There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. V2 changed that.
And again: no, it did not. It's still just as true today as it was when the Church was founded, roughly 2000 years ago.
First off, the CCC still reiterates [the "extra Ecclesia nulla salue" dogma] but then adds this addendum....
Those "addenda" were known for centuries. More, below.
And there there are several proclamations, some ex cathedra, which also state that
Right... because the dogma is true and irreformable in its essence. Admitting of specifics when APPLYING the principle is something which we all have to encounter, even for "sola Scriptura" adherents (e.g. when Jesus says that "he who endures to the end will be saved", He doesn't just mean "physical survival": He means all the many things which have been revealed by Him on virtually every page of Scripture (e.g. love God and neighbor, care for the needy, forgive others, etc.). A minimalist, reductionist (i.e. "it's nothing more than [x]!") approach to ANY of the Scriptures, or most anything else, is a terrible mistake... and the Church knows that, and She has that in mind when teaching ANYTHING.
and/ but now, that changed with V2
What do you mean by "that"? If you mean that the details and qualifiers which were always true are now much more heavily emphasized, then yes... I agree. If you mean that the core dogma (that, outside of the Church, there is no salvation) is now void, then no... that's not the case, at all.
and your current pope who seems to think that even atheists can be saved.
Two replies to that:
1) It's theoretically possible that an individual atheist, whose lack of faith is attributable to continuous bad example (and lack of good example), bad training (I think of youth who grew up during the French revolution, or in modern North Korea, etc.), etc., might avoid hell by virtue of what the Church calls (and has called, for centuries) "invincible ignorance".
2) Don't get me started, re: the Pope's "airplane interviews"! Suffice it to say that no interview with a reporter will ever define any dogma; that's just not how irreformable teaching is promulgated. It's how a good deal of mischief is spread, but that's another matter. (*sigh*)
[numerous quotes form various Catholic sources, re: extra Ecclesia nulla salus]
Every last person in that list was aware of the basic definition of sin (i.e. a sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently free choice to do something morally wrong), and the conditions for damnation (dying in a state of mortal sin--i.e. outside of a state of sanctifying grace); every last person was also aware of the fact that God does not require that which is truly impossible (e.g. knowledge of Jesus required from someone who'd never had the Gospel shown or preached to him, etc.). Thus, every last person on the list knew that the absolute dogma of "extra Ecclesia nulla salus" admitted of those who were saved through the agency of the Church (by cooperating sufficiently well with what they had--i.e. the natural law), but were unaware of that fact. Just for a few examples (of many), let me highlight the writing of Blessed Pope Pius IX, whom you quoted at least four times:
It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.
Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7; August 10, 1863
Do you see my point? The person whom you cited most often for your idea turns out to "flesh out" the doctrine so as to include the very "exception" (more accurately, clarification of the full definition) which you hoped to knock down! Other examples abound; St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, explicitly described the principle of invincible ignorance (i.e. the teaching that those who, through no fault of their own, were not exposed to any credible portrayal of the Gospel, and who were not baptized and made Christians, may still attain salvation through sufficient adherence to what they had--i.e. the natural law; see
St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, I-II, 76).
Does that clarify?
Here’s a sort of general question, bouncing off the conversation I’m having with metmom:
Does anyone on this forum subscribe to the belief that “unevangelized adults go to hell when they die” (since they never accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, etc.)?
I’m not talking about the stubborn modern who heard a credible presentation of the Gospel, and rejected it in favor of his current lifestyle (that’s a separate issue); I mean a hypothetical “true pagan” who’s never heard “word one” of the Gospel, due either to living in some aboriginal backwater or to living in a post-Christian country or area (I think of several places in Europe which would qualify). If such people die, would they be damned to hell for not being Christian, in your view?