What is your opinion on the teaching of EENS?

[qfnol31]

I beat you to it, but it got buried. :

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I've got a ton of quotes on the subject up my sleeve...

[Cam42]

Folks,

This isn't any more difficult than to quote and accept CCC #846. That is the most current Magisterial teaching on the subject.

[Resurrexi]

I dont have a copy of the CCC, could you please enligten us?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 12:47 PM']I dont have a copy of the CCC, could you please enligten us?
[right][snapback]890519[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[url="http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/index.cfm"]Here is a link to a rather nice searchable CCC[/url] Its search feature is quite easy to use for one can use the para number or key words.

Here is the para in question. [quote]846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:


Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336
[/quote]

Edited February 17, 2006 by Paphnutius

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I prefer:
[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm[/url]

Or the Vatican official website:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM[/url]

Take your pick. God bless.

[caitlin1030]

So, Cam, since JP2 promulgated the Catechism, does this mean Baptism of Blood/Desire is defined, and official teaching? If so, I accept it.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote][u][i]John Paul II:[/i][/u]
“The [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. [b]I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith[/b].” (Fidei Depositum, Article 4).[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='caitlin1030' date='Feb 17 2006, 03:35 PM']So, Cam, since JP2 promulgated the Catechism, does this mean Baptism of Blood/Desire is defined, and official teaching? If so, I accept it.
[right][snapback]890584[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is Magisterial teaching. It may or may not be "defined." But what do you mean by "defined?"

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 02:47 PM']I dont have a copy of the CCC, could you please enligten us?
[right][snapback]890519[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Post #3. And the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/url] can be found on that link. I would suggest bookmarking it.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 06:36 PM']Post #3.  And the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/url] can be found on that link.  I would suggest bookmarking it.
[right][snapback]893072[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Dogmatically defined.

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 20 2006, 06:38 PM']Dogmatically defined.
[right][snapback]893074[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are many binding Magisterial teachings that are not Dogmatically defined.

[Tony]

Technicaly speaking, yes I believe there is no salvacion outside of the Catholic Church, because as soon as Protistants enter Purgatory, they know where the true Church is

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.
[i](Lumen Gentium, no. 25)[/i][/quote]

[Amator Veritatis]

I have been discussing a facet of this topic with a good gentleman from the forums here who thought it expedient that I enter the discussion on this thread. My points were not regarding a position on this manner so much as they were a general discourse on the strictness by which one might hold a doctrinal position, which discourse the gentleman with whom I had been discussing the matter thought the general consensus of the members of these forums would disagree. For the sake of discussion, I present the final correspondence I made with him. It is as follows:

Thank you for the link. I will be sure to consider the thread, though I have probably entered the discussion too late, missing many relevant points already presented. I must ask, however: why would most people would disagree that a Catholic is at liberty to hold a certain doctrinal position more strictly, so long as it conforms to the dogmas of the Church? The reason for the distinctions in doctrinal definitions is precisely for the purpose of determining what can be held by Catholics in good standing. If every doctrinal or theological opinion presented to Catholics were a matter of the Faith, there would be no need for these distinctions. Theologians differ on various matters, so long as they are not settled dogma and not defined as articles of the Faith. Dogmas such as the Assumption and Immaculate Conception were not even defined until recent times, though before their definitions certain Popes made pronouncements either restricting speculation in those matters or stating that such positions were at least impious. Neither of these things has been done regarding the various strict interpretations on the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Far from being De Fide pronouncements, the positions that there are some labouring in invincible ignorance who might be saved even without coming to a knowledge of the true Faith or that those who hold the Catholic Faith and die before Baptism--though this position be widely held by theologians--are, at best, speculative (though the latter is proximate to the Faith according to most, it be not an Article of Faith until defined as such). We ought remember the words justly spoken by St. Augustine: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas". If a matter is not judged necessary, legitimate differences can be held, at least until the Church speaks otherwise, in which case, the issue would be finished as far as speculation is concerned. Even then, however, the matter is not incumbent upon the faithful until being defined as an Article of Faith. I would find it curious to disagree with these principles, so long-standing throughout the history of the Church. It would seem that the contrary view has a stronger argument, i.e., that the strict interpretation might claim its theological opinion, be it already defined, as a necessary matter, thus incumbent upon the faithful to believe it, insofar as the strict interpretation bases itself on a dogma taught by the Church whereas the laxer positions base themselves on theological speculation which has never been formally taught in a direct or distinct manner, much less defined as dogma. Perhaps I will make this my first post on the topic. Thank you, again.

As is obvious at this point, I have made this correspondence my first point on this topic. I simply pose this question: what say ye regarding the position that, because the stricter interpretations of this doctrine have been held throughout history and affirmed by theologians, because the Church has not seen fit to make any dogmatic pronouncements regarding the belief in possible alternatives to Baptism, it is possible--at least--to hold the stricter interpretations of [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus[/i]?