What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

Issue: What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (extra ecclesiam nulla salus)?

ResponsE: All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world (cf. Acts 4:12). His Holy Spirit dispenses those graces through His body, the Church. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk. 10:16).

Quoting from various documents of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 776) explains:

As sacrament, the Church is Christ’s instrument. She is taken up by Him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, the universal sacrament of salvation, by which Christ is at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God’s love for men. The Church is the visible plan of God’s love for humanity, because God desires that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit. (see also nos. 846-848)

Discussion: There are two principal errors when it comes to the Church’s teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Some reject this teaching as both incorrect and arrogant. Others interpret this statement to condemn all those who are not visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church. To come to the proper understanding of this teaching, we must examine it within the context of divine Revelation and Church history. This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.

Many people translate the Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This translation does not seem entirely faithful to the Latin meaning, and contributes to the misunderstanding of the phrase.

The Latin word "extra" is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as "beyond" or "outside of"(e.g., beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated "without" (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, "Without the Church there is no salvation." This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.

In the Gospel of Mark, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and gave them the commission, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16).

In order to accept or reject the Gospel, each person must have it preached to him. If acceptance or rejection of the truth were based on private revelations given to each man, woman, and child, there would be no need for Christ to commission the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Jesus desired to reveal Himself through His body, the Church. While this passage condemns those who reject the truth, it does not condemn those who have not had the truth offered to them as Christ intends.

The New Testament clearly teaches that salvation is a gift offered by God in various ways to all men. Adam, Abel, and Enoch lived between the first sin and the covenant of Noah. They were bound by original sin. All are considered to be in heaven. Enoch did not even die, but was taken to God before death (Heb. 11:4-5). These men were neither baptized nor circumcised, but nonetheless saved.

When the gentile centurion came to Jesus in Capernaum and asked for the healing of his servant, Our Lord agreed to go to his home, but the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed" (Mt. 8:8). Jesus replied:

Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from East and West and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth (Mt. 8:10-13).

Jesus makes a clear distinction between those who are sons of the kingdom (that is, those who have knowledge of and accepted of the faith) and those who are not. He includes in the kingdom of heaven many of those who are not. Jesus graces us with His incarnation, and His presence is known through His Body, the Church. The Church carries on the work of Christ here on earth. Those to whom the Church has not preached the Good News will be judged by God in a manner known to God and tempered with His mercy. As St. Paul explains:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Rom. 2:14-16).

Many people who claim that God restricts salvation to baptized Catholics cite the Fathers of the Church to prove their assertions. While space does not allow an exhaustive analysis of the Fathers, there are several necessary points to keep in mind. First, the Fathers must be understood in the context of their writings, not in the context of the one quoting them. The majority of the Fathers who wrote on this topic were concerned about those who had once believed or had heard the truth, but now rejected it. Many of them believed the entire world had heard the Gospel. Their words were not directed at those who, by no fault of their own, did not know the Gospel of Christ.

The Fathers do affirm the inherent danger in deliberately rejecting the Church. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote at the turn of the second century, "Be not deceived, my brethren; if anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3). In the third century, St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1). In the fourth century, St. Jerome wrote, "Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation" (Commentary on Titus 3:10-11).

On the other hand, many of the Fathers did write about those who were invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. Of these, the Fathers accepted that salvation was open to them, even if in a mysterious way. The Fathers recognized that the natural law of justice and virtue is written on the hearts of all men. Those who respect this law respect the Lawgiver, though they do not know Him. As St. Justin Martyr wrote in the second century:

We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared Him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them . . . those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46).

In the third century, St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the Law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5). Origen wrote, "[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; He was always concerned about that. Indeed, He always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the Wisdom of God descended into those souls which He found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7). In the fifth century, St. Augustine wrote: "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within the heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).

Throughout the history of the Church, the Magisterium has accepted and synthesized these teachings. Recognizing that God will judge our hearts according to the gifts we have received, invincible ignorance—that is, ignorance which cannot be overcome by ordinary means—tempers divine justice. Those who have knowledge of the truth are expected to accept it. Those who have not been given this gift will be judged according to the law written on their hearts. Two noteworthy examples of this position are found in Pope Boniface VIII’s bull Unam Sanctam (1302) and Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863).

Boniface VIII wrote concerning the nature of the Church and the supremacy of the Pope. He did not write concerning the damnation of those who have never heard the Gospel. After expressing the truth that there is only one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one Church, he explained that supreme authority of the Pope is both temporal and spiritual. He then ended by declaring: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This is not a statement demanding that everyone know the supremacy of the Pope to be saved, but rather is a truthful claim that the Pope authority from God as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, to whom Our Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

Pius IX clearly expressed the full teaching a century ago. His writing distinguishes between those who are invincibly ignorant and those who have willfully separated themselves from the Catholic Church:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, His supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well-known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved [without] the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior (no. 7).

In an expression of the authentic Magisterium, the college of bishops further explained this doctrine in the context of Christocentric sacramental theology at Vatican II. Echoing the words of St. Paul, the Council described the Church as the Spouse and Body of Christ (Lumen Gentium, nos. 6-7). Jesus is one with His Spouse, the Church (cf. Eph. 5:32). The two form the one Body of Christ visible on earth. Christ is the Head, and He ministers through His body as the sacrament of salvation (Lumen Gentium, no. 9). To whom does He minister? Both His body and those apart from the body, that he might draw all men to Himself (ibid., no. 13). In this way, the Church dispenses to all men the graces of salvation won by Christ. Those who knowingly reject these graces are lost. Those who accept them are saved. Those who do not have the opportunity to accept the grace can be saved because of the presence of the Church in the world (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-16). If they are saved, they are saved through the Church without their knowledge of that grace.

[Many] of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. . . . It follows that these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (Decree on Ecumenism, no. 3).

This teaching of Christ and His Church is not meant to allow indifferentism or exclusivism. Baptism and unity with the Catholic Church provide the only assurance of salvation, but not the only means. "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism, no. 1257, original emphasis).

The will of God is for "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). To fulfill His will, Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel and baptize those who would embrace it (Mk. 16:16). He gave us the Sacrament of Baptism and unity with the Church as the ordinary means of salvation. By Baptism we are made sharers in the life of Christ. When we participate in the fullness of life within the Church, we remain obedient children of God with the Church as our Mother. To provide assurance for the salvation of all men, we must fulfill the command of Christ to evangelize the world and bring all into His Body, the Church.

Because God is not bound by the sacraments, He makes the grace of salvation available to all in ways unknown to us. This is the basis for the Church’s teaching on "Baptism of desire" (cf. Catechism, nos. 1258-60, 1281). This occurs, for example, when one seeks Baptism but dies first, or when one dies without explicit knowledge of Christ, but would have embraced the truth had it been presented. Only God can judge their souls.

The Church is the ark through which men are saved. Noah and his family were the only men saved on the ark, but even animals who had no understanding of the matter were saved with them. As the ark saved all on it, even those who had no knowledge, so does the Church, as the universal sacrament of salvation, dispense the graces won by Christ and applies them to all men of every place and condition. In a way mysterious to us, this salvation is offered to all, and God, who judges the hearts of all, will determine their destiny.

“Your arguments are standing on their head now.”

Your arrogance makes it obvious you ignore the evidence against you. Did you even read one of the links? (the first one seems to be broke, but here is another; http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html).

“The Catholic Church you describe is the entity that has authorized the Holy virtue of these books.”

It actually took approx. 1500 years for Rome to give us an “infallible canon,” as prior lists were not infallible and what Trent gave you differed from those of Hippo and Carthage.

Your own New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon, states,

“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 Church 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.”

“First of all they are not extra books at all”

The best evidence shows they were not part of the Jewish canon, the Scriptures as often invoked by Jesus and the disciples, with ancient authorities such as Philo, Josephus, Origin Tertullian Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Rufinus failing to validate them, while the most ancient list of Old Testament books, that of Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170) includes none of the apocryphal books (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).

Jerome states,

“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...”(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Cardinal Cajetan (an opponent of Luther) write this in 1532:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Though Jerome was later persuaded to include them, his prior exclusions show that such books were not part of the Jewish Scriptures, and that the canon was far from settled by Rome till Trent, and

While apocryphal books are included in some of the early manuscripts of the Septuagint, but besides having other problems, these date from the 4th and 5th centuries and do not necessarily indicate they were in the Jewish canon. It also contains works such as III Maccabees which Rome rejected as canonical.

However, “he that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Cor. 2:15), and Jesus promised “My sheep hear my voice” (Jn. 10:27), and from the beginning inspired utterance was known by it’s power, and at best what Rome could so was ratify what was manifest as inspired, along with some added books that were useful to confirm some of her unBiblical doctrine, such as praying to and for the departed.

>And which are excluded for good reasons, fallible Reformers initial acceptance notwithstanding<

“...and here you are contrary to your general argument that “the Catholic Church has no authority as men” yet you acquiesce to the act of men (Reformers) excluding specific Canon of the Holy Bible”

Your reasoning is shallow. My rejection of Rome’s additions is not that of acquiescence to the Reformers (in fact i reject infant baptism), any more than i “acquiesce” to Rome in believing in the Deity of Christ, etc. Rather my continued acceptance or rejection of a doctrine is due to it having failed sufficient warrant from Scripture or other evidence where applicable.

“The only question is who has the authority. Men like the Reformers, 1500 years from the death of Jesus Christ, or those that were closest to Him and who He instructed to “go out” and their then appointed bishops.”

Or perhaps we should follow after the Jews, who unlike Rome are actually explicitly stated to have been entrusted with the Scriptures (Rm. 9:4), and taught their “tradition of the elder’s” which they believed was divinely authoritative, but they manifested their fallibility in adding unScriptural laws (the teaching of Corban, etc.) and rejecting it’s Author, who subjected their teaching to the authority of Scripture. By such Rome is likewise shown to be unworthy of the implicit trust she demands, as like in the Pharisaical additions, some of her doctrines are also shown to lack sufficient Scriptural warrant or be contrary to that affirmed inspired revelation.

Equating yourself with the apostles is a example of extrapolation. The apostles claim to authority did not rest upon their pedigree, but upon their faith and Divine attestation of power, purity, and Scripture probity (2 Cor. 6:1-10; Rm. 15:16; 2 Cor. 12:12). The authenticity of the born again church does not rest upon formal ecclesiastical linkage, anymore than that of a true Jew rests upon physical lineage (Rm. 2:28, 29), and “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Lk. 3:8), but upon Abrahamic type faith in the essential gospel of the grace of God and it’s Christ, which is not that souls by their very works which have been done in God have truly merited eternal life (Trent, the sixth session decree on justification chapter xvi), but that righteousness is imputed to them who repent and believe with Biblical saving faith on the LORD Jesus and His sinless shed blood, and thus effectually confess the same (Rm. 3:9 — 5:1; Gal. 3:11; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tts. 3:5). And to those who do assurance is given that they now have eternal life (1 Jn. 5:13). To God be the glory. But watch thou in all things.

“somehow you give more credence not to those “instructed” but those who go against who He instructed.”

While you insist upon giving more credence to men above the Scriptures you should examine them by, i should dare not to “think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6), and should not give any full credence to anyone in essential doctrinal matters unless what they claim can demonstrably withstand Scriptural scrutiny, as the preaching of the LORD and men like the apostles could (Mt. 22:29; Lk. 24:47; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; 28:23), even as it is the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15), and that “we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Rom 15:4). Thanks be to God.

“You have accepted the Protest Reformer subtractions as your authority on the Bible.”

I stand amazed at the seeming inability of a Catholic like yourself to perceive one can actually come to his own conclusion or affirm that of another without accepting the latter as their authority. As i basically pointed out to you, if this was the case then i would be accepting Rome as my authority as well, while also being bound to all that the Reformers taught. Your inability to allow such seems to be a manifestation of the acceptance of the need for a cultic implicit trust and reliance in an authority (the RC autocracy), which renders proving all things by the Scriptures superfluous.

“if you keep reading the bible as opposed to pasting from others’ websites possibly the Holy Spirit will allow you to see it in the Word.”

Similarly, this slur also evidences a seeming disallowance that souls can actually come to warranted conclusions, rather than just parroting an authority. I assure you that i have read the Bible plenty in my 30 years as a Christian, and post a chapter online Mon-Fri that i have read, and can post far more worthy texts i have found that substantiate position if needed. And while i certainly do some research into issues (which i am hope you allow Catholic posters do as well), and have posted links for more direct info, yet much of my argumentation is my own, and thoughts of others must be weighed by me as to their veracity before i can stand behind them.

Rather than my stand requiring more Bible reading, it is such as those who place implicit trust in an autocratic authority that should do as the noble Bereans did (Acts 17:11), though according to her interpretation they cannot possible be right even they disagree with her in doctrines which she declares she has infallible defined.

“Limited Atonement and a predestined elect...”

Actually i reject the doctrine of Limited Atonement (there are even some “4 point Calvinists also), and find such Biblically reproved, and unnecessary to the rest of the TULIP, and their reasoning unwarranted (the failure of some to come to the wedding feast (Mt. 22:1-14) does not attribute inadequacy to the host, likewise neither nor does the rejection of the atonement).

As for predestination of Calvin, on that issue you must also denigrate Catholics like Augustine. I do not concur with all of TULIP, and cannot substantiate that non-elect infants are damned due to being culpable with Adam’s sin (Dt. 24:16; Rev. 20:13), nor do i believe we must fully reconcile the the dichotomy between God’s manifest sovereignty and man’s responsibility. God does seem to unconditionally sovereignly elect (Rm. 9), and sinful man cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws him (Jn. 6:44) and grants “repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18), but “God commandeth all men every where to repent”(Acts 17:300 as if they had the ability to do so, and so must this be the call of the born again preacher.

“implicit trust in her (substitute Calvin) is historically shown to be dangerous,”

Indeed, implicit trust in any man is ultimately dangerous, but this is not what sola Scriptura fosters, for though the Scriptures command obedience to rulers (Heb. 13:17), and establishes the necessity of teaches and inter dependence (1 Cor. 12), yet we are admonished “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes” (Psa 118:9). We may trust the Lord to guide them as we yield to Him, but we are shown by the Lord and His Holy Spirit that lovers of truth should prove all teaching by that which explicitly declared to be inspired, which is the Scriptures (Mk. 7:5:13; 22:23-33; Lk. 24:27; Acts 17:11, 18:28; 1 Ths. 5:21, 2 Tim. 3:16. etc.). To God be the glory.

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.