Catholic Dogma and Vatican II on Ecumenism

[The_Maestro]

Salvete,

The Second Vatican Council contains the following statement in the document Unitatis Redintegratio, which treats of the subject of Ecumenism:

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ…

…It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Can someone explain to me how this can be true, given previous teachings from the Church? For example, the Council of Florence infallibly defines that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, in these words:

[The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior,] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

This teaching from the Council of Florence echoes certain statements from St. Augustine, who taught that although there are Catholic elements existing outside the Catholic Church (i.e. in Protestant sects), nonetheless the elements are of no profit to salvation until they are practiced inside the Catholic Church. A couple passages from St. Augustine:

Let us beware of giving to heretics the credit of whatever we acknowledged among them as belonging to the Church; but let us teach them by argument, that what they possess that is derived from unity is of no efficacy to their salvation, unless they shall return to that same unity. For “the water of the Church is full of faith, and salvation, and holiness” to those who use it rightly. No one, however, can use it well outside the Church. But to those who use it perversely, whether within or without the Church, it is employed to work punishment, and does not conduce to their reward.

Likewise:

No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.

So this is the dilemma:

1) On the one hand, St. Augustine and the Council of Florence teach that although there are indeed Catholic elements existing outside the Catholic Church, these elements are of no profit to salvation as long as one remains outside the Catholic Church. They will not bring one to salvation unless one joins the unity of the Catholic Church (whether in re or in voto).

2) On the other hand, Vatican II - at least at first sight - seems to be teaching that these Catholic elements can be of profit to salvation while one is still outside the Church, and therefore that these non-Catholic churches and communities can be used by God as means of salvation, since they contain Catholic elements in them.

So my question is this: is there or isn’t there a contradiction here between the teaching of Unitatis Redintegratio and that of St. Augustine and the Council of Florence? Or is there some other interpretation that I might be overlooking here?

(For the record, in my studying, I have been able to see a possible alternate interpretation of the Vatican II text, although it is still ambiguous to me… But in any case, I would still like to see what other people think.)

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by then Cardinal Ratzinger, declaration ‘Dominus Iesus’ from the year 2000 addresses these issues:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
“Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church”

 

[St_Francis]

Hmmmm, I wonder if St Thomas Aquinas’s writings about heretics would be helpful here?

In his section on Faith in Part 2, 2, he differentiates between those who refuse to believe one or more teachings of the Church and those who do not believe as a result of ignorance but who would, if they learned it, accept the truth.

I have met many Protestants who really love Christ and are simply ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church.

I think in these documents the Church is making the same distinction.

 

[april32010]

:compcoff:

 

[Genesis315]

The latter formulation persupposes good faith–and therefore no guilt for heresy or schism–on the part of those who might be saved in the separated communities. From the decree on ecumenism:

“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation…”

The more restrictive texts presuppose guilt. Note that the definition from Florence is conditional (“unless…”). It is possible for one visibly separated to still belong to the Church.

In his 19th century work on the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England, Cardinal Manning explained how the presupposition of good faith is reasonable centuries after the original separation and how such folks belong to the Church and can be saved.
Cardinal Manning:

In the judgment of the Catholic Church, a baptised people is no longer in the state of nature, but is admitted to a state of supernatural grace.

[he goes on to lament the fact that many in England are not being baptized for various reasons]

Still, the English people as a body are baptised, and therefore elevated to the order of supernatural grace. Every infant, and also every adult baptised, having the necessary dispositions, is thereby placed in a state of justification; and, if they die without committing any mortal sin, would certainly be saved. They are also, in the sight of the Church, Catholics. St. Augustine says, “Ecclesia etiam inter eos qui foris sunt per baptismum generat suos.”

[he goes onto argue that persons only become separated from the Church to the extent that salvation is excluded through culpable heresy or schism]

And they who are culpably out of it are those who know—or might, and therefore ought to, know —that it is their duty to submit to it. The Church teaches that men may be inculpably out of its pale. Now they are inculpably out of it who are, and have always been, either physically or morally unable to see their obligation to submit to it. And they only are culpably out of it who are both physically and morally able to know that it is God’s will they should submit to the Church; and either knowing it will not obey that knowledge, or, not knowing it, are culpable for that ignorance. I will say, then, that we hopefully apply this benign law of our Divine Master as far as possible to the English people. First, it is applicable in the letter to the whole multitude of those baptised persons who are under the age of reason. Secondly, to all who are in good faith, of whatsoever age they be: such as a great many of the poor and unlettered, to whom it is often physically, and very often morally, impossible to judge which is the true revelation or the true Church of God. I say physically, because in these three hundred years the Catholic Church has been so swept off the face of England that nine or ten generations of men have lived and died without the Faith being so much as proposed to them, or the Church ever visible to them; and I say morally, because the great majority of the poor, from lifelong prejudice, are often incapable of judging in questions so removed from the primary truths of conscience and Christianity. Of such simple persons it may be said that infantibus cequiparanttir, they are to be classed morally with infants. Again, to these may be added the unlearned in all classes, among whom many have no contact with the Catholic Church, or with Catholic books. Under this head will come a great number of wives and daughters, whose freedom of religious inquiry and religious thought is unjustly limited or suspended by the authority of parents and husbands. Add, lastly, the large class who have been studiously brought up, with all the dominant authority of the English tradition of three hundred years, to believe sincerely, and without a doubt, that the Catholic Church is corrupt, has changed the doctrines of the Faith, and that the author of the Reformation is the Spirit of holiness and truth. It may seem incredible to some that such an illusion exists. But it is credible to me, because for nearly forty years of my life I was fully possessed by this erroneous belief. To all such persons it is morally difficult in no small degree to discover the falsehood of this illusion. All the better parts of their nature are engaged in its support: dutifulness, self-mistrust, submission, respect for others older, better, more learned than themselves, all combine to form a false conscience, and the duty to refuse to hear anything against “the religion of their fathers,” “the Church of their baptism,” or to read anything which could unsettle them. Such people are told that it is their duty to extinguish a doubt against the Church of England, as they would extinguish a temptation against their virtue. A conscience so subdued and held in subjection exercises true virtues upon a false object, and renders to a human authority the submissive trust which is due only to the Divine voice of the Church of God.

Still further, I believe that the people of England were not all guilty of the first acts of heresy and schism by which they were separated from the Catholic unity and faith. They were robbed of it. In many places they rose in arms for it. The children, the poor, the unlearned at that time, were certainly innocent: much more the next generation. They were born into a state of privation. They knew no better. No choice was before them. They made no perverse act of the will in remaining where they were born. Every successive generation was still less culpable, in proportion as they were born into a greater privation, and under the dominion of a tradition of error already grown strong. For three centuries they have been born further and further out of the truth, and their culpability is perpetually diminishing; and as they were passively borne onward in the course of the English separation, the moral responsibility for the past is proportionately less.

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add to my last post, St. Augustine said the same as what Manning wrote. While he would say all heretics are outside the Church and could not be saved, he only used the word “heretics” to refer to those culpable of the sin of separation:
St. Augustine:

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.

newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm

(as an aside, for a while the Church used the term “heretic” in a broader sense to include all those who held to some heresy, culpably or not, but in more recent times the Church has gone back to using St. Auguistine’s definition above.)

 

[bzkoss236]

The Church has and still holds to “No salvation outside the Church”. It is only by Christ and through His Church that salvation is attained, but like how the protestants misinterpret what “through” Christ means, you seem to be misinterpreting what “through” the Church means.

Here’s what the CCC says about it:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
**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: (161, 1257)
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]
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”[338] (1260)

 

[The_Maestro]

Hello all,

Thanks for all your replies. Just to be clear though, my question is not so much about the possibility of salvation for non-Catholic persons as individuals. I do understand that they can indeed be saved outside the visible Church, as long as they belong to the Church in voto (by desire). This desire can even be implicit. I believe this is the case with those who, though not visibly Catholic, are nonetheless in good faith and are not obstinate in their heresy. I have no problem with this belief.

My question, however, is about non-Catholic sects, not persons. Can these separated churches and communities be used as actual means of salvation?

 

[thistle]

Hello all,

Thanks for all your replies. Just to be clear though, my question is not so much about the possibility of salvation for non-Catholic persons as individuals. I do understand that they can indeed be saved outside the visible Church, as long as they belong to the Church in voto (by desire). This desire can even be implicit. I believe this is the case with those who, though not visibly Catholic, are nonetheless in good faith and are not obstinate in their heresy. I have no problem with this belief.

My question, however, is about non-Catholic sects, not persons. Can these separated churches and communities be used as actual means of salvation?

In my opinion the answer is no. I believe the Church teaching applies only to individuals.

 

[The_Maestro]

In my opinion the answer is no. I believe the Church teaching applies only to individuals.

I’m inclined to agree. However, Vatican II seems to state otherwise. That’s the problem. I want to determine whether Vatican II is in fact teaching this, or if there is another interpretation we can give to it.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m inclined to agree. However, Vatican II seems to state otherwise. That’s the problem. I want to determine whether Vatican II is in fact teaching this, or if there is another interpretation we can give to it.

If you place the sentence in the context of the surrounding paragraphs, it is speaking about the means of salvation which only belong to the Catholic Church being communicated through the elements of sanctification (which properly belong to the Catholic Church) found in separated communities. For example, an Eastern Orthodox person in good faith may be sanctified by his particular Church’s sacraments, which are by their nature communal (eg. the Holy Eucharist is consecrated by a priest, who was ordained by a bishop, etc.).

It doesn’t say the communities themselves are a means of salvation apart from the Catholic Church, but precisely because of the elements of the Catholic Church they possess where something of the nature of the Catholic Church is preserved.

Back before Vatican II, Cardinal Journet wrote a famous and well received treatise on the Church which explains a lot of this. The whole thing is a good read and can be found here (it deals with the relationship of separated groups throughout):

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHWORDIN.HTM

See especially here, beginning with the entire section (with its subsections) entitled: II. INDIRECT ACTION OF THE HIERARCHY IN THE WORLD and also the subsection titled: D. Whether The Notes Are To Be Found Imperfectly In The Dissident Churches

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08

Also see the subsection titled: 4. The Just “Without” Belong To The Church By Desire, Not In Accomplished Act.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin1.htm#0

Also, the end notes are here (these can be important to look at as you read through)
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin4.htm#11

 

[triumphguy]

Salvete,

The Second Vatican Council contains the following statement in the document Unitatis Redintegratio, which treats of the subject of Ecumenism:

Can someone explain to me how this can be true, given previous teachings from the Church? For example, the Council of Florence infallibly defines that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, in these words:

This teaching from the Council of Florence echoes certain statements from St. Augustine, who taught that although there are Catholic elements existing outside the Catholic Church (i.e. in Protestant sects), nonetheless the elements are of no profit to salvation until they are practiced inside the Catholic Church. A couple passages from St. Augustine:

Likewise:

So this is the dilemma:

1) On the one hand, St. Augustine and the Council of Florence teach that although there are indeed Catholic elements existing outside the Catholic Church, these elements are of no profit to salvation as long as one remains outside the Catholic Church. They will not bring one to salvation unless one joins the unity of the Catholic Church (whether in re or in voto).

2) On the other hand, Vatican II - at least at first sight - seems to be teaching that these Catholic elements can be of profit to salvation while one is still outside the Church, and therefore that these non-Catholic churches and communities can be used by God as means of salvation, since they contain Catholic elements in them.

So my question is this: is there or isn’t there a contradiction here between the teaching of Unitatis Redintegratio and that of St. Augustine and the Council of Florence? Or is there some other interpretation that I might be overlooking here?

(For the record, in my studying, I have been able to see a possible alternate interpretation of the Vatican II text, although it is still ambiguous to me… But in any case, I would still like to see what other people think.)

Easy peasy:

Who is salvation through?

Christ.

Who did Christ come to save?

All people - in fact all of creation.

Where is Christ now?

In the Church.

Do other truths point to the Truth?

*Yes.
*
Do other religions in so far as they are true and their adherents are sincere point to the One True God?

Yes.

Are these people capable of being saved?

Yes.

How are they saved?

Through Christ who redeemed all things.

 

[The_Maestro]

If you place the sentence in the context of the surrounding paragraphs, it is speaking about the means of salvation which only belong to the Catholic Church being communicated through the elements of sanctification (which properly belong to the Catholic Church) found in separated communities. For example, an Eastern Orthodox person in good faith may be sanctified by his particular Church’s sacraments, which are by their nature communal (eg. the Holy Eucharist is consecrated by a priest, who was ordained by a bishop, etc.).

It doesn’t say the communities themselves are a means of salvation apart from the Catholic Church, but precisely because of the elements of the Catholic Church they possess where something of the nature of the Catholic Church is preserved.

Back before Vatican II, Cardinal Journet wrote a famous and well received treatise on the Church which explains a lot of this. The whole thing is a good read and can be found here (it deals with the relationship of separated groups throughout):

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHWORDIN.HTM

See especially here, beginning with the entire section (with its subsections) entitled: II. INDIRECT ACTION OF THE HIERARCHY IN THE WORLD and also the subsection titled: D. Whether The Notes Are To Be Found Imperfectly In The Dissident Churches

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08

Also see the subsection titled: 4. The Just “Without” Belong To The Church By Desire, Not In Accomplished Act.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin1.htm#0

Also, the end notes are here (these can be important to look at as you read through)
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin4.htm#11

I realize that this is what Vatican II is teaching, but the thing is, even with those Catholic elements existing in these communities and churches, St. Augustine and Florence teach that these are not of any profit towards salvation, until one is joined fully to Catholic unity.

I have no problem with saying that these Catholic elements in non-Catholic churches may arouse in a person the implicit desire for unity in the Catholic Church, and thus that such a person can be saved. But that is a lot different from saying that these non-Catholic churches may be means of salvation apart from that Catholic unity - even if they are only means of salvation because of the Catholic elements which exist in them.

 

[Genesis315]

I realize that this is what Vatican II is teaching, but the thing is, even with those Catholic elements existing in these communities and churches, St. Augustine and Florence teach that these are not of any profit towards salvation, until one is joined fully to Catholic unity.

But a baptized person in good faith *is *joined to the Catholic Church, which is why they would profit. Those do not profit who are separated by a perverse act of the will, which is presumed in those who caused the initial separation, but not necessarily those who come after them.

I have no problem with saying that these Catholic elements in non-Catholic churches may arouse in a person the implicit desire for unity in the Catholic Church, and thus that such a person can be saved. But that is a lot different from saying that these non-Catholic churches may be means of salvation apart from that Catholic unity - even if they are only means of salvation because of the Catholic elements which exist in them.

The effects of those elements of truth are not just individually sanctifiying, but they have an ecclesial dimension. For example, as Journet notes, baptism (and especially Holy Orders and the Eucharist), when received in good faith in the dissident Churches and communities, Christ uses them as a beginning, in a way, to form the Church and to collect His “other sheep” as in a flock (ie not just as individuals). This is so much so in the separated Greek Churches that the Catholic Church has historically considered them just that, particular Churches (whereas, now, historical, baptized Protestant groups are called “ecclesial” and other less organized groups or less Christian groups–where the Church can less be seen to be in formation–are merely called “sects”). It is this ecclesial dimension–individuals united by the sacraments to Christ and to each other and by them to the one Church–that is being discussed.

The liturgical and ecclesial elements and actions of those groups are not in vain for those who participate in them in good faith and salvation can come by them. The reason for this is beause of the connection of these elements and actions to the Catholic Church.

 

[triumphguy]

I realize that this is what Vatican II is teaching, but the thing is, even with those Catholic elements existing in these communities and churches, St. Augustine and Florence teach that these are not of any profit towards salvation, until one is joined fully to Catholic unity.

I have no problem with saying that these Catholic elements in non-Catholic churches may arouse in a person the implicit desire for unity in the Catholic Church, and thus that such a person can be saved. But that is a lot different from saying that these non-Catholic churches may be means of salvation apart from that Catholic unity - even if they are only means of salvation because of the Catholic elements which exist in them.

They don’t “profit” from their beliefs, but from their faith in and their relationship with God.

 

[The_Maestro]

But a baptized person in good faith *is *joined to the Catholic Church, which is why they would profit. Those do not profit who are separated by a perverse act of the will, which is presumed in those who caused the initial separation, but not necessarily those who come after them.

It is precisely in a treatise on baptism that St. Augustine teaches that the sacraments and other Catholic elements existing outside the visible bonds of the Catholic Church cannot be of profit to salvation. True, Baptism initiates one’s membership into the Catholic Church; but it has always been understood (or it was at one time) that not only baptism, but the profession of the true faith and the subjection to the Pope were also necessary for full Catholic unity. The separated churches and communities lack these two elements, which is why they are in only partial communion. And St. Augustine, along with many others, teaches that this partial union is not enough for salvation. Yes, heretics can and do possess a true baptism, but so long as it is not within the Catholic Church, it will not bring one to salvation. If one is to have salvation, one must be fully united with the Catholic Church (even if only by an implicit desire, which is certainly possible for those outside the visible bonds of the Church).

The effects of those elements of truth are not just individually sanctifiying, but they have an ecclesial dimension. For example, as Journet notes, baptism (and especially Holy Orders and the Eucharist), when received in good faith in the dissident Churches and communities, Christ uses them as a beginning, in a way, to form the Church and to collect His “other sheep” as in a flock (ie not just as individuals). This is so much so in the separated Greek Churches that the Catholic Church has historically considered them just that, particular Churches (whereas, now, historical, baptized Protestant groups are called “ecclesial” and other less organized groups or less Christian groups–where the Church can less be seen to be in formation–are merely called “sects”). It is this ecclesial dimension–individuals united by the sacraments to Christ and to each other and by them to the one Church–that is being discussed.

The liturgical and ecclesial elements and actions of those groups are not in vain for those who participate in them in good faith and salvation can come by them. The reason for this is beause of the connection of these elements and actions to the Catholic Church.

That’s all fine and dandy, except that I don’t see how this means that these separated churches and communities can be means to salvation. They might indeed produce grace and have efficacy in certain areas, since they truly do retain Catholic elements of truth and sanctification; but this grace will not be of profit to salvation until full unity with the Catholic Church is had (in act or in desire, either way). This is the teaching of St. Augustine, and seems echoed by the Council of Florence.

 

[triumphguy]

It is precisely in a treatise on baptism that St. Augustine teaches that the sacraments and other Catholic elements existing outside the visible bonds of the Catholic Church cannot be of profit to salvation. True, Baptism initiates one’s membership into the Catholic Church; but it has always been understood (or it was at one time) that not only baptism, but the profession of the true faith and the subjection to the Pope were also necessary for full Catholic unity. The separated churches and communities lack these two elements, which is why they are in only partial communion. And St. Augustine, along with many others, teaches that this partial union is not enough for salvation. Yes, heretics can and do possess a true baptism, but so long as it is not within the Catholic Church, it will not bring one to salvation. If one is to have salvation, one must be fully united with the Catholic Church (even if only by an implicit desire, which is certainly possible for those outside the visible bonds of the Church).

That’s all fine and dandy, except that I don’t see how this means that these separated churches and communities can be means to salvation. They might indeed produce grace and have efficacy in certain areas, since they truly do retain Catholic elements of truth and sanctification; but this grace will not be of profit to salvation until full unity with the Catholic Church is had (in act or in desire, either way). This is the teaching of St. Augustine, and seems echoed by the Council of Florence.

It’s Christ that saves them - not their church.

BTW Augustine was not infallible.

 

[The_Maestro]

It’s Christ that saves them - not their church.

BTW Augustine was not infallible.

But the Council of Florence is. And in any case, St. Augustine does have a very great authority; this itself has been taught by the Church several times before.

 

[Genesis315]

It is precisely in a treatise on baptism that St. Augustine teaches that the sacraments and other Catholic elements existing outside the visible bonds of the Catholic Church cannot be of profit to salvation.

Again, as I have said multiple times, he was not referencing those in good faith.

True, Baptism initiates one’s membership into the Catholic Church; but it has always been understood (or it was at one time) that not only baptism, but the profession of the true faith and the subjection to the Pope were also necessary for full Catholic unity.

Those are the elements of “membership,” which is a specific thing. There are other relationships to the Church that can be described.

The separated churches and communities lack these two elements, which is why they are in only partial communion. And St. Augustine, along with many others, teaches that this partial union is not enough for salvation. Yes, heretics can and do possess a true baptism, but so long as it is not within the Catholic Church, it will not bring one to salvation. If one is to have salvation, one must be fully united with the Catholic Church (even if only by an implicit desire, which is certainly possible for those outside the visible bonds of the Church).

Exactly, I have not said otherwise. The Decree at issue is specifically speaking of those in good faith. It does not say all members of those communities will definitely be saved.

That’s all fine and dandy, except that I don’t see how this means that these separated churches and communities can be means to salvation. They might indeed produce grace and have efficacy in certain areas, since they truly do retain Catholic elements of truth and sanctification; but this grace will not be of profit to salvation until full unity with the Catholic Church is had (in act or in desire, either way). This is the teaching of St. Augustine, and seems echoed by the Council of Florence.

Again, see above.

 

[The_Maestro]

It doesn’t seem to me that either Augustine or even Vatican II are speaking about persons, but about the separated churches and communities as such. It is not a question of whether persons may be saved if they are in good faith, but a question of whether the non-Catholic communities may themselves be a means of salvation. I am saying that Augustine and Vatican II could seem to give different answers to that question.

Obviously a person in good faith can be saved, if he is united to the Catholic Church at least by an implicit desire. But it is only by that Catholic unity, or the desire thereof, that he is saved, and not by the separated church or community of which he is a member. This is what St. Augustine seems to teach, and what VII could possibly be interpreted as denying.