Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus VS Vatican II

[lukewberg]

Hello all,

I am brand new to this forum, so please excuse my absence of forum tradition or commonly established formality. My question is one to do with the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and how there seems to be a contradiction between Vatican II, this statement, and the council of Florence.

While I openly confess that I am no theologian, nor an expert in any respect when it comes to these matters, I still have the ability to read and understand what it is that I am reading. Within the documents of Vatican II I have read what seems to be an attempt to muffle or soften the quite harsh and direct teaching that outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. The claim of invincible ignorance has been suggested as a means to which pagans may attain salvation. Where I believe this to be in conflict, is when one considers the teachings of the council of Florence.

The council of Florence makes a case for the Baptism of Infants, and it goes as follows:

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, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.

Certainly newly born Infants would have the greatest claim to invincible ignorance, wouldn’t they? And yet, the council of Florence states that even infants cannot escape damnation without baptism. Considering this, how could it be possible that Pagans or Protestants could be saved when they are outside the Catholic Church? Both of these Councils claim infallibility, but it looks as if these are mutually exclusive. Who is wrong here?

 

[thistle]

Baptism is the ordinary way that we can ensure an infant is saved. However, please remember that God is not bound by the Sacraments.

 

[lukewberg]

While I cannot speak to affirm what you say about the sacraments (something which I am inclined to believe, but have not yet seen justification for that belief), I do wonder as to whom you are speaking? Is it to myself, or to Pope Eugene IV? It seems like what he has said is quite clear and concise.

 

[thistle]

While I cannot speak to affirm what you say about the sacraments (something which I am inclined to believe, but have not yet seen justification for that belief), I do wonder as to whom you are speaking? Is it to myself, or to Pope Eugene IV? It seems like what he has said is quite clear and concise.

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism , the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[lukewberg]

Thank you for the references to the CCC, certainly quite interesting, but it all seems speculative at best. The Catechism says that the church can only hope that unbaptized children will be saved. CCC 1250 provides only further confusion, as it appears to contradict both of the references you have supplied. Forgive me if I cause irritation, it just seems like everywhere I look there lies a contradiction between the Church and the post Vatican II Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Catechism says the the church can only hope that unbaptized children will be saved.

The Church cannot and does not teach that ANYONE’s salvation is certain. Hope of salvation is the most that it teaches for anyone, baptized or not.

 

[Elias]

You know that is a very good point. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone ever bring up infants and baptism in regards to Invincible ignorance.

Here is what I found in regards to what a previous catechism has said about infant baptism:

11 Q: WHEN SHOULD INFANTS BE BROUGHT TO THE CHURCH TO BE BAPTIZED?​

A: Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.

12 Q: WHY SUCH ANXIETY TO HAVE INFANTS RECEIVE BAPTISM?​

A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q: DO PARENTS SIN, THEN, WHO, THROUGH NEGLIGENCE, ALLOW THEIR CHILDREN TO DIE WITHOUT BAPTISM, OR WHO DEFER IT?​

A: Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

16 Q: IS BAPTISM NECESSARY TO SALVATION?​

A: Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Sauce:
http://jimmyakin.com/the-catechism-of-st-pius-x-baptism

One thing to remember is that catechisms are not infallible. They can be changed. Some would argue for the worse.

 

[thistle]

One thing to remember is that catechisms are not infallible. They can be changed. Some would argue for the worse.

That is not actually correct.
The CCC per se is not infallible but it contains a summary of the Church’s teachings, both infallible and non-infallible. These teachings cannot be changed.
What can be changed is only disciplines.

 

[lukewberg]

I agree that this is true(ish). Again, from the council of Florence:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that 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 which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

The Church does not say that it knows the status of anyone’s salvation after death, but it certainly lays out what will get you damned… And it appears that the jury might still be out on the “baptized or not” part.

 

[lukewberg]

An excellent reply, thank you! This is what is so frustrating about these things, people either attack finer points and miss the larger point. All of the contradictory or obfuscated teachings that have come about since Vatican II are so maddening! I want to be sure and certain of my faith, and that is difficult when my faith seems to have been made to walk itself back on so many issues.

 

[thistle]

An excellent reply, thank you! This is what is so frustrating about these things, people either attack finer points and miss the larger point. All of the contradictory or obfuscated teachings that have come about since Vatican II are so maddening! I want to be sure and certain of my faith, and that is difficult when my faith seems to have been made to walk itself back on so many issues.

NO TEACHINGS have changed in the past 2000 years!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It should be noted that the Catechism of St Pius X

• was a local catechism, only used in Rome and some parts of Italy
• was never prescribed for use throughout the universal Church
• was never published in English in its original form, so there are many arguments about whether translations of it into English that are available online are actually correct compared to the original Italian. You see these arguments on various forums and websites usually dealing with EENS.

Therefore it’s not that the catechism would be changed going forward, more that it may have been somehow incomplete, misleading or maybe even in error in whatever translation/ version you read.

 

[Elias]

Well I would like to think Jimmy Akin would do his research to keep out error. Besides it wouldn’t really make much sense that Pope Saint Pius X would prescribe the catechism for only a certain people and not teach those people the correct doctrine of the faith which would apply to all Catholics.

 

[lukewberg]

Please know that I am a Catholic, and that I take the “no teachings have been changed” shilling as an offense to my intelligence (as measly as it may be). I am asking questions that pertain to the possibility that a teaching may have been made unclear at best, or changed at worst (which I understand would have larger implications for the validity of the council). I seek and hope that there are answers that will clear this up, but I am open to the possibility that there aren’t any such answers, as any honest person would be.

 

[thistle]

Please know that I am a Catholic, and that I take the “no teachings have been changed” shilling as an offense to my intelligence (as measly as it may be). I am asking questions that pertain to the possibility that a teaching may have been made unclear at best, or changed at worst (which I understand would have larger implications for the validity of the council). I seek and hope that there are answers that will clear this up, but I am open to the possibility that there aren’t any such answers, as any hones person would be.

What is unclear that “God is not bound by his Sacraments”.

No teachings have changed and frankly I see no contradiction in the teachings you started this thread about.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well I would like to think Jimmy Akin would do his research to keep out error. Besides it wouldn’t really make much sense that Pope Saint Pius X would prescribe the catechism for only a certain people and not teach those people the correct doctrine of the faith which would apply to all Catholics.

Jimmy Akin is a human and he is not perfect, nor is he some kind of a translation expert. He’s not even a priest.

And whether you think it makes sense or not, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X was a local catechism, as clearly stated by EWTN. It was the Pope’s partial realization of a teaching textbook for laity. It was not a comprehensive statement of all Church teaching, being very short and not being properly translated nor prescribed as a universal catechism of the Church.

I see it as a first step towards trying to put Church teachings in a form that everyone, including the uneducated (at that time many people in Europe were still illiterate peasants), could understand. I do not see it as encompassing every possible situation or teaching of the Church at that early stage of the Catechism’s development.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

How exactly has the Church teaching that God is not bound by the sacraments changed since Vatican II (or at any time for that matter)? God’s not bound by anything.

The reason for the sacrament of Baptism for babies is so that we here on earth can be assured that God gave the baptized baby his grace. That doesn’t mean that God can’t choose to give his grace to an unbaptized baby, as God can choose to do anything he wants. We just don’t have the assurance of him doing so.

 

[lukewberg]

My questions and uncertainty aren’t to do with the “God is not bound by His Sacraments”, they are expressed in my original post. As I already mentioned, all of your references to the CCC appear to be offset by CCC 1250. The contradictions come from a council’s infallible teaching that infant baptism is the only way to save infants from damnation, which implies that infants do not have a benefit of invincible ignorance. Vatican II says Pagans and other non-Catholics might be eligible to cash in on this alleged invincible ignorance. If one Church Council infallibly states that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved (including infants), how can Vatican II come in and partially nullify this by giving people an invincible ignorance card. It started out with unbaptized children being damned, to unbaptized children being saved. The Church cant have its cake and eat it too.

 

[lukewberg]

I never made that teaching the subject of my question.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Perhaps, but it seems to make your question, as well as all of your complaints about changes post-Vatican II, moot.