You say that but there is a written historical record of your popes denying any such thing...
At some point in time you guys have to reconcile these two opposing positions in regard to your dogma because you come off looking pretty goofy otherwise...
Your popes have on countless occasions claimed that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church...
There isn't. Period. Full stop.
There is no Baptist church in heaven, no Presbyterian church in heaven, no SDA church in heaven. There is one, universal church in heaven. If you say it in Greek, it's "katolikos", "catholic".
The relationship of that church to the organization with offices on Vatican hill in Rome is something to debate, but not the proposition that there is no salvation outside the universal church, the ekklesia katolika, founded by Christ.
If you are to be saved (and I hope you are), you will be incorporated into the Catholic church somehow. It may happen in some mysterious way that only God understands and that I couldn't explain to you if I tried, but it will happen.
And if I'm wrong and I still need to be, I hope God gives me that grace also.
I need some help here. This question has been discussed many times on FR over the years. References to what "outside the Catholic Church" means, references to passages in the Catechism, discussion of to how and to what extent "original intent" is determinative in papal declarations ... all these have been discussed over and over again.
Furthermore we have spoken about the informal use of language when talking about who is in and who is not in the Catholic Church. I must have said fifteen times that anyone baptized with water and a Trinitarian formula and the intent to Baptize is a member of the Catholic Church. Hee may not be a member "in full communion" but he's a member.
That being the case, I'm wondering why this is being brought up now.
I really do not care what Catholics look like in the eyes of those who do not share the fullness of our Faith. The only audience I seek to satisfy is the triune God.
This discussion arises because I chose to answer a respectful question of a reformed Christian as to the Catholic view of the matter. I have no reason to believe that he was inviting a bar brawl over the respective theologies. I have no special competence at Cathlic theology just mpre than a half century of experience.
I have no desire to preach at you nor to be preached at by you. I am a Catholic. I have always been a Catholic and I hope to die a Catholic. Your desires may differ from my own. That is your business. My Catholicism is my business and I don't HAVE to do anything such as you state. Nor do I have to spend endless time in theologocal haggling contests on a POLITICAL website and I won't.
Now, I am going to return to my original conversation with CharlesWayneCT and will not trouble myself further with iscool chewing his old slipper.
One would then consider: what truly constitutes the Catholic Church? That's a long dissertation, to tell the truth, but I think that a more constructive way to express what you posted is to suggest that a number of Bishops of Rome have insisted that salvation consists in being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. There are those (I would be one of them) who define the Catholic Church to be those dioceses headed by an apostolically and canonically consecrated Bishop in the Apostolic Succession from the Apostles. Canonically means in accord with the decisions made at ecumenical councils or enacted by the whole Church and agreed to by all the then-reigning bishops. Apostolically means consecration by the literal laying-on of hands of at least one and preferably three Apostolically and Canonically consecrated Bishops. My own Archbishop, of the Orthodox Anglican Church, is one such Bishop. According to the theology of Patriarch John Zizioulas, all such bishops are and always have been, of equal dignity and authority, as incarnating Christ in the Catholic Church of which they are the head. It can be readily seen that in this construction, Catholic adheres to the use made by the bishop who coined it, Ignatius of Antioch, which meant that body of belief and action most closely in accord with the Truth that defines the status. It would also be in accord with the word from which our word 'catholic' derives (kath olou: the whole or the fullness). Using it to mean 'universal' is a later coining, by St. Augustine. One suggests it may well be useful to consider the term in both senses when employing it, so as to increase charity and expand the visible unity of the One Holy and Apostolic Church.
The biggest problem in the Catholic Church right now, if understood as I just defined the term, is multiple apostolic and canonical bishops in the same territory. That indicates schism, which is traumatic but not the same thing as heresy. The question really comes down to: are the doctrinal differences between co-resident bishops so grave as to actually constitute heresy (i.e., lacking access to the fullnes of Jesus Christ) or are they subsidiary theologically, such that a core of Catholic truth could be accessed that suffices for salvation and thus that communion among the dioceses could be restored? A very tough question, that.
your popes
Just a niggle: "Pope" is, to me, a cradle Roman Catholic now professing Orthodox Anglicanism, an honorary term for the Roman Pontiff, who is, I always understood, officially the Bishop of Rome. He has other titles, relating to his Metropolitan status for the West, but I suspect the real objection here is to any kind of super-episcopal status. One notes that the Roman See (every bishop has a See) was consulted from post-Apostolic times about controversies. Originally the response was consultative, such as Clement's letter to the Corinthians reprimanding them for deposing presbyters despite their faithful and orthodox service and to replace them with men seeking power rather than service. That status enlarged over time, becoming effective a ruling relationship in the fourth century and varying only in effectiveness since then, but not in status. One notes that there has been, since at least Nicaea, official status for an office of Metropolitan, though it was never granted higher ecclesiastical (not to say ecclesiological) status than that of any other bishop. In any college, there must needs be a president and I suspect the Metropolitans were originally seen as such, to the extent that anyone saw anything in such a collegial way at the time.
The East was, in the main, overrun in the course of time and now only the Metropolitan of Constantinople remains (though Russia also claims a third Rome status), and the Bishop of Rome did stand athwart the barbarian hordes in the days when there was no other effective authority to speak for classical Catholic truth. So, the office gained even more status in fact than Metropolitan, which now attaches to the title 'Pope'. The effect is make all other bishops in communion with him subsidiary bishops in fact. This is not absolute, of course, but given the presecriptions in Lumen Gentium, no one can even convene a Council of Bishops without the Bishop of Rome's express approval. The only mediating factor is that each successor is democratically elected by the College of Cardinals, so if the mind of the Church in communion with Rome moves, then the College may well express that movenment in their subsequent votes. The individual then assumes plenary power while in office. He may refer to the bishops as his Venerable Brothers, but if he makes a proclamation, they are bound to obey it. That makes him their intercessor with Christ. I cannot speak for the Orthodox, but I think that, again citing Zizioulas, the fact of any one bishop having plenary authority over other bishops is equivalent to suggesting that there are bishops who are not fully bishop which destroys the catholicity of the diocese that bishop rules. For those I have studied, the nature of catholicity is not universality of command by any one human, but the fullness of Jesus Christ as possessed by being apostolically and canonically consecrated a bishop, in whom is vested the fullness of charism necessary to rule any one Catholic Church.
Clearly, confusion in terms and to some extent, temptation to power, have affected understandings over the years, which now are expressed in highly contentious arguments and accusations. What we really need is to each and all bow our heads before our Lord and Savior and ask Him to grant us the grace to cultivate charity and humility among ourselves. That would include not dragging in past offenses by any group in the controversies but seeking to come in brotherly love and affection one to another, that we all may be one in Him, that He may dwell in us.