Vatican II changes things?

[una_fides]

The Church can change many teachings. But…anyway…I think the Magisterium is applying a fuller (and, I’d say, truer) understanding or sense to the oft-quoted “no salvation outside the Church.” This issue has been present through the centuries, not just with Vatican II. Cyprian was not talking about Catholics vs. non-Catholic Christians when he wrote it. Augustine (~150 years later) acknowledged that there are those outside the visible structure of the Church that could be saved, and likewise those within the visible structure who may not be (City of God). And so on…
It’s easier for me to see the connections through the ages when I consider that formulation (no salvation outside Christ).

Thanks for the response(s)–appreciate your thoughtful replies.

Can you please quote from what you think Augustine said that indicates he believes that anyone outside the Church could possibly be saved? Otherwise, I seriously question whether he taught such a thing. I suspect whatever he said was misunderstood, as he clearly taught otherwise elsewhere. He did teach concerning a baptism of desire, meaning that the person who is not yet a part of the Church can be through explicit desire for baptism, but a heretic, schismatic, or anyone else who was not joined to the Church completely through at least desire, it is my understanding from his writings that Augustine taught they were lost.

Here are some examples:

newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm
In Chapter 17, he explains that to those nations, which did not receive the gospel, it is due to God’s predestination as he foreknew they would reject it

Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”[23] papalencyclicals.net/Leo12/l12ubipr.htm

Moreover, St. Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: "Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ."http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16summo.htm

Saint Augustine: “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 the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

 

[una_fides]

If not an oath, then what? The Pope doesn’t have meaning without the foundation of baptism; that is, one has a meanignless statement by saying “pope” withoput reference to to foundational basis of it all - baptism. The whole definition of any and all parts of the Church start with that foundation.

So does "being subject to the Pope have an exclusive and totally encompassing definition? I have not seen one yet; but I would submit that “being subject to” demands as a base the sacrament of baptism; and if those baptized but not catechized as Catholics are members of the Church, but not fully, then by analogy, those baptized are “subject to the Pope” but not fully.

How can someone be "subject to the pope but not yet fully? I understand what you are trying to say, but it seems like you are spinning words here.

Augustine taught the following about the effect of baptism on those who are baptized outside the Church:
“[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so** it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism**; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).

Hence, someone who rejects the authority of the pope, would not be “subject to the pope by his baptism.” He would be in schism until he subjected his will to the authority of the pope.

If the person, however, is invincibly ignorant of being subject to the pope, then he would not necessarily be guilty of the schism. He would, nevertheless, be condemned justly for any mortal sins he has committed for which he would be quite unlikely to have the contrition necessary apart from the grace inside the Church. None of us deserve salvation. Every single one of us deserve to go to hell. We are only saved by grace.

 

[una_fides]

That’s OK because the early Christians didn’t know any of that stuff either. It didn’t exist in apostolic times. If you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, are baptized and repent from all known sin then you know what the first generation of Chrisians knew.

My friend, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Church was entrused with the fullness of truth, the deposit of revelation before the death of the last apostle. Are you trying to say that the Church added to that revelation?? If so, please understand that such thinking is *not *Catholic and is protestant in essence. Either the Church is right or she’s been a lie for 2000 years. Either she is the infallible guardian of the truth, or she is a lie. You can’t have it both ways. You are either in the Church and accept all her teachings, or you are outside. I pray you have not departed as far as these comments make it sound.

 

[una_fides]

The Church has added requirements to salvation that were not there in the beginning such as: submitting to the Pope, 2 infallible declarations about Mary. New converts must accept these and others additions to be Catholic while Catholics who were born into the faith don’t accept the resurrection of Jesus but they think they are saved because they have the other gospel which is: “Become a Catholic and you will be saved.” The apostles converted people to faith in Jesus. The goal of Christianity is to be united to Christ and to have Him live His life in you.

To be in union with Christ is to be a member of his Body, the Church. As Augustine clearly stated, “you can’t have God as Father if you do not have the Church as mother.” The Church is the Bride of Christ. It is the pillar and foundation of truth. And as popes have taught throughout her history, it is of the nature that it must “be on the whole accepted or be on the whole rejected.” You have Christ’s life in you by being a member of his Body, the Church.

The following is an excerpt from the Pope’s message at Vatican City on Nov. 19, 2008. Does he sound protestant also?
zenit.org/article-24302?l=english
“……it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.”

This is the original gospel message.

This statement is taken out of context. The pope is not saying or in any way implying that one need not follow the teachings of the Church or believe them. The comments in context are referring to St. Paul’s teachings in Scripture concerning the gospel not requiring observing the Mosaic law for salvation. If you read it in the context, the correct understanding should become clear. You cannot try to take a vague statement like that to say that one no longer needs to believe in the dogmas defined by the Church or that one need not submit to the pope. You have such obligations. Your profile says you are Catholic and as such you are by no means invincibly ignorant of these facts.

 

[una_fides]

What we seem to have is a series of quotes taken out of context to prove a point - the point being that the statements in the documents of Vatican 2 do not square with prior statements concerning membership in the Church. I would submit that we have just that - statements taken out of context, with a whole lot of discussion outside the stat3ments quoted, that together show that the definitions given are not as exclusive and limiting as they seem to be. Why else would Pope Pius 12th, prior to any thought of Vatican 2, take issue with an exclusive definiton of the prerequisties of salvation - membership in the Catholic Church as a professed Catholic?

Who said that Pius XII “took issue” with the fact that membership in the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation? Have you read any recent popes make statements similar to any of the following from Pope Pius XII?:

Pope Pius XII, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:
The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943:
22.** Actually only** those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, August 12, 1950:
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[11] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. 28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error. newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

Can you please quote from what you think Augustine said that indicates he believes that anyone outside the Church could possibly be saved? Otherwise, I seriously question whether he taught such a thing. I suspect whatever he said was misunderstood, as he clearly taught otherwise elsewhere. He did teach concerning a baptism of desire, meaning that the person who is not yet a part of the Church can be through explicit desire for baptism, but a heretic, schismatic, or anyone else who was not joined to the Church completely through at least desire, it is my understanding from his writings that Augustine taught they were lost.

Here are some examples:

newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm
In Chapter 17, he explains that to those nations, which did not receive the gospel, it is due to God’s predestination as he foreknew they would reject it

Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”[23] papalencyclicals.net/Leo12/l12ubipr.htm

Moreover, St. Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: "Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ."http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16summo.htm

Saint Augustine: “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 the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

I’d recommend the whole work, of course, but at least Books 14, 16, 18, and 22 would likely be most relevant if I had to pick and choose. Enjoy!

 

[una_fides]

Lets try it one more time. I have yet to see (and perhaps you have given it and I overlooked it) a definition of what the term “subject to the Pope” means. If you ahve not given it, then I would suggest that part of the problem is that the definition has not been given in the way you seem to be taking it.

One can define the Church thus: those who have been bapitzed, received first Communion and Confirmation, and profess the Faith.

I actually did respond to that question. Be careful not to overlook things so easily. Here was my first response. And my subsequent response that you will likely find more favorable where I speculate into the realm of what the statement could have meant when taking into account those invincibly ignorant can be found here.
I would suggest, however, not trying to interpret the words “subject to” loosely to try to make them say something the pope never intended by them.
Here is the dictionary definition of the word “subject”:
1**:** one that is placed under authority or control.

The Latin word for subject is “pareo, parere, parui, paritus,” which means “to obey, be subject/obedient to; submit/yield/comply.”

So in place of the word “subject” you could get a better understanding of the scope of the word to understand it also as being obedient to, complying to, and submitting to the authority of the pope. The more I think about it, I understand this statement to be saying that every human creature has such a duty and such obedience and submission is necessary for salvation. So if any human creature were to disobey the pope or refuse submission to him or his rule, then he would be a stranger to salvation since he would be outside the Church. What I’m implying is that the will is still involved and in addition also one’s ignorance if it is invincible could potentially excuse him from such willful submission if he through absolutely no fault of his own could not have known that such submission is required.

 

[una_fides]

** What I find intriguing is that in the past there were many more people who did not know about the teachings of the Church due to poor communication with the outside world. Nevertheless, at those times the Church most vigorously proclaimed that outside of here there is no salvation and that all were bound to join her. Now, with technology so readily available to anyone who wants to learn about Catholicism, very few claim claim ignorance like before. What perplexes me is that now in this environment when the least could be considered invincibly ignorant, the Church softens her message to the point where many are thinking that people of any religion can be saved through simply following the dictates of their conscience. Prior popes have vigorously condemned such teachings in the past, but now, they are spreading everywhere. Again, less and less people have the excuse that they have no means of knowing. All they have to do is go to www.catholic.com or type in “What does the Catholic Church teach” or “Catholic Church” into Google and read what pops up. If they were truly humble, open to grace, and begged light from heaven, I believe that there can be no doubt that such people would become Catholic.**

 

[una_fides]

I’d recommend the whole work, of course, but at least Books 14, 16, 18, and 22 would likely be most relevant if I had to pick and choose. Enjoy!

Again, can you quote from them to back up your assertions? Can you even paraphrase what you remember reading them saying? Can you with absolute certainty say that you are properly understanding what you think Augustine is teaching on that matter? If you answer no to any or all of those questions, then I would suggest holding off on claiming that Augustine taught that those who did not at least have an explicit desire for baptism (catechumens) could be saved, especially in light of the quotes I provided above. Sound fair?

 

[diggerdomer]

** What I find intriguing is that in the past there were many more people who did not know about the teachings of the Church due to poor communication with the outside world. Nevertheless, at those times the Church most vigorously proclaimed that outside of here there is no salvation and that all were bound to join her. Now, with technology so readily available to anyone who wants to learn about Catholicism, very few claim claim ignorance like before. What perplexes me is that now in this environment when the least could be considered invincibly ignorant, the Church softens her message to the point where many are thinking that people of any religion can be saved through simply following the dictates of their conscience. Prior popes have vigorously condemned such teachings in the past, but now, they are spreading everywhere. Again, less and less people have the excuse that they have no means of knowing. All they have to do is go to www.catholic.com** or type in “What does the Catholic Church teach” or “Catholic Church” into Google and read what pops up. If they were truly humble, open to grace, and begged light from heaven, I believe that there can be no doubt that such people would become Catholic.

I think you’re conflating or confusing different types of “knowledge.”

I “know” there’s a place called Hawaii. I’ve read about it, seen it depicted on TV, and so on. But, I’ve never been there. I’ve never lived there. I’ve never gotten to “know” (really, intimately) the people there. If it turns out it doesn’t really exist…oh well I have been misinformed and nothing else.

So, too, I can “know” about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, you name it. Just “knowing” in no way necessarily compels me to faith.

My Christian faith comes from knowing and having known…experienced, lived, intimately, personally, wholly and not just intellectually…Jesus Christ. That’s a different order of “knowing”–one that cannot (usually) be picked up or experienced from a book or the Internet or any other objective singular source as can knowledge of e.g. Hawaii.

Simply having information about Catholicism (or any religion/faith) more widely available does not, in my mind, make it any more likely that people would convert to Catholicism. The “knowledge” that pertains to faith is, primarily, imho, not so much “book knowledge” as “personal acquaintance.”

 

[una_fides]

I think you’re conflating or confusing different types of “knowledge.”

I “know” there’s a place called Hawaii. I’ve read about it, seen it depicted on TV, and so on. But, I’ve never been there. I’ve never lived there. I’ve never gotten to “know” (really, intimately) the people there. If it turns out it doesn’t really exist…oh well I have been misinformed and nothing else.

So, too, I can “know” about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, you name it. Just “knowing” in no way necessarily compels me to faith.

My Christian faith comes from knowing and having known…experienced, lived, intimately, personally, wholly and not just intellectually…Jesus Christ. That’s a different order of “knowing”–one that cannot (usually) be picked up or experienced from a book or the Internet or any other objective singular source as can knowledge of e.g. Hawaii.

Simply having information about Catholicism (or any religion/faith) more widely available does not, in my mind, make it any more likely that people would convert to Catholicism. The “knowledge” that pertains to faith is, primarily, imho, not so much “book knowledge” as “personal acquaintance.”

I am a convert to Catholicism. I came to believe in all the teachings of the Catholic faith through my research and prayer without ever even talking to a Catholic about it. I think you are confusing knowledge and faith with experience. One can have faith in a true doctrine without “experiencing it.” How do you “experience” the immaculate conception? The Virgin Birth? The Assumption? etc… Yes, in the Catholic Church we do experience God directly through the sacraments, but that experience is not the same thing as our faith. You can’t just take someone and put them in a confessional and ipso facto they will be converted. They must first believe in the sacrament and have entered into the Church. The same thing goes with adult baptism. If you baptize an unbeliever, his baptism will profit him nothing until he has supernatural faith. He would have recieved the sacrament, but would not have yet received its fruits until he had divine faith (assuming that the person was capable of having such faith. Infants for example are another story as they have not yet the capacity for faith and the faith of the Church for them suffices.)

If you think you’ve been duped about Hawaii, then you have a problem. Furthermore, Christ did not promise us “feelings.” He did promise that if we have faith we will be saved. Faith not based or grounded in experience but is based soley in Christ. The Scripture says “Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of Christ.”

Neither knowledge nor experience “compels one to faith.” It is only the grace of God, which leads us to faith. God’s grace works through us being open to the gospel, which we receive through hearing/reading, then understanding, then believing, then finally experiencing.

Hope this helps.

 

[una_fides]

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

1. “You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity.”

 

[diggerdomer]

I am a convert to Catholicism. I came to believe in all the teachings of the Catholic faith through my research and prayer without ever even talking to a Catholic about it. I think you are confusing knowledge and faith with experience. One can have faith in a true doctrine without “experiencing it.” How do you “experience” the immaculate conception? The Virgin Birth? The Assumption? etc… Yes, in the Catholic Church we do experience God directly through the sacraments, but that experience is not the same thing as our faith. You can’t just take someone and put them in a confessional and ipso facto they will be converted. They must first believe in the sacrament and have entered into the Church. The same thing goes with adult baptism. If you baptize an unbeliever, his baptism will profit him nothing until he has supernatural faith. He would have recieved the sacrament, but would not have yet received its fruits until he had divine faith (assuming that the person was capable of having such faith. Infants for example are another story as they have not yet the capacity for faith and the faith of the Church for them suffices.)

If you think you’ve been duped about Hawaii, then you have a problem. Furthermore, Christ did not promise us “feelings.” He did promise that if we have faith we will be saved. Faith not based or grounded in experience but is based soley in Christ. The Scripture says “Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of Christ.”

Neither knowledge nor experience “compels one to faith.” It is only the grace of God, which leads us to faith. God’s grace works through us being open to the gospel, which we receive through hearing/reading, then understanding, then believing, then finally experiencing.

Hope this helps.

How can faith be based solely in Christ without an experience of Christ?

To me that makes no sense.

 

[una_fides]

How can faith be based solely in Christ without an experience of Christ?

To me that makes no sense.

John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said: Peace be to you. 27 Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.

Those who are open to the truth but have not yet believed do experience Christ but perhaps in a different sense that what you may have initially thought. They “experience Christ” through his promptings of grace that lead them to accept the gospel message and lead them to faith. I am speaking in regards to adult converts, which would be people who would be looking online and discovering the teachings of the Church. God’s grace will lead them to accept. In the case of infants, however, that are blessed to receive the grace of baptism, their experience of the life and grace of Christ would then precede their knowledge and personal faith.

 

[ron77nyc]

I wasn’t taught the lists of what’s in a moral sin, venial sin, grave sin, etc.
I wasn’t taught the Act of Contrition
I wasn’t taught all the required prayers for saying the Rosary.
I don’t know the order of Angels and Saints and Martyrs.
I didn’t know there are 21 tracts to the Mass until I attended a music course in a United Church of Christ college.
I wasn’t taught about the different kinds of priests, nuns, sisters, brothers, monks, etc.

That’s OK because the early Christians didn’t know any of that stuff either. It didn’t exist in apostolic times. If you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, are baptized and repent from all known sin then you know what the first generation of Chrisians knew.

My friend, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Church was entrused with the fullness of truth, the deposit of revelation before the death of the last apostle. Are you trying to say that the Church added to that revelation?? If so, please understand that such thinking is *not *Catholic and is protestant in essence. Either the Church is right or she’s been a lie for 2000 years. Either she is the infallible guardian of the truth, or she is a lie. You can’t have it both ways. You are either in the Church and accept all her teachings, or you are outside. I pray you have not departed as far as these comments make it sound.

Are you saying that the early Christians (first 100 years) were taught everything mentioned above by kprobson? Did they have nuns,brothers, monks, priestly celibacy, the rosary and mass on Sunday in a Roman Catholic Church? Do you think they would qualify as being Catholic by what we know today about being Catholic?

 

[ron77nyc]

Therefore, those before V2 “lacked something” that IYO V2 later revealed. The problem with that opinion, as I pointed out, is that popes made infallible declarations and Councils have ruled infallibly that those outside the Church (heretics, schismatics, Jews, pagans, Muslims, etc) cannot inherit eternal life unless they come into full communion with the Catholic Church before death. The constant teaching of the Church to me seems quite clear on this matter. It seems, however, that the modern Church is trying to redefine these matters giving them a different sense than how the Church understood them previously. I am trying to reconcile the two, and so far, no one has come close to doing so on here.

I disagree that such teachings were taught infallibly. I don’t think it’s clear to me that the Church considers them as having been taught infallibly

If this teaching is not infallible I don’t know what is. Look at these words:

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): "The most Holy Roman Church 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;

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims…This is the classic definition and perfect textbook example of infallible.

 

[diggerdomer]

If this teaching is not infallible I don’t know what is.

I’m open to the possibility (particularly as I’ve already admitted I don’t know for sure if the Church teaching at Florence is considered by the Church to have been taught infallibly).

Look at these words, Catechism para 846 ff. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

To me, that’s not saying the same thing as the Council of Florence. Isn’t it saying the salvation is possible for those not part of the Church? If you think it is can you help me understand? If you think it’s not…then is the Church wrong?

 

[otjm]

Papal authority extends to the authority of all those who are members of the Church, and the Church previously understood that full membership in the Church was absolutely necessary for salvation. Here is a quote from Pope Pius XI subsequent to Pope Boniface’s infallible definition that explains that membership in the Church is contingent on not only obedience but also recognition of the authority of the pope:

Pope Boniface, Mortalium Animos, Jan 6, 1928:
“11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”

That is essentially non-responsive to the question. Given that Pius 12th pulled Father Feeney’s chain prior to Vatican 2 even being a wild thought, it should be clear that the Church did not hold to Feeney’s position that one had to be a visible memeber of the Church.

Therefore, the question stands: how has the Church officially defined the terms “subject to” the pope as per your quote that people had to be subject to him.
Your number 11 has to do with people who are already Catholics, and rebel; it does not answer the question of those who may be members through baptism and nothing more directly distinct.

 

[ron77nyc]

I’m open to the possibility (particularly as I’ve already admitted I don’t know for sure if the Church teaching at Florence is considered by the Church to have been taught infallibly).

Look at these words, Catechism para 846 ff. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

To me, that’s not saying the same thing as the Council of Florence. Isn’t it saying the salvation is possible for those not part of the Church? If you think it is can you help me understand? If you think it’s not…then is the Church wrong?

I agree. The catechism contradicts the Council of Florence.

This is only my opinion. You, I, the Church and all sincere Christians all struggle with the subject of who will go to heaven and who will not. I believe that the Popes did what was right for the circumstances at the time with the information they had. Infants who were not baptized were placed in limbo. Victims of suicide were condemned to hell. Anyone who left the Church had to come back or go to hell. All these hard line judgements changed and the Church has become more merciful. That is a work of God in all of us. He desires mercy.

Was the Church wrong? I think so. If you claim infallibility then you can’t change your position. I think they are wrong for claiming to be infallible. Someone started that in the 1800’s and now every Pope has to live up to it. As I stated before it’s only my opinion. I’m not the Pope.

 

[pnewton]

If you claim infallibility then you can’t change your position. I think they are wrong for claiming to be infallible. Someone started that in the 1800’s and now every Pope has to live up to it. As I stated before it’s only my opinion. I’m not the Pope.

This is not Catholic doctrine. In fact, you are rejecting defined dogma. I notice you claim to be Catholic. I have never met one a Catholic in person that rejects dogma of the Church, although I have heard of such people. I only say this is so no one gets the idea that your position is an acceptable postition for a Catholic.