Sacred Scripture and Outside the Church There is NO Salvation

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: outside the Church, there is no salvation. This “hard saying” has been consistently taught as a dogma of the Faith from the very inception of the Church — affirmed by the Gospels and epistles, insisted on by the early Church Fathers, and later solemnly defined in holy councils and papal statements.

Naturally, it is the primary dogma being attacked today, because the modern Creed of the unwashed masses (and that includes liberal Protestants and Catholics) has only one article of faith: I believe in tolerance and respect for every religion.

In an age where truth is said to be relative, where “what’s right for you is right for you, what’s right for me is right for me,” and where intolerance is the only mortal sin, the dogma that says “Outside the Church there is no salvation” sticks out like a sore thumb.

“How intolerant! How exclusivist! You mean to tell me that you think your religion has a monopoly on truth? That only Catholics have it all right?”

“No one religion has a monopoly on truth — every religion has some truth, and every religion has some error. We’re only humans, after all, and it’s unrealistic to think that any one group could be entirely free from misconceptions about Who God is and what He expects of us.”

“In the end, God is not going to give us theological entrance exams before we can get into Heaven — we’ll be judged on how we treated the sick, the hungry, the poor, and not on how correct our theology was. It doesn’t matter what you believe, just how you act.”

Do those words sound at all familiar? They certainly sound familiar to me, because those are the very words that came out of my mouth on a fairly regular basis some five-or-so years ago. Those words summarize the overwhelmingly, universally accepted understanding of religion and faith — just do whatever makes you feel good, and don’t judge anyone else.

What saith the Scriptures? Are all religions equal? Does it really matter what you believe? Is there a dichotomy between the Christ you worship and the Church to which you belong? Some say that faith in Christ is all that matters, not what denomination you belong to — as though Christ is over here in this category, and the Church is over there in that category, as sort of an irrelevant aside.

As I have written in past articles, the Gospel is more than just “Christ on the Cross.” The Gospel is the restoration of the kingdom of David — which kingdom is the Catholic Church — and the Cross is the royal enthronement of Our King.

There is no need to restate all of the proofs that I have written about before — I will simply stipulate that the Church (and a proper understanding of the Church) is absolutely central to the Gospel.

What does Scripture teach us about the necessity of belonging to the Church, or about the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation”?

We may begin with the passage from St. Matthew’s Gospel, which every Catholic should know by heart:

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18)

This is a singular point: there are two kingdoms, and only two. One is the kingdom of God (the Church) and the other is the kingdom of Satan. If you do not belong to one, you belong to the other, as Our Lord implied:

“He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.” (Luke 11:23)

This verse puts the lie to the false sentiment that all denominations (Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, Congregational, Free Methodist, etc.) are equally doing the work of Christ and furthering the spread of the kingdom. If they are not part of the one Church that Christ founded (and He did say that He would build His “Church,” singular, not “churches”), then they scatter against Him and do not gather with Him.

This understanding is so critical, yet so misunderstood and ignored by so- called “bible Christians” (and many Catholics) in our day. From the very beginning, Christ founded only one Church, and entrusted to it, in the words of St. Paul:

The utter uniqueness of this Church should be beyond debate. We have thus far seen nothing but singularity: one Church, one faith, one baptism. There is no room here for multiple “churches” teaching multiple disparate doctrines.

So important is holding fast to this “one faith,” that Our Lord, St. Paul, and St. John all admonish us to steer clear of those who would tamper with the faith, and to consider them, not as Christian equals, but as pagans:

“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matt. 18:17)

“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” (Titus 3:10)

“If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.” (2 John 10)

“But though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1:8)

Is this exclusivist and intolerant? Absolutely — but why would you expect anything different? Is this not the very nature of God, and are not these sentiments — written by the Apostles — the very same as those of the God Who said:

“I the Lord, this is My name: I will not give My glory to another ...” (Is. 42:8)

From the absolute uniqueness and singularity of God, there springs forth an absolutely exclusive truth, revealed unto men by an absolutely unique and singular Divine Man, and entrusted exclusively to His singular and unique Church. Or, to trace it backwards, there is only one faith, found in one Church, with one baptism, entrusted to the Church by Her one Lord, the one and only-begotten Son of the One True God. To introduce diversity at any point in this catena is to destroy the whole.

And what of the “one baptism”? This, too, is a testament to the necessity of belonging to the one true Church. How are we incorporated into this Church?

It is through the sacrament of that “one baptism” that we are made members of the One Church. And of this baptism, it is said:

“Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

To say that one must be baptized for salvation is to say that one must be inside the Church to be saved, for baptism is what incorporates us into the Church. If baptism is necessary for salvation, and the Church is necessary for baptism, then the Church is necessary for salvation, and being “outside the Church” is to endanger one’s eternal soul.

We need look no further than the prophecy of Daniel to find some identifying marks of this one Church:

“... the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth ... the God of Heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never by destroyed, and His kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people: and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms: and itself shall stand for ever.” (Dan. 2:35, 44)

In these two verses, the prophet Daniel reveals to us all at once the visibility, universality, and immutability of the true Church. Visibility, because this kingdom fills “the whole earth” and is as “a great mountain” — who has ever heard of a mountain that was so great as to fill the entire earth and yet remain invisible? Universality, because this kingdom fills “the whole earth,” and conquers over “all these kingdoms” of the earth. Immutability, because this kingdom “shall stand forever.”

What more proof do we need that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ? Has there ever been another Church that has filled the whole earth, that has been visible for all to see, that had its inception during the days of the Roman Empire (Daniel says this kingdom will be established “in the days of those kingdoms,” the last of which was the Roman Empire in the 1st Century), and that has remained upon the earth ever since that time?

Does anyone require still further proof that the Church which was founded in the Apostolic times was, in fact, the Catholic Church?

Then hear Pope St. Clement of Rome (d. A.D. 98/101) who says that in this Church the Apostles “knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the bishop,” and so they “appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” (Letter to the Corinthians, XLIV)

Hear the account of the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (d. A.D. 155), after which the Christians “took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels … and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together … the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom.” (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, XVIII)

Hear St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who calls the Holy Eucharist the “medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, XX)

Hear the same St. Ignatius tell us, “As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father ... so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop,” and hear him exhort us, “Do ye all, as one man, run together into the temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God.” (Epistle to the Magnesians, VII)

Hear St. Justin Martyr explain the early rites of Baptism, in which sinners “are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated ... in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed.” (First Apology, LXI)

Hear the same St. Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 130) explain the early Eucharistic Sacrifice, “of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins.” He tells us that “not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but ... we [have] been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word … is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, LXVI)

Hear St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. A.D. 202), who says that heretics “object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth,” and that “these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” (Against Heresies, Book III, II, 2)

Finally, hear this same St. Irenaeus tell us that we may “put to confusion all those who ... assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul,” and that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.” (Against Heresies, Book III, III, 2)

All of these writings date back as early as the late 1st Century, and none of them are dated later than the late 2nd Century. Who can observe these facts and deny that the Apostolic Church was anything but Catholic, both in belief and in practice? I submit to you that only the most bereft of good will and intellectual honesty can read these writings and still not conclude that the Holy Catholic Church is the one true Church.

This is the “faith once delivered to the saints” that St. Jude referred to, the detractors of which “have perished in the contradiction of Core.” (Jude 3, 11) You may remember that Core raised up a rebellion against God’s appointed vicar (Moses), reasoning that “all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?” (Num. 16:3) For this rebellion against the divinely constituted authority, the earth opened up and swallowed Core and his band, who all “went down alive into hell, the ground closing upon them.” (vs. 31-33)

Is there salvation outside the Church? Ask Core and his followers, or ask St. Jude, who compared the detractors of the Holy Faith to Core, and promised them a similar fate.

No, it is a dogma of the faith, well attested by Scripture, that there is only one Church, which is entered into by one baptism, and which professes only one faith. Those who reject this Church necessarily reject the “one faith,” and are declared by St. Paul to be “heretics” who are “anathema”.

Yes, it is an intolerant and exclusive position, but it is divinely revealed truth, which is ours to adhere to and not to alter. The Church is exclusive, and salvation is difficult to obtain, as Our Lord taught:

“And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But He said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate: for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:23-24)

We may conclude with the words of The Athanasian Creed written in the 4th Century, words that express the unchanging truth regarding the Catholic Church:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

A consensus was reached around 300 AD that the body of the Scriptures essentially that we have today was sufficiently inspired and authored of Holy Spirit as to be considered God's Word.

I've found that in studying it and abiding as best I can with Holy Spirit's help--that it is indeed, God's Word that brings light and life to my being, my years, and my eternity.

Not even my own congregational leadership needs to intrude into that at all.

The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:14)

Moreover there is asked concerning the men, who were before circumcision, and concerning the women, who were before and after, what remedy against sin did they have. — Certain ones say, that the sacrifices and oblations prevailed for the remission of sin for them. But better is it to say, that they who went forth [prodierunt] from Abraham, (were) justified through circumcision, but (their) women [mulieres] through faith and good work [operationem bonam], their own, if they were adults, and/or (that) of their parents, if they were little ones; but they who were before circumcision little ones (were) justified in the faith of (their) parents, but the parents through the virtue of the sacrifices, that is (through the virtue) which they understood spiritually in those sacrifices. Whence (St.) Gregory (the Great says): That which among us the water of Baptism prevails (to grant), this among the ancients [apud veteres] either faith alone dealt for the little ones, and/or the virtue of the sacrifice for the greaters, and/or the mystery of circumcision for those who went forth from the stock of Abraham. (Peter Lombard, Sentences, IV, I, VIII)

No, women who were faithful to the Mosaic Covenant in anticipation of the Messias were taken to Limbo, or Abraham's Bosom, upon death, to my knowledge. But circumcision for men was required for salvation, as seen in Genesis xvii.14:

"The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant."

This is consonant with Our Lord's admonition: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Note that AND does not equal OR.

St. Paul parallels baptism with circumcision in his Epistle to the Colossians, ii.11-12:

"In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead."

Does "destroyed out of his people" mean the soul condemed to eternal damnation? The Israelites were just as legalistic as anybody else, and many of the legalisms were not given by Word of God, but by Israelite lawyers.

But it doesn't matter what the Israelites believe, you see. They don't belong to the Roman Catholic Church, and are therefore condemed to eternal damnation. That was related to my original question on the thread; this aspect is just where the conversation has degraded to.

Are we now going to heaven by works, again?

We go to heaven by God's grace.

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace. (Council of Trent, "Decree on Justification", VIII)

Is this talking about the ritual of baptism or the change in the heart and soul that the ritual symbolizes?

It really doesn't matter about the Israelites, they are condemed to eternal damnation because they did not, nor do they, belong to the Roman Catholic Church.

The fact is, that no leader of any human church on the face of the Earth is going to tell me, with any authority, that my soul is condemed to eternal damnation because I am not a contributing member thereof. Nothing that you or anyone else out here say will change what I know in my heart.

You assume that it was the catholics that carried the words throughout time... I know, based on historical fact, that the RCC is not responsible for the canonization, nor the codex.

Prove it, then. Have you read the "History of the Church" [330 AD] by Eusebius of Caesarea? The Church he describes sounds a lot more like the Catholic Church than a Protestant one.

Speaking of metaphors, it seems the "Word" flips back and forth to make it fit one's belief. If anything, Christ' instruction is far from being a metaphor and I certainly never read any metaphors from St. Paul. They told it like it is.

20,000 Churches using metaphors in their bibles certainly would confuse some without a true strong teaching magesterium to guide them.

I posted the following on another thread and have posted on several inter-denominational forums and have only had one response to my question. It follows below the question.

Can anyone give a definition of Jesus' admonitions stated in the following scripture verses and Paul's admonition to the Church at Corinth:

John 53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him

"...those taking the bread and cup "in an unworthy manner" were "guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27-30; cf"

And Jesus says, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" at the Last Supper,

What does this all mean?

***”I am not sure that I completely understand these words, however, this is how I see them.

Some of the Bible is metaphor. Jesus used the matzoh and wine of the Passover as a powerful metaphor for His own sacrifice. His words in John 6 appear to create another dimension to this metaphor: that of "tasting and seeing" the Lord's goodness, by "eating and drinking" His words and Holy Spirit so that He infuses Himself throughout our beings. And we do this, metaphorically, when we accept Jesus into our lives in His saving power, and re-enact it every time we eat the Lord's Supper. There is no need for a miraculous transubstantiation for Holy Communion to have great meaning.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.