Tuesday, July 12, 2011

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I would like to place the following report on a pdf.file. If someone can place this report on a pdf.file and make it available on the internet please go ahead. You have my permission. You are also free to publish and print it. No copyright permission is required.
Lionel Andrades
_________________________________________________________________________________

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

Vatican Council II says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Catholic Church teaches after Vatican Council II (1965) that all people need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).

Catholic Faith with the Baptism of water is the normal, ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II).The Catholic Church is the ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14).Non Catholics however can be saved through the extraordinary means of salvation (Lumen Gentium 16).Only God knows who are the non-Catholics saved through the extraordinary means of salvation; the exceptions. We do not know who the exceptions are. We cannot judge. Jesus, the Church, Scripture and Vatican Council II indicate that the priority is Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for all people.

So everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church which is the like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood (CCC).Non Catholic religions have good things in them. However they are not paths to salvation. All salvation comes through Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church. Those non-Catholics who know the above information and yet do not enter the Church are oriented to Hell (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).Those non-Catholics participating in inter religious dialogue, are educated. They know. They are oriented to Hell.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water are needed for all people. This is Vatican Council II.

No where in Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II is it said that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation.

Vatican Council II is in harmony with John 3:5, the Church Fathers, Council of Florence, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis etc.

Don’t let people fool you about Vatican Council II. Check the details and affirm the Faith which does not change.

Jesus called the Catholic Church “…my church…” He told St. Peter that it would prevail against Satan and be there for all time. (1)

VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS- Fr. Davide Carbonaro

We do not know any case of a non Catholic saved by Jesus and the Church said Father Davide Carbonaro. Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and does not contradict it.

Father Davide is the former Parish Priest at the Church of Santa Maria in Campitelli in the centre of Rome.

He said those who are saved by Jesus and the Church were known to God only and God could save them in the manner he wished even though they were not visible members of the Catholic Church.

However this would be known to God only so it did not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

San Giovanni Leonardi the founder of his community, L'Ordine della Madre di Dio, also believed in extra ecclesiam nulla salus said the Parish Priest. He understood the dogma as saying everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation.

Those who are saved implicitly are known only to God. Hence those saved with the baptism of desire, a good conscience, in imperfect communion with the Church, in invincible ignorance etc are known only to God. So Vatican Council II does not contradict the ex cathedra dogma Cantate Domino which indicates everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church, with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, to go to Heaven.

San Giovanni Leonardi was the founder of Propaganda Fide.

It’s a mortal sin to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition- Fr. Gabrielle, priest of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

Novus Ordo priest affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma and also Vatican Council II

An Italian priest who offered the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian today morning at the Salus Populi Romani chapel in the Basilica of St. Mary Majors, Rome, said it was a mortal sin to deny an ex cathedra dogma like the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr. Gabrielle said it was a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition without first going for Confession.

He was speaking with me in the sacristy after Mass and will be here for a few months. I told him I write on this subject on my blog.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation. He agreed this was the teaching of the dogma and of the Catholic Church. Every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation." If there is no baptism there is no salvation ", said Fr. Gabrielle. It needs to be mentioned that Catholics only give the baptism of water to adults with Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7).

Vatican Council II also says Fr. Gabrielle said that there can be those saved through Jesus and the Church and who may not be members of the Church. It needs to be clarified here that only God knows which non Catholics are saved through Jesus and the Church. So this does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr. Gabrielle had earlier during the homily spoken about St. Maria Goretti. He also mentioned in the homily that fornicators, or someone who committed a sin of impurity, should not receive the Eucharist, without going for Confession otherwise it would be a sacrilege.

So I asked him about extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He said presently there was a lot of confusion on this issue. He emphasized the necessity of the Church for the salvation of all people

PRIESTS WHO OFFER TRIDENTINE- RITE AND NOVUS ORDO MASS AGREE THAT WE DO NOT DEFACTO KNOW A SINGLE CASE OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE: WE HAVE UNITY ON OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION

It’s not theology, its common sense! Priests can agree that we Catholics do not know a single case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance in the present times.

If we do not know a single case then it means:

1. Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct in saying that there is no baptism of desire (that we know of).

2. Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II on invincible ignorance can be accepted only in principle. It is de jure and never de facto. So it does not contradict the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So priests who offer the Tridentine Rite and Novus Ordo Mass are back to the centuries-old interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

No valid objections can be raised in the name of Fr. Leonard Feeney or Vatican Council II.

So we have to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846 as a continuation and not a break from the dogma. Similarly we interpret Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma and not as a break, creating non-traditional new doctrines. Example, the dogma says all need to defacto enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and not just those who know about the Church.

Those who know about the Church and do not enter as compared to those in invincible ignorance is an issue for God to decide only in personal cases. The dogma says everyone, all, need to enter the Church for salvation. All in the present times. So there is no exception that we can know of on earth, to Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

So are priests who offer the Tridentine Rite Mass and Mass in the local language united on the centuries-old interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation?

Yes! Since if you agree that we know of no de facto case of the baptism of desire in the present times. There are no obstacles, no objections.

The text of the dogma, thrice defined ex cathedra, speaks clearly for itself. It is repeated in present day Magisterial documents.

Based on the Magisterial texts we are united on extra ecclesiam nulla salus from John 3:5, Mk.16:16, John 6 (on the Eucharist being necessary for salvation), to three definitions of the dogma in the Extraordinary Mode and many other statements from popes in the Ordinary Mode, to Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus and Ecclesia di Eucarestia.

MORE LIBERAL NOVUS ORDO PRIESTS ARE ACCEPTING EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

They see through the media deception and futile controversies when they realize that the baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle and never known de facto.

I was talking to a visiting priest a few days back, at a small church. He agreed that the baptism of desire was only known to God. We did not know any case.

We then agreed that in Vatican Council II all the objections against the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, were known only to God. Those in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) were known only to God. Those saved by the Word of God were unknown to us.

The baptism of desire was dejure, accepted only in principle, since it can never be de facto for us, Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no baptism of desire or blood that we in general can know of. If someone really is a martyr only God can judge. We cannot judge. When the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.

So with the Fr. Leonard Feeney and Vatican Council II objections removed, we are left with the centuries- old interpretation of extra eccleisam nulla salus. We come to this conclusion based on reason. This is not a new theology.

For centuries there was no controversy over baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. Since they were always understood to be implicit and did not contradict the dogma which called for explicit baptism of water, for all without exceptions.

Then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued to the Archbishop of Boston by Pope Pius XII mentions ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. That dogma was Cantate Domino, one of three ex cathedra definitions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The text of Cantate Domino indicates all Jews and other non Catholic in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. This was exactly what Fr. Leonard Feeney taught. So how could he be excommunicated for heresy? The Letter supported him on doctrine. This is contrary to the secular media propaganda.

The message of the Letter and the dogma is the same as Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Dominus Iesus 20. This is Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents in accord with Cantate Domino. This has been the positive aspect of this issue.

On what seemed the negative aspect, but is not, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to invincible ignorance which does not contradict the dogma since it is not explicitly known to us. Implicit case are hidden from us.

So rationally we are back to extra ecclesiam nulla salus which the Church has not retracted in any Magisterial document. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 can be interpreted in accord with the dogma. CCC 846 on Outside the Church No Salvation says all need to enter the Church as through a door. This was how the Church Fathers described extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC’s 846’s reference to those saved implicitly through Jesus and the Church does not contradict the dogma, since we do not know a single person, saved through Jesus and the Church.

EVERYBODY NEEDS THE EUCHARIST TO GO TO HEAVEN - Fr. Marcos Renacia, Augustinian Recollect priest

‘The Eucharist is the ordinary means of salvation’, said Fr. Marcos Renacia, an Augustinian-Recollect priest. ‘Everyone on earth de facto needs the Eucharist to go to Heaven’.

Hypothetically, in a way known only to God, through the extraordinary means God can save a non Catholic who is not a member of the Church who has not received the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he agrees, de facto we do not know a single case such case.

De facto everyone on earth needs the Eucharist to avoid Hell. De jure, in principle, there could be the possibility of someone saved who has not received this Sacrament.

The Church is the ordinary means of salvation states Pope John Paul II in Redemptoris Missio 55. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ (Ad Gentes 7).Jesus saves through the Sacraments, those who respond (Dominus Iesus 20) by entering the Church.

Fr. Marcos was commenting on the Gospel Reading last Sunday (Corpus Domini) in which Jesus says the Eucharist was needed for salvation (John 6). He was speaking with me at the Augustinian– Recollect Church in Rome. We were comparing the dogmatic teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) with the Eucharist being needed for all.

Fr. Marcos chose to use the defacto-dejure explanation of this issue, especially, when asked if ‘all non Catholics need to explicitly receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist for salvation; to go to Heaven and avoid Hell?’

The words de facto and de jure are used in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus.

‘De facto salvation’ used here is synonymous with explicit salvation. It refers to the baptism of water which is visible and repeatable. It refers to Catholic Faith which is taught explicitly. It is the ordinary means of salvation.

‘Dejure salvation’ is synonymous with implicit salvation. It refers to the baptism of desire, those saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, perfect contrition, in partial communion with the church or saved by the Word of God. It is not the ordinary means of salvation and depends on God’s grace. It’s an extra ordinary form of salvation.

When Fr. Marcos says that the Eucharist is the ordinary means of salvation he refers to de facto salvation. Since we do not personally know any case of de jure salvation, we assume everybody needs to de facto receive the Eucharist. Everyone we meet needs the Sacraments. There is no exception that we know of.

This is the official teaching of the Church through the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II, Redemptoris Missio 55, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Dominus Iesus 20, Ecclesia di Eucarestia etc.)

The Church documents, Magisterial texts, indicate everyone de facto needs the Sacraments to go to Heaven.

The understanding of Church (ecclesiology) in Ecclesia di Eucarestia was based on outside the Church there is no salvation, complained Cardinal Walter Kasper. In the magazine 30 giorini he said no one today believes in outside the Church there is no salvation. He complained that Ecclesia di Eucarestia also ignored the Orthodox Christians, who have a valid Eucharist.

Orthodox Christians are ‘schismatics’ according to Cantate Domino, ex cathedra. They need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell according to the dogma. We may call them ‘true’ churches and ‘sister’ churches but the dogma says they are all oriented to Hell. We are not permitted to receive the Eucharist at their churches. Neither are they permitted to receive the Eucharist at Catholic Churches.

Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II has the same message. It says all need baptism for salvation. Catholics only give the baptism of water to adults with Catholic Faith. The Orthodox Christians do not have Catholic Faith.

Just as a Catholic in mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist even though Jesus is still present in the Eucharist an Orthodox Christian is not to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Church. It is a sin. Cantate Domino indicates Orthodox Christians are in mortal sin (‘schismatics’).De facto they are all on the way to Hell.

So when Jesus says ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life’- are there any exceptions?

De facto, none.

De jure, none. All those who are saved implicitly are saved through Jesus and the Church (CCC 846).

When the Augustinian Recollect priest says de facto everyone with no exception needs the Eucharist for salvation he is affirming the centuries old interpretation of Cantate Domino-just like St. Augustine.

If Fr. Marcos does not use the terms de facto-dejure (hypothetical) it would be confusing. It would be saying everyone needs the Eucharist except for…It would be saying yes and No. simultaneously.

There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino or Ad Gentes 7 unless one mixes up de jure salvation for de facto salvation.

If one mistakenly says the baptism of desire refers to de facto salvation and contradicts Cantate Domino which also refers to de facto salvation, then something is wrong. It is in conflict with the Principle of Non Contradiction.

If one correctly infers that de jure baptism of desire does not contradict de facto Cantate Domino then it is rational. It also does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

So de facto everybody needs the Eucharist for salvation as Fr. Marcos Renacia says.

Outside the Church, outside the Eucharist, there is no salvation.

KARL KEATING SAYS FR.LEONARD FEENEY WAS NOT EXCOMMUNICATED FOR HERESY 
I have come across Karl Keating the founder of Catholic Answers' E-Letter Jan 13, 2004, in which he writes: 
From the late 1940s until his death he was known instead for his rigorist interpretation of the maxim "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" ("no salvation outside the Church"). Adherents to his interpretation became known as "Feeneyites."

Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience.

Karl Keating says that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy but he held the ‘rigorist interpretation of the maxim “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.


It was not a maxim it was a dogma Mr. Keating and the dogma held the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of outside the church there is no salvation.

Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to this 'dogma', the 'infallible’ teaching.
So if Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy and held the same teaching as the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, did the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston support Fr. Leonard Feeney on dogma/doctrine?

PETER KREEFT DENIES DOGMA IN THE NAME OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

Respected apologist Peter Kreeft who is on the Philosophy Faculty at Boston College denies the thrice defined dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also Vatican Council II and other Magisterial texts which say that everyone , all, need to enter the Church with no exception for salvation.

Kreeft, whom I admire as an apologist, having read some of his books some nine years back, rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the name of Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 16 and 14).

He writes since we have no salvation without the Church it follows that there is no salvation without the Church. Then Kreeft suggests that Protestants and others are saved. This is the familiar YES and NO on this subject.

He writes:

In fact the Church explicitly teaches that many who call themselves non-Catholics are saved.

He then supports this view with Lumen Gentium 14

Vatican Council II said that "they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium #14),

The dogma and Ad Gentes 7 says all need to enter the Church for salvation Kreeft says No, only those who know about the Church. Perhaps Kreeft means well and the problem is the lack of precise terms.

De facto every one needs to enter the Church:

 
De jure we accept there can be people in invincible ignorance known only to God. It is God who will judge who ‘knows’ and who is in invincible ignorance.

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.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

Dejure we know that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance. De facto we do not know any specific case in the present times.

Kreeft then mentions Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).

De jure we accept there can be people in invincible ignorance known only to God. It is God who will judge who ‘knows’ and who is in invincible ignorance.

De jure, in principle we accept the possibility of a Protestant being saved and it would be known to God. De facto we do not know a single such case.

De facto everyone needs Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. De jure there could be exceptions known only to God.

De facto every Protestant and Orthodox Christian, according to the dogma and Ad Gentes 7, need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. So LG 16 does not contradict Lumen Gentium 14 above.

SEDEVACANTISTS, SSPX, SUPPORTERS OF FR.LEONARD FEENEY HAVE A MOMENT OF INSIGHT THEN GO BACK TO THEIR OLD POSITION

For centuries there was no controversy in the Catholic Church on the issue of the baptism of desire. They assumed it was known only to God. Even for the Council of Trent the Baptism of desire did not conflict with Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Sedevacantists (not MHFM) today recognize this is true in e-mail correspondence with me. However soon they deny it is possible and revert to their old position, either pro or anti baptism of desire. There can only be two options for them.

Yet for centuries in the Catholic Church it was known that a non Catholic could be saved with the baptism of desire and this could be accepted only in principle since we did not personally know any case. We could not meet on earth a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. So it did not conflict with extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, with no exceptions. Over the centuries they knew that the baptism of desire was no exception to the dogma. This was the simple traditional understanding in the Church.

A traditionalist today can have any opinion on Justification, Sanctifying Grace, implicit salvation etc it doesn’t change the reality that all those saved with the baptism of desire are known only to God.

So whatever religious view or theory one holds, correct or incorrect, it does not change the reality that those saved with the baptism of desire are known only to God.

If someone in the forest is saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and God sends a preacher to him it is known only to God.

If someone in the forest is saved in invincible ignorance or he has a genuine baptism of desire and God sends someone to baptize him with water, it is known only to God.

This issue was clear for Pope Pius XII when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was sent to the Archbishop of Boston agreeing with Fr. Leonard Feeney on dogma/doctrine and criticizing him for discipline/disobedience.

The ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ teaching Pope Pius XII referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office indicated all non Catholics in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. All, since, de facto, in reality we do not know any case of the baptism of desire.

The Letter of the Holy Office mentioned the possibility of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire ‘in certain circumstances’ .So in principle Pope Pius XII was accepting the possibility of the baptism of desire. It is something which can be accepted in principle, de jure, but which never can be known de facto. This was known traditionally.

De facto every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. De jure there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire. This does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.

In e-mail correspondence with sedevacantists, members or supporters of the Society of St. Pius X and supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney I notice they first agree that there is no baptism of desire that we could possibly know. Then soon they go back to their old position inferring there is a baptism of desire that we can know of in the present times, so it contradicts the dogma.

To believe that there is no de facto baptism of desire known to us they fear could be a new theory or theology, something non traditional.

So they go back to assuming that the baptism of desire is real and known to us in the present times, in particular cases. They infer that we can know these cases in actual life. They imply that it must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino, which indicates that everyone must be an explicit formal member of the Church for salvation. Since this would conflict with the Principle of Non Contradiction they reject the baptism of desire.

Since they do not make the defacto-dejure distinction they reject the baptism of desire completely.

Yet for centuries, before 1940, there was no known de facto baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

The Church Councils which gave us the dogma outside the church no salvation obviously knew about the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. The Councils did not consider them exceptions to the dogma since reason tells us that we do not know any explicit case. This has been tradition in the Catholic Church for hundreds of years and it is supported by Vatican Council II.

Non traditional traditionalists criticize Vatican Council II implying it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They infer that we know in the present times cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16), a good conscience, imperfect communion with the Church etc.

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions non Catholics implicitly saved through Jesus and the Church (n.836) it is assumed that we know such cases in the present times.

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are only repeating what was known in Tradition i.e. those saved implicitly (good conscience etc) are known only to God. So it does not contradict the thrice defined dogma.

SSPX members repeat on internet forums that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said non Catholics could be saved. They criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney. They criticize the dogma Cantate Domino.

Sedevacantists also maintain as a norm that the baptism of desire is defacto knowable to us and so they reject it since it could contradict Cantate Domino.

Supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney criticize Vatican Council II assuming its reference to invincible ignorance, good conscience etc are a reference to de facto cases knowable on earth. This would contradict Cantate Domino.

All are assuming implicit cases are really explicit for us.

Once they assume that implicit cases are known to us personally they imply

1. The baptism of desire does not exist since it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2. The pro and anti baptism of desire controversy begins.

3. They assume Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are contrary to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

4. They create a new, non traditional doctrine and assume it is part of the Deposit of the Faith.

5. To support their view they quote Church Councils, popes and saints not mentioning if the reference is to de facto or de jure baptism of desire.

6. They cannot cite any Council, pope or saint who refers to baptism of desire cases known in the present times.

7. They will cite references to the baptism of desire and assume it is de facto and not de jure i.e. accepted only in principle, as a concept.

Lionel Andrades
Catholic  layman
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/
YouTube: http://it.youtube.com/LionelAndrades




1.

VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS THE DOGMA

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II (Note: All need the baptism of water for salvation and Catholics only give baptism to adults with Catholic Faith. So Ad Gentes 7 is saying that all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.Orthodox Christians and Protestants do not have Catholic Faith).

CATECHISM AFFIRMS DOGMA

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 (Note : ‘which men through Baptism as through a door’ was a term used by the Church Fathers for the rigorist interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation).

CCC 845.To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.-Catechism of the Catholic Church n.845 Catechism of the Catholic Church

DOMINUS IESUS AND THE DOGMA

This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20 (Note: Salvation is open for all however to receive this salvation they need to enter the Church).L.A
_________________________________________

Ordinary Magisterium

Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 – 590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia )

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus )

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae )

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 – 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane )

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 – 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum )

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos )

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Extraordinary Magisterium

Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes “in concrete,” so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “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.”

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] 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.” -from the website Catholicism.org