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.

[Iscool]

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.

I've read that statement in numerous publications and on FR numerous times...It is usually made clear that those non-Catholics who claim they have received Jesus as their Saviour but reject the notion that the Catholic religion is the one, true, blah, blah, blah, are not participants or recipients of the salvation that Jesus Christ offers...

[papertyger]

Corinthians 1:12 says nothing about separate congregations. Indeed the singular letter would imply factions in a single congregation. Therefore, your contention would seem contrived in applying a scriptural example to a completely different post-reformation circumstance.

Clearly, this is not the perfect will of God - but also clearly it is part of His permissive will.

"Clearly" in what sense? There is not a single example of Christian congregations separated by anything but locale in the entire scripture.

Only one of the current fragments of Christianity claims (but does not possess) infallible perfection

Such a denial requires a demonstration of authority for making it.

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

Where does scripture authorize THAT claim?

[CTrent1564]

Iscool:

First, off, I have not posted a comment to you in a year and don’t care to encourage your diatribes. You jump in every Catholic post and you clearly have your own anti-Catholic agenda. Further, if I remember correctly, your views of Christology, are defacto heretical in that your views mirror the heretic Nestorious, whose doctrines where rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.

Second, “Nope” according to you, and I have already been on this board to know that you believe in Sola Meo. I stand by my post as again, Paul, Peter, James, John, etc, were all Apostles and part of the One Church, not each setting up there own churches apart from each other.

I will stand with the Fathers of the Church, the same ones who debated the canon of the Scripture and settled the canon, and their interpretations, rather than your “own personal interpretation.” No Church Father of the post-apostolic Church ever interpreted the disputes recorded in Acts 15 and Galatians 1 has a rejection of Peter being first among the apostles, or his being an Apostle. It is only those extremely anti Catholic Protestants, who want to make it say what they want it to say, in order to confirm there rejection of the Primacy of Rome and Peter’s authority given to St. Peter by Christ, which St. Paul could not, nor would he want to, undue and reject.

[papertyger]

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

It is contradictory to claim belief in an authority, then claim authority for a belief not validated by the previously mentioned authority. We Catholics have demonstrated ad nauseum how Protestants are intellectually dishonest in this regard, yet adhere to their "Bible only" fraud with cult-like mindlessness.

[bdeaner]

He left the Holy Spirit. HE is our rudder.

I agree with that statement in principle, BUT how does the Holy Spirit manifest itself? How are we to discern between what is from the Holy Spirit or what is from our own self-centered desires, or, for that matter, what is demonic?

If your claim was true, then all Protestants who sincerely seek out the Holy Spirit to guide their discernment of Scripture would ALL be in agreement in terms of doctrine, as the Bible could not simultaneously teach contradictory beliefs. And yet the reality is that there are literally THOUSANDS of Protestant sects and denominations, each of which claims to have the Bible as its only guide, each of which claims to be preaching the truth, yet each of which teaches something different from the others. Protestants claim that they differ only in non-essential or peripheral matters, but the fact is that they cannot even agree on major doctrinal issues such as the Eucharist, salvation, and justification--to name a few.

For instance, most Protestant denominations teach that Jesus Christ is only symbolically present in the Eucharist, while others (such as Lutherans and Episcopalians) believe that He is literally present, at least to some extent. Some denominations teach that once you are "saved" you can never lose your salvation, while others believe it is possible for a true Christian to sin gravely and cease being "saved." And some denominations teach that justification involves the Christian's being merely declared righteous, while others teach that the Christian must also grow in holiness and actually become righteous. Even the original "Reformers"--Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli--did not agree on doctrinal matters and labeled each other's teachings heretical.

Our Lord categorically never intended for His followers to be as fragmented, disunited and chaotic as the history of Protestantism has been since its very inception. Quite the contrary, He prayed for His followers: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21). And St. Paul exhorts Christians to doctrinal unity with the words, "One body and one Spirit...One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. 4:4-5). How, then, can the thousands of Protestant denominations and sects all claim to be the "true Church" when their very existence refutes this claim? How can such heterodoxy and contradiction in doctrine be the unity for which Our Lord prayed?

In this regard, we should be reminded of Christ's own words: "For by the fruit the tree is known." (Matt. 12:33). By this standard, the historical testimony afforded by Protestantism demonstrates that the tree of Sola Scriptura is producing bad fruit.

But this problem of doctrinal incoherence is resolved if there is ONE, singular teaching authority to which Christians can appeal. And there is really no other Church other than the Catholic Church that can be Biblically and Apostolically linked to a teaching authority provided directly by Christ, to serve as the "pillar and ground of truth." If the Catholic Church does not have this authority, then there is no teaching authority -- and the idea that there is an absence of such Holy Spirit-guided authority fits neither with logic nor scripture.

God bless.

[papertyger]

Jesus says what He means and means what He says.

So remind me again of the protestant excuse for taking the thrice mentioned "born again" literally, while figuratively understanding "this is my body" ...mentioned five times.

[Marysecretary]

Maybe protestants aren’t the ones who are interpreting it wrong.

[goat granny]

All of the church's were not practicing the same, in Revelations Jesus writes to the 7 Churches and give some an “atta boy” and some strict warnings...they were not in unison in the early church....They must have been practicing some things Christ was pleased with and some that he was not pleased with...

[Semper Mark]

“BUT how does does the Holy Spirit manifest itself?

There's your first problem right there...the Holy Spirit isn't an itself...he's an Himself. He is a member of the Godhead, the Trinity.

“How are we to discern what is from the Holy Spirit or what is from our own from our own self-centered desires or, for that matter, what is demonic?”

Simple, The Holy Spirit will never speak of Himself, He was sent into this world to glorify Christ. If you're in a situation where Christ isn't being taught, praised, or glorified, then get out! Because the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Good works are the evidence of true faith in Jesus Christ, not a requirement for it. Good works are the good fruit of a redeemed life. We are saved by grace through faith alone, per Ephesians 2.

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:4-5

---

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost...

"And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful." -- Titus 3:5,14

[Dr. Eckleburg]

one, true, blah, blah, blah

lol.

[Semper Mark]

I apologize for the does does...

These old eyes that were once sniper quality 20-15, now need a proof reader!

[bdeaner]

The biggest issue is “What do you mean by the Church?”

That's precisely the issue, yes, and this was clarified by Vatican II.

And not all Roman Catholic theologians agree with the article, some on catholic.com are a lot more limited on who outside the Roman Catholic Church can be saved.

Well, frankly, there are a lot of "Catholic" theologians out there who are really just heretics and Catholic-in-Name-Only (CINOs). They have to answer to Vatican II whether they like it or not.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

BUT how does the Holy Spirit manifest itself? How are we to discern between what is from the Holy Spirit or what is from our own self-centered desires, or, for that matter, what is demonic? I

The Holy Spirit is manifested through the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit.

But this problem of doctrinal incoherence is resolved if there is ONE, singular teaching authority to which Christians can appeal.

There is no "doctrinal incoherence" in the Protestant faith. There are shadings of differences but NONE of them careen into the blasphemy Rome teaches.

A Christian's "one, singular teaching authority" is the holy Bible. Not a decrepit behemoth that directs men away from Christ and toward the stock of trees.

[Iscool]

I didn't inject a private interpretation...I read and posted the scripture...You or anyone has an option to believe it or no...

I have no concern what your religions councils or fathers want the verses to say or twist them to say...My concern is what they actually do say...

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.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

There is the rebuke from Paul...It's clearly a doctrinal issue...It has to do with justification by works of the law as opposed to justification by faith...

I stand by my post as again, Paul, Peter, James, John, etc, were all Apostles and part of the One Church, not each setting up there own churches apart from each other.

Well of course they were (albeit the one church is not the Catholic church)...That what the dispute was over...Peter was slipping back into the circumcision thing teaching a false doctrine which was of course against the doctrine of the gospel of Grace...Paul rebuked him and pulled him back into the group...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So remind me again of the protestant excuse for taking the thrice mentioned "born again" literally, while figuratively understanding "this is my body" ...mentioned five times.

Perhaps you mean "taking 'born again' spiritually," not literally. No one relives childbirth, thank God.

Since Scripture interprets Scripture, we find Scriptural support for the Christian's spiritual rebirth and for the spiritual understanding of the Lord's Supper -- "Do this in remembrance of me."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That what the dispute was over...Peter was slipping back into the circumcision thing teaching a false doctrine which was of course against the doctrine of the gospel of Grace...Paul rebuked him and pulled him back into the group..

Isn't it strange how some RCs cannot bring themselves to admit even the tiniest flaw in Peter?

I don't recall any other apostle denying Christ three times or being called "Satan" by Christ.

And this is the guy they want to be their latex salesman.

[bdeaner]

shed blood for the name of Christ

By the way, you (understandably) misinterpreted this statement of the Papal Bull. It has an unintended ambiguous meaning. You interpreted the statement to mean someone who has shed SOMEONE ELE'S blood in Christ's name--which indeed would be twisted. But in fact the statement is in regard to martyrs who have had their OWN blood shed for the name of Christ. The meaning is clearer in the original language.

[cva66snipe]

The church is the bride, the body, the fullness of Christ who fills all in all.

That is the church. Inclusive to all churches who worship Christ as Lord and Savior. Salvation can come at anywhere at anytime. It is the rejection of that call that condemns a person.

The Laws of Moses and especially the added rules and conditions set forth by the Jewish leaders following that was a burden no man could live under and be righteous without sin. GOD knew it and sent His Son for our salvation.

[bdeaner]

the Holy Spirit isn't an itself...he's an Himself. He is a member of the Godhead, the Trinity.

You are right on this point, and I thank you for the correction. I did not choose my words carefully enough. The Holy Spirit is indeed a person, and that is precisely what the Catholic Church professes as well. The appropriate term is "Himself" not "itself."

Per the Church, "The Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. Though really distinct, as a Person, from the Father and the Son, He is consubstantial with Them; being God like Them, He possesses with Them one and the same Divine Essence or Nature. He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle."

Simple, The Holy Spirit will never speak of Himself, He was sent into this world to glorify Christ. If you're in a situation where Christ isn't being taught, praised, or glorified, then get out! Because the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it!

I do not have a problem with this statement, in principle. However, I think the problem arises when one begins to explore which doctrines glorify Christ and which do not. If one believes that to glorify Christ is to remain obedient to his expressed desires for his followers, and if you understand the Bible to say that Christ established a Church to serve as a teaching authority with the power to bind and loose, and by which hell will not prevail against it, then you glorify Christ by your allegiance to that Church. The Church is not the ultimate authority, Christ is, and by implication, by being obedient to His command through allegiance to the Church He established is to glorify Him.