official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

It brought up a lot of questions about my former faith and it was interesting to research the Catholic Church from this perspective. As my opponent pointed out I did debate from the perspective of a Catholic and it was a fun exercise. Non-Catholic salvationI would like to clarify how, from a Catholic (or rather the official Catholic perspective), the statement made in the Cante Dominio and the statements made in Vatican II are both infallible. I actually did mention this apparent contradiction is rectified. In the Cantate Dominio helped establish the dogmatic idea that "outside the church there is no salvation". This idea was repeated by at least 3 Popes between 1200-1400. This idea is not necessarily overruled by the statements made at Vatican II. The statements made at Vatican II say that non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved if they are ignorant of the Church and if they act as God wills. This seems to blatantly contradict the Cantate however, the nature of their salvation is of pivotal importance. These members of the Church who have not joined but are ignorant receive a Catholic salvation. They are united with the church in spirit even if they are not members of it, therefore they receive salvation through the Church. "if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church. "Though they are not visibly members of the Church they are spiritually members of the Church. Therefore non-Catholics receive salvation through the Church, which satisfies the infallibility of the Bull Cantate and Vatican II. In summary:Since they are both infallible, which my opponent has NEVER CHALLENGED, Vatican II must be regarded by the Church (and the readers! ) as infallible, authoritative Catholic teaching, therefore non-Catholics may be saved through the Catholic church.1 more objection to my opponent on this subject"there's been plenty of saints who thought the rigorist view. "Saints do not really matter in official teachings of the Church. The full authority of the Catholic Church says it is one way, if the saint disagrees then the saint is simply wrong. Infants and LimboI would like to loudly and enthusiastically object to the following statement by my opponent regarding the CCC-"the catechism is not considered an official teaching. it is just a teaching. the older catechisms say they go to limbo. limbo is a part of hell. to be considered official, it has to be the pope intentionally binding the church on faith and morals. that is not present in those catechism teachings"The CCC is official church teaching, and the Church NEVER OFFICIALLY endorsed limbo. The CCC was authored by a convention called by John Paul II, it was endorsed by John Paul II and deemed official Church teaching by John Paul II. It is authoritative Catholic teaching, as are all Catechisms. . http://www.usccb.org...http://www.usccb.org...Here is what John Paul said about Catechism--"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magestirium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. " John Paul II, who by his papal authority summoned, authorised, and endorsed the CCC says it is official teaching. All catechisms are official teachings. Therefore what the CCC says on infantile deaths is the official Catholic position, and the CCC says there is no definitive answer. On limbo- it does not and never did exist as an official Catholic teaching. It was never presented authoritatively by the Church as a real argument. Even wikipedia knows that. And Benedict officially killed the idea in 2007 anyway. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.reuters.com...My opponent questions how I say babies are not damned when there is an inference they might be. There are a few ways-1. They are martyrs, so they go to heaven2. They are ignorant of the Church, so they go to heaven3. God is merciful and can, in his infinite power and wisdom, make a merciful exception for murdered infantsIn any case, Pro's guess is as good as mine, because the official Church teaching is that they don't know either. They CCC says so, Pope Benedict said so, that's the way it is. "The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation," -The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, 2007, authorised by Pope BenedictI don't think you get more explicit or official than that. ConclusionThere were 2 contentions on the table in this debate. The first was whether non-Catholics can be saved. I have shown that authoritative Catholic teaching says they can be saved. My opponent never challenged the official teaching authority of Vatican II, therefore he has failed to prove that the Catholic Church does not follow this teaching and has failed his BOP on point 1. My opponent dismissed Vatican II as political which does not take away from its teaching authority. Since my opponent was responsible for proving both points to win, this should be enough for him to lose the debate. The second point was on infant death. I have shown that official Church teaching says there is no answer. My opponent did not address the substance of my argument (but in fairness I did find one in round 2) and rather attempted to, incorrectly, say that Catechisms are not official Church teachings. Since he is incorrect in saying so, and since he did not otherwise prove that the Church said they were damned, I think this point also goes to con. My opponent also based his argument on limbo, which is not Catholic, and on the fact that they were not baptized, even though point 1 shows that non-Catholics (non-baptized people) can be saved. Keep in mind only 1 point needs to go to Con for a win. Pro had burden of proof for both claims. If he failed to convince you on either count than send a vote my way! I'd like to apologize for my spelling and grammar. I realized after the fact that I dropped some critical words from my round 1 argument which may have made it harder to understand and I realized in round 3 I was spelling 'Cantate' wrong the whole time. Hope no one had any difficulty understanding what I was trying to say.