legitimate development

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've heard several arguments for apologizing "no salvation", that the wording was misunderstood to begin with, which is generally what is argued here at phatmass. the other arguemtn is that the doctrine developed. Here is new advent article which says this.

[quote]It has always been believed that there is no salvation outside the Church, but as this belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now considered within the soul of the Church who would have been placed without, in a day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not generally obtained.[/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm[/url]

Also, it's somewhat significant that I've heard seminarians espouse the quoted view. They don't espouse saying that people were misunderstanding the pope who wrote no salvation.

I would like a rationale for saying that "no salvation outside the catholic church" can legitimely develop to today's understanding where non-catholics in the strict sense may still be catholic in a spiritual sense, and are saved through the church. whoever is saved, is saved through the church.

the major reason i ask is because I have always understood that development of doctrine has to be from general to specific. Like of course early christians would not worship the eucharist at first, but as time comes and they understand what they are partaking in, it makes sense to worship. I'm not sure this legitimate development can occur with that doctrine cause it seems the new intent is contradicting the old intent.

If this development is okay,
What's to keep them from some day saying that confession is okay to be done outside the confessional if you don't feel like going, because there is some new spiritual understanding which hadn't been considered before?
You might say, they say now that you have to go to confession, so they can't change that. But I'd say, they said then that you hav eto be part of the physical body, so they can't change that.

i've never gotten a good answer here as to the development theory, which ironically seems to be the position of the church.

Edited December 31, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest JeffCR07]

To make a short reply of it, the issue of EENS is not a "development" in terms of a general-to-specific application of an already held doctrine, but rather, it is a clarification.

Many people misunderstood what "outside the Church there is no salvation" meant, and so it was necessary to clarify this by pointing out the equivalent statement formulated positively (i.e. "all salvation is through the Church").

Now, nowhere in either the negative or the positive statement does it say "visible Church" but rather, it simply says "Church," thus clearly referring to the Mystical Body of Christ. Thus, the doctrine is saying that all salvation comes from Christ, through the Church, and even someone who is not a visible member of the Church may be saved if they have been united to the Church in a mysterious way.

It is important to point out that this is not a "new" development. This principle is indeed presupposed by the fact that even people who were not formally incorporated into the visible Church (such as catechumens) are considered saints upon martyrdom (vis-a-vis Baptism of Blood). Baptism by Blood has been believed since the beginning of the Faith, and it presupposes the proper understanding of EENS.

Now, on a completely unrelated note, I think you'd be interested to know that Confession has not always been done in a confessional - it used to be done in public :

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't know. That sounds pretty much like what's been the argument here. And that doesn't seem to do justice to the quote.

[quote]It has always been believed that there is no salvation outside the Church, but as this belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now considered within the soul of the Church who would have been placed without, in a day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not generally obtained.[/quote]

The reason it don't do justice is because it says that the "belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now considered within the sould of the Church who would have been placed without, in a day when the distinction.. had not generally obtained."

That is, no salvation was thought strictly, until something else "gradually" came to be understood not strictly. Now, I suppose it does matter who in that passage it was thought by.
If the passage refers to the masses, which now that I think about it might be the case given "generally obtained" which might indicate beyond a Pope, then the development of their understanding of course is allowable even in a messed up sense that wouldn't be allowable for the Pope etc.
But if it was thought one thing by the Pope that no salvation could be for non-Catholics, he surely meant that in the strict sense Catholics. If this is the case, I don't think you've explained the development properly because you addressed the common man misunderstanding, not the understanding of the Pope, and you didn't explain how it's not possible for other doctrines that normally wouldn't be thought to be developed could be developed, really my point in this thread.

[quote]It is important to point out that this is not a "new" development. [/quote]
and/or this could be explained more. Learning to kneel to the eucharist is not new in a sense because they've always believed, but it's new to realize that they should kneel to it.
Now, you have those notions of blood baptism etc. First, I don't think he was talking about people who were straight up ignorant or chose not to be Catholic.
But if they did mean that, which is a big if, you'd have an argument that perhaps the Pope said no salvation in the carnal sense, and it was later understood given the tradition that the spiritual sense is allowable. But if this is the case, theoretically speaking, then couldn't a Pope say that babies cannot be saved at all, but then a next pope say that the babies can be saved because of a spiritual connection and the grace of God given the limbo tradition? Or cue many other such examples.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Two brief comments:

First, you are right to point out that the critical phrase is "in a day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not generally obtained."

What is significant about this is that it had not [i]generally[/i] obtained. We should understand this to mean amongst common catholics. It is clear that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not mean to say that it was a distinction unknown to theologions (I highly doubt you need proof of that).

That means that the common people (the majority) had not obtained the deeper, technical understanding of the that was possessed by the theologions. Thus, it makes perfect sense that we would then begin to use the positive formulation of the negative phrase in the hopes that it would help people come to a proper understanding.

Second, you confusing yourself regarding my discussion of Baptism By Blood. The reason I reference it is because it clearly presupposes the EENS doctrine in both its negative and its positive formulations. Allow me to provide a more formal proof:

1.) A catechumen is not formally a member of the [i]visible[/i] Church until he receives Baptism by water. (Premise)
2.) Martyrs are considered Saints, and attain salvation. (Premise)
3.) Catechumens have been martyred since the earliest days of the Church. (Premise)
4.) Some chatechumens are considered saints and attain salvation. (From 3 and 2)
5.) Some people who are not formally members of the [i]visible[/i] Church attain salvation.

Therefore, the non-rigorist interpretation of EENS follows logically from the doctrine of Baptism by Blood.

[infinitelord1]

i wouldnt trust anything with the word "new" as in NewAdvent. That means things have changed. Im more into "old" or "preserved" kind of like how the catholic church preserved the teachings of the apostles furthermore jesus christ. I think its wiser to put your faith into that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Your syllogism is correct. However, to add those who are ignorant would not count within those conclusions from your premises. The only conclusions that could be made are that those catechumens could be saved in those situations of the premises.

You might argue that it was not the intent of the no salvation pope to exclude the ignorant. I think the writings of the popes are strong enough to. I think the writings might even go against what was taught by Aquanis and those other catechumen people, especially since they came before those no salvation popes.

Now, I will need to dig up the time periods, and show the curious lack of info we have on those no salvation popes. This way you can show me by writing from people around these popes' time period what was believed by the theological minded.

I will do this next year though....

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 31 2005, 04:33 PM']Your syllogism is correct. However, to add those who are ignorant would not count within those conclusions from your premises. The only conclusions that could be made are that those catechumens could be saved in those situations of the premises.
[right][snapback]842072[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not true, look like this...

1.) A catechumen is not formally a member of the visible Church until he receives Baptism by water. (Premise)
2.) Martyrs are considered Saints, and attain salvation. (Premise)
3.) Catechumens have been martyred since the earliest days of the Church. (Premise)
4.) Some chatechumens are considered saints and attain salvation. (From 3 and 2)
5.) Some people who are not formally members of the visible Church attain salvation.

The conclusion, doesn't pertain ONLY to the catechumen's who are martyrs, it applies to any catechumen (to keep the terms straight), you could extend it to anyone ie me!

6.) I am not a member of the visible Church (Premise)(Not true BTW!)
7.) I can attain salvation (1,2,3,6)

Now take your position, your premise, no person outside the Church can attain salvation, is directly opposite Jeff's conclusion. So someone's premise must be wrong... but all Jeff's are facts? and can certainly be researched! yours is an interpretation.

[Guest JeffCR07]

rkwright is correct, though his "can" must be interpreted as meaning "it is possible that."

You have accepted my argument as true. So you accept the statement "Some people who are not formally members of the visible Church attain salvation." From this, it logically follows that "it is possible for someone who is not a visible member of the Church to attain salvation."

Now, you cannot maintain that statement [i]and[/i] believe the strict (aka rigorist) interpretation of EENS, which would say that only those who are formal members of the visible Church can attain salvation."

Therefore, if you think that the rigorist interpretation is what was intended, then you are forced to conclude that it is contradictory to thousands of years of Christian Tradition.

I see no reason to believe this, especially when a more reasonable option is more than feasible.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 1 2006, 04:38 AM']Not true, look like this...

1.) A catechumen is not formally a member of the visible Church until he receives Baptism by water. (Premise)
2.) Martyrs are considered Saints, and attain salvation. (Premise)
3.) Catechumens have been martyred since the earliest days of the Church. (Premise)
4.) Some chatechumens are considered saints and attain salvation. (From 3 and 2)
5.) Some people who are not formally members of the visible Church attain salvation.

The conclusion, doesn't pertain ONLY to the catechumen's who are martyrs, it applies to any catechumen (to keep the terms straight), you could extend it to anyone ie me!

6.) I am not a member of the visible Church (Premise)(Not true BTW!)
7.) I can attain salvation (1,2,3,6)

Now take your position, your premise, no person outside the Church can attain salvation, is directly opposite Jeff's conclusion.  So someone's premise must be wrong... but all Jeff's are facts? and can certainly be researched! yours is an interpretation.
[right][snapback]842265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wow rkwright you sound like Jeff. I'm truly impressed

[rkwright]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 1 2006, 09:53 AM']Wow rkwright you sound like Jeff. I'm truly impressed
[right][snapback]842470[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

haha I took one semester of logic! and I remember the basics..though when someone starts talking existential elim I might have to pull out the text book

Though jeff did all the work all props to him!

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 1 2006, 05:21 PM']haha I took one semester of logic! and I remember the basics..though when someone starts talking existential elim I might have to pull out the text book 

Though jeff did all the work all props to him!
[right][snapback]842474[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Uh huh. Well we all know how great Jeff is...he should have a phanclub lol

[Guest JeffCR07]

no phan clubs, I'll get kicked out of the Un-Phan Club if you do

oh, and I heart existential elimination. I was actually trying to find a way to type in all of the first-order and S5 modal logic operators on phatmass...but it was too hard and I gave up. :

[dairygirl4u2c]

I can see there's been a misunderstanding.

[quote]Your syllogism is correct. However, to add those who are ignorant would not count within those conclusions from your premises. The only conclusions that could be made are that those catechumens could be saved in those situations of the premises. [/quote]

Here all I was stating was that his syllogism is correct the way he structured it. Note that I agreed that the catechumens could be saved according to his structure. I also state as Jeff in the last post agreed that you could take the inferences to his true conclusions he made differently: even if Jeff is correct that some catechumens can be saved, that doesn't necessarily apply to the ignorant.

If you want to develop what "catecumens" means, that fine. I disagree, I think, but it's debatable and that's why I opened this thread. Or if it's not development, and that was always possible for ignorant to be saved, I agree the fact that catechumens could be saved does somewhat indicate that perhaps there was room for the ignorant too. But again that is not a necessary conclusion that can be made from his premises, as Jeff agrees. They would be possible inferences only.

[quote]You might argue that it was not the intent of the no salvation pope to exclude the ignorant. I think the writings of the popes are strong enough to. I think the writings might even go against what was taught by Aquanis and those other catechumen people, especially since they came before those no salvation popes. [/quote]

This is a separate thought from the syllogism and the last paragraph I wrote. I was essentially noting that I'm not sure his premises could be even made given the writings of the questioned popes.


If Jeff's premises aren't necessarily facts if you consider that the popes taught different than Aquanis etc, then Jeff's conclusions can't be made either. Then my conclusion that no salvation would be possible because there's different premises. As per Aquanis etc, they are correct premises and conclusions. But as to what was taught by the questioned popes, they are not necessarily.


Also, I think my interpretation is just as good as anyone's. You have circumstantial evidence that catchumens could be saved according to the controversial popes because of some theologians in around that time period, a little before the popes (leneiency not shown from the popes), who showed leniency. I have circumstantial evidence that Catholics all believed the strict interpretation, which we all agree. I find it odd that they'd believe it wrong, or that Traditionalists would continue to believe it.


Now I will post some of the writings to ask you guys for more evidence of leniency from the time period of the questioned popes.

Also, I want to note that I might allow that catechumens might have been saveable by the questionable popes. But I don't think that applies to the ignorant etc. For this, I don't think it's far fetched to think popes would allow for catechumens who just didn't happen to make it a few months etc longer, but not to allow ignorant who knows nothing of the Church.


Something else I'd like to look into is if Traditionalists think catechumens can be saved. If they can, then it shows that it's possible to be agagaint the ignorant and the for the catechums.

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 2 2006, 02:52 AM']I can see there's been a misunderstanding.
Here all I was stating was that his syllogism is correct the way he structured it. Note that I agreed that the catechumens could be saved according to his structure. I also state as Jeff in the last post agreed that you could take the inferences to his true conclusions he made differently: even if Jeff is correct that some catechumens can be saved, that doesn't necessarily apply to the ignorant.

If you want to develop what "catecumens" means, that fine. I disagree, I think, but it's debatable and that's why I opened this thread. Or if it's not development, and that was always possible for ignorant to be saved, I agree the fact that catechumens could be saved does somewhat indicate that perhaps there was room for the ignorant too. But again that is not a necessary conclusion that can be made from his premises, as Jeff agrees. They would be possible inferences only.
This is a separate thought from the syllogism and the last paragraph I wrote. I was essentially noting that I'm not sure his premises could be even made given the writings of the questioned popes.
If Jeff's premises aren't necessarily facts if you consider that the popes taught different than Aquanis etc, then Jeff's conclusions can't be made either. Then my conclusion that no salvation would be possible because there's different premises.  As per Aquanis etc, they are correct premises and conclusions. But as to what was taught by the questioned popes, they are not necessarily.
Also, I think my interpretation is just as good as anyone's. You have circumstantial evidence that catchumens could be saved according to the controversial popes because of some theologians in around that time period, a little before the popes (leneiency not shown from the popes), who showed leniency. I have circumstantial evidence that Catholics all believed the strict interpretation, which we all agree. I find it odd that they'd believe it wrong, or that Traditionalists would continue to believe it.
Now I will post some of the writings to ask you guys for more evidence of leniency from the time period of the questioned popes.

Also, I want to note that I might allow that catechumens might have been saveable by the questionable popes. But I don't think that applies to the ignorant etc. For this, I don't think it's far fetched to think popes would allow for catechumens who just didn't happen to make it a few months etc longer, but not to allow ignorant who knows nothing of the Church.
Something else I'd like to look into is if Traditionalists think catechumens can be saved. If they can, then it shows that it's possible to be agagaint the ignorant and the for the catechums.
[right][snapback]842842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Who says the traditionalists dont accept the solemn teaching of Blessed Pope Pius IX?

[DingoBot]

[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_04_18_socrates58_archive.html#108233513157066637"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_04_18_...233513157066637[/url]