Replies

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.

When we tackle things such as papal infallibility, or about alleged "contradictions" within either Scripture of Catholic teaching (or whatever), we can't afford to be casual about details; the definitions of "changing essential dogma" and "contradiction" are very strict ones. No one can simply slap some contrary-sounding things together, declare a contradiction, and go off to celebrate their "conquest"; the high standard for proof must be met.

Take your time. I have a shopping date with my daughter tomorrow (weather permitting - ugh) and will be gone all day.

Have safe and pleasant travels! And absolutely... no rush, on your end, either! I really do need to catch up on work from "real life", here...

Now I am old enough to remember pre Vatican 2 and know that the church did indeed teach that there was no salvation outside of it.

I'm not surprised... since it's absolutely true. Some priests (and even some textbooks) may have mislaid some very necessary qualifiers, when teaching that dogma (possibly because they naively assumed that "everybody knows these"--or for some other reason), but the dogma is true dogma.

This is a very important point (i.e. the fact that the "qualifiers" were known from the earliest times, whether individual teachers/books thought to mention them, or not), so let me offer another illustration:

The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism is required for salvation (cf. John 3:5, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). Scripture was quite clear on that. But in the earliest days of the Church, many theologicans (including Fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine) struggled with what this meant for, say, infants who died without Baptism, but who obviously did not have actual, personal sin on their souls. On the one hand, Scripture seemed to say that Baptism (which was seen to be exclusively "water Baptism, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19) was necessary for salvation, so unbaptized infants--by that argument--could not be saved. On the other hand, this seemed irreconcilable with what we know of God and His Mercy and His Justice, Who said, "Let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 19:14) It also didn't make sense of the outcome of those who had honestly never heard the Gospel at all (or who had never heard an unadulterated version, delivered by a credible witness), and who died outside of Christianity; nor did it make sense of the case of older children and adults who were too mentally impaired to have the capacity to sin (e.g. Trisomy 13, Down's Syndrome, etc.); nor did it make sense of the case where someone WANTED Baptism, but died before receiving it; nor did it make sense of the case where an unbaptized person willingly died for the Name of Christ. Ultimately, the Church discerned that--while the Sacrament of Baptism is the normal and expected way for people to be saved, and while God can usually be EXPECTED to abide by the ordinances He set up--God is not bound to stay within the Sacraments, and He (being sovereign) can bestow the same graces OUTSIDE the Sacraments, in cases of His choosing. Over time, theologicans came up with "key words" to describe these variations, in order to remember and talk about them more easily:

1) Baptism of water (the standard, expected way by which God's Sanctifying Grace is given to the soul)

2) "Baptism" of blood (when an unbaptized person dies a martyr for Christ, God grants them the same Grace that would have been given by the Sacrament)

3) "Baptism" of desire (when an unbaptized person dies before attaining to Baptism, but was intending to be baptized, or if he WOULD have sought Baptism if only he had known of the necessity).

In this case, someone might hastily (and incorrectly) say: "The Church has changed its teaching on the necessity of Baptism!" To that, I'd say, "Yes, and no. The core dogma of the necessity of Baptism is true, and has never changed; but the non-dogmatic teachings about how it can be expected to be applied *have* changed... just as the Church eventually discerned that circumcision and kosher laws were no longer necessary for salvation (cf. Acts 15, etc.), since they were fulfilled by Christ's perfect fulfillment of the Law (cf. Hebrews 8, etc.) and communicated to us principally through the Sacrament of Baptism (Colossians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). Jesus explicitly revoked the kosher laws, for example (Mark 7:19), but He specifically mandates us to baptize in the Name of the Blessed Trinity (Matthew 28:19)... so it's plain that the former is fulfilled and no longer binding, while the latter is still binding.

Long answer... but deep questions often require involved answers. Efforts to say, "But it's so very simple!" are usually frought with peril, since the (well-meaning) people who do so usually end up with a "reductionist Gospel" which is stripped both of power and of coherence.

To be continued...

The church has turned baptism into modern day circumcision.

Baptism is NOT required to be saved.

Even Peter disqualified water baptism as being able to confer salvation.

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Otherwise, you are saying that if a person puts their faith in Christ for salvation and dies before they can be baptized, they are going to hell.

If baptism saves you, Christ died for nothing.

This verse, which Catholics like to claim states that baptism saves, actually shows that it doesn't that it's FAITH that saves.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

If you don't believe, you are condemned. Baptism or not.

Jesus didn't say that if you are not baptized you are condemned. He said if you don't BELIEVE.