Extra ecclesiam - Outside the Church there is no salvation.

Catholic Exchange ^ | Kevin Knight

[NYer]

It's a stark sentence. Some Catholics even love its shock value, waving the doctrine like a flag in the face of their enemies. Other Catholics flatly refuse to believe it, and claim that this teaching was repudiated by the Second Vatican Council. Both groups are wrong.

Despite what some may think, this dogma is infallible, and all Catholics are required to believe it. This was repeated clearly at Vatican II, which said: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation."

At the same time, this dogma was never meant to be a sectarian battle cry, as if only Catholics may go to heaven.

So what is the correct interpretation of this sentence? What does the Catholic Church mean when she proclaims that Outside the Church there is no salvation?

OUTSIDE THE EARTH THERE IS NO LIFE
 
Saying that the Church is necessary for salvation is like saying that the earth is necessary for human life. Outside the Church there is no salvation, and outside the earth there is no life.

It's true, of course. The earth is our God-given home. If you leave here, you will die.

But if this is so, how do you explain the 445 astronauts who have flown into space and returned safely? If "outside the earth there is no life", how did Neil Armstrong ever walk on the moon?

The answer, of course, is simple: They didn't leave the earth; they just brought it with them. While they slept and walked on the moon, they were eating earth's food and breathing earth's air. Everything they had came from back home.
 
So when we say "outside the earth there is no life," we are saying that all of the means for survival are found on this planet. And when we say "outside the Church there is no salvation," we mean that all of the means of salvation -- doctrines, sacraments, and so on -- are found here, uncorrupted by error.
 
Some of these means can exist outside the visible bounds of the Church. For example, Protestants have most of the Bible, along with two of the seven sacraments. Nevertheless, these things are like the food and water on the Space Shuttle: they're life-giving, but they came from a place where they're far richer, more abundant and complete.

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

We may draw several conclusions from this.

First, if a person even suspects that the Church is necessary for salvation, but refuses to act on it before he dies, he will go to hell. As Vatican II stated, "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."

Second, if a person fails to enter or stay in the Church through no fault of his own, he may still be saved. Pope Pius IX said: "By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord."

Finally, it's not enough simply to call yourself Catholic. There is nothing magic about registering at a parish. To go to heaven, you have to take advantages of the means offered by the Church. This includes praying often, giving alms to the poor, spreading the Gospel, going to Confession and believing in all of her teachings -- even the hard ones.
 
Pope John Paul II summed it up best: "People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ. . . . This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement Outside the Church there is no salvation."

[hosepipe]

[ Now I hope you are a member of a local assembly. ]

The body of christ is totally local.. Actually thats the only way the body of christ can be divided.. by geography.. All christians in a given location are members of the same body.. When they relocate even for a moment they are members of that locality.. Local assemblys today are merely clubs.. and businesses mostly.. Corporations.. I'm not a part of that..

My presence there, would not be good for the club or me..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you all so very much for including me in the fascinating sidebar discussion of Mary!

It strikes me as particularly profound that both Mary and Peter have been lifted up by God and in the Catholic church. I say this because both of them are revealed to us as particularly human, particularly error-prone.

In Mary’s case there is the incident of Christ rebuking her because He was about His Father’s business and the incident of turning water to wine at the wedding when He rebuked her because it wasn’t His time yet.

And in Peter’s case, how can we forget the cock crowing three times or the harsh rebuke he received “Get thee behind me, Satan” when he chose his own will over God’s suggesting that Jesus should not suffer the Cross.

And yet Mary was chosen and blessed among all women to be the vessel whereby Jesus as God became enfleshed. Likewise, of all the disciples, the Father chose Peter for His first personal and direct revelation, that Jesus Christ is Lord.

It was not Peter but John who stood at the foot of the Cross with Mary – but John did not receive the revelation first.

The same could be said for Abraham who called Sarah his sister to save his own neck. Abraham was chosen, but he was also human and prone to err. Likewise Noah and Moses and David and so on.

The Living Word speaks to us by revealing flaws in the greatest of the chosen ones. The leading I have in the Spirit is that they are to be seen as human not "gods", but chosen of God and to be honored through the ages - but more importantly, that God should be praised for doing so.

My two cents…

[Dewy]

(All Christians in a given location are members of the same body.)

True, But that body is invisible now in it's current state. The universal body or Catholic church will only be together and at home in the presence of Christ.

We are at present on earth and we are commanded to go to church. Or be part of a local church of believers.

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another : and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

What day? The day of the second coming of Christ.

(Local assembly's today are merely clubs.. and businesses mostly.. Corporations.)

Agreed, some are but not all. I am member of a great local church, Where Christ is all.

Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

[hosepipe]

[ We are at present on earth and we are commanded to go to church. Or be part of a local church of believers. ]

You're WRONG.... You're brain washed..
"Wherever two or three congregate(meet), there am I in their midst"..

Every believer is part of the local body.. ALREADY..
Preaching to the choir is what club speakers do..
Usually for pay..

[Dewy]

I might be wrong---or you might be wrong.

I guess we will have to wait and see!

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Thats all I'll say on this subject.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply, jo kus! I’ve enjoyed our conversation, but truly we are at an impasse – which is fine by me, BTW.

In conclusion, I assert that God is both a person and a spirit I’ve known vitally, directly and personally for nearly a half-century; I abide in Him and He abides in me, thus I neither need nor want an interpreter --- but neither do I suggest that others do not need or want an interpreter.

[Rhadaghast]

You go...
Totally with you.
been trying to get all the prodestants to recognize baptism with fire.

[jo kus]

I thank you, as well for your conversations.

To me, the Church is an instrument of Christ to bring us closer to Him, especially the visible sacraments, not to separate us. But I am happy for you that you feel close to Christ, just the same.

Regards

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for those great words of reminder and encouragement!

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for recommending those passages of Scripture. I hope to spend time in them later today. Blessings in Yeshua upon thee and all thy house, amen, amen.

[Alamo-Girl]

And thank you, dear .30Carbine, for all your kind encouragements!

[GAB-1955]

Christ instituted TWO, in accordance with Scripture: Baptism and the Eucharist. The others are important rites, but not sacramental.

[armydoc]

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

Could you explain the apparent papal contradictions concerning freedom of religions expression? First, a statement from Pius IX from the encyclical "Quanta Cura":

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

http://www.pax-et-veritas.org/Popes/Pius_IX/quantacu.htm


Compare with an excerpt from Paul VI's "DIGNITATIS HUMANAE":

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Could you explain the apparent papal contradictions concerning freedom of religions expression?"

Hello Doctor,

Can you tell me where you see a contradiction? What do you understand these two statements to mean?

Regards,

iq

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Christ instituted TWO, in accordance with Scripture: Baptism and the Eucharist. The others are important rites, but not sacramental."

In accordance with Scripture? Where does Scripture say you were given any Sacraments?? I'm specifically looking for where you see "Sacrament" in Scripture.

What defines what is and is not a Sacrament for you?

[armydoc]

Can you tell me where you see a contradiction? What do you understand these two statements to mean?

Pius IX is saying that is an erroneous opinion, an "insanity", to believe that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." Pretty self-explanatory.

Paul VI states the opposite: "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

Do you not see the glaring contradiction? Pius IX- freedom of religious expression BAD. Paul VI- freedom of religious expression GOOD. Yes, Paul VI added a "within due limits" disclaimer, but that certainly doesn't negate the contradiction in the essence of the two papal statements.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Doctor,

It sounds like you have moved from "apparent" contradiciton to glaring and blatant contradiction. I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.

-iq