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.

[blue-duncan]

“At any rate, Paul thought that celibacy for the Catholic priesthood was a good thing”

That must be why he made it a requirement for Elders and Deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

That must be why he made it a requirement for Elders and Deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

Hey now, you can't rely on the Bible to make your point! There's a catechism to consider! ;)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I was trying out your style of debate.

You left out the intelligence, appreciation of facts and logic, and interest in truth

I was trying out your style of debate but since your style of debate was devoid of intelligence, appreciation of facts and logic, and interest in truth, I stopped.

[papertyger]

Hey now, you can't rely on the Bible to make your point! There's a catechism to consider

Truer words were never spoken. Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way...

[redgolum]

Was afraid this was going to be another mega thread.

Self ping for later review.

[big'ol_freeper]

Nope, you're a Roman Catholic. In the common vernacular, a Roman Catholic is a Catholic who follows the Pope, rather than a Eastern Catholic who follows the Patriarch.

Hey NYer, I bet you will be interested to know that you follow a Patriarch and not the Pope.

Amazing how little these "experts" on the Catholic Church actually know about it.

[Petronski]

Your perseverance is so adorable.

But no, I don't want to flatter you with any more responses on that badly-beaten point.

[papertyger]

oh that the office of the Pope - with his ex cathedra claims - were so humble.

Well he IS the vicar of Christ, you know...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The Reformation supported, as do most Protestant churches, the Nicene Creed. Just not Rome's screwy interpretation of it.

As far as the anti-Scriptural doctrine of "apostolic succession," here's everything you need to know...

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

CONCLUSION

1. The doctrine of apostolic succession...

a. Is without true scriptural basis

b. Was devised by false teachers, in an attempt to counter other false teachers

c. Has been used by many different churches, each asserting their own validity and authority

d. Yet has not prevented wholesale apostasy from God and His Word

2. The Lord's church mentioned in Mt 16:18...

a. Is built on the foundation of Christ and His apostles - Ep 2:19-22

b. Grows whenever people respond to the gospel as proclaimed by the apostles - Ac 2:38-41,47

c. Is manifested wherever people continue in apostolic doctrine, not traditions of men - Ac 2:42

d. Is preserved by the power of God and the all-sufficient, once for all revealed, Word of God - Ac 20:32; 2Ti 3:16-17; Jude 3

By remaining faithful to the incorruptible seed, the Word of God, and by His grace, we will receive that "inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (Ac 20:32)...

[bdeaner]

If any church or it's leaders were 100% right then Christ death was in vain.

The Catholic Church does not claim the impeccability of its members. We are all sinners, and all fall into error. The claim, rather, is that the Catholic Church was given a special blessing by the Lord to preserve and teach the Deposit of Faith infallibly through the Magisterium and in certain, specific circumstances, on matters of theology. It is this claim that allows anyone, really, to claim the infallibility of the Scriptures, since the Bible canon was authorized by the Church long before the Reformation.

God bless.

[papertyger]

a. Is without true scriptural basis

BWAHAHAHAHA!

[Petronski]

Wow!

Protestants don’t like the Pope.

And you cite more protestants to prove it.

SHOCKER!

[bdeaner]

Thanks

You're welcome! God bless.

[papertyger]

Wow! Protestants don't like the Pope. And you cite more protestants to prove it. SHOCKER!

It sounds much more reasonable if you have da spirit of troof.

[bdeaner]

The Catholic Church has done as much or more to protect and perpetuate the existence of Western culture over the centuries than any other institution.

Absolutely! Your statement cannot be denied, and is fully supported by the objective facts of history. And this is exactly what we would expect from the Church founded by the Lord and protected by the Holy Spirit.

First, there is the obvious massive influence of the Church on music, art and architecture. That goes without saying.

But, more suprisingly for a lot of people who have been fed anti-Church propaganda, is that virtually ALL historicans of science over the last fifty years--A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Stanley Jaki, Thomas Goldstein, and J.L. Heilbron--have concluded that the Scientific Revolution was indebted to the Church.

And, of course, everone knows that the monks preserved the literary inheritance of the ancient world, not to mention literacy itself, in the aftermath of the fall of Rome.

The idea of international law was first developed in 16th century Spanish universities. A Catholic priest and professor, Francisco Vitoria, earned the title of father of international law. In fact, Western law itself is primarily a product of the Church. Canon law was the first modern legal system in Europe. Legal scholar Harold Berman has said it was "the church that first taught Western man what a moder legal system is like. The church first taught that conflicting customs, statutes, cases, and doctrines may be reconciled by analysis and synthesis."

The idea of formulated "rights" has its origin not in John Locke and Thomas Jefferson originally, but from teh canon law of the Church! Economics is another area where the Church contributed greatly, especially the late Scholastics of the 15th and 16th centuries in Spain. Etc. etc.

Western civilization, as we know it, would not be what it is without the Catholic Church.

[blue-duncan]

“2. The Lord’s church mentioned in Mt 16:18...”

You can add:

e. It has a congregational polity and discipline. Matt. 18:17, 1 Cor. 5:4-5.

f. Its worship and prayer is conducted by laity. 1 Cor. 14

g. Its elders and Deacons are family men. 1 Tim. 3, Titus 1.

h. It has 2 ordinances Communion and Baptism. 1 Cor. 11:20-26, Acts 19:4-5.

[driftdiver]

“But, more suprisingly for a lot of people who have been fed anti-Church propaganda,”

No need for propaganda, the truth is ugly enough. Catholics have an extremely violent history.

[bdeaner]

Catholics have an extremely violent history.

Human beings have a violent history! Look at the Old Testament! The United States has a violent history. I hope you are not ashamed of your country.

Catholicism has always been a civilizing force in history that has moved toward less violence and basic human rights for all people -- always moving in the direction of working against the forces of barbarism, and yes often, out of necessity, by using force. There is a time for war. If it wasn't for the crusades, let's face it, we would all be praising Allah today.

[driftdiver]

“Catholicism has always been a civilizing force in history that has moved toward less violence and basic human rights for all people”

Not rally, Catholicism has often led to incredible amounts of violence with and to Protestants. Burning or torturing someone is not a basic human right.

Your idea of necessary force is convert or die.

[bdeaner]

Not rally, Catholicism has often led to incredible amounts of violence with and to Protestants. Burning or torturing someone is not a basic human right.

Back then, everybody was burning and torturing each other! It was thanks to the Catholic Church that people don't do that stuff anymore. Think about it. Read some history from legitimate historians who are objective -- not biased on either a Protestant or Catholic perspective -- and you might be surprised. Bronxville, who posts a lot in the Religion Forum, just yesterday posted some great quotes from historians on the other thread, "How Old Is Your Church?" CHECK IT OUT HERE.

The concept of natural human rights has it's origin in the Catholic Church. Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, a Catholic priest, working with others to develop the New Laws of 1542 to improve treatment of natives in the New World, "defended the doctrine that all men are equally free; on the basis of natural liberty, they proclaimed their right to life, to culture and to property," according to historian Harold Berman.

Vitoria developed his argument from scripture and Church tradition, as well as through reason, that, having been created in God's image and endowed with a rational nature, man possesses a dignity that all other creatures lack. Thus he was able to assert, to the monarchy, that all men were entitled to a degree of treatment from his fellow human beings that no other creature could claim.

Vitoria was heavily influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas. Two concepts were especially key: (1) the divine law, which proceeds from grace, does not annul human law, which proceeds from natural reason; and (2) those things that are natural to man are neither to be taken from nor given to him on account of sin. In other words, the treatment to which ALL human beings were entitlted -- e.g., not to be killed, expropriated, etc. -- whether or not they are baptized, derives from their status AS MEN rather than as members of the faithful in a state of grace. Fr. Domingo de Sotta, who was Vitoria's colleague, put it like this: "Those who are in the grace of God are not a whit better off than the sinner or the pagan in what concerns natural rights."

That's just one example. I could go on and on.

But I think if you look around the world, or simply just right here in our country, you can see that the Catholics have been the consistent and reliable defenders of human rights and pro-life morality when others, including Protestants, were not.

I'll just give you one example -- many more where this one comes from. Consider Fuller Seminary's noterious "church grown" movement, which encouraged the segregation of their congregations. David Currie was there, and writes about this in his book, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. As he explains, "for almost a generation proponents of this movement have taught that mixing cultures and races inhibits the numerical growth of churches...I heard sermons in church advising against interethnic marriages. Some fundamentalist schools, such as Bob Jones University, even forbid interracial dating..." etc. In contrast, the Catholics have always encouraged interractial relations and intermarriage, because of the notion of natural human rights which became increasingly explicit in the doctrines of the Church over time, always going against the grain of the evils of the dominant cultures within which the Church operated, which tended usually to gravitate toward the denial of human rights, e.g. slavery in the U.S. Abortion today.

When I was an Evangelical, before I was in full communion with the Church, I found it very disturbing that some of the large Evangelical churches in the U.S. refused to take a stand against abortion. They were chicken, afriad of the controversy, afraid of losing members. But the Catholic Church has always, always, always been 100% pro-life, and has defended it even when they lost many Catholics as a result. Another example was the eugenics movement in the 20th century U.S., which was strongly opposed by the Catholic Church but supported by many Protestant churches, which were influenced by the money coming from the wealthy supporters of eugenics, such as Carnegie and Rockefeller. Think about how many Catholics left the Church over Humanae Vitae which was pro-life all the way, including against the use of contraception. Many left the Church, but the Church was undaunted, because the Church has always been unafraid to teach universal truths even when -- especially when -- they go counter to the age. If the Church hadn't done this over the centuries, we would not be where we are today as a civilization. That's just the honest to God truth, whether you're a Catholic or not; it's simply undeniable.