A Question on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#41
(03-05-2010, 01:36 AM)Benno Wrote: Sorry Walty, I was just being cynical. If you did a search of EENS on the forum you'd find volumes already written, and most of it boils down to a few different opinions debated over and over again. Same with "modesty". That's all I meant by "round and round we go". Also, it's a topic that can lead to pretty seriously "radical" positions.

That's ok Benno.  I actually didn't intend for this thread to be rehashing of different people's interpretations of it.  I suppose I should have had better foresight, however.  I was more interested in what people saw as the choke point difference between the collective modernist interpretation and the pre-Vatican II Neo-Scholastic one.  It gets discussed here a lot (and by trads in general), but the specific differences, point by point, are more difficult to suss out when you really sit down and attempt to do it.

I think part of this is due to the fact that I'm still personally undecided on what the Church has intended to say on the details of EENS.  Thus comparison with contemporary teaching on the subject isn't possible until definitive definitions are acquired.
Reply
#42
Yeah but Walty, it's like how you said in another thread that you have "several canon lawyers" in your class, as if that meant they were trustworthy in their opinions etc.  In the end, they're just "lawyers", but lawyers specializing in Catholic things. They can take a defined "law" and play with it all sorts of ways, just like any other lawyer does. Authoritative defiitions are necessary to learn about, just so you can disregard all the other stuff, but in reality there is always going to be debate about even these authoritative definitions (and what makes something authoritative to begin with, etc) until the cows come home.

Past a certain point of acquiring information, prayer and faith are better guides than trying to nut things out with our faulty brains. EENS has been done to death, intellectually, on this forum and by theologians. Some people get too enticed by the intellectual stuff to the point where they spend years trying to learn it all well enough to present a water-tight logical argument about it, and yet, funnily enough, no water-tight logical argument about it has stopped all the endless debate. There are just some things that the Church, even with the best minds going hammer and tong about, won't properly know while we're down here on earth, even if it's a good thing to get into it and have a go. EENS is one of those things. There's more wisdom about EENS from some uneducated, pious old lady saying "God decides who goes to Heaven and who doesn't" than you'll get from any opinionated canon lawyer or any self-interested armchair theologian.
Reply
#43
(03-05-2010, 02:36 AM)Benno Wrote: Yeah but Walty, it's like how you said in another thread that you have "several canon lawyers" in your class, as if that meant they were trustworthy in their opinions etc.  In the end, they're just "lawyers", but lawyers specializing in Catholic things. They can take a defined "law" and play with it all sorts of ways, just like any other lawyer does. Authoritative defiitions are necessary to learn about, just so you can disregard all the other stuff, but in reality there is always going to be debate about even these authoritative definitions (and what makes something authoritative to begin with, etc) until the cows come home.

Past a certain point of acquiring information, prayer and faith are better guides than trying to nut things out with our faulty brains. EENS has been done to death, intellectually, on this forum and by theologians. Some people get too enticed by the intellectual stuff to the point where they spend years trying to learn it all well enough to present a water-tight logical argument about it, and yet, funnily enough, no water-tight logical argument about it has stopped all the endless debate. There are just some things that the Church, even with the best minds going hammer and tong about, won't properly know while we're down here on earth, even if it's a good thing to get into it and have a go. EENS is one of those things. There's more wisdom about EENS from some uneducated, pious old lady saying "God decides who goes to Heaven and who doesn't" than you'll get from any opinionated canon lawyer or any self-interested armchair theologian.

You may be right Benno and certainly it is nowhere near being needed for any kind of holiness, but as Quis says some of us are "pinheads" and enjoy this sort of stuff.  To be honest, I have a hard time thinking about other things once I get fixated on a particular theological question.  And I think it is good that some people continue to discuss these topics.  It keeps the laymen knowledgeable and allows theologians to further the "answers" that can be found in the Faith.  This is what I study and, God willing, what I plan on doing with the rest of my life.  I think there are worse ways to make a living and spend a buck so long as you don't lose God in the study of Him.
Reply
#44
(02-27-2010, 01:15 AM)Walty Wrote: Thanks for the good post St. Sebastian.  I guess I'm trying to suss out exactly where the disconnect is between the ecumenical practices of the post-Conciliar Church and the traditional dogma of EENS.  There is certainly a disconnect there, but I'm having trouble putting my finger on it.  It seems that there is a shift from recognizing the Catholic Church as absolutely synonymous with the Church of Christ and thus we have the abandonment of seeking the conversion of others.  Now it almost seems to be implied that other religions are equally valid, or at least within Christ's Church in some vague way even when they are at odds with the visible Catholic Church.  And this implies EENS is false.  I don't know.  I'm still trying to wrap my brain entirely around what is going on here.

The Catholic Church now says the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church and not "is equal to"

I know you all dismiss the dimonds as loony tunes, but point of fact is that this page, http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_...eyites.htm,  contains a falsehood, "with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians" This is not true, they are not all unanimous  - you only need one counterexample for that statement to be false - and there are many in this document. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2..._final.pdf
Reply
#45
There is no way we can be expected to believe than an american protestant is invincibly ignorant.  Even if we are ignorant of some law, we can be held accountable if we never made any effort to educate ourselves.  Ignorance is NOT bliss.  Protestants who hate the Church, even if its an ignorant idea of what they think the church is, are accountable.  If they were truly following God's will, and accepting the grace bestowed them, they would tear through the veil of ignorance.  Failure to do so makes them culpable.
Reply
#46
(03-06-2010, 12:48 PM)patrickinmpls Wrote:
(02-27-2010, 01:15 AM)Walty Wrote: Thanks for the good post St. Sebastian.  I guess I'm trying to suss out exactly where the disconnect is between the ecumenical practices of the post-Conciliar Church and the traditional dogma of EENS.  There is certainly a disconnect there, but I'm having trouble putting my finger on it.  It seems that there is a shift from recognizing the Catholic Church as absolutely synonymous with the Church of Christ and thus we have the abandonment of seeking the conversion of others.  Now it almost seems to be implied that other religions are equally valid, or at least within Christ's Church in some vague way even when they are at odds with the visible Catholic Church.  And this implies EENS is false.  I don't know.  I'm still trying to wrap my brain entirely around what is going on here.

The Catholic Church now says the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church and not "is equal to"

I know you all dismiss the dimonds as loony tunes, but point of fact is that this page, http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_...eyites.htm,  contains a falsehood, "with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians" This is not true, they are not all unanimous  - you only need one counterexample for that statement to be false - and there are many in this document. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2..._final.pdf

There is not one negative declaration against baptism of desire from all those sources.  The Dimonds are drawing false conclusions from the statements. 
Reply
#47
(03-06-2010, 12:48 PM)patrickinmpls Wrote: The Catholic Church now says the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church and not "is equal to"

Here are two good explanations on that phrase (as an aside, both of these priests are part of the Holy See's reps in the ongoing SSPX discussions).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.htm

http://www.ewtn.net/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

I'm sure some don't agree with this reading of it, but it seems most logical to me.
Reply
#48
Will someone explain to me the SSPX's position on Protestant baptism.  They believe it lacks res sacramenti and thus sanctifying grace?

Quote:To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Therefore, baptism in an heretical church, if done with proper matter, form, and intention, gives the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace. The person thus remains with original sin and actual sins. He has not become a child of God. Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e., of heresy.
Reply
#49
(03-06-2010, 06:06 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 12:48 PM)patrickinmpls Wrote: The Catholic Church now says the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church and not "is equal to"

Here are two good explanations on that phrase (as an aside, both of these priests are part of the Holy See's reps in the ongoing SSPX discussions).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.htm

http://www.ewtn.net/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

I'm sure some don't agree with this reading of it, but it seems most logical to me.

See, here is what is crazy in regards to this particular subject.

If the EENS dogma meant anything other than what it said, the ones who declared it would have elaborated........in fact, if they had elaborated the way it's elaborated today, they would not have declared that dogma at all - unless they simply felt like wasting their breath, or were only joking around.

By necessity and by design, it comes already pre- elaborated.

Since "No salvation outside the [Catholic] Church" is plain enough for even most 5 year olds to comprehend and fully understand, the only way to reduce it to the meaningless formula that it is taken as these days is to do exactly what has been done - namely, to include everyone with any implied sincere intention  as being "mystically" included as a member of the "soul of the Church".

Seems the old axiom that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is just an old wives tale.

The fact that will always remain is that good people do not make it to heaven, God's people do.

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.










Reply
#50
(03-06-2010, 07:14 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 06:06 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(03-06-2010, 12:48 PM)patrickinmpls Wrote: The Catholic Church now says the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church and not "is equal to"

Here are two good explanations on that phrase (as an aside, both of these priests are part of the Holy See's reps in the ongoing SSPX discussions).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.htm

http://www.ewtn.net/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

I'm sure some don't agree with this reading of it, but it seems most logical to me.

See, here is what is crazy in regards to this particular subject.

If the EENS dogma meant anything other than what it said, the ones who declared it would have elaborated........in fact, if they had elaborated the way it's elaborated today, they would not have declared that dogma at all - unless they simply felt like wasting their breath, or were only joking around.

By necessity and by design, it comes already pre- elaborated.

Since "No salvation outside the [Catholic] Church" is plain enough for even most 5 year olds to comprehend and fully understand, the only way to reduce it to the meaningless formula that it is taken as these days is to do exactly what has been done - namely, to include everyone with any implied sincere intention  as being "mystically" included as a member of the "soul of the Church".

Seems the old axiom that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is just an old wives tale.

The fact that will always remain is that good people do not make it to heaven, God's people do.

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

So what do you make of baptism by desire then?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)