Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus , Then Vatican 2?

[XIX]

[quote]"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
--Council of Florence,[/quote]
How does one justify the notion that the Church has not changed her teachings on this matter? Many people believe the Church has changed its stance on this, but I was always under the impression that this and "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" were both infallible.

I know the basic arguments from the Catholic perspective but they don't make a whole lot of sense to me. Just reading it on my own, it looks like the Church had a hardline stance on salvation outside of the Church that was completely airtight. Now, it's more fuzzy. This is a big deal to me because it is hard to justify remaining Catholic if the Church actually changed one of its "infallible" teachings. I'm sure it hasn't, but I would like to understand why.

Edited July 13, 2007 by XIX

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='XIX' post='1327276' date='Jul 13 2007, 02:58 PM']How does one justify the notion that the Church has not changed her teachings on this matter? Many people believe the Church has changed its stance on this, but I was always under the impression that this and "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" were both infallible.

I know the basic arguments from the Catholic perspective but they don't make a whole lot of sense to me. Just reading it on my own, it looks like the Church had a hardline stance on salvation outside of the Church that was completely airtight. Now, it's more fuzzy. This is a big deal to me because it is hard to justify remaining Catholic if the Church actually changed one of its "infallible" teachings. I'm sure it hasn't, but I would like to understand why.[/quote]

Vatican II didn't change that. If you think there is a place where the dogma EENS was denied by V2, quote it exactly and I'm sure it will be very easy to reconcile.

[Moneybags]

Pope Innocent III: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Pope Eugene IV: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Cantate Domino, 1441.)

[Era Might]

The Church has not changed her teaching. The key phrase there is: "...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock." The Church has only made more explicit the truth that non-Catholics may be added to the flock in a manner known to God alone, outside of the normal means of being baptized and received into the Church, if they have not resisted his grace and have lived a moral life. If they have resisted his grace and have not joined the Church after receiving the gift of faith, then they cannot be saved. This was reiterated at the Second Vatican Council:

[quote]This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

...

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. 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.Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

--Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium"[/quote]
The most important point is that we should not presume to know who will be saved. We should always bear witness to the faith that we have received from Christ, and invite all men to the Church. For those who die without becoming Catholic, only God knows their hearts, and he will judge them in mercy and justice. They may be added to the flock before death in a manner known only to God, so we can't say that any particular person is not saved because they weren't formally Catholic. We can only pray for them.

[goldenchild17]

XIX, my explanation for what happened is completely against that of all Phatmass, but if you ever want to discuss it, my email is in my profile. peace

[XIX]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1327415' date='Jul 13 2007, 05:27 PM']Vatican II didn't change that. If you think there is a place where the dogma EENS was denied by V2, quote it exactly and I'm sure it will be very easy to reconcile.[/quote]
That is the point, I am aware that the Vatican didn't contradict EENS and I am just looking for the reconciliations. I don't have exact quotes however.

Edited July 14, 2007 by XIX

[adt6247]

[quote name='XIX' post='1327893' date='Jul 14 2007, 01:55 AM']That is the point, I am aware that the Vatican didn't contradict EENS and I am just looking for the reconciliations. I don't have exact quotes however.[/quote]
Quite frankly, [i]Extra ecclesia nulla salus[/i] has never been contradicted, and can never be. There are ways around what we would normally hold as being part of the church.

1) Invincible ignorance. If one is 100% ignorant of the gospel, yet seeks God, God [i][u][b]may[/b][/u][/i] find a way to grant that person sanctifying grace at the moment of death, thus indoctrinating them into the church.

2) All Christian baptisms in the trinitarian formula are valid, however, and baptisms confer sanctifying grace. The church teaches us that children cannot commit actual sin, therefore, a baptized child prior to the age of reason is a member of the church in that they have been initiated, and have sanctifying grace.

Frankly, we cannot put limits on God's mercy. Anyone in heaven is part of the Church Triumphant by definition. Thus, anyone must die in a state that makes them Catholic in some way. Do I think protestants, in general, go to heaven? Nope. Do I think Jews or athiests or Hindus or Muslims, in general, go to heaven. Nope. Frankly, anyone past the age of reason that has been exposed at all to the the Catholic Church is has a very small chance of going to heaven unless they convert, or make concrete steps toward conversion (which would allow for baptism by desire and perfect contrition).

Finally, Vatican II is a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one. If you were to find any contradictions with the dogma of the church, Vatican II would be overruled, because it made no dogmatic pronouncements. Frankly, in my reading of the documents, I found nothing contradictory with Catholic dogma. This, combined with the commentary I've read from scholars like Diedrich von Hildebrand, leads me to believe Vatican II was free of doctrinal error, even though I disagree with a few of its pastoral assertions.

[journeyman]

Related to this topic is a commentary that hit my inbox today from Catholic Culture . . . which basically suggests you shouldn't confuse the "visible" Church with the "invisible" Church

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=206"]http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/...cles.cfm?id=206[/url]

[goldenchild17]

There's an invisible church?...














ooh nevermind it's not worth it