[editor: This is one of the more thorough articles dealing with EENS. Many of the points have been adressed in other articles. We tried to tie together alot of threads.]
We were made aware of Mr Lofton’s YouTube channel and he seems to be an up and coming Catholic Utuber.
Here he is attempting to tackle the Dogma : Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
He says he is hesitant to address it. Maybe because some who oppose the liberal interpretation of this long held dogma, can be a little feisty.
He does seem confused on his position. The whole time he supports the liberal understanding. But in the end he seems confused, he says implicit "Baptism" of Desire can save; but, then he says "it is rare." Claiming BoD is rare is how we got here, saints letting this "rare" thing slide. This "small" loophole eventually becomes Rahner/Barron universalism.
We do commend Mr. Lofton for attempting to do as thorough a job as he has. Although we think he has missed many points of those who hold a strict view of the Dogma.
We think he is of good Will. But he needs to study the strict understanding better. Aquinas made it a point to know the other side's position thoroughly.
We can appreciate his problem. We were in the same position many years ago.
We were discouraged from reading the “Feeneyite” position. (Although we are not technically Feeneyites, i.e. followers of Fr. Feeney, we do sympathize with his doctrinal position.)
He says in the opening of his presentation, this is not an exhaustive study, but is one of the best from a Conservative Catholic, most run away from the topic. So we see him seeking truth. We think this topic is at the heart of almost all the problems in the Church today.
We wonder if he knows that a strict understanding
is acceptable by the Church?
He stresses that we are to understand The Dogma (EENS) as the Church understands it. The dogmas are the way the Church understands it.
The Church’s position is the 3 dogmatic statements :
* “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. Denzinger 430)
* “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
(Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302. Denzinger, 468-469.)
* “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. Denzinger 714.)
He was probably taught in the Cardinal Newman school of developments. Most who follow Newman have never read his book on Development. It is rife with serious errors.
This “Development of Doctrine” method, which he is using, we have seen before, especially with conservative Catholics. They apply an “evolution of dogma” (although they will deny this), as taken from Bl. Cardinal Newman-- in his so-called “Development of Doctrine Essay”. We have treated Newman’s errors here on this blog in depth, in a number of articles.
There can be distictions, but never at the expemse of how it was understood when defined.
This method, Newman's, takes what is the most current or recent position of theologians, or papal writings, which are fallible, as the light we view defined dogma and the Apostolic Faith. When in actual fact we should use the exact opposite method--what is Apostolic and ancient.
Defined dogma is the light we should view all other teachings-- subjecting them to the light of Faith, as defined by the Church. Yes there are even levels of Managerial documents, the lower being seen in light of the higher. A dogmatic definition is the highest and, well, definitive, by definition. That is the way we should understand it.
It is also important to say that the issue at hand is MEMBERSHIP in the Church. While there is ample documentation of who is, or is not, IN the Church, it has not been defined as such, so to exclude “Baptism” of Desire or “Baptism” of Blood.
There are many murky statements by saints, and popes, that can add grey to a relatively clear teaching. Alas, we are in a desperate situation in the Church, Her worst crisis in history--confusion has reigned over this topic of EENS.
