Author Topic: EENS and BOD Properly Understood (Read 5846 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** May 23, 2016, 12:23:51 PM »

Quote

It is absolutely necessary that the Roman Catholic Church exercise a causal influence upon the salvation of every man. This influence is of such a nature that it can be asserted that no man is saved outside the Roman Catholic Church. This is the keystone of the whole doctrine of the Church’s necessity for salvation. An explanation which omits this principle will be deficient; inclusion of any element which contradicts this principle will render an explanation inadequate. Although this view has been defended frequently in the theology of the past one hundred years, progression towards its universal acceptance has been erratic. Certainly the explanation of this doctrine is today vastly improved over what it was in the time immediately preceding the [First] Vatican Council. Yet throughout the intervening years there has been the continued recurrence of inadequate concepts. These concepts have varied one from another, but they have all found their common source in a failure to assert clearly that the Roman Catholic Church is the only source of supernatural life for man; as if such an admission could work only to the detriment of man’s spiritual welfare. Consequently there have been repeated attempts to vindicate the existence of a true supernatural life apart from any influence exerted by the Roman Catholic Church.

True of false?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:36:11 PM »

Misleading.

Implicitly reduces EENS to meaning that the Church has a "causal influence" on salvation. No, one must be within the Church in order to be saved, not just influenced by the Church. EENS is not "No salvation except by means of the Church" but "No salvation outside the Church."

Talk about "inadequate concepts".

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #2 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:40:37 PM »

The Church is in fact the cause of the salvation of all though is it not? Can we agree that it is the cause of salvation of those only who are within her?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:42:41 PM »

Quote

Prior to the Council theologians generally used either the simple body-soul explanation, or the concept of the Church as the ordinary way of salvation; or else they applied the doctrine only to those culpably outside the Church. The few like Schrader, who described the Church as necessary both with the necessity of means and the necessity of precept, made no further elaboration. There was in this period no general insistence that some union with the Church was indispensable.

Do we agree the above was generally taught in catechisms and even in theology manuals before Vatican I and that this teaching was inadequate at best?

Cantarella · « **Reply #4 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:42:50 PM »

What EENS means is that there is no salvation outside the Church, whatsoever. The dogma is that salvation can only be found IN the Church. That is, inside the Mystical Body of Christ. The dogma of salvation is not "THROUGH" the Church, or "INFLUENCED" by the Church or by "MEANS OF" the Church. That is the modernist interpretation. There is a vast difference between the words "in" and "through" or "by means of".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:44:53 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The Church is in fact the cause of the salvation of all though is it not?

Of course. That's why I did not say it was false. But this statement misleads because it suggests that any explanation of EENS that has the Church being the "cause" of salvation could be deemed an "adequate" explanation of the dogma.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:44:55 PM »

I agree with Cantarella. She is absolutely correct.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:46:08 PM »

Okay. We agree that there is no salvation outside the Church. We agree that there are no exceptions to this Dogma. The Church is not just the ordinary means of salvation but the only means of salvation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:46:30 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I agree with Cantarella. She is absolutely correct.

Sure, but then like Bill Clinton you start to redefine words, such as "within" and "Church".

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:49:02 PM »

Can we hold off on the accusations for a little bit? For the record. I don't make things up but present what I have learned. You showed some restraint once Ladislaus when UbiPetrus asked that we keep it simple.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #10 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:50:06 PM »

The Bill Clinton thing was low blow BTW.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #11 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:52:02 PM »

For the record the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ is one and the same and it is outside of this Church that no one can be saved.

A member of that Church is one who professes the Faith, partakes of the Sacraments and submits to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:56:16 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The Bill Clinton thing was low blow BTW.

That was an obvious reference to his "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #13 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:56:45 PM »

I know.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** May 23, 2016, 12:58:34 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

For the record the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ is one and the same and it is outside of this Church that no one can be saved.

A member of that Church is one who professes the Faith, partakes of the Sacraments and submits to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

OK. Where are you going with this? You claim that someone can be within the Church without being a member. To the contrary, St. Robert Bellarmine taught that catechumens can be members in voto, not that they are non-members simpliciter.