring perfect contrition. One is not saved through invincible ignorance. The most which can be said is that one is not necessarily condemned by it. Any reading of this doctrine in continuity with sacred tradition which, as noted by Tim Staples the other day on Catholic Answers Live is what Hermeneutic of Continuity really means, seems to suggest that those who do not have the graces which flow in superabundance from the sacraments have a much harder time achieving and staying in a state of grace throughout their life.

This also presupposes that one who is outside of the visible Church is truly seeking God’s will. I don’t have the ability to read hearts and minds, so there is no way for me to know this for sure, but I don’t see a great deal of evidence that the vast majority of people are seeking God’s will in society today. Perhaps it is just me.

This is, to me, why it is so important for us to pray for the salvation of souls and for the conversion of the living, have Masses offered for them, fast and do penance for them, offer our sufferings in unity with Christ for them, etc.

 

[Lormar]

Here is a nice and relatively short video from one of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. He specifically mentions one thing which seems to often go overlooked in this discussion, and that is the need for people who are outside of the visible body of the Church to be in a state of grace just like the ones who are inside. He doesn’t beat it into the ground or anything, he just mentions it and moves on with the rest of the doctrine.

youtube.com/watch?v=lD7LGjDUhbw

The obvious question then is how one stays in a state of grace throughout their life without the benefit of the sacraments, barring perfect contrition. One is not saved through invincible ignorance. The most which can be said is that one is not necessarily condemned by it. Any reading of this doctrine in continuity with sacred tradition which, as noted by Tim Staples the other day on Catholic Answers Live is what Hermeneutic of Continuity really means, seems to suggest that those who do not have the graces which flow in superabundance from the sacraments have a much harder time achieving and staying in a state of grace throughout their life.

This also presupposes that one who is outside of the visible Church is truly seeking God’s will. I don’t have the ability to read hearts and minds, so there is no way for me to know this for sure, but I don’t see a great deal of evidence that the vast majority of people are seeking God’s will in society today. Perhaps it is just me.

This is, to me, why it is so important for us to pray for the salvation of souls and for the conversion of the living, have Masses offered for them, fast and do penance for them, offer our sufferings in unity with Christ for them, etc.

What you have written (about being in the state of grace) is exactly what I was taught in grammar school, but I rarely, if ever, hear it mentioned today.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs as well, and I never stop praying, every day, for the salvation of souls, including my own, and I pray that all those who will die that day will receive the grace of final repentance.

 

[jwinch2]

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.

Please understand, I don’t believe that there is anything incorrect in the CCC. I am merely suggesting that some people have a desire to learn more about the doctrine than is contained therein and thus can turn to the primary sources. In addition, there are some people who might find certain passages in the CCC confusing, just like they might find certain areas confusing in a good textbook, and therefore need to dig deeper into other resources to understand correctly what that passage is trying to convey.

It has all the referenced footnotes.

Yes, which makes it very easy to track down many of these sources.

 

[jwinch2]

What you have written (about being in the state of grace) is exactly what I was taught in grammar school, but I rarely, if ever, hear it mentioned today.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs as well, and I never stop praying, every day, for the salvation of souls, including my own, and I pray that all those who will die that day will receive the grace of final repentance.

Thanks for that. I was a convert and thus did not have any sort of formation in the Faith as a child. I am glad to hear that I am not completely off my rocker! However, everything I said was based on someone else’s writings so its not like I can take any credit for it.

As for the rest, I am trying to really step that up. I have always prayed for my family, etc. since I came into the Church, but I have been really lousy about fasting and doing penance, offering my good works, offering my sufferings, having Masses offered, etc. for others, or myself for that matter. That is one major area that I really need to do a better job of as a Christian.

 

[Lucky7]

What you have written (about being in the state of grace) is exactly what I was taught in grammar school, but I rarely, if ever, hear it mentioned today.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs as well, and I never stop praying, every day, for the salvation of souls, including my own, and I pray that all those who will die that day will receive the grace of final repentance.

I just did a cursory review of the portion of Lumen Gentium that speaks of salvation for others outside the visible Church. It mentions the “through no fault of their own” part (which is included in the CCC), but I don’t see anywhere where it speaks of the topic of being in a state of grace. Perhaps I missed it, but I just don’t see it.

And I would just like to thank the moderator for re-opening this thread.

 

[Lormar]

I just did a cursory review of the portion of Lumen Gentium that speaks of salvation for others outside the visible Church. It mentions the “through no fault of their own” part (which is included in the CCC), but I don’t see anywhere where it speaks of the topic of being in a state of grace. Perhaps I missed it, but I just don’t see it.

And I would just like to thank the moderator for re-opening this thread.

catholic.com/tracts/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does

 

[Lucky7]

Thanks for that. I was a convert and thus did not have any sort of formation in the Faith as a child. I am glad to hear that I am not completely off my rocker! However, everything I said was based on someone else’s writings so its not like I can take any credit for it.

As for the rest, I am trying to really step that up. I have always prayed for my family, etc. since I came into the Church, but I have been really lousy about fasting and doing penance, offering my good works, offering my sufferings, having Masses offered, etc. for others, or myself for that matter. That is one major area that I really need to do a better job of as a Christian.

Me too. I have just recently started praying the Rosary again and I am really emphatic whenever I recite the Fatima Prayer:

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.

 

[jwinch2]

youtube.com/watch?v=fExTlLZ2fcs

Voris hits on a similar theme here. Quite a few people are turned off by Voris’ style, and I understand that. This one however is pretty well done.

 

[universityprof]

Hey, we are living in vatican II. That’s settled church cannon law. Why aer we so obsesssed with going back to Vatican I and celibrating Mass vatican I style. Vatocam 1, It’s over, we operate under Vatican II law now.

 

[Kevin12]

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.

God can give grace to whomever he desires.

The way EENS used to be interpreted, I’m just going to say, it wasn’t right. I have read the Gospels - I can’t imagine for a second the Christ I see in the Gospels is going to say to a sincere Anglican or Baptist or Orthodox who comes before him, “You nearly had it! But no, the answer was Roman Catholic - really, Roman Catholic. So you have to burn in Hell forever for heresy. Oh, but thanks for trying to love me and others with all your heart as best you could your whole life - but you know, close only counts in horseshoes.” It makes a lot more sense if it means that, if you know that you are supposed to submit to the Roman Pontiff and you don’t (there are people like that - there are plenty of them on this forum in fact), then no matter how good a life you live, even if you, I don’t know, kneel and receive communion on the tongue or never wear pants if you are a women, you still can’t be saved.