"no salvation except that within the Church"

[Genesis315]

The Old Testament situation was different from the New era after Christ. Some writers like Fr. Brian Harrison believe that one must have explicit faith in order to be saved…This interpretation is valid. Its really a theological oddity of a debate though. Its really about WHEN a person receives sanctifying grace.

This is an interesting point that one of Harrison’s articles made me re-consider and do more research on. In that article, he notes that the only Magisterial text that may be read as saying faith in Jesus is not necessary is a line in St. John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio, even though even that line does not technically say that.

What I found, however, is that St. John Paul II himself actually later clarified that very line to rule out an interpretation that did not require faith in Jesus (my emphasis):
St. John Paul II:

However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited “to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: “Many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions” (RM 10).

We must acknowledge that, as far as human beings can know and foresee, this practical impossibility would seem destined to last a long time, perhaps until the work of evangelization is finally completed. Jesus himself warned that only the Father knows “the exact time” set by him for the establishment of his kingdom in the world (cf. Acts 1:7).

What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.” As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7).

Unfortunately, the link to the English version of this audience on the Vatican website doesn’t seem to working (the other languages do work), but here it is in English on another website:
catechism.cc/articles/All-Salvation-Comes-through-Christ.htm

The Catechism says the same thing in very absolute terms:

CCC:

The necessity of faith

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"43

Even in the passages posted earlier, CCC 848 notes that it is ultimately by leading such individuals to faith that they are saved. In fact, it seems that is by following an upright conscience that one cooperates with grace and comes to faith.

Here’s how St. Robert Bellarmine explained how this happens, arguing against the heretics who said God does not provide for the salvation of all men and unevangelized people were proof of that.
St. Robert Bellarmine:

This argument only proves that not all people receive the help they need to believe and be converted immediately. It does not, however, prove that some people are deprived, absolutely speaking, of sufficient help for salvation. For the pagans to whom the Gospel has not yet been preached, can know from His creatures that God exists; then they can be stimulated by God, through His preventing grace, to believe in God, that He exists and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him: and from such faith, they can be inspired, under the guidance and help of God, to pray and give alms and in this way obtain from God a still greater light of faith, which God will communicate to them, either by Himself or through angels or through men.

Pope Francis taught the same thing in his first encyclical:
Pope Francis:

Because faith is a way, it also has to do with the lives of those men and women who, though not believers, nonetheless desire to believe and continue to seek. To the extent that they are sincerely open to love and set out with whatever light they can find, they are already, even without knowing it, on the path leading to faith.

But as you mention, the main point is that God offers the means of salvation to all men in some way or another, whatever those means may be–everyone should agree on that.

 

[dmar198]

This is an interesting point that one of Harrison’s articles made me re-consider and do more research on. In that article, he notes that the only Magisterial text that may be read as saying faith in Jesus is not necessary is a line in St. John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio, even though even that line does not technically say that.

What I found, however, is that St. John Paul II himself actually later clarified that very line to rule out an interpretation that did not require faith in Jesus (my emphasis):
St. John Paul II:

However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited “to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: “Many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions” (RM 10).

We must acknowledge that, as far as human beings can know and foresee, this practical impossibility would seem destined to last a long time, perhaps until the work of evangelization is finally completed. Jesus himself warned that only the Father knows “the exact time” set by him for the establishment of his kingdom in the world (cf. Acts 1:7).

What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea.

That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.” As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, **we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7).**Unfortunately, the link to the English version of this audience on the Vatican website doesn’t seem to working (the other languages do work), but here it is in English on another website:
catechism.cc/articles/All-Salvation-Comes-through-Christ.htm

The Catechism says the same thing in very absolute terms:

CCC:

The necessity of faith

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"43

Even in the passages posted earlier, CCC 848 notes that it is ultimately by leading such individuals to faith that they are saved. In fact, it seems that is by following an upright conscience that one cooperates with grace and comes to faith.

Here’s how St. Robert Bellarmine explained how this happens, arguing against the heretics who said God does not provide for the salvation of all men and unevangelized people were proof of that.
St. Robert Bellarmine:

This argument only proves that not all people receive the help they need to believe and be converted immediately. It does not, however, prove that some people are deprived, absolutely speaking, of sufficient help for salvation. For the pagans to whom the Gospel has not yet been preached, can know from His creatures that God exists; then they can be stimulated by God, through His preventing grace, to believe in God, that He exists and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him: and from such faith, they can be inspired, under the guidance and help of God, to pray and give alms and in this way obtain from God a still greater light of faith, which God will communicate to them, either by Himself or through angels or through men.

Pope Francis taught the same thing in his first encyclical:
Pope Francis:

Because faith is a way, it also has to do with the lives of those men and women who, though not believers, nonetheless desire to believe and continue to seek. To the extent that they are sincerely open to love and set out with whatever light they can find, they are already, even without knowing it, on the path leading to faith.

But as you mention, the main point is that God offers the means of salvation to all men in some way or another, whatever those means may be–everyone should agree on that.

+1 on this post. Thank you for this important contribution to this thread.

May I ask: where did you find that snippet from St. Robert Bellarmine?

 

[Genesis315]

+1 on this post. Thank you for this important contribution to this thread.

May I ask: where did you find that snippet from St. Robert Bellarmine?

I first came across it in Fr. Hardon’s study on Bellarmine’s treatment of good faith non-Catholics’ relationship to the Church (I think this may have actually been his dissertation):

alcazar.net/StRobertBellarmine_EENS.html

The best way to find it is to look for footnote 54 in the text.

Footnote 54 has the original Latin and citation and 55 has some additional discussion. By the way, the whole thing is an interesting read.

 

[dmar198]

I first came across it in Fr. Hardon’s study on Bellarmine’s treatment of good faith non-Catholics’ relationship to the Church (I think this may have actually been his dissertation):

alcazar.net/StRobertBellarmine_EENS.html

The best way to find it is to look for footnote 54 in the text.

Footnote 54 has the original Latin and citation and 55 has some additional discussion. By the way, the whole thing is an interesting read.

Yes, now that I’ve found Fr. Hardon’s discussion I’ve taken some selections for other purposes as well. Thank you.

 

[thinkandmull]

Did you find Fr. Harrison’s articles by searching google?

I think the Church has been, maybe on purpose, ambiguous on this issue. Faith is necessary, but what of implicit faith? Water baptism is necessary, but as a precept or a means? Does it matter if dying people are bilocated and baptized with water by a priest? Does it matter if non-Christians can be in a state of grace now or if they must wait, maybe until death’s hour, till they believe in the truths of the Faith? How many of these truths are necessary?

The Church has said. I had a blog debate on this issue saved on the computer once, but I don’t anymore. The basic line was we can interpret documents either way

 

[DavidFilmer]

How many of these truths are necessary?

No truths are necessary for Baptism. Even heretics can validly Baptize. These are people who reject truths (or hold false ideas) and, presumably, teach these errors to those they Baptize. Doesn’t matter. Beliefs or truths are not required for valid Christian Baptism.

The valid subject (recipient) of Baptism is any unbaptized person. Not an unbaptized person who believes this or that.

 

[Genesis315]

Did you find Fr. Harrison’s articles by searching google?

I think the Church has been, maybe on purpose, ambiguous on this issue. Faith is necessary, but what of implicit faith? Water baptism is necessary, but as a precept or a means? Does it matter if dying people are bilocated and baptized with water by a priest? Does it matter if non-Christians can be in a state of grace now or if they must wait, maybe until death’s hour, till they believe in the truths of the Faith? How many of these truths are necessary?

The Church has said. I had a blog debate on this issue saved on the computer once, but I don’t anymore. The basic line was we can interpret documents either way

I think I read Fr. Harrison’s article on the Roman Theological Forum webpage. As for what truths are absolutely necessary, from what I’ve seen, the theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas who argue the point say what is necessary is to believe in at least the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. Implicit faith could cover the rest.

 

[thinkandmull]

No truths are necessary for Baptism. Even heretics can validly Baptize. These are people who reject truths (or hold false ideas) and, presumably, teach these errors to those they Baptize. Doesn’t matter. Beliefs or truths are not required for valid Christian Baptism.

The valid subject (recipient) of Baptism is any unbaptized person. Not an unbaptized person who believes this or that.

You have to believe something in order to be baptized:

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4):
“… confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of MEANS know to be SAVED…”

 

[DavidFilmer]

You have to believe something in order to be baptized:

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4):
“… confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of MEANS know to be SAVED…”

This document is instruction on catechesis. Obviously the ordinary and preferred manner to receive adult converts is proper catechesis and formation. But it is not necessary for the validity of Baptism, and any non-Baptized consenting adult is eligible for Baptism (in an extraordinary circumstance).

And, in an extraordinary circumstance, even non-Christian laypeople may act as a valid minister of Baptism, provided s/he uses water, the Trinitarian form, and intends to do what the Church does (even if s/he doesn’t have any idea what that is). Pagans, Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists, and Jews can be valid ministers of Christian Baptism. Beliefs are not required of either the minister or the recipient (in an extraordinary circumstance).

 

[thinkandmull]

We are not talking about the minister of the sacrament, but the receiver. Benedict XVI said “know what he must by necessity of MEANS know to be saved”

Perhaps this only refers to receiving sacrament, as opposed to baptism of desire or blood. But it still shows that something is required in order to receive a sacrament. He doesn’t specify what doctrines though, and what doctrines for what sacraments

 

[DavidFilmer]

We are not talking about the minister of the sacrament, but the receiver. Benedict XVI said “know what he must by necessity of MEANS know to be saved”

This is a document on catechesis, not on Baptism.

Of course the ordinary means of receiving adult converts is catechesis.

But it’s not the ONLY way to receive adult converts. A non-believer may request and receive Baptism on his deathbed, without ever learning a single thing about Catholic doctrine. The Sacrament is perfectly valid (and even licit).

This is called an extraordinary (ie, not ordinary) circumstance. Most Sacraments have both ordinary and extraordinary aspects.

 

[thinkandmull]

Benedict XIV “know what he must by necessity of MEANS know to be saved”

 

[DavidFilmer]

Benedict XIV “know what he must by necessity of MEANS know to be saved”

OK, now you’re just acting like a troll.

Are you telling me that you believe that a deathbed Baptism of a person who knows absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine is not a valid Baptism?

Yes or no.

Are you telling me that the Baptism of an infant, who knows absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine is not a valid Baptism?

Yes or no.

 

[bjryman]

OK, now you’re just acting like a troll.

Are you telling me that you believe that a deathbed Baptism of a person who knows absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine is not a valid Baptism?

Yes or no.

Are you telling me that the Baptism of an infant, who knows absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine is not a valid Baptism?

Yes or no.

This is why I get so frustrated with all the little details our Catholic Church develops to try and answer every nuance of all questions regarding the mystical Body of Christ. There are things we just can not know. What we should be able to agree on though, is that anyone who accepts Christ as their Savior, repents, accepts penance, will receive forgiveness…from Christ … period. It matters not in that very narrow framework what outward signs are used to manifest the inward conversion. Thus, all the talk about who can administer Baptism which includes acceptance of foregiveness.

The above covers adults. The baby issue will never be known to us here and the whole idea of Baptism of babies arose as yet another attempt for CC to “fill a gap” in the perfect way of delivering the Truth. In the end, the Church Hopes and Trusts in the benevolence of almighty God that the unborn, and those babies who cannot yet commit, will all be accepted into heaven. Actually, that same goes for babies who die before being baptized.

Our tradition teaches that entire families were Baptized by John and then the Apostles in the early Church. One must conclude therefore, that entire families included under age children…even babies. That conclusion then leads to another that sets the parents up as committing their babies to the Faith at the time of Baptism. Sometime thereafter, it would be natural to assume that as the child matures to adulthood, that a Confirmation of the Baptism would occur.

As I previously stated, we’ll know the answers when we reach paradise. Until then, we can hope.

 

[Genesis315]

OK, now you’re just acting like a troll.

Are you telling me that you believe that a deathbed Baptism of a person who knows absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine is not a valid Baptism?

Yes or no.

Are you telling me that the Baptism of an infant, who knows absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine is not a valid Baptism?

Yes or no.

The Church requires some belief in the truths of faith (usually the Apostle’s Creed):
Canon Law:

Canon 865 §2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

For infants and those without reason, this is done by proxy by their parents or the Church in general.

 

[steve_b]

This is something that I have always had a terrible time with. The, “Christ is the only way” statement. First I’ll tell you what I believe and why I believe it, and then I would be interested to hear your views on the matter.

My opinion. I am a serious Christian, don’t let my “religion” listed on my profile confuse you. I may have a lot of confusion regarding the branches of Christiantity, but to me, Christ is the way to salvation. But I also believe that a Muslim can make it into Heaven, provided he is a great and loving person who loves all around him, including his God. I believe that if he makes it to Heaven, that he will make it there because Christ (through His death and resurrection) has made that possible for Him. Now, “no way but through Christ” could mean a number of things (to me). He could work things out after his death, maybe a purgatory type deal etc, I don’t know.

I also believe that people who were born before Christ can also make it into Heaven. This is a real tough reality here guys, for those of you who believe that you must be a professed Christian to make it into Heaven. In order to take a real stance on this doctorine you have to be ready to admit that all of the human beings who were born before Christ were created, born, and made to go to Hell. Essentially predestined. There is no way around it. They had no opportunity to know Christ ON EARTH DURING THEIR MORTAL STATE.

Ive actually heard some people remedy this by saying something like, “well, he made a special provision for those people.” Well great, I agree. But then you are saying that God, apparently, makes special provisions to the “must be a Christian” rule. If you believe that He has made this ruling in the past, why are you certain He no longer does?

Even today, there are groups of people on this Earth who have never even heard of Jesus. I absolutely cannot believe that our Lord would create people and totally leave them out there cut and dry with no opportunity whatsoever for salvation, and that despite how wonderful they be, they are simply going to hell.

I would love to hear your opinions on the matter, and your opinions on my opinions. Thanks!

As simple as I can say it,

• “can be saved” ≠ will be saved.
• Jesus didn’t do what HE did so that we can do whatever we want, believe in whatever we want to believe in, and be saved.

IMV, This statement by Jesus cuts to the chase.

Mt 7: 3 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a (Matthew 7:12-14 RSVCE - So whatever you wish that men would do - Bible Gateway)* that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Jesus]*

So the question is, define

that road and that gate that is narrow and leads to heaven that only a few are on as opposed to everyone else who is on the wrong road to hell

 

[thinkandmull]

OK, now you’re just acting like a troll.

Are you telling me that you believe that a deathbed Baptism of a person who knows absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine is not a valid Baptism?

Yes or no.

Are you telling me that the Baptism of an infant, who knows absolutely nothing about Catholic doctrine is not a valid Baptism?

Yes or no.

I was quoting Benedict XIV. Maybe you were confused what “necessity of means” means? Catechesis is for Catholics to “know what he must by necessity of MEANS know to be saved”. Now one can understand this as not to exclude baptism of desire with implicit faith, but then at least it means that there is a necessity of means for those receiving extra divine help by the power of the sacraments.

I think there is an absence of Church doctrine here. Aquinas thought that matters of faith could not be proven, so he felt that you couldn’t prove that the world had a beginning. But then does that mean we can’t prove the resurrection of the body as a necessary corollary to the immortality of the soul?

 

[Vouthon]

Allow me to add another couple of quotes.

The first is from Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), Jesuit, Theological Professor,and a Cardinal writing in Rome under the eyes of Pope Urban VIII:

“…the members of the various Christian sects, of the Jewish and Mohammedan communions, and of the non-Christian philosophies, who achieved and achieve their salvation, do so simply by God’s grace aiding their good faith instinctively to concentrate itself upon, and to practise, those elements in the cultus and teaching of their respective sect, communion or philosophy, which are true and good and originally revealed by God…”

-Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), De Fide, Disputations

“…It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine relating to sects outside the bosom of the Church. We are persuaded that all of those who with sincerity remain in their errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation . . . are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine…”

- Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier, (1715 – 1790), celebrated French Catholic theologian

As you can see, this is no ‘new’ teaching. Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX, despite condemning so-called “innovations” in church doctrine (including ecumenism and interfaith outreach to other religions), held to the traditional church doctrine on non-believers and salvation:

"…There are three ways of receiving baptism: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"

- (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)

There can be no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Yet this does not mean that everyone outside it (bodily) is “lost”. On the contrary, there are some within the Church bodily who are not of her spiritually, while there are some outside her bodily who are within her spiritually.

The official name for this doctrine is “baptism by implicit desire”, in other words possessing a pure heart whereby one faithfully adheres to the dictates of their conscience and the will of God as far as they themselves, or their religion (if they have one) implores them, and so attains to salvation because if they were fully exposed to or aware of the necessity of actual baptism (or fullness of faith) they would seek it:

“…But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of the principle, “condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics”? This is by no means the case. The foolish unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma. The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church, but to God, Who alone can scrutinize the conscience. The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons, who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one’s own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person…She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church…The gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven…
. . . As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull “Unigenitus” the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel: . . . no grace is given outside the Church. . . just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: . . . (Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ). . . The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven…””

• The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910)
  Vol. 14, TOLERATION

Nothing was invented at Vatican II. The codeword for the council was actually Resourcement (return to the sources), namely the Patristics.

 

[Vouthon]

Another germane quotation from Cardinal De Lugo, responding to objections to baptism by implicit desire based on a faulty reading of Unam Sanctam:

“…It would follow that a Jew or other non-Christian could be saved; for he could have a supernatural faith in the one God, and be invincibly ignorant about Christ…The possibility of salvation for such a person is not ruled out…moreover, such a person should not be called a ‘non-Christian’, because, even through he has not been visibly joined to the church, still, interiorly he has the virtue of habitual and actual faith in common with the church, and in the sight of God he will be reckoned with the Christians…”

- Cardinal Juan de Lugo (1583-1660), De Libro hominis arbitrio et divina libri X

These theological arguments are very old. Anyone who thinks that the Council Fathers at Vatican II or some hippy-clappy, modernist theologian dreamed them ought to do some more study (a gentle nudge…).

St. Pope John Paul’s statements in various encyclicals in the '80s are practically lifted, almost verbatim, from Cardinal De Lugo thoughts and ideas in the 16th-17th centuries.

 

[steve_b]

Allow me to add another couple of quotes.

The first is from Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), Jesuit, Theological Professor,and a Cardinal writing in Rome under the eyes of Pope Urban VIII:
“…the members of the various Christian sects, of the Jewish and Mohammedan communions, and of the non-Christian philosophies, who achieved and achieve their salvation, do so simply by God’s grace aiding their good faith instinctively to concentrate itself upon, and to practise, those elements in the cultus and teaching of their respective sect, communion or philosophy, which are true and good and originally revealed by God…”

-Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), De Fide, Disputations
“…It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine relating to sects outside the bosom of the Church. We are persuaded that all of those who with sincerity remain in their errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation . . . are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine…”

• Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier, (1715 – 1790), celebrated French Catholic theologian
  As you can see, this is no ‘new’ teaching. Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX, despite condemning so-called “innovations” in church doctrine (including ecumenism and interfaith outreach to other religions), held to the traditional church doctrine on non-believers and salvation:
  "…There are three ways of receiving baptism: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"

• (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
  There can be no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Yet this does not mean that everyone outside it (bodily) is “lost”. On the contrary, there are some within the Church bodily who are not of her spiritually, while there are some outside her bodily who are within her spiritually.
  
  The official name for this doctrine is “baptism by implicit desire”, in other words possessing a pure heart whereby one faithfully adheres to the dictates of their conscience and the will of God as far as they themselves, or their religion (if they have one) implores them, and so attains to salvation because if they were fully exposed to or aware of the necessity of actual baptism (or fullness of faith) they would seek it:
  “…But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of the principle, “condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics”? This is by no means the case. The foolish unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma. The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church, but to God, Who alone can scrutinize the conscience. The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons, who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one’s own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person…She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church…The gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches thehearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven…
  . . . As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull “Unigenitus” the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel: . . . no grace is given outside the Church. . . just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: . . . (Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ). . . The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven…””
• The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910)
  Vol. 14, TOLERATION
  Nothing was invented at Vatican II. The codeword for the council was actually Resourcement (return to the sources), namely the Patristics.

846 “… 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.”