Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus VS Vatican II

[1ke]

And yet, the council of Florence states that even infants cannot escape damnation without baptism.

The text does not say that.

 

[Vico]

… Where I believe this to be in conflict, is when one considers the teachings of the council of Florence. …

Baltimore Catechism
121 Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.

847 his 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.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...hrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[commenter]

Vatican II says Pagans and other non-Catholics might be eligible to cash in on this alleged invincible ignorance.

Another poster pointed out that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated prior to V2 for objecting to Church teaching that was already in place.

My guess is that it is V2 itself you object to, not specifically just on this particular topic.

 

[Dovekin]

The Council of Florence is best known for the reconciliation of the Eastern and Western parts od the Church.

Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.

700 Eastern bishops, along with the Western bishops led by the Pope, and the Emperor attended. The decree, whose opening words are quoted above, was approved by all but one of the bishops attending.

This is the context for the remarks you have posted. The condemnation of “all those who are outside the catholic church” cannot mean all who were Eastern Orthodox were condemned, except for those who now have reconciled. The reconciliation was broader, tacitly recognizing that those who once would have been considered “outside the Church” could not be condemned for that.

IOW, Vatican II’s ecumenism continues the work of Florence. We have always sought reconciliation and peace. If other sentences seem to contradict that, they probably are being misunderstood.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If one Church Council infallibly states that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved (including infants)

Not true. It says that about unbaptized. Protestants are baptized. I understand you calling into question Pagans or Muslims/Jews, but Protestants themselves apply to “baptized” part of CoF.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I am neither Catholic nor Christian at all. However, perhaps you might ask yourself two important questions, which I hope do not disturb you even more:

1. If the Church is indeed contradicting herself with regard to the teaching of dogma, what does that say about the moral teaching authority of the Church?
2. If G-d does condemn infants and young children who have not been baptized to eternal damnation, what does that say about the justice and mercy of G-d?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

[if[ the Church is indeed contradicting herself with regard to the teaching of dogma, what does that say about the authority of the Church?

The Church is not contradicting herself. We have pointed this out repeatedly in the thread to this OP, that there is no contradiction, that the teaching has not changed over time, and indeed that there was no official Church teaching on the fate of babies who died unbaptized, and in fact to take this a step further, for the Eastern Catholics this is a non-issue, as the International Commission statement I posted describes.
Why are you as a non-Catholic coming in and suggesting that there is a Church contradiction here?

If G-d does condemn infants and young children who have not been baptized to eternal damnation, what does that say about the justice and mercy of G-d?

The Church has never taught that unbaptized infants and young children would end up eternally damned; this was the view of a few theologians only, and as we have again been over on several posts, it was never a position of the Church.

The larger debate was whether unbaptized infants and young children would go to the Limbo of Infants, which was not Hell (thus not “damnation”) but instead was a place where they would be happy and comfortable but would be unable to see the Beatific Vision. Even this was never a position of the Church and Limbo of Infants was never an official teaching of the Church. We have been over this not only on this thread but on multiple past threads.

Our recognition of God’s mercy and justice is precisely why, as the official Church teaching states, we have hope for the salvation (in other words, Heaven, including the Beatific Vision) of these unbaptized babies and young children, and we entrust them to God’s mercy.

I realize that perhaps you did not intend to sow doubt, but we are dealing here with a Catholic young person who hsa a doubt, and your post read on its own could be seen as a non-Catholic’s attempt to sow more doubt. Unfortunately we have non-Catholics on the forum who go around doing that very thing although you haven’t seemed to be one.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thank you for the information. I was intentionally pushing the argument of the OP to the extreme to point out that something larger is at stake. My meaning was that the Church CANNOT be contradicting herself if you are a faithful Catholic and that children CANNOT be condemned to hell (or even limbo) if you are a faithful Catholic, for, if so, then the Church could not be a moral agent nor G-d Himself a just and merciful G-d.

Edit: I was afraid of just such a possible confusion after I posted my comment, but I assure you and everyone that was not my intention.

 

[pnewton]

Thank you for the information. I was intentionally pushing the argument of the OP to the extreme to point out that something larger is at stake

I liked your points and thought both provided good evidence that something is amiss in the OP’s first post. As to the first point, there are still two ways to go and be Catholic, sort of. One is to acknowledge that one’s own opinions might be off, that something is missing in the thought process. The other is to say the Catholic Church that exists in Rome is no longer the real Catholic Church, and only one’s own group is what remains.

 

[JerryZ]

St. Paul teaches us that yes that through the Church is the Ordinary means of Salvation but GOD is not bound in any way, HIS will be done and HE can choose to save someone that is outside the formal boundaries of the Church HE can do so.

 

[fhansen]

The invincible ignorance card predates Vat II by centuries. And from my understanding it applies only to those who could be knowledgeable otherwise, but for various reasons have been prevented from possessing a clear understanding of the gospel. Presumably it wouldn’t apply to a child before the age of reason.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The invincible ignorance card predates Vat II by centuries. And from my understanding it applies only to those who could be knowledgeable otherwise, but for various reasons have been prevented from possessing a clear understanding of the gospel. Presumably it wouldn’t apply to a child before the age of reason.

I agree with your presumption. The International Commission statement makes the point that the invincibly ignorant could have “implicit” desire for baptism (i.e. not the explicit desire that a catechumen would have). However, it later makes the point that babies and young children do not have the knowledge to be able to make the choice to have desire for baptism, and therefore their parents and the Church must speak on their behalf.

“Invincible ignorance” as the Church applies the term therefore suggests that babies and young children wouldn’t qualify for the reason you said - they don’t have capacity to be otherwise knowledgeable if they were given the chance.

 

[commenter]

There was a period when, about once a month, someone new to CAF would post something like this:
"I was on the internet looking up home improvement, cooking, whatever, and just happened to discover this papal bull or council document from several centuries ago, that seems to contradict this document in Vatican 2.

Could someone just clarify for me…"

These threads always came from posters who just joined CAF. The first post always presents as someone unfamiliar with the topic, but follow up posts show they’ve done lots of reading, likely on certain websites that they don’t mention, and already made up their mind.

I’m not saying the op on this thread is necessarily like that, just mentioning the past trend.

 

[Jen7]

My questions and uncertainty aren’t to do with the “God is not bound by His Sacraments”,

How could God possibly be bound by the sacraments?!! WE are bound by them. WE must do everything in our power to avail ourselves of them. But God is not OBLIGATED to damn someone who dies without baptism. His mercy; his business. That’s all the CCC is saying. We don’t INSIST the umbaptized are damned. Because God isn’t “required” to follow his own rules. He retains the power to make exceptions - like any parent or ruler.

 

[Sirach2]

These threads always came from posters who just joined CAF. The first post always presents as someone unfamiliar with the topic, but follow up posts show they’ve done lots of reading, likely on certain websites that they don’t mention, and already made up their mind.

That’s the impression I have concerning the OP here. That’s why I opted to withdraw, since it became apparent to me that we are being challenged by a well-read person who is quite confirmed in his opinion. I may be wrong, but it isn’t worth a sacrifice of my peace to continue the debate.

Sometimes, it just pays to let folks have their day in court and let things be.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people,

When reading your question, the part that sticks out to me from the Council of Florence is the putting off of baptism. It seems that then, as happens today, people were putting off baptizing their children, which does put the soul of their children in danger. I do agree with you that it can be confusing because baptism is required for salvation, except for yes the possiblity of invincible ignorance, which probably doesn’t happen very often.

Both of these Councils claim infallibility,

I could be wrong but didn’t Pope Paul VI state that nothing was declared infallible at Vatican II?

That said, though, I agree with others that we trust infants to the mercy of God, and pray for their souls. Personally I stand with the traditional thought of Limbo ( a realm of natural beatitude in which the souls of infants dwell in perfect natural happiness, yet without the beatific vision of God) as St. Thomas Aquinas, many popes and saints taught and according to the Vatican is still a theological possibility.

 

[Magnanimity]

Again, from the council of Florence:

…all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire…, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives

Alright. I think a good place to begin these discussions is by considering the development of doctrine teaching that plainly comes through in Vat 2’s Dei Verbum For example:

[8] the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

Your quote above from Florence, I assume you take to be in contradiction with Lumen Gentium section 16, is that right? In LG 16, we read,

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

On the face of it, Florence states that all persons must become Catholic before the end of their lives, and if they don’t, they cannot be saved. And LG 16 states that those who are completely outside of the church, so much so that they don’t even know about Christ or of his church, can attain to salvation through the dictates of conscience and striving to live a good life, with the help of God’s grace.

 

[Magnanimity]

A possible resolution: It seems that one could take the route that there has truly been a development of the doctrine that “outside the church, there is no salvation.” In the early days, the church’s self-understanding was pretty much that as affirmed at Florence. But, within the last century, the church has come to self-understand that, metaphysically-speaking, Christ and the church are the means by which the world is saved, but this does not have to be explicitly known by this or that person for their salvation to be possible. That is, without Christ and his Body, the world could not be saved, metaphysically-speaking. Epistemically-speaking, this fact does not have to be explicitly known by an individual for her to be saved. So, “outside the church, there is no salvation” is true metaphysically-speaking, but may not be true in terms of epistemology (one does not have to know how she is receiving the grace of God leading to her salvation in order to receive this grace).

What do you think? Does this work toward resolving your dilemma? Could this be a “growth of understanding” to which Dei Verbum makes note?

 

[JimG]

The Church still retains the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church.” But it is taken in the sense that “everyone who is saved, is saved by being incorporated into the Catholic Church in some manner, even if incompletely, even if unknowingly and not explicitly.”

This would apply to validly baptized protestants, to those who have never been evangelized, and to those who adhere to the gospel to the best of their ability, or to those who have never heard of the gospel but who try to follow God as best they are able.

No one can know the conscience of another. The sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation, the most certain means . God is capable of searching out those who might otherwise be lost. But he cannot force anyone to enter heaven against their will.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Church still retains the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church.” But it is taken in the sense that “everyone who is saved, is saved by being incorporated into the Catholic Church in some manner, even if incompletely, even if unknowingly and not explicitly.”

This would apply to validly baptized protestants, to those who have never been evangelized, and to those who adhere to the gospel to the best of their ability, or to those who have never heard of the gospel but who try to follow God as best they are able.

No one can know the conscience of another. The sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation, the most certain means . God is capable of searching out those who might otherwise be lost. But he cannot force anyone to enter heaven against their will.

This pretty much sums up exactly what I was going to write. Very good. Even though it cannot be made necessary to believe, doesn’t Sister Faustina tell us that every soul gets at least one “last chance” for salvation at the end of their life?

I was thinking about this just today. I have to wonder if it goes something like this:

“You do realize that you are at the brink of death, don’t you? Regardless of what you might have ever thought or believed, the illumination you see before you is the TRUTH, and you can either accept it and save your soul, or you can reject it this one last time, and you will lose your soul. You now have good and evil before your eyes, and you must choose. This is ‘last call’. The decision you make in this last moment will determine your entire eternity. So now, in this split-second before you die and can no longer be saved, will you repent of all your sins and resolve that you would not commit them again if you had your life to live over again, accept the truth, choose Almighty God as your greatest good and final end, and be received into His One True Catholic Church in this mystical fashion? Which will it be?”