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.

[bdeaner]

However, how is “Protestants have your own traditions of interpreting the Bible. They just deny them, which is bad faith and false witness.” not personal. I’m a Protestant, so do I act in bad faith and false witness?

Allow me to qualify: If you admit to having hermeneutic presuppositions in your approach to Scripture, and you are a Protestant, then no, you do not act in bad faith nor are you a false witness. I believe there are such Protestants out there, so I apologize for the overgeneralization.

What I should have said is that sola Scriptura, as a doctrine, is a Protestant tradition that denies it is a tradition. The doctrine is a bad faith doctrine. That is more to the point and less inflammatory. I'm not attempting to fan flames.

I do respect your knowledge of scripture and your willingness to engage in rational arguments rather than a lot of the game-playing that goes on in these threads. As I have said before, I've learned alot from our discussions, and have a lot of respect for you.

And p.s. will get to some of your posts directed to me from earlier, but I have a lot of posts to respond to, so give me time. Thanks.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I figured another woman would appreciate that one. 8~)

[Marysecretary]

He strains at gnats...

[Marysecretary]

Amen, Iscool.

[Iscool]

And according to this Roman Catholic priest, 39 popes have been married. Wonder if they had a prenup? I bet those custody battles over ermine robes and red velvet shoes got pretty nasty.

And beyond those thirty nine, one has to wonder how many had girlfriends, boyfriends, illegitimate kids; how many became popes due to politics, how many were given the office because of family ties and how many bought the title...And it's a matter of history that those were common occurrences...

One of the lies they tell is that there is a complete line of apostolic succession right down to the current pope...

The fact is, many names were added (a few right after Peter) where there was no indication of anyone having the office of pope...

Some of these fictitious popes were added later in history to fill the gaps with no historical record of their existence...

[Celtman]

So why did this "true church" fragment so badly after the "reformation?"

Well, the fragmentation did not begin with the Reformation.  In Apostolic times,

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:12

Clearly, this is not the perfect will of God - but also clearly it is part of His permissive will.  Only one of the current fragments of Christianity claims (but does not possess) infallible perfection - the rest of us realize that our doctrine is not perfect, but that does not stop the pursuit of doctrinal purity as a goal.

Although the papists tried to exterminate them, there were Christians living outside papal domination from the first century until the Reformation.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

When the truth conflicts with the propaganda, print the propaganda.

[Mr Rogers]

“...sola Scriptura, as a doctrine, is a Protestant tradition that denies it is a tradition.”

Speaking as a Baptist, we generally consider sola Scriptura more of a reasonable conclusion, not a tradition. We don’t use it because others did, but because it seems reasonable, and to fit with scripture. Of course, Baptist Doctrine is like Military Intelligence...a bit of a contradiction in terms.

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (http://www.grbc.net/about_us/1689.php)

1.1 The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule [1] for saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. [2]

Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence give such clear testimony to the goodness, wisdom and power of God that they leave people without excuse, [3] yet they are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and his will that is necessary for salvation. [4] Therefore it pleased the Lord to reveal himself at various times and in different ways, and to declare his will to his church. [5] To ensure the preservation and propagation of the truth, and to establish and support the church against human corruption, the malice of Satan, and the world, he committed his complete revelation to writing. The Holy Scriptures are therefore absolutely indispensable, [6] for God’s former ways of revealing his will to his people have now ceased. [7]

1. Or, standard

2. Isaiah 8:20 Luke 16:29 Ephesians 2:20 2 Timothy 3:15-17

3. Psalms 19:1-3 Romans 1:19-21,32 Romans 2:12a,14-15

4. Psalms 19:1-3 with Psalms 19:7-11 Romans 1:19-21 Romans 2:12a,14-15 with Romans 1:16-17 and Romans 3:21

5. Hebrews 1:1-2a

6. Proverbs 22:19-21 Luke 1:1-4 2 Peter 1:12-15 2 Peter 3:1 Deuteronomy 17:18ff Deuteronomy 31:9ff,19ff 1 Corinthians 15:1 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2,15 2 Thessalonians 3:17 Romans 1:8-15 Galatians 4:20 Galatians 6:11 1 Timothy 3:14ff Revelation 1:9,19 Revelation 2:1, etc. Romans 15:4 2 Peter 1:19-21

7. Hebrews 1:1-2a Acts 1:21-22 1 Corinthians 9:1 1 Corinthians 15:7-8 Ephesians 2:20

[cva66snipe]

From the Catechism: "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

So sayeth the church leaders. But nowhere in that said in The Holy Bible. That issue is serious enough that if is not mentioned as being so in the Bible then a person must question it vs what the Bible says. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the light". Add to that John 3;16. Salvation is simple. So simple a child can accept its terms. It is a free gift of Grace through Jesus Christ to all who believe and ask to receive it. But it's not obtained by following the laws or opinions of a church oligarchy {for lack of a better word}. No ones church laws, opinions, or doctrines can do this. Not yours not mine not any ones.

Salvation can only come from and through Christ alone. It is His Baptism in His blood of our very souls that saves us. Remeber what John The Baptist said about Christ and how He would Baptize us? An act that takes place the very instant we receive Him as Lord and Savior. It is the most simple act written in The Bible and man by nature tries to make it far too complicated, conditional, and legalistic.

[Semper Mark]

Thank you for your reply.

The pardon of sins comes ONLY through the death of Christ and through his blood. Through His BLOOD!

This pardon may be received through Him, and Him alone.

Christ was and is GOD ALMIGHTY in the flesh. What mortal sinful man would God entrust to apply something as Holy as the blood of Christ to sinners for the remission of sins?

You and I, and the whole human race come into this world as depraved, condemned, lost sinners. How then does one reach the level of holiness to determain when and where to apply the blood of Christ?

There is but one remedy for the sins of man...the BLOOD OF CHRIST, and man has not the ability to apply it.

[Marysecretary]

I’m a Protestant and I like the Pope, just not the pedestal Catholics place him on.

[Marysecretary]

I DO believe it’s the only authority. Nice try.

[Celtman]

The World Wide Web is font of knowledge, and can be used easily to verify historical facts.

[Marysecretary]

Try just reading the words. Most of it is pretty simple and straightforward, not needing a lot of interpretation. Jesus says what He means and means what He says.

[Mr Rogers]

It is a matter of definition.

If the Church is:

26.1 The universal church (brought into being by the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called the invisible church. It consists of the complete number of the elect who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ its Head. The church is the bride, the body, the fullness of Christ who fills all in all.

—The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26: The Church

Then, by definition, all who are saved are in the Church.

However, if by Church is meant an entity such as the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church, then “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is outside the Word of God.

I believe the point made in the article bdeaner posted is that, since the Catholic Church considers itself to be the universal church, at least since Vatian 2, it accepts that there are folks who reject the form of their church, but who are still inside the fold. From their perspective, this is true even if some of us don’t feel like we are part of the Catholic Church in that sense.

It also gets back to using the term Roman Catholic Church. It isn’t meant as an insult to Catholics, only that some of us do not consider the ‘Catholic Church’ to be catholic in the sense used in the Baptist statement.

[Iscool]

Regardless, the fact is that gentile converts were not circumcized, before being baptized into the Church. This was the main doctrinal point. The fact that Peter would not participate in fellowship/communion with the gentiles, is not a doctrine. It could be stated that Peter was being hypocritical [which later, St. Paul states c.f. Gal 2:13], or in fact, engaging an sinful and uncharitable behavior and Paul corrected him.

Nope...

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Again, nope...Paul confirms in the very next verses it was a doctrinal issue...Obviously Peter was not only refusing to eat with Gentiles, he was siding with the Jews in that they must still be under the law...Definitely a doctrinal issue...

[bdeaner]

The World Wide Web is font of knowledge, and can be used easily to verify historical facts.

Really? Thanks Einstein. I will go read the whole World Wide Web and get right back to you...LOL.

Seriously, I'm led to conclude you have nothing but hot air to back up your statement.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There is but one remedy for the sins of man...the BLOOD OF CHRIST, and man has not the ability to apply it.

Amen! (I like your tag, as pitiful as the truth of it is.)

[bdeaner]

Try just reading the words. Most of it is pretty simple and straightforward, not needing a lot of interpretation. Jesus says what He means and means what He says.

Well in that case, let's take a look at these simple and straightfoward words in this passage right here:

James 2:14-17
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

Just reading the words here, it seems pretty simple and straightforward that works are necessary for salvation, and not just faith. Obviously, the simple and straightforward implication is that sola fide is a false doctrine.

Good, glad we took care of that! You're right. It's soooo easy to read Scripture without having any presuppositions whatsoever! Why hadn't I thought of that before? :)

God bless.

[Semper Mark]

Thanks Doc!