Posted on 01/29/2006 5:25:55 AM PST by 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."
What an excellent analysis. I think many of the outraged responses on this thread were from people who read only the title and didn't bother to read the whole article.
"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."
That's pretty loose talk, NYer. Doctrine has certainly changed; dogma hasn't at base. Words are important as the sorry history of The Church demonstrates. Its comments like the above which can box the Latin Church into posityions and places it doesn't need to be.
You know, all this theological debate is fine, as far as it goes- but do you know that right now, all over the Middle East, muslims are being saved because they are having dreams? Jesus is revealing Himself to them sovereignly, without ANYONE preaching to them and personally leading them through a prayer or ceremony. I imagine that they know about Him by some secondary knowledge, otherwise how would they know Who He is, but there are numerous testimonies of these 'dream salvations' coming out of that region and making their way to missionary organizations.
Yes, I know- it messes with my theology too. But it's apparently happening.
Together the pope and the bishops form the teaching authority of the Church, which is called the magisterium (from the Latin for "teacher"). The magisterium, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, gives us certainty in matters of doctrine. The Church is the custodian of the Bible and faithfully and accurately proclaims its message, a task which God has empowered it to do.
Keep in mind that the Church came before the New Testament, not the New Testament before the Church. Divinely-inspired members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament, just as divinely-inspired writers had written the Old Testament, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and interpret the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Such an official interpreter is absolutely necessary if we are to understand the Bible properly. (We all know what the Constitution says, but we still need a Supreme Court to interpret what it means.)
The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors "into all truth" (John 16:12–13).
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).
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.
What denomination is this church?
Thank you for actually reading the post :-)
Many of these catholic threads are interesting.
This one seems to inspire nothing but flame bait though.
Whats your point for posting it?
non. Used to be a Baptist church about 30 years ago, and God started offending their theology by actually showing up and doing miracles. Healings and such. So now we're independent.
I got saved in this church 15 years ago. The Lord hasn't let me leave yet! :)
I just did.
Was it to gain some perspective on how to bring the church with you?
Was it to once again assert that the catholic church is the only path for salvation?
not sure here...
Can you post some sources, please!
Didn't that just happen to Naomi Wolf recently?
If the printing press had existed in Moses' day, then books would have been included, along with idols and images, among the things that people should not worship in place of G*d himself.
Bumping to read later.
http://isaalmasih.net/isa/dreamsofisa.html
This entire site seems dedicated to the phenomenon.
http://www.missionfrontiers.org/2001/01/muslim.htm
scroll halfway down to "I Have Had A Dream".
I hadn't heard that. But I hope so!
This sounds a little bit like John Kerry could have written it.
So-called "Righteousness" will be Judged.
No one can assume to know the extent of God's mercy in the Afterlife -- least of all we mere mortals -- but the Bible is clear about the terms of guaranteed Salvation by the Blood of the Lamb.
...or for humans to go into space. But that would be impossible!
Muir_Redwoods, this is called an analogy. An analogy does not prove a proposition, but it can very good for illustrating one. And for illustrating, it does not have to be true; it just has to paint a mental picture that can be understood.
For instance, I could say, "Just like Chicken Little, our friend Cindy Sue seems to be easily frightened by trivial events." You could shoot back, "Chicken Little never existed! That's a fairy tale! So that invalidates what you said about Cindy Sue." --- a pointless objection.
Or another example: I was trying to illustrate for my boys the advantage of careful planning in investing money. I said if you want reliably good bread you have to put in an envelope of yeast that's tested for potency and sold for that purpose. You could let dough set out until it gets bubbly from wild yeast in the air, but that's slow and chancy and might not rise at all.
Son #1: I'll take pancakes.
Son #2: Scrambled eggs for me.
Sheesh. What a homeschooler has to put up with.... :o)
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.