I UNDERSTAND they’re a list of errors. However, if 16, 17, and 18 is saying there is NO OTHER WAY then the Catholic Church, then the Church has a problem with Vatican II and other recent statements now don’t they?
Number 17 comes a little closer to what you are trying to imply. But, here again, the wording is not as exclusivist as you might suppose. Another way of expressing the same thought is to say something like: "It might be possible (though not so well-founded in any given individual's case as to merely presume) that people in other faiths have some possibility of salvation, if they are in some way connected with Christ's Church." This is what Vatican II says.
Number 18 simply points out that Protestantism is not the system of belief that Jesus personally founded, and therefore is not on an equal footing with the Church He did found. Membership in those bodies, therefore, is not as pleasing to God as is membership in the particular body of belief He did authorize.
This is quite logical, as the roots of Protestantism only go back to the 16th Century. And it makes perfectly good sense from the standpoint of the Catholic Church, which does, in reality, claim to be founded by Christ personally. If such a claim is true, then, of course, one should belong to it and embrace its doctrines. You obviously don't agree with that, but, if the Church does, in fact, believe it can make a solid case for the claim, what else would you expect it to say?
Gasp!!! Harley, you genius, you've exposed the Catholic Church contradicting itself............LOL!!
Question. Does the virtue of prudence never arise in the Protestant mind when it sets out to explain Catholic teaching to Catholics?? I mean does the thought never enter one's mind that perhaps, it might be me that hasn't really grasped what's being said? No, no.........of course not............unthinkable.
The scary thought is that this sort of presumption is brought to the personal interpretation of Scripture. Maybe it's actually the result of it!
Anyway, FWIW...............points 16, 17, & 18 are in fact born of Christian charity and they are based on the horrendous assumption that there is just one God, one truth and one true faith and that all else is error. Ergo, those who follow a faith other than the one true faith can not be presumed to have found salvation. What's so shocking about that? It's in fact the raison d'etre for evangelization.
Note that these points do not definitively say that a non-Catholic can not be saved. Point #17 says this:
We may entertain at least a well-founded hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are in no manner in the true Church of Christ.
I'm assuming you think that the latter phrase refers to Anglicans, Baptists etc. That would be an incorrect assumption. Vatican II says this:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.
Lumen Gentium, #5.
You might not appreciate this but you are, in fact, linked to the one true, Church. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that those "who are in no manner in the true Church of Christ" can't be saved for all things are possible with God but it simply says that there's no reason for us to assume it as a given or even a likely. That's completely sensible and is not meant as an insult. Usually, we prepare for a worst case scenario in case it happens and it's the same with the Church. It believes all men are to be brought to the truth and it can't say it's no big deal if they're not.
Regarding #15. It says the following:
Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.
This may seem to be in contradiction with parts of the Catholic Catechism, such as;
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.".
There is no contradiction. The quotation from the Syllabus of Errors refers to the value of a free choice of religion in the sight of God and makes the point that not all choices are of equal value. IOW, falsehood and error do not hold equal favor in the sight of God and the fact that we have free will does not imply that God blesses or agrees with the way we exercise it. The quotation from the Catechism, on the other hand, means that God respects man's free will, even when he chooses badly and that civil and ecclesiastical authorities are to do the same. Man can not be compelled to accept the true faith.
I hope this helps.