Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation??

Ask Father Murray Watson ^ | Father Murray

[Theresa]

There is considerable confusion about the Catholic teaching of salvation. I found this on the internet. It was written by a former Presbyterian who became Catholic as an adult. It should be easy to understand he explains the docterine very well. .........

The phrase (in Latin, "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" or "Outside the Church there is no salvation") is a very ancient one, going back to the very early days of Christianity. It was originally meant to affirm the necessity of baptism and Christian faith at a time when

(a) A number of Christians were being tempted under torture to renounce their faith and deny Christ. (He's talking about the Roman Empire and Nero's persecution of Christians, throwing them to lions and such.) (b) Large groups of Christians were being led into "pseudo-Christian" cult-type groups, which were actually just a front for pagan philosophy and religion. (Such as the cult of Mithras which I think was practiced around the time after Jesus died.)

In response, bishops repeated that, if a person were to be aware of the meaning of Christ and then freely deny him or reject him, they had essentially turned away from God and the salvation he offers.

As Christians, we believe that we are saved only through Jesus. As St. Peter reminds his audience in Acts 4:12: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved." In most cases, this means that we believe baptism in water, in the name of the Trinity, is the fundamental requirement for salvation.

However, even from the beginning, the great Christian writer and teacher St. Augustine said that the salvation imparted through baptism can also be imparted through other means: specifically, through the "baptism of blood" (a non-Christian who dies defending Christian beliefs or holy places) and "the baptism of desire" (a non-Christian who has expressed a firm desire to become a Christian, and who shows all the signs of living a Christian life, but who dies before baptism). In both of those cases, the Church has always recognized that the Holy Spirit leads people to God in ways which we cannot always explain or document.

God is able to save anyone he chooses. We trust that he often does this is ways that are not obvious to us, within the hearts of individuals who are sincerely seeking the truth. Otherwise, it would imply that all of humanity was excluded from salvation before Christ came, and that much of humanity (which has not had the opportunity to hear the Christian message until recently) was doomed to be eternally separated from God. This would imply a very cruel and elitist God. Our belief as Christians and Catholics is that God desires the salvation of all people … even those who are not Christian. How he achieves that, however, is a mystery. But we know that our God is a loving God who would not allow people to suffer on account of an ignorance that they were not responsible for.

The Church teaches that baptism, faith, and a life lived in Christ are necessary for salvation. However, Vatican II also taught that, within every human heart, God places the law of conscience. Everybody has a deep sense of right and wrong which ultimately comes from God, and which will lead people to God if they attempt to follow their conscience faithfully. Because Jesus is God, those who move in the direction of God (even non-Christians) are ultimately moving in the direction of Jesus. And if they are moving in the direction of Jesus and His truth, ultimately they are expressing a desire for the salvation that God gives. The Church teaches that, while it is certainly easier to receive salvation as a Christian, it is not impossible to receive salvation in other religions.

This is a challenging situation: on one hand, we must be respectful of the good things to be found in other faiths, and encourage people to live their faiths with sincerity and love.

On the other hand, this does not mean that all religions are the same. We believe that Christ is the ultimate revealing of God to the world, and that the more we know about his message, the greater the chance that we will accept his offer and be saved. We must therefore continue to preach the message of the Gospel, and encourage interested non-Catholics to examine the claims of our faith, without in any way coercing or intimidating them.

Father Feeney was an American priest who, back in the 1940s, taught that if a person was not a Roman Catholic, they were condemned to hell. This has never been the accepted teaching of Catholicism, and Father Feeney was reprimanded by the Vatican for his mistaken understanding.

Nevertheless, there are groups which continue to hold to this strict interpretation, even after the Pope and bishops have specifically rejected it.

The phrase "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" teaches us that salvation is only through Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. But God is able to save whomever he pleases, whether they are baptized in the Roman Catholic Church or not.

It is important to remember that "the Church" in this phrase does not refer exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. Salvation is a great gift, and God is a loving Father who wants all of his children to receive it. How he works this out, however, we will only understand in heaven. That is why, whenever we quote "Outside the Church, there is no salvation", we should also remember that "God is in no way bound by the sacraments."

Until then, we continue to proclaim Jesus as Lord (evangelization) and engage in respectful dialogue with followers of other religions, to discover the truths that God had revealed to them to guide them toward salvation, and to share with them the truth as we have discovered it in Christ.

[Hank Kerchief]

What happens to pagan idol worshippers who do follow their conscience?

When their conscience makes them fly airplanes into tall buildings, what do you think happens to them?

Hank

[JmyBryan]

Thank you for the informative link. I recommend it to all.

From what teaching of Jesus do you derive a canon or need for canonical sanction? Or do you assume a church is not a church unless it has official literature which can no longer be changed or questioned because it has canonicity?

Personally, I am fascinated by the lack of understanding evidenced by many stalwart Christians of Biblical origins. The largest majority in a recent poll on MSNBC believe the Bible to be inerrant. IMHO a strange conclusion for such an educated culture. Contradictions cannot be rationalized into inerrancy without an unwillingness to think critically.

[JmyBryan]

Apologies already - the poll was not whether the Bible was inerrant, a view I can see the rationality behind, but whether the Bible was 100% literally true.

[MarMema]

God is able to save anyone he chooses.

This is the doctrine of my faith - it is arrogant to think otherwise.

[SoothingDave]

Most people have a very superficial understanding of the Galileo situation. He was not incarcerated because he disagreed with a Church dogma about the Sun. Astronomy is not an area covered by infallibility regardless.

I realize that - however doctrinal issues exist just like Calvinism, & Arminianism. To deny that is to open your eyes within your bowels.

Very clever. Do you have an example? Since they "exist" I thought you might?

How does celebrating Mass in Latin de-rich the poor? For that matter how does a Baptist service in English enrich the poor?

Christ took Salvation from the Synagogue and gave it to the poor. A Latin Mass will be only understood by those intelligent enough to comprehend latin, something you wont find among the demographics of todays inner city. Is it trying to reach people and spread the Word or is it merely spooning Christ out in a controlled manner to those so educated?

As I said, the primary, if not sole purpose of a Mass is to worship God. I also said that the Bible readings and sermon would be in the vernacular. So what part of "reaching people" and "spreading the Word" would be missing?

As for not understanding the ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin, there are, as I already said, Missals with English translations. So that isn't an excuse either. You haven't addressed what I said at all, just listed your prejudice again.

As for Baptist /English services, it takes the predominant language of the region and makes it accessible to anyone who comes in the door, not just the pew filler Sunday Christian / Holiday types.

As would a Catholic Mass in Latin with Missals and the readings and sermon in the vernacular. Shall we tailor everything we do to the ignorant folks who may stumble across the doorway? Or should we honor God the best way we know how and provide teaching to elevate even an inner city youth to know how to say "Et cum spiritu tuo" and know what it means? Must everything be remedial?

So, it is the chance of heretical teaching that bothers you? You do realize that priests do not ad lib during the Mass?

Oh please child - Ive got the whole liturgical thing down - & yes Ive heard plenty of ad-libs (Cath and Pro)

LOL. You got me there. I should have said priests are not supposed to ad lib during Mass. You will find little of this in the Latin Mass, as few can ad lib in Latin.

Do you also realize that the Mass is an offering to God, a time to worship? Those attending Mass are there to worship God, not necessarily to sit and listen to a preacher.

Im glad the worship works for you. Personally though, the liturgical constancy is boring, predictable and Spirit lacking. You are entitled though.

Liturgical constancy and even the use of a special language serves to make the liturgy different from the other activities we partake in. It is a special time and place to spend with God in worship to Him. That it is different from a normal assembly of human beings is good. That it follows a pattern is a symbol of the constancy of God.

What is it that makes you believe that my singing "O come let us adore Him" is good but singing "Venite Adoremus" is bad?

Ive got no problem with singing in Latin.

The entire Mass is designed to be sung! So what do you make of that?

Define "infallible."

Infallible = Jesus/God/Holy Spirit

Contrast that with "impeccible."

Impeccible = Pope John Paul, Billy Graham

Neither of those are definitions, rather they are examples. And neither the Pope nor Billy Graham are impeccible. Try dictionary.com.

We do not teach that Popes are without sin. This is a common misconception and I would think you would know better.

Ya huh - certainly wasnt that way in our Diocese 30 years ago.

I can assure you that no Diocese taught that the Pope was without sin.

I asked you to define "co-redeemer." You have failed. Shall I rail about some teaching of yours without even having the faintest idea of how to define it? Wouldn't that make me ignorant?

co-redeemer = someone elevated to the level of Christ - spare me your slavish need for these simple definitions.

My "slavish need" to have you define your terms reveals that you don't know what you are talking about. The furthest stretch of the Catholic imagination of Mary as "Co-Redeemer" does not elevate her to the level of Christ. It is called "ignorance" when you talk about things you don't understand and it is called a "strawman" to attack ideas of your opponent which he does not hold.

Do I do that to your faith?

SD

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I'm certainly not an expert on the theoretical question of the NT canon, a very fascinating topic in the history of ideas of early Catholic Christianity. My main point was to highlight the historical fact that "the Bible" indeed is based on such an official canon, the product of deliberations on the meaning of Divine Revelation by church councils. Jesus does preach in the NT with some concept of a Judaic canon. He quotes Isaiah and refers to "the Law and the Prophets." The Pharisees and Sadducees, of course, reject Jesus' interpretations of the Hebrew prophets, as everyone else is free to do.

There isn't a "book" in the Bible, NT or OT, which, says, "OK, folks, here's the list of the official books!" The index is added later, of course.

Funniest conversation I ever had with a fundamentalist ended up with him saying everything in the Bible was to be taken literally EXCEPT when Jesus says, "This is my body" at the Last Supper. "That's just symbolic," he said. Along with the eating and drinking part, etc. Contrary to some posters here and elsewhere, I don't think that a person has to understand every word of the ancient Hebrew and Greek scriptures to be a valid Christian. That's an impossibility anyway. Most interesting book on sacred scripture I have seen is Henri de Lubac's book on Medieval Exegesis.

As for the earlier nonsensically absurd bugaboo about "theology" being banned by the Bible or something, there are some who seem not to have a clue and apparently refuse to read the ABCs of Christian history. All that really means (Grk:theos, God, logos, study) is "the study of" God, religion, sacred texts, religious teachings, etc. Any scholarly or intellectual discussion about the meaning of divine revelation and the drama of salvation - which, of course, is what everyone has been doing (more or less, less in some cases) on this thread. There is a wide and broad tent for critical and theoretical discussions of religion and affairs of the spirit within the Christian community.

[TX Bluebonnet]

Bump to read later

[agenda_express]

AMEN

[Revelation 911]

I can assure you that no Diocese taught that the Pope was without sin.

You Sir are blessed with a conservative diocese

Rochester is not so fortunate

Look - can we agree to disagree - I still see it as a solid faith -its just not for me. I see faults in yours, you see faults in mine. Im tired, my hands hurt and its been a long day - I'll meet you in the sandbox tomorrow, my daughter orientation at Catholic school is tonight.

[k2blader]

Thanks for the clarification. Now if I may ask a few more Q's... :-)

There is only one Church, the Catholic one. All other Chrstians have at some point deviated from Her.

Please tell me where the Bible says specifically that the Catholic church is the "only" Church?
I have never seen God's Word yield such a statement.

All Christians, by virtue of their Baptism, are joined together to the one Church. Your culpability for remaining outside of the Church's official boundaries and teachings is for God to determine.

Then I praise the Lord, because unlike man, He is Faithful & Just.

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst."
- 1 Timothy 1:15 -

[Iowegian]

Why do you spend so much energy and effort persecuting Christians?

I spend no time and effort doing so. I do spend some time and effort searching for the truth, however.

Of your last 50 posts, more than 40 of them have been attacking Christians.

Utter nonsense. Prove it if you are going to make a serious charge like that. Unless you consider me posting many examples of Roman Catholic dogma as "attacking Christians". If you are RC this should please you, not bother you. Your personal questions about me do tell me some things about you though. 1)You have too much time on your hands that would be better used. 2) Your faith seems to be very weak if you consider my question as an attack upon Christians. Read Luke 6:46-49 and consider if your faith is in the real "rock" (Jesus). When the tests of your faith come, He will never let you down.

What is your relationship with "sirgawain"?

Never heard of him/her. Why did he/she ask tough questions that you can't answer too?

Are you entered here under two names,

Just this one.

or are you just one of the members of the "Hit Squad"?

Quick take off your tinfoil hat and look outside to make sure the black helicopters are not there.

Ashland, Missouri

Thanks that explains a lot. BTW do I need to apologize for the thrashing the the U of I Hawkeye basketball team laid on Pretty Boy's team on your homecourt? Maybe that's what's got you so sore at me.

[Proud2BAmerican]

That expression seems to encapsulate the belief pretty much spot-on. And the determination of whether the encounter of Christ is "full" or not, would, of course, from the outside be a subjective assessment, and no doubt entirely impossible for anyone, save God.

[Jeff Gordon]

I am surprised at the diversity of opinion on this topic shown by the Catholics here. I would have thought that the Catholic educational system would have provided for more consistent responses. It could be that this topic is of no great consequence to the life of the average Catholic. That being the case, the educational system does not dwell on it as much as other more important issues.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

See #140 & the link above. "The Bible" (the collection of books we have come to understand as "the Bible") was compiled and edited by the Catholic Church (Christians who understood themselves as "Catholic" Christians in church councils) during the first 400 years of Christian history.

[Iowegian]

For a different point of view on the development of the canon of Scripture GO HERE

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

There was, in fact, an operative "canon" (Grk: kanon) of sacred scripture (i.e., "the Bible") in the 4th century A.D. It is first noted by St. Athanasius in his Epistola de decretis Nicaeni Synodi (c. A.D.350). St. Augustine uses the term "canonical" to refer to the books of sacred scripture. Both Augustine and Athanasius professed the "Catholic" Christian faith. This is just simply an historical fact. Everyone, of course, is free to depart from their understanding of Revelation, sacred scripture, and the meaning of the teachings of Christ. "The Church" compiled, edited, and authorized the official books of "the Bible." The Bible presupposes the existence of an authoritative Church, a body of believers following the teachings passed down by the Apostles and their successors. That is the historic reality of early Christianity. To argue from "the Bible" while denigrating the early Church is a contradiction. One can find in the 59th canon of the Church's Council of Laodicea (c. A.D. 360) the instruction not to use or read non-canonical books. What these Christians believed is well-documented in any civilized library.

[Iowegian]

"First of all, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century and that even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)."

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Is there a book you are recommending? (I will read it, etc.). :o)

[k2blader]

See #140 & the link above. "The Bible" (the collection of books we have come to understand as "the Bible") was compiled and edited by the Catholic Church (Christians who understood themselves as "Catholic" Christians in church councils) during the first 400 years of Christian history.

Thanks for the link. While I've yet to study the history of the Bible in full detail, I don't doubt that early "Catholic" Christians played an important role in the development of New Testament canon. Bible Basics - New Testament - Origins provides succinct background:

Christianity arose within Judaism. The earliest Christians, were Jews, so their hopes and expectations of a Messiah foretold in Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. These Christians already understood what 'scripture' was, and how to use it in the context of teaching and worship from their Jewish roots. Consequently, the formation of 'scripture' to be used for teaching and worship of the Christian faith was a logical requirement. The review of Christian writings to determine what was 'scripture'; that is valid, authoritative and holy led to the development of the New Testament and can be seen in three major stages: 1) the rise of Christian literature to the status of scripture, 2) the conscious grouping of various writings into collections, and 3) the revision and approval of these collections as a 'New Testament' - this being called a 'canon'. Canon comes from the Greek word 'kanon' meaning measuring rule. Only certain books passed the measuring rules required for 'canonization'.

Christians who considered themselves "Catholic" likely participated in stages 1 through 3 as mentioned above. (I'm a tad hazy as to when exactly the Roman Catholic church began, but it seems to have started with Peter as the "first Pope," according to Early Christian History as Viewed by Roman Catholics.

"Catholic" Christians may have helped to compile & edit the Bible, but in no instance does the Bible, as God-breathed Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV), state specifically that "the Roman Catholic church is the only church."

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
- 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV) -

[Proud2BAmerican]

The teaching is clear and readily available for any Catholic (or anyone else) to find out. The majority of Catholics though, I would guess, have enough on their plates as far as working out their own salvation in fear and trembling than to go off pontificating on whether this or that person is going to Hell. Most tend to want to try to imitate Christ, spread the Gospel, and trust in God's mercy for themselves and others. The habit of determining who is going to Hell, to me at least, usually seems to be born out of an insecure spirit regarding the prospects of their own salvation.