Information on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#1
February 4th marks the anniversary of the Ex Cathedra Papal Bull Cantate Domino, one of the most explicit and powerful Church document on the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

In honour of this anniversary, I was wondering if the experts could give me resources and information on the dogma of Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Salus, particularly, resources and advice on how to argue with, for lack of a better term, Conservative Catholics who don't like the dogma? What arguments do non-faithful Catholics commonly use when rejecting Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and what are some of the best arguments one can make in favour of this dogma?
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#2
(02-04-2018, 01:14 AM)MaryLover Wrote: February 4th marks the anniversary of the Ex Cathedra Papal Bull Cantate Domino, one of the most explicit and powerful Church document on the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

In honour of this anniversary, I was wondering if the experts could give me resources and information on the dogma of Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Salus, particularly, resources and advice on how to argue with, for lack of a better term, Conservative Catholics who don't like the dogma? What arguments do non-faithful Catholics commonly use when rejecting Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and what are some of the best arguments one can make in favour of this dogma?

I would use more of a logical argument than anything at first. Either the Church is true, or it isn’t- it can’t be both. Either the Eucharist is true, or it isn’t- it can’t be true for some and not others, that’s not how transubstantiation works. Either the priesthood is true, or it isn’t. Holy Orders either effects an ontological change in the soul or it doesn’t, there’s no subjectivity about it. Either the words of absolution effect a real change in the state of the soul, or they don’t. That won’t really help much in debating Orthodoxy, but affirming objective truth is a good place to start a defense of the truth of the Catholic Faith.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Credidi Propter's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply
#3
(02-04-2018, 02:52 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(02-04-2018, 01:14 AM)MaryLover Wrote: February 4th marks the anniversary of the Ex Cathedra Papal Bull Cantate Domino, one of the most explicit and powerful Church document on the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

In honour of this anniversary, I was wondering if the experts could give me resources and information on the dogma of Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Salus, particularly, resources and advice on how to argue with, for lack of a better term, Conservative Catholics who don't like the dogma? What arguments do non-faithful Catholics commonly use when rejecting Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and what are some of the best arguments one can make in favour of this dogma?

I would use more of a logical argument than anything at first. Either the Church is true, or it isn’t- it can’t be both. Either the Eucharist is true, or it isn’t- it can’t be true for some and not others, that’s not how transubstantiation works. Either the priesthood is true, or it isn’t. Holy Orders either effects an ontological change in the soul or it doesn’t, there’s no subjectivity about it. Either the words of absolution effect a real change in the state of the soul, or they don’t. That won’t really help much in debating Orthodoxy, but affirming objective truth is a good place to start a defense of the truth of the Catholic Faith.

Yeah, it really boils down to, if the Church isn't necessary for Salvation, why would Jesus establish her?
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#4
I don't have time right now, but have a look at some of my old posts on this subject. I have covered a lot of ground.

Very rarely will you hear an explicit statement that the Catholic Church is not necessary.

What happens is the dogma has been deconstructed and "reformulated positively" (Vatican II) wherein every ostensible non Catholic can now be "inside" the Church by not belonging to the Body but just the Soul; whether they know it or not, whether they want to or not.

What I find sinks in with otherwise conservative Catholics if  there is a backlash, is the consistent articulation of canonized saints on the matter. They were very black and white for the most part .
Reply
#5
(02-04-2018, 01:14 AM)MaryLover Wrote: February 4th marks the anniversary of the Ex Cathedra Papal Bull Cantate Domino, one of the most explicit and powerful Church document on the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

In honour of this anniversary, I was wondering if the experts could give me resources and information on the dogma of Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Salus, particularly, resources and advice on how to argue with, for lack of a better term, Conservative Catholics who don't like the dogma? What arguments do non-faithful Catholics commonly use when rejecting Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and what are some of the best arguments one can make in favour of this dogma?

One does a disservice to isolate any one document of the Magisterium.

That document exists within a framework and paradigm which includes many other documents which put Cantate Domino in context.

For example we have the 1949 Holy Office decree against the errors of Fr. Feeney which certainly clarify how EENS can be misinterpreted (DS 3870). We have the Council of Trent (and the 1917 Canon Law following it, Canon 737.1) which says that Baptism, or the desire of it, is necessary for salvation (Dz 796, Dz 847). We have Quanto Conficiamur Mærore of Bl. Pius IX (Dz 1677). We also have two letters of Innocent III (Dz 388, Dz 413).

We also have St. Alphonsus Liguori who held (on the basis of the letters of Innocent III) that Baptism of Desire is de fide. We have St. Thomas Aquinas (ST III, q.68, a.2) and others who help us to understand this statement of the Magisterium in the light of the rest of Catholic teaching.

While people do like to use "Invincible Ignorance" incorrectly (ignorance is a lack of a due knowledge and a lack of something cannot do something; rather a lack of knowledge which in not culpable is an excuse as to guilt, but an excuse as to guilt is not a cause of salvation), people often take the opposite extreme and think EENS means only those sacramentally baptized can be saved. That is just as false.

EENS means that the Church is the means of salvation for everyone who is saved, since it is the channel of graces. If someone is saved it requires that they die in Sanctifying Grace. Sanctifying Grace requires Faith, Hope and Charity (which includes contrition). It is possible that this occur by a special design of God outside of the normal means : Sacramental Baptism, though it is exceedingly rare.

That a person who is not yet Baptized has Faith is not only not uncommon, but is required for Baptism. An adult must profess the Faith in order to be Baptized. If Faith is possible without Baptism in one with reason, then so are Hope and Charity (again by a Providential design).
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • SinnerSanctified25
Reply
#6
(02-04-2018, 02:03 PM)BC Wrote: What happens is the dogma has been deconstructed and "reformulated positively" (Vatican II) wherein every ostensible non Catholic can now be "inside" the Church by not belonging to the Body but just the Soul; whether they know it or not, whether they want to or not.

This is typically done with the "full" and "partial" communion canard.

Instead of defining the Church as a Society of which one is a member, and therefore which has an authority (the Pope) and certain definite collective means (the profession of certain doctrine, and the liturgy) to a definite collective end (the sanctification and salvation of souls), the New Theology defines the Church as an invisible union of those who are in Charity (Rahner, Journet), or as those who have certain elements, especially a valid Eucharist (Ratzinger).

The problem is that these elements (usually defined as Scripture, Dogma, and the Pope) are not formally elements of the Church when taken out of the Catholic Church.

A Protestant does not have Scripture in the same way a Catholic does. There is a formal difference, even if materially they are the same. The Protestant accepts that Scripture is from God based on his own opinion/conviction. The Catholic believes it from God because the Church guarantees its Inspiration.

A Protestant accepts the Trinity on his own conviction or based on the Bible, which he accepts on his own authority. The Catholic has the Church. Same doctrine, different motives.

Protestants reject the Faith in at least one element, so reject the formal aspect of the Faith : the authority of God Revealing.

The modern error always starts with saying these schismatics, heretics or pagans are "sincere" in their false beliefs and therefore Invincibly Ignorant. This may be true and might excuse some or even all of the guilt for their errors, but still does not give them the Faith. They still must accept the Faith on God's authority. The Faith is a necessity of means without exception for salvation, whereas Baptism is a necessity of means (excepting only those unable to be baptised who can receive the effects of Baptism by its desire).

The problem on the other end is that acceptance of the Faith does not necessarily mean that one will become, visibly, a member of the Catholic Church (e.g. one could learn of the Faith and accept it, yet never have the opportunity to officially enter the Church by renouncing their errors in an official way or by Baptism.)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)