Talk:Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
|
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
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.)
I didn't know this page was here or I might've used it. This website is really great! 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)
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.
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)