No Salvation Outside the Church

Catholic Answers ^ | 12/05 | Fr. Ray Ryland

[bdeaner]

Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is "no salvation outside the Church"? Doesn’t this contradict Scripture? God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Peter proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that "extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is "an infallible statement." But, it added, "this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it."

Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

Work Out Your Salvation

There are two distinct dimensions of Jesus Christ’s redemption. Objective redemption is what Jesus Christ has accomplished once for all in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension: the redemption of the whole universe. Yet the benefits of that redemption have to be applied unceasingly to Christ’s members throughout their lives. This is subjective redemption. If the benefits of Christ’s redemption are not applied to individuals, they have no share in his objective redemption. Redemption in an individual is an ongoing process. "Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling; for God is at work in you" (Phil. 2:12–13).

How does Jesus Christ work out his redemption in individuals? Through his mystical body. When I was a Protestant, I (like Protestants in general) believed that the phrase "mystical body of Christ" was essentially a metaphor. For Catholics, the phrase is literal truth.

Here’s why: To fulfill his Messianic mission, Jesus Christ took on a human body from his Mother. He lived a natural life in that body. He redeemed the world through that body and no other means. Since his Ascension and until the end of history, Jesus lives on earth in his supernatural body, the body of his members, his mystical body. Having used his physical body to redeem the world, Christ now uses his mystical body to dispense "the divine fruits of the Redemption" (Mystici Corporis 31).

The Church: His Body

What is this mystical body? The true Church of Jesus Christ, not some invisible reality composed of true believers, as the Reformers insisted. In the first public proclamation of the gospel by Peter at Pentecost, he did not invite his listeners to simply align themselves spiritually with other true believers. He summoned them into a society, the Church, which Christ had established. Only by answering that call could they be rescued from the "crooked generation" (Acts 2:40) to which they belonged and be saved.

Paul, at the time of his conversion, had never seen Jesus. Yet recall how Jesus identified himself with his Church when he spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus: "Why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4, emphasis added) and "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5). Years later, writing to Timothy, Paul ruefully admitted that he had persecuted Jesus by persecuting his Church. He expressed gratitude for Christ appointing him an apostle, "though I formerly b.asphemed and persecuted and insulted him" (1 Tim. 1:13).

The Second Vatican Council says that the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and the mystical body of Christ "form one complex reality that comes together from a human and a divine element" (Lumen Gentium 8). The Church is "the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:23). Now that Jesus has accomplished objective redemption, the "plan of mystery hidden for ages in God" is "that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Eph. 3:9–10).

According to John Paul II, in order to properly understand the Church’s teaching about its role in Christ’s scheme of salvation, two truths must be held together: "the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all humanity" and "the necessity of the Church for salvation" (Redemptoris Missio 18). John Paul taught us that the Church is "the seed, sign, and instrument" of God’s kingdom and referred several times to Vatican II’s designation of the Catholic Church as the "universal sacrament of salvation":

"The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all humankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message" (RM 20).

"Christ won the Church for himself at the price of his own blood and made the Church his co-worker in the salvation of the world. . . . He carries out his mission through her" (RM 9).

In an address to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (January 28, 2000), John Paul stated, "The Lord Jesus . . . established his Church as a saving reality: as his body, through which he himself accomplishes salvation in history." He then quoted Vatican II’s teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation.

In 2000 the CDF issued Dominus Iesus, a response to widespread attempts to dilute the Church’s teaching about our Lord and about itself. The English subtitle is itself significant: "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It simply means that Jesus Christ and his Church are indivisible. He is universal Savior who always works through his Church:

The only Savior . . . constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: He himself is in the Church and the Church is in him. . . . Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord (DI 18).

Indeed, Christ and the Church "constitute a single ‘whole Christ’" (DI 16). In Christ, God has made known his will that "the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity" (DI 22). The Catholic Church, therefore, "has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being" (DI 20).

The key elements of revelation that together undergird extra ecclesiam, nulla salus are these: (1) Jesus Christ is the universal Savior. (2) He has constituted his Church as his mystical body on earth through which he dispenses salvation to the world. (3) He always works through it—though in countless instances outside its visible boundaries. Recall John Paul’s words about the Church quoted above: "Her activity is not limited only to those who accept its message."

Not of this Fold

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus does not mean that only faithful Roman Catholics can be saved. The Church has never taught that. So where does that leave non-Catholics and non-Christians?

Jesus told his followers, "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). After his Resurrection, Jesus gave the threefold command to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17). The word translated as "tend" (poimaine) means "to direct" or "to superintend"—in other words, "to govern." So although there are sheep that are not of Christ’s fold, it is through the Church that they are able to receive his salvation.

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).

Obviously, it is not their ignorance that enables them to be saved. Ignorance excuses only lack of knowledge. That which opens the salvation of Christ to them is their conscious effort, under grace, to serve God as well as they can on the basis of the best information they have about him.

The Church speaks of "implicit desire" or "longing" that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with "a sincere heart." In that seeking they are "related" to Christ and to his body the Church (address to the CDF).

On the other hand, the Church has long made it clear that if a person rejects the Church with full knowledge and consent, he puts his soul in danger:

They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).

The Catholic Church is "the single and exclusive channel by which the truth and grace of Christ enter our world of space and time" (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, "though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat." And when they eat of it, "without knowing it or willing it" they are "incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church."

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR



Fr. Ray Ryland, a convert and former Episcopal priest, holds a Ph.D. in theology from Marquette University and is a contributing editor to This Rock. He writes from Steubenville, Ohio, where he lives with his wife, Ruth.

[kosta50]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that my choice was (a) my self-appointed goal, and that (b) it was logical to assume my choice was not random.

You also said: “Try just enjoying life.” I would ask “why is enjoying life better than not?” You said: “ I get up in the morning and go about my business”. I would ask “why is going about your business better than not?”

Notice I never said it was "better." So, how can this lead to a "hierarchy of values?" Some things I do are driven by "feels good." Some are influenced opportunistically. Some things are done out of habit. Things that "feel good' tend to be repeated and tings that "feel bad" tend to be avoided.

This is the basis for any conditioned response from a flat worm to a human. That's how living things respond. I don't know why, but that's how living things respond. This can be demonstrated repeatedly and with high degree of confidence. There are no better or worse things. There are things that benefit you finanically, physically, health-wife,  etc. and there ar things that hurt you physcially, financially, mentally, etc. The former as seen as "better" and the latter as "worse". Whether they are or not is not always clear; nor does it really matter.

Before, I said that ultimately we think we know what has value or we accept someone else’s, or we go about it unaware.

I hate to sound so stark, but fundamentally it all comes down to feels good-feels bad. Just because something feels good doesn't mean it's "better." 

[kosta50]

You included learning in your reply before, as your intent or goal, I asked “why is learning better than not learning?” You objected at this point. To attempt to overcome your objection: Is learning better than not learning? (to you).

Learning is interesting. Some people watch sports day in and day out, the same game reloaded, because they find it interesting. Is it better to watch sports or not? Better in what sense?

The same thing with learning? Better or worse in what sense? If you are learning all about astronomy and your final is in English literature, than astronomy will not be better for your academic achievement but it may feel 'better' while it lasts because it tickles your fancy, and is entertaining.

That's why I don't label anything as better or worse, or speculate if it matches my 'purpose.'

[kosta50]

Your are inquisitive, knowledgeable and look for truth

Much obliged. But you must understand I am inquisitive because I am NOT knowledgeable. I am hoping others will enlighten ME because I pretty much know that I don't know anything.

When I tested my own 'knowledge' of what I though I knew, including God, I could not say how I knew them to be true or even what they are.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. I'm going out of order. And, again, I'm hoping in part to better communicate terms.

The same thing with learning? Better or worse in what sense? If you are learning all about astronomy and your final is in English literature…

Here, we're describing learning as a conditional value. It's value is dependent upon another. If our goal is graduate (assume that graduate is better than not), then passing the Eng. Lit. final is better than failing (another conditional value) and since learning Astronomy tonight is opposing passing the Eng. Lit. final, then learning Astronomy - tonight - is not better than learning Astronomy.

Here's the hierarchy I'm referring to: learning Eng. Lit. > Passing Eng. Lit > Graduating. Each of the subsidiary values are dependent upon the value of graduating. IF graduating does NOT have value, then the others lose their value.

Conditional values get their name by requiring certain conditions in order to be true.

Again, terms.

So choosing,we we are making choices we are, hopefully, following the logic of: IF I want X, I need to do/choose Y.

Each conditional value can be state as a "because". Shorthand summary in this case could be: Learning is better than not learning because I want to graduate.

But then we reach: Why is graduating better than not? Before I mentioned being frozen if all we had was logic and conditional values. Each time we examine a conditional value we logically find the value we make this conditional upon. If we "because" it, we find the next, then the next. Forever.

IF all we have are conditional values and make our choices purely logically. We never run out of the need for the next "why/because".

This is also a limit of logic or reason. Each "proof" is a reason. And we can ask of each new reason, "why?"

Until we come upon something unconditioned - or assumed or axiomatic, "self-evident", etc.. Which we in certain cases call absolute (or objective.) This is a "just because" (no reason needed).

Whether these absolute values exists, are true, can be known etc., are what we were looking at earlier. I took this road of illustration in hopes of better communicating what I felt I was not communicating well.

Now, your statement: fundamentally it all comes down to feels good-feels bad

To keep with the terms, can we say "feels good" is an absolute value"? Or is it conditional? Is it like learning above? Would you do something that feels bad because it fulfills a higher goal?

It's gets complicated; what does "feels good" mean? I get a shot that "feels bad" but taking care of my health "feels good."

But, take an extreme example: giving one's life painfully for another. Doesn't feel good and eliminates all future feeling good.

You can say he did because to avoid a life of feels bad if he didn't; the ultimate avoidance of "feels bad". But at least we are a level above pure survival instinct and sense gratification.

What of conscience? Does not doing something that hurts your conscience, "feels bad" in this sense, tell us anything about humans? Does it tells us anything about non-conditional values? Is "feeling bad" the cause or the result?

Human values of honesty, charity, compassion… if they feel good, does this remove their value - objectively? If it feels good to someone to lie and steal and be cruel, are these then of equal value to their opposite? Is the truth of any value solely always subjective?

This may be your position. If so, I'd still appreciate your view of what conscience is.

I've gone on too long. Thanks.

[D-fendr]

I'm not being complete without including a definition of unconditional values. This is of inherent value. Value in themselves without need of condition.

The best way to phrase this is "all other conditions being equal, does it have value"?

In the case of learning before, we looked at various conditions that decide if it has value in this instance. In the case of unconditioned, we assume all these conditions are equal - no greater or lesser value either way. We remove these from affecting learning by assuming them to be equal, balance out, not affect the equation either way.

Then we ask: Does learning have value? Or: is kindness better than cruelty - all other conditions being equal.

If our answer is yes, we are saying it is an unconditioned, or absolute, or objective, value. Whether these exist, can be known, etc... this is helpful to more quickly identify and define what it is we're talking about.

[D-fendr]

I am inquisitive because I am NOT knowledgeable.

How's it go? "There are only fools who think they are wise and wise men who know they are fools."

Are you familiar with "The Cloud of Unknowing" Something you said earlier reminded me of it.

You said "We just exist. That's about all we know." The Cloud of Unknowing says something along the lines of that's all we need to know.

I can only hope so.

[kosta50]

Thank you for your posts. In will answer them out of order and piecemeal.

Regarding "unconditional value." Let me state that you can't even speak of value without a condition. Under certain conditions, learning can be of a value, but not under all.

Value makes sense only if it reflects a condition, and that makes it a relative, not absolute quality. Without someone to learn, learning becomes an oxymoron, ceases to exist. If the conditions for learning do not exist, neither does learning.

Then we ask: Does learning have value? Or: is kindness better than cruelty - all other conditions being equal

Even your question is relative. The concept of better or worse is a relative concept. I think they are meaningless questions, if they are to be answered in an absolute, conditionless sense.

If our answer is yes, we are saying it is an unconditioned, or absolute, or objective, value

I am sorry, why is an absolute value (if there were such a thing) "objective?" There is nothing objective about a value; rather I would say a value is always subjective. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" the old adage says.

Are you desperately looking for a rational way to justify or find God outside of traditional Church? The biggest believers, those who would literally die for their faith, could not tell you what God is or how do they know their belief is 'objectively' true.

In mathematics you can create a concept A and a concept B. They are meaningless and valueless and purposeless at this stage. Once you define them and give them a value (+/- or +/+, or -/-), they become operant concepts and their relationship can be established under certain conditions (i.e. f(x) = B^A).

Only then, depending on the purpose of the relationship under investigation (the set goal), can we speak of one being better or worse in a relatively 'meaningful' way. But by then we are way past anything absolute.

[kosta50]

Are you familiar with "The Cloud of Unknowing" Something you said earlier reminded me of it.

No, I am not. Most of my readings are in history, languages, and science. Philosophy and religion have historical and sociological value in my world. I read very little if any prose.

You said "We just exist. That's about all we know." The Cloud of Unknowing says something along the lines of that's all we need to know. I can only hope so.

Does that make sense to you? Why does it say that's all we "need" to know? How does the author know what we need? That's way too dogmatic.

[kosta50]

Here, we're describing learning as a conditional value. It's value is dependent upon another. If our goal is graduate (assume that graduate is better than not), then passing the Eng. Lit. final is better than failing...

I have no disagreement with your line of reasoning here except the implication that everything we do is done for a purpose or because it is perceived as "better."

Not only do we not know what will turn out to be "better" for us, but even on a short-term scale we may not even know why one would be better than the other. Some things have "equal" value, neither good nor bad, both desirable, etc. often leading to a dilemma.

The astronomy buff in my example may fail English lit and end up becoming a leading astronomer in which case failing English lit was much "better" than passing it. But his parents may have thought otherwise when he told them he flunked English lit.

Sometimes we set our goals not sure what we want. Many a college freshmen starts with one major and ends up going through half a dozen before the hormone-enraged bodies can settle on more long-term.

Some are not even sure they want to graduate, and others have no particular desire to stay in college because they could be making money in lucrative trades. Also, sometimes your major and your goal, even your marriage are decided for you, etc.

So, I hope you can see that placing values such as "better" or "worse" or doing things "just because" is not the real world we live in.

Each time we examine a conditional value we logically find the value we make this conditional upon. If we "because" it, we find the next, then the next. Forever

I disagree. We eventually reach a point of not knowing why. In such circumstances, some allow their fancy to fill in the lack of knowledge (i.e. religion, a priori assumption, blind faith) and proceed from there on to live in their world often ignoring the physical world around them.

Call it escapism, or whatever, it provides certain amount of comfort because that's one of the things they most often site (peace, no fear, being loved, etc.) directly or indirectly. They also find others who share their beliefs (more or less) and find more comfort in numbers. It becomes a "reality" even if it is illusionary. How far is that from psychosis?

To keep with the terms, can we say "feels good" is an absolute value"?

No. What feels good for me may not feel good for you.

But, take an extreme example: giving one's life painfully for another. Doesn't feel good and eliminates all future feeling good.

Doing what's 'right' is not the same thing as 'feels good.' We don't ask for sacrifice because it feels good but because we believe it's the right thing to do. Two different and unrelated concepts.

We tend to do what feels 'good' to us. That is by no means necessarily 'good' for our health, wealth or life goals. We usually do what we feel is 'right' when it comes to our wealth, health and life goals.

A woman (and this is just a random example and not a gender=specific truism) may really love being with one guy because he 'feels good' but ends up marrying someone who is not even close but who will provide the 'right' kind of environment and lifestyle for her children to grow up in.

What of conscience?

Conscience is a learned value. It's determined culturally and otherwise.

Human values of honesty, charity, compassion… if they feel good, does this remove their value - objectively?

I don't understand your question? Where is the 'objectivity' in these values?

If it feels good to someone to lie and steal and be cruel, are these then of equal value to their opposite?

If lying serves a purpose to get you off the hook, it may feel 'right'. If being compassinate will get you nothing but grief and ingratitutde, some people may have doubts about compassion being the 'right' approach. Is stealing 'wrong' under any circumstance?

Is the truth of any value solely always subjective?

Yes, they are man-made values. You will not find them among animals and the physical universe in general. Someone may argue they are "not of this world" (and that's a loaded concept!).

[Semper Mark]

“If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.”

Don't blame them. It was my fault, I'm the one who made it personal.

[Semper Mark]

I asked: “Are you a believer?”

You replied: “I don't have to be. The world exists. Something caused it to be here. What that something is I don't know.

It only took you 21 words to say NO!

I said: “If you'll get alone with God and His Word and pray, He'll reveal Himself to you. He promises us as much.”

You said: “Is that a fact or something you a priori assume to be true?”

Don't trust me, or anyone else for that matter.

Try Him for yourself. He's true.

[kosta50]

It only took you 21 words to say NO!

I tried to give you a precise answer to an imprecise question so that you would know where I stand. I could have just said yes and mislead you, since obviously I do believe in some things.

Don't trust me, or anyone else for that matter. Try Him for yourself. He's true

How do you know that, Markos? Being dogmatic about it is not helping make your well-intentioned advice credible. It sounds like "you will do it and you will like it." Not very convincing.

Imagine if someone were trying to get you to come to Buddha using your technique? "Just be one with him, pray to him and you will find him." Come on, get real, would you follow that kind of "advice?"

Besides, where are you getting the idea that you can just up and come to God when you are ready? Most of your fellow believers ould aree that faith comes first and that it is God who comes to you, not vice versa. They would say it happnes on God's time, not yours.

[kosta50]

oud aree=would agree

[Semper Mark]

I didn’t realize that I had a technique. But the difference is, is that Buddha wouldn’t be there when you got there anyway.

Besides, what’s wrong with being dogmatic?
Would you rather that a witness be spineless and
be blown about by every wind of doctrine?

[Semper Mark]

“It sounds like “you will do it and you will like it.”
Not very convincing.”

No. What I mean by “try” is, to put Him to the test, the same way you've been trying me.

“Besides, where are you getting the idea that you can just up and come to God when you are ready.”

“They would say it happens on God's time, not yours.”

“For he saith: In an accepted time have I heard thee; and in the day of salvation have I helped thee:
Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”
2 Corinthians 6:2 Douay-Rheims Bible

It seems as though God's time is NOW!

[kosta50]

But the difference is, is that Buddha wouldn’t be there when you got there anyway

How do you know that?

Besides, what’s wrong with being dogmatic?

It basically says "it's true because I say it is."

Would you rather that a witness be spineless and be blown about by every wind of doctrine?

No, all you need is compelling evidence. Don't believe me when I say don't touch the hot stove top? Okay. Go ahead and touch it then!

Now where is your compelling evidence? A book? I got dozens of books for you.

[kosta50]

What I mean by “try” is, to put Him to the test, the same way you've been trying me.

Try whom? God? Where does the Bible say you should test God?

2 Corinthians 6:2...

Is Paul God? Why do you believe a man?