Have you studied the history of Vatican II? A whole other topic altogether, but the intention to purposely use ambiguity is explicitly stated by those men working in and around the council.
Why what? Why study Vatican II or why did they do that to the texts?
The texts are sometimes ambiguous and purposely so. It’s not too much of a problem if we look at all Church documents as a whole instead of isolating things to VII and the CCC especially if it’s a difficult area such as EENS.
I will give an example below to help clarify, just keep reading.
There are also those who think if something seems to contradict previous teaching they throw their hands up and say “to heck with it – it's too hard to reconcile this so I will say the new teaching is a 'development.'”
But are you saying this of the Magisterium? it's not liberals and radicals that are saying that, for example...
ON DIVINE REVELATION
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
Let me put it another way.
Development does not equal change/evolution.
What I am saying is that there are those who think Church teachings have evolved or changed and they would like to erroneously call it a “development.”
Vatican II did not change Church doctrine.
When the council says "develop" it does not mean "change meaning."
Arguments can be made if it developed doctrine or not but it cannot change doctrine insofar as to contradict past teaching.
Here’s a real life example:
I had a professor at college who thought Church teaching changed on the matter of the primary function of marriage. He thought it was both procreation and conjugal relations. The correct teaching is that procreation is the primary function and not both equally.
He taught this based on the texts of Vatican II. He taught that a changed occurred in the teaching on marriage and considered it a “development.” His thinking was wrong because it meant the Church changed her mind – impossible.
What the council is talking about is a development which seeks to make things clearer and provide a deeper understanding without contradicting previous teaching. What my professor was saying is that doctrine changed to mean something completely different; his concept of development is wrong.
Secondly, as it pertains to your “why” question above, this particular instance of VII has a back story behind it. The reason why VII left out the explicit definition of marriage is because some liberal block(s) at the council wanted to insert the approval of contraception in the text. By destroying the primary function of marriage you pave the way for birth control. But they did not succeed in either of their goals. They did manage to leave it vague. If you want the relative documents and information I can dig it up, but for time and length purposes I don’t want to go hunting –but I can if you want.
But anyway, this is why when reading VII it is best to get the story behind the text, look at the Latin, look at the citations and of course check previous Church teachings (and successive Church teaching) to understand what is being said without contradiction.
To interpret this in light of Tradition, here is my logical conclusion:
1. The Dogma is that there is no salvation outside the Church.
2. CCC: “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church etc. etc.”
3. Therefore anyone saved who is not a card carrying member of the Church must somehow be joined to the Catholic Church before they die (explained in the previous post).
However, this is not what pax was saying. He said one must be a baptised card carrying member of the Catholic Church to be saved. An animist who worships 'the Great Thumb' was expressly excluded for one, he said. So, what you are saying, is more ambiguous than what pax has maintained over a number of different threads.
Well.. pax just agreed with me. So I am not sure what is going on here.
Second, if my formula was ambiguous which part was specifically a problem? I admit that I did leave out the conditions which must be necessary for salvation because it seems that they were already gone over.
I have found no other way to interpret this without contradicting previous teachings. And we all know teachings cannot change for that would be the heresy of Modernism.
Other than pax's interpretation that Gods grace would result in everyone who 'implicitly' desired God, finding a little Church with a Baptismal font and being baptised into the card carrying membership up to a millisecond before death. Without that, one is damned.
I suppose we would have to get into matters of predestination here..
My understanding is what PED explained earlier:
"Can an adult who lacks the sacrament of baptism be saved?" (and this from the force of the words you used is the heard of the question you ask)
Yes. God can through absolutely no merits whatsoever of the person bestow grace on that person to turn towards Him, and He can can, should baptism be prevented, grace of charity wherewith that person is justified...not by any merit of their own, but solely on God's mercy
I cannot speak for pax here, as re-reading the thread (I don’t have much time today) I was unable to find the context of pax’s statement. He can speak for himself. My goal was to point out that such people who may be saved must be joined to the Church somehow, in some way before they die through the Mercy of God in order to be saved; else we have a contradiction of previous Church teaching.
Another way of looking at this: The Catholic Church and Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same. If someone is saved “outside” the Church then they are “saved” outside of Christ. This is impossible. No one can be saved without Christ. They must be joined to Christ in order to be saved by His sacrifice on the Cross. Therefore they must be joined to the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.
That's how I understand the CCC to mean, but I just thought that was a given.
Well, then we have no problem here?