Talk:Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus/Archive 1

Article supporting Feenyism?
WHOA there, this article is completely non-NPOV supporting Feenyism, almost all definitions used in the article are strawmen designed to support that philosophy.

Stuff saying that the bapitism of blood concept is from the 80's is complete nonsense: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406611.htm http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406612.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.124.227.121 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 February 2004 (UTC)

SSPX
Better to put this on the talk page.


 * I'm pretty sure the comment that "but those arguing for the strictest interpretation of EENS" is unnecessary.

Yes, you're right.


 * I think many people would prick up their ears at hearing that someone thought the Society of Saint Pius X was famous and successful. Infamous maybe, but successful at what?

I'm not saying they're famous and successful in general -- not many Protestants etc will have heard of them -- but as far as traditionalist Catholic groups go I think they're the most famous and successful. Anyone who's interested in T.C. will know about them and (I'd say) have to admit they've been more successful than any one else.


 * Also, many traditionalists distance themselves from this group due to it's sedevacantism and the Ordination of Bishops without permission.

Some dislike them for causing trouble, as they see it, but the SSPX aren't sedevacantist. They don't like the liberalism of the present pope and hierarchy, but that's a different thing: you can disagree with the pope and still recognize him as a legitimate pope. Jacquerie27 10:33 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Jtocci's reply: Alright, I think I see what you're saying. More successful as far as membership. Well, I would say you know when they're around, that doesn't make them more numerous, just more obvious. My experience with the SSPX was only with those who were sedevacantist as well, and I never researched them so I probably shouldn't comment further. I defer to your better judgement. (I like prominent better though.) User:jtocci Jun 14, '03


 * Yes, it is pretty addictive, and thanks a lot for improving this article. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Universal Salvation and Baptism of desire
I am slowly attempting to make this article NPOV. It needs to be remembered that there are really two seperate contraversies surrounding the EENS dogma:


 * Some people especially modernists simply don't believe it, and believe in things like universal salvation. This may come in the form of claiming to believe it but defining baptism of desire to mean essentially everyone becomes baptized


 * Contraversies over the validity of baptism of blood and desire.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.61.179 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 October 2004 (UTC)

Dominus Iesus
I expanded the section referring to Dominus Iesus, since the previous version gave the impression that its interpretation of EENS excludes all Non-Catholics and Non-Christians from the possibility of being saved, which is clearly not true. Gugganij 21:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, section Official Church Teaching could be a bit more systematic. Gugganij 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a Dogma!
The Catholic Church has on numerous occasions declared EENS to be an infallible dogma of the Church. See: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM DominvsVobiscvm 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The following quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia will, hopefully, help DominvsVobiscvm distinguish between a definitive belief of the Church (which may be called a material dogma, but is not a dogma in the strict sense) and a defined dogma.

"Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term."

"We are bound to believe revealed truths irrespective of their definition by the Church, if we are satisfied that God has revealed them. When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith."

"It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to know whether or not a theological definition has been issued; but very few words are needed to show that the assertion is without foundation. At times, doubt will remain about the definitive nature of a decree, but as a rule no possibility of doubt is consistent with the terminology of a definitive decree. Thus in the doctrinal teaching of a general council, anathema attached to condemned errors is a certain sign of an infallible definition. Words also like those in which Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin give irrefutable proof of the definitive nature of the decree: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine. . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful." No set form of words is necessary; any form which clearly indicates that the four requisite conditions are present suffices to show that the decree is a definition in the strict sense. It should be noted that not everything contained in a definition is infallibly defined. Thus, arguments from Scripture, tradition, or theological reason, do not come under the exercise of definitive authority. Incidental statements, called obiter dicta, are also examples of non-definitive utterances. Only the doctrine itself, to which those arguments lead and which these obiter dicta illustrate, is to be considered as infallibly defined."

The phrase from the Fourth Lateran Council quoted in the article is not a definition of a dogma, such as "If anyone denies ... let him be anathema" (and moreover is an obiter dictum), but it can certainly be seen as expressing a definitive belief of the Church, and obviously would be quoted if the Church ever did decide to define this teaching as a dogma.

Lima 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Check your facts. The above Vatican instruction repeatedly refers to it as a "dogma."


 * A doctrine need not be defined with the words "anathema sit" to be made a dogma. I don't know of a single manual of dogmatic theology that states that EENS is not dogma, and Dr. Ott certainly lists it as such in his "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," as Does Fr. Hardon in his "Catholic Catechism," and so does every book I've ever read that brings up this subject, and as does the Vatican above. It's dogma, precisely because it has been formally proposed as a definitive belief by the Church, in several acts of her extraordinary Magisterium, to be held by all the faithful. A collection of such statements can be found here, although the interpretation of them given by the Feenyites is incorrect: http://www.catholicism.org/magisterium.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominvsVobiscvm (talk • contribs)

"The above Vatican instruction repeatedly (???) refers to it as a 'dogma'." In fact, only once, I think. And as a material dogma, that is, something that is part of the deposit of faith, something Catholics must believe, but not something that has been formally defined. But DominvsVobiscvm still has not said when and in what words it was theologically defined and made a dogma in the strict sense.

Only when DominvsVobiscvm can show his statement is verifiable is he entitled to insert his statement in the article. Until then he should respect the status quo.

Lima 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, for crying out loud. Pope Boniface VIII: "Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." See the link above at Catholicism.Org; the dogma has also been defined by two Ecumenical Councils, in the professions of faith they wrote up and promulgated for the Christian faithful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominvsVobiscvm (talk • contribs)

Thanks are due to DominvsVobiscvm for now verifying his statement, or at least something like it, and proving himself a good Wikipedian. Lima 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Aw, shucks.


 * Seriously, though, I just have to clarify that there is "set formula" by which the Church considered itself bound in order to dogmatize an article of faith. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this, as will any manual of dogmatic theology. What is necessary is the intention on the part of the Supreme Magisterium to define a dogma; such was the case, for example, when the Nicene Fathers promulgated the Nicene Creed. The Creed itself is dogmatic, since it was clearly the intention of the Council to bind Catholics to those particular beliefs. I don't know how else to support this except by referring the reader to a thorough book on the subject, like Dr. Ludwig Ott's classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is not yet available online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominvsVobiscvm (talk • contribs)

Most important thing
The most important thing, really, is what the current church hierarchy teaches. Has there been any pronouncements on this topic by a current or recent church official, acting in an official capacity -- the higher the better. e.g., any statements by a recent Pope (e.g. John Paul II -- Benedict has been around too briefly to say much as Pope yet...), or my the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or any of the Bishops? --samuel katinsky(too lazy to login)


 * The most important thing, actually, is what the earliest Christians taught, not the most recent. 2nd Piston Honda 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The most important recent documents would be the Vat 2 documents on Ecumenism and non Christian religions.DaveTroy 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Papal infallibility of Unam Sanctam
The opening paragraph reads as though the papal infallibility of Unam Sanctam were an established fact, whereas this is a theological opinion. Any suggestions on how to rewrite it to accurately reflect a neutral point of view? -- Cat Whisperer 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See the "It's a dogma" discussion, just above. Lima 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of that discussion seems to me to be original research. I'm talking about published research by Catholic theologians, such as George Tavard's "The Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII" in Papal Primacy and the Universal Chruch (Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V), pp. 105-119, which concludes that Unam sanctam is not an exercise of papal infallibility. Or Klaus Schatz's survey of historical documents exercising papal infallibility, as reported in Papal infallibility. -- Cat Whisperer 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I retired from the above discussion, because I felt that it was a waste of time and effort to insist against DominvsVobiscvm (who has since retired on his laurels) on the distinction between a truth of faith (a material dogma) and one that has been formally defined. (I could have said, for instance, that some believe the phrase that DominvsVobiscvm quoted was originally a scribe's summary that later got confused with the text of the bull.)  Unless others join in, I prefer not to take any further active part in a discussion about a matter that even an anti-Feeneyism site such as this sees as (when rightly understood, of course) a de fide matter.  Lima 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a few more days to see if anyone else has comments before I start editing, then. Thanks, -- Cat Whisperer 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Although this article as it is now would make a good Catholic POV, as an encyclopedia article, I find it to be too biased. I think we should look at other sources to verify the content.--~ Troy 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Overly long and repetitive
This article seems to be designed to convince people who doubt that this is really dogma of the catholic church by sheer repetition. But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to win arguments. It only takes one quote from one Pope to make it dogma. Pick one. --192.68.228.4 22:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dogmatic nature of EENS
Whether EENS is a dogma is a disputed point among Catholic theologians; it is a matter of legitimate disagreement in the Church. Therefore, under Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, it is not permitted for this article to assert as a matter of fact that EENS is a dogma. I don't want to start an edit war, so before I do a second revert I'm asking here if there is any justification under Wikipedia policy for the current article making this assertion. -- Cat Whisperer 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

St Cyprian and Rome
Ironic that St Cyprian got into a flaming row with Bishop Stephen I of Rome over the latter's claim that the Bishop of Rome was de officio head of the whole church. Koro Neil (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed part
I've removed a part called Possible influence on Stalin, I don't see it having any connection with Nulla salus doctrine. The writer himself says the connection between the doctrine and said Communist principle is merely a theory, and I don't see how that is relevant to the doctrine. I would understand if one would find appropriate to put it in an article about the principle itself (if there is such), or maybe Communism, or even in an article about Stalin (although that is also a question), but it certainly doesn't belong here, thus the removal. If you are to put it back, state your reson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxcoder (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording
"In fact, that people like Father Leonard Feeney and traditionalists believe a strict interpretation, indicates that perhaps they are not mistaken on the original doctrine. If the Church now taught that the salvation of non-Catholic would be possible, that would contradict its earlier teaching, and Church infallibility not respected."

Call me Ol' Untrusting Ellijah if you like,but this doesnt sound much like an encyclopedia entry to me. --New Babylon 2 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The conversation below is copied from Roman Catholic Church talk page
Nancy, you reverted text describing the doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". That was not my edit but I was surprised at your edit comment. I can understand reverting the text in question because it is not "agreed upon" or "too much detail" but "never heard of it" and "can't find references"? What's wrong with the references in the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus article?

It seems self-evident that the church has always taught this. My layman's understanding is that it was only in the last half a century that the door has begun to be opened for the definition of "ecclesia" to be broadened to suggest that there might be salvation outside the Catholic Church.

--Richard (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard, I am answering your question now - the first post in this section. You wanted to know how I could delete text describing the doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". I deleted it because it is not church doctrine and its inclusion makes the article factually incorrect. The references on that article's page are not scholarly sources, none of them have the Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur declaration from the Catholic Church that they are free of doctrinal or moral error. What I did find, that supports my deletion of that article text is pages 105-106 of Professor Alan Schreck's The Essential Catholic Catechism that does have Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. Per pages 105-6 which are under a subsection entitled "Salvation Without Discipleship?": "'What about the salvation of those who do not know, believe in, or follow Jesus Christ?...Catholics do not claim to know the eternal destiny of any individual, but do affirm certain things. 1) We know that Jesus Christ is the only Savior. Acts 4:12 teaches, 'there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.' 2)The ordinary way for one to attain salvatin through Jesus Christ is through faith, baptism, and a life of discipleship (that is faithful obedience to Jesus and his teaching). Mark 16:15-16 records Jesus' words in a postresurrection appearance: 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.' We have already noted what Jesus says about those who hear his word, believe in it, and yet do not put it into practice. Obedience to Jesus, as well as faith and baptism, are normally necessary for salvation. 3)In God's mercy it is possible for those who are not Christians to be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ. There are certain biblical texts, such as the last judgement scene in Matthew 25 and Paul's Letter to the Romans, 2:12-16, that indicate that some will be saved by Christ on account of their charity, or through having followed the dicatates of their conscience. The Second Vatican Council's 'Dogmatic Constitution on the Church' affirms this: (author quotes from Lumen Gentium 16) This passage refers to the possibility of salvation of those who have not accepted the gospel through no fault of their own, not to those who have consciously rejected and refused to believe in the Good News of Jesus Christ. ...There is no implication here that that the gospel need not be preached to non-Christians. In fact, the closing paragraph of this section from the Second Vatican Council warns that those who have not accepted the gospel often fail to attain eternal life because of the deception of Satan or through falling into despair. (author then quotes Lumen Gentium 16 again) 'But rather often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become caught up in futile reasoning and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator (cf. Rom 1:21, 25). Or some there are who, living and dying in a world without God, are subject to utter hopelessness. Consequently, to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men, and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the gospel to every creature' (Mk 16:15), the church painstakingly fosters her missionary work.''"

Based on this passage, my deletion of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" in the lead is warranted.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nancy. I readily admit to an incomplete and often erroneous layman's understanding of the Catholic faith.  Also, after reading what you wrote and re-reading the article on Extra Ecclesiam null salus, I am convinced that this is another of those topics that is too complex to mention in the lead without opening up a can of worms that is better dealt with in the body of this or a related article.


 * That said, I wonder if you could take a look at the article on Extra Ecclesiam null salus and express your opinion as to whether it adequately communicates Catholic teaching. I recognize that the Talk Page of that article is the right place for this discussion but I don't know if you watch that page so I will start here and then move over there based on your response.


 * In particular, I am concerned with this sentence in the lead of that article:


 * The axiom (of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) is often used as short-hand for the doctrine, upheld by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation.


 * I understand that, as Schreck wrote, "the ordinary way for one to attain salvation through Jesus Christ is through faith, baptism, and a life of discipleship". However, "In God's mercy it is possible for those who are not Christians to be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ."


 * In your opinion, does the article on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus communicate this? I fear that the article spends so much time establishing what has been said throughout the history of the church in support of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus that it fails to communicate the second part of church teaching.  Unless one reads the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus article very carefully, the general impression seems to be that it is, in fact, the teaching of the church.


 * I think we need to regularize that article so that it reflects the position presented by Schreck and states it early in the article rather than as an aside towards the end of the article. Do you agree?


 * --Richard (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I absolutely agree. Presently, that article is misleading and should be corrected. I am going to copy and paste this conversation to that article's talk page now.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

City of the Holy Spirit
There is an ancient Church tradition which ties Jerusalem to the city of the Holy Spirit. In part, this is because there are legends about the foundations of Jerusalem and the role of Holy Spirit in the book of Genesis. It would be interesting if we could examine the ancient founders of Jerusalem and look at how early Christians went from a literal Jerusalem to an ecclesiastical Jerusalem. ADM (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discordian Interpretation
"Outside the Church," muttered my other cat, "there is no salvation"

"It's only on the inside", purred my cat, "that it's needed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.75.136 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus → Salvation outside the church – (1) consistency with Roman_Catholic_theology which links here as "main article", (2) exponentially higher GB and GS hits on this string rather than Latin, (3) possible confusion of Latin variants, use of negative, miscapitalisation of Ecclesiam, and (4) generic WP:article titles issues e.g. WP:UE relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Salvation outside the church. WP articles should have English titles where possible, because many people are no longer taught Latin.  I suspect that this is not merely an issue of Catholic theology (where Latin might be appropriate in some circumstances.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the sentence the negative is essential. In the original language, the verb "to be" is not necessarily expressed and is understood in a natural way even when the verb is not expressed.  The sentence means: "There is no salvation outside the Church.  This, with the negative included as an essential element, is a dogma for many Christians, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox, and denying it is seen as heresy.  And this dogma is what the article is about, the dogma and its interpretation.  Some Christian groups will of course say that there is salvation outside this church or that, but will they say there is salvation outside the Church?  Unless you take "outside the Church" to mean not included in a statistically observable set of people, you will find few Christians who will uphold "salvation outside the Church".  The article is not about an idea that scarcely anyone upholds: it is instead about a statement that is widely upheld as a dogma: "There is no salvation outside the Church", a statement that is commonly expressed as "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", a Latin phrase that has as much right to be used as a Wikipedia article title as "sola fide" and the like.  Esoglou (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Catholic Encyclopedia translates this phrase as "outside the Church there is no salvation." Kauffner (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The phrase does not mean "salvation outside the church".  Rather, the opposite.  Reason 3 given above for changing the title is baseless: There may be possible confusion of English variant translations of the original phrase (and of the proposed replacement phrase, "salvation outside the church"), but the Latin phrase itself has no variants (unless you count application to "Ecclesiam" of the modern typographical invention of capitalization); the negative is not a drawback, but an essential part of the phrase; and the claim that "Ecclesiam" is miscapitalized is only a POV that led to a needless change of the existing capitalization, which was supported by several sources.  Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename, either to Salvation outside the church, or perhaps more specifically to Salvation outside Christianity or Salvation of non-Christians. Such a renaming would not, in my view, conflict with the concept of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, any more than the name of the Catholic Church and abortion article would imply that the Catholic Church supports abortion.  A renaming would also be more appropriate when discussing the views of non-Catholic Christians who do not use Latin when describing their theology.  —  Rich wales (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - This article should absolutely NOT be renamed to Salvation outside the church because then we would immediately have to ask how this article differed from Christian universalism and Universal reconciliation and why it should not be merged with one or more of them. The fact is that Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Universal reconciliation are (more or less) two sides of the same soteriological coin.  One side says "no salvation without Jesus and the church" and the other side says "yes, salvation is available to all even without Jesus and the church".  We should either treat both sides of the coin in the same article or treat each side of the coin in a separate article.  While I am not in favor of merging this article into Christian universalism, it is at least a plausible course of action.  IMO, it is unreasonable to rename this article to Salvation outside the church because it would put us in a situation where there is no obvious difference between the titles Salvation outside the church and Christian universalism.  And yet, there is very clearly a dogma that asserts that there is no salvation outside the church and so we should leave this article unmerged and titled in the negative per Esoglou. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons given by Esoglou and Pseudo-Richard. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(Aftrer relisting)
 * Still support -- This is the English WP, and articles should be in English. There is a distinct differnece between saying that everyone will be saved (Christian universalism) and it is possible to be saved outside the church (Salvation outside the church).  This is not in fact merely a Catholic theological issue, but a more general Christian one.  Evangelicals will ask what happens to those who have never heard the gospel, and thus not had an opportunity to believe it.  The precise expression of the problem may be different, but the issue is much the same.  I would thus oppoose merger.  Perhaps the target should be No salvation outside the church: this is in fact the very reverse of universalism.   Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still oppose. It is by no means just a Catholic issue.  The doctrine was upheld also by, for instance, Calvin: "Calvin echoed the old dictum of Cyprian: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation)" (Bagchi, The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, p. 122); "Certain of Calvin's remarks, in fact, appear to indicate that he considers integration into the institutional Christian church a condition of human salvation: extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (Dennis W. Jowers in Van Der Borght, John Calvin's Ecclesiology: Ecumenical Perspectives, p. 50); "With Calvin, the patristic principle of extra ecclesiam nulla salus remains firm" (Philip J. Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics, p. 68; etc.  Nobody has proposed a merger: it is because reducing to a vaguer "Salvation outside the church" title the precise "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" reference to a dictum/doctrine/dogma would seem to lead to such a merger that Richard opposes the proposal.  In books written in English, the dictum is usually quoted in Latin, just like habeas corpus, carpe diem, gaudeamus igitur, magna cum laude, sede vacante, Index Librorum Prohibitorum, veni vidi vici, caveat emptor, Pontifex Maximus, nunc dimittis, Et tu, Brute, imprimatur,  E pluribus unum, ad interim, ad libitum, rigor mortis ...   Esoglou (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed title does not do justice to the meaning and history of the Latin expression within and without Catholicism. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Important citation from the Council of Florence.
The following text from the Council of Florence should be reflected somewhere in the article:

The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.252.105 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What a shock!
Is it really the case that feeney is to be attached to a dogma which is traditionally associated with the "Father of Orthodoxy", Confessor and Doctor of the Church, Saint Athanasius? Has everyone forgotten the Athanasian Creed? And in reading the article, there is no mention of the fact that throughout church history there have been times of strict adherence to the dogma of no salvation outside the church, and that periods of liberal interpretation are followed by reform, which was the original purpose of the Athanasian Creed.
 * 1. Sign your posts.
 * 2. The anathemas in the Athanasian Creed concern Trinitarian and Christological heresies, not specific interpretations of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as you seem to think.
 * 3. In light of Point 2, this Article is about the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, not the Athanasian Creed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Entire Subsection "Criticism of the Catholic Church's interpretation" in violation of WP:Fringe
Don't misunderstand me. That content does have a place on Wikipedia. Its place, however, is in an Article on Sedevacantism or Traditionalism, not here.

This Article is on what the Holy Church teaches, not what Sedevacantists or other extremist Traditionalists think. That's why I cite WP:Fringe.

By the way, I am a Catholic and one who paid careful attention in RCIA. I would know which interpretations of the Church's teachings are indeed fringe. Rejections of the Baptism of Desire (which are heresies, Baptism of Desire is doctrine right alongside Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) are as fringe as it gets, and the same can be said for any interpretation that the Ecclesia in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is limited to the Church Visible. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There we go. I corrected Undue Weight given to Fringe views.
 * I did say "See my Talk Page post" in the Edit Summary, so hopefully nobody reverts this without reading this Section first. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear Bias in Section Title on Most Holy Family Monastery
The section title on Most Holy Family Monastery contains clear bias. Many view "Feeneyite" as a pejorative term. MHFM has no relation to the deceased Father Feeney, although both would hold similar views. MHFM also rejects the use of "Feeneyite" to describe their theological position. Calling their group "Feeneyite" implies that Father Leonard Feeney invented the rigorous understanding of the dogma which is an admission that this understanding is "new" and therefore false. Freedominspring (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317235459/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306113628/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626020653/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411015820/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407052252/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407052252/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification Needed on Feeny's beliefs
Feeney was excommunicated for heresy in 1953. They lifted it a couple of decades later, but in that time, was he outside the Church? And condemned to Hell by his own doctrines? 31.73.146.207 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061028005601/http://www.orlutheran.com/mlselk22.html to http://www.orlutheran.com/mlselk22.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825162344/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed on the EENS motivation of Cyprian
Hi,

the beginning of the article thus reads :

The letter was written in reference to a particular controversy as to whether or not it was necessary to baptize applicants who had previously been baptized by heretics. In Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis, Cyprian tells Jubaianus of his conviction that baptism conferred by heretics is not valid.[5] Firmilian (died c. 269) agreed with Cyprian reasoning that those who are outside the Church and have not the Holy Spirit cannot admit others to the Church or give what they do not possess.[6] Cyprian was not expressing a theory on the eternal fate of all baptized and non-baptized persons.[7]

i'd like to add some nuance in this phrasing because i find that it would be more clear and explaining that Cyprian's view is one on pneumatology / Soteriology instead of ecclesiology.

In order to make it more clear and understandable, there are a few things which might be considered for clarification : - Cyprian view on the baptism is that the baptism is a regeneration of the flesh, restoring it to Adam's state - but the reception of the Holy spirit, in Cyprian's view, is that the Holy spirit is transmitted through the imposition of the hands after the baptism

this is of importance regarding the subject and shows more clearly that the use of this phrase for confessional purposes is out of range in the given context. his reasoning is as follow : - heretics / schismatics don't have the Holy Spirit - The Holy Spirit is transmitted through the imposition of hands - thus, the heretics / schismatics cannot transmit the Holy Spirit whom they don't have...

this specificity (and the following controversy with Rome's bishop) is the Ex opere operato / operantis controversy. And regarding the Baptism, Rome adopted the Ex opere operato view wether Cyprian was Ex opere operantis : it's regarding the state of the one operating the sacrement that the result is obtained (Cyprian).

The use of the terme Ecclesia made as well would benefit from the fact that at the time, catholic didn't mean Roman Catholic, but universal (which has been the use from Ignatius of Antioch on to Cyprian's day..

Thomas WERNHER (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Inculpable ignorance is not a means of salvation according to Rev. Michael Müller
41. Will those heretics be saved, who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the dictates of their conscience?


 * Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person who lives up to the dictates of his conscience, and who cannot sin against the true religion on account of being ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation or justification.


 * If we sincerely wish not to make great mistakes in explaining the great revealed truth, "Out of the Church there is no salvation," we must remember:


 * 1. That there are four great truths of salvation, which everyone must know and believe in order to be saved; [I guess he means the Justice of God (rewards the good and punishes the wicked), Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption.]


 * 2. That no one can go to heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace;


 * 3. That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved;


 * 4. That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics.


 * Other questions


 * 42. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that no one can be saved out of the Church?


 * On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity to assert most emphatically, that out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation possible; for Jesus Christ and His Apostles have taught this doctrine in very plain language. He who sincerely seeks the truth is glad to hear it, and embrace it, in order to be saved.


 * 43. But is it not said in Holy Scripture: "He that feareth God, and worketh justice, is acceptable to Him "?


 * This is true. But we must remember that he who fears God, will also believe all the truths that God has revealed, as Cornelius did (Acts, Chapter X). He believes Jesus Christ when He speaks to us through the pastors of His Church. But he who does not believe all the truths that God has revealed, but instead believes and rejects whatever he chooses, does not fear God, and cannot work justice. "He that believeth not the Son of God" - Jesus Christ - "maketh Him a liar," says Saint John (I John 5:10); and will, on this account, be condemned to hell.

How is this to be incorporated into the article? --Akj150 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do anybody mind if I put this in the article?--Akj150 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well - I don't mind at all. I think you can just make a section titled "Rev. Michael Müller's view" or something like that and incorporate the text you quoted - maybe even with a little comment from you. 85.89.184.212 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the view of a single 19th century priest significant? JHobson3 (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It is part of the history of interpreting this, so add it by all means.

But remember, Rome has rejected this view in several encyclicals, as detailed in the article. See letter Aug. 08, 1949 dealing with Father Feeney. https://web.archive.org/web/20000311121352/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.75.95.31 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Orthodox Church?
What about the Eastern Orthodox Church? Catholic and Orthodox Churches started off as one church and the Pope recognizes the apostolic succession of the Orthodox church, so does that mean that both Catholic and Orthodox churches can provide salvation? --24.150.77.3 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

They both say Jesus provides salvation. How that is done is the point at issue.31.75.95.31 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Inculpable v. Invincible
I don't know why the article refers to inculpable (i.e without blame) when the references refer to invincible (i.e. incapable of being overcome). Can someone explain or correct this? patsw (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Both are used. Pope Pius IX in the 1863 encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore speaks of invincible ignorance; Lumen gentium, §14, says inculpably ignorant." Pius says that "...they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin." In some instances "invincible" may also be "inculpable". Manannan67 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23 objection to Bcliot33's source
, — instead of edit warring, maybe ask about the source on the Reliable sources noticeboard to get an impression about the consensus in regards to its reliability or lack thereof. El_C 07:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)