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.

[papertyger]

And of course you know their hearts, right? Only God does.

Then I guess your "knowing" they don't deny the body and blood is just as empty.

Really, some people would be much better debaters if they weren't so knee-jerk vindictive.

[CTrent1564]

PugetSoundSoldier:

Well, all salvation is from Christ, through the Church, which is his body. So, yes Christ has given the Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox Church, the fullness of the means of salvation via the Sacraments or what the East refers to as the Holy Mysteries. Given that most Protestant confessions stil baptize in the Holy Trinity, believe in the incarnation of Christ, paschal mystery, they are by virture of Baptism, Christian and thus related to the Church, which is Christ’ body and thus can be saved.

In addition, the Catholic Church does not say definitively who is in hell, as that is not for the CHurch to decide as that is only in God’s providence. In addition, I should have clarified that not all Protestants here go after Catholics with a vengeance. But notice the Threads that present a Protestant Position don’t have every Catholic on this forum launching flame attacks. However, if you look at the Catholic threads, they tend to get the full shot.

PugetSoundSolider, I have heard of Methodist, and I guess Free Methodist means you are somewhat of a independent Methodist, not in communion with the United Methodist Church? Again, some Methodist lean more to the Anglican Traditon, since they are an offshoot from the church of England, some are more Arminian in there doctrine, some more Weslyan, etc.

driftdiver: Ok, you are a Baptist, which also means you can have theological leanings that are Arminian or perhaps Calvinist.

Now, looking at your 2 traditions, most Methodist I know of use the Creed in their services, they also have Liturgical form of worship, although not maybe to the level of Lutherans and Anglicans, and of course certaintly not to the degree as Catholics and Orthodox. I think Methodist have historically baptized infants, have more of heiarchial structure, etc.

Baptist on the other hand, at least my experience in the Southern United States, which is the only place I have ever lived, are historically anti Creeds, anti Liturgy, and anti infant Baptism, just top of my head, which are in my humble opinion, 3 major theological differences between your 2 traditons.

In closing, I have never said everything in Protestantism is wrong. In fact, it is often said that Protestantism is corrrect in most of what it affirms, but is usually wrong in what it rejects and at there are some Protestant confessions who don’t, as a matter of doctrine, state that Catholics are going to Hell, which the Catholic Church agrees with.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

You really are vindictive, aren’t you? If you’d look at what I was responding to, it turns out that the previous poster was doing exactly that which you ascribe to me. I completed the lesson of Christ, which included the explanation of what it means to be born again.

You enjoy your game of gotcha?

[CTrent1564]

driftdiver:

With respect to this part of your post “What bugs me and possibly many others is when Catholics lay the claim that they are the only way to salvation or that their priests are equal to Christ. Some catholics agree to disagree when challenged and others throw insultspost”

I don’t know of any Catholic that claims a priest is equal to Christ. I think you are terribly mistaken if you believe that or, also, some Catholic who believes that is obviously clueless, and again, I don’t know of any Catholic I have ever met, I am in my 40’s, nor have I ever seen a Catholic on this forum, or any other that I frequent make that claim.

[Petronski]

You really are vindictive, aren’t you?

Stop projecting.

[papertyger]

See Jesus’ explanation to Nicodemus when Nicodemus says he doesn’t understand. You will see that being “born again” is a metaphor for a rebirth spiritually, not physically.

Are you really so myopic as to think I'm going to see something different when I read it again?

[Petronski]

I don’t know of any Catholic that claims a priest is equal to Christ.

You might well be facing the typical--and grotesque--distortion of alter Christus.

[Mr Rogers]

The only post of yours I’ve can find on this thread posting scripture is 410, with Matt 16:13-19.

“13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

---

So lets look at that passage, and particularly verse 19.

But before we do, lets also add Matthew 18:

“15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Also John 20:

“Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

This throws some light on Matthew 16.

Verse 16:18, as best as this unlearned Baptist figures it:

For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Common Baptist interpretation is that Jesus used a play on words. Peter means rock, and he had just made a leap of faith that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And it is this faith that Jesus will build his Church upon. Furthermore, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” I’ve read that Jews of that day would understand ‘the gates of hell’ to refer to death, and death would not prevail against faith such as Peter demonstrated.

I realize this is NOT the interpretation the Catholic Church uses. However, I think it harmonizes better with all the rest of scripture, which does NOT indicate Peter was supreme over all the other Apostles.

However, I cheerfully grant that Peter was an extraordinary fellow, whose role in the foundation of the church cannot be denied or minimized. But supreme over all the Apostles, and with his successors as Bishop Supreme forever? That seems quite a stretch!

Another interpretation is that this verse was fulfilled when Peter preached at Pentecost, and then led the way for Gentiles to follow God.

---

Now, verse 19:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

To this, he adds the other disciples & believers in Chapter 18:

“18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

I conclude all believers are added, since it says “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

This is the ministry of the church. Some say it refers to church discipline, since that is the topic that immediately precedes it. The 2-3 refer to the ones who went with you in verse 16. That makes sense to me, since Paul wrote, “11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” - 1 Cor 5.

Certainly, it is hard to believe it applies ONLY to Peter, since a much broader group was given the same power in Matthew 18 & John 20.

Hope this helps. I’ve had a bloody nose much of the day (clumsiness, not violence) and really hadn’t paid any attention to these verses until a few days ago.

[papertyger]

ahh but its a simple path...

Really? Where does the scripture say that?

[Petronski]

I’m a pretty clumsy fellow myself.

Some of it is quite violent.

[redgolum]

The Real Presence is not a “minor point”.

If you take the Bible at its word, it says that the Body and Blood is Christ is in Communion.

Now we can argue till the day is done about how, but it is very difficult to say one believes in what the Word says and then disregard it when it doesn’t fit our sense of logic. Bad things happen then.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Hi CTrent,

I would expand that Jesus said that anyone who believes in him would be saved; I think most Protestant denominations consider baptism and communion integral expressions of a person's faith, but just that - an expression. It is by faith we are saved, not by baptism or by communion.

Free Methodism grew out of the more conservative movement of Methodism back in the 1840s over the issue of slavery. Specifically, Free Methodists were completely opposed to slavery of any form, as well as the typical traditions of selling of pews, paying for prayers to others, etc. We tend to be quite Armenian/Wesleyan, along with the Nazarenes, for example.

Today, it is related to the United Methodists by the fact we share the last name...;) Free Methodists are a very conservative denomination which emphasizes a personal relationship with Christ.

We - like most evangelical denominations - hold to the inerrancy of the Word of God. We also believe that a man's salvation is between him and God; as such, we have an open communion. Anyone who professes faith in God can take communion, as it is between them and God, not the church and them.

The primary focus of the church is evangelism, predominantly though overseas missions and education. A high percentage of Free Methodists are teachers who live their faith. We also have very large and fruitful missions field in South America, Africa, and India.

In closing, I have never said everything in Protestantism is wrong. In fact, it is often said that Protestantism is corrrect in most of what it affirms, but is usually wrong in what it rejects and at there are some Protestant confessions who don’t, as a matter of doctrine, state that Catholics are going to Hell, which the Catholic Church agrees with.

I think most of the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants are over positions of dogma, not fundamental theology; I know, I was raised as a Catholic and have Catholic clergy and educators in my family! :)

It is when things like "no salvation outside the Church", or "your church is only 200 years old" that these things arise. Protestants are Christians, and are part of the church from AD33; that we have different dogma and a different ways of worship should not cause division.

There is no need to "call Protestants back to the Church"; we never left. We just worship in a different way, with some small - but not critical - doctrinal issues.

[papertyger]

In your dogma, yes.

MY dogma!

I'm talking Bible here, and you haven't brought a single verse to justify your denial of the clear, plain, meaning of Christ's own words which have been interpreted by other scriptures...you don't even bring credible alternative verses to explain eating his flesh and blood.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

If you take the Bible at its word, it says that the Body and Blood is Christ is in Communion.

I say it is minor because communion is not required for salvation. Is partaking in communion required to enter the presence of God?

[Mr Rogers]

I’ve been a Baptist since shortly after my conversion. Being both a military brat and a 25 year veteran, I have often worshiped in Chapels with services led by Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists.

We do differ on a variety of issues. MOST of the Baptists I know say believers baptism is the way to go - but that if a believer thinks his baptism as an infant suffices, then A) he won’t be allowed to become a member of a Baptist Church, but B) he is still a Christian - just lacking a bit in understanding. For my part, I wasn’t baptized until I was in High School, so NO Protestant has ever argued against my baptism. If I understand bdeaner correctly, Catholics wouldn’t deny my salvation either, since I was baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (it was a somewhat old-fashioned Amerian Baptist who baptized me).

I don’t know much about Methodist doctrine, but suspect that we differ more on form of worship than genuine content. The Methodists here will have to correct me if I’m wrong - it has been a long time since I had a Methodist for a Pastor.

Obviously, there are always exceptions. I once visited a Fundamental Bible Baptist Church in Texas...the pastor started preaching about how NO ONE in his congregation would EVER accept ANY translation but the KJV, and how anyone who did would burn in hell. I was a bit worried that I would have to fight my way out, swinging my New English Bible left and right!

In like manner, I’ve been told by Catholics that I was destined to burn in hell for not being Catholic, and that we were saved by being really good and trying hard, and would see if we were good enough on Judgment Day.

In an age where Michael Jackson is adored, can we be surprised that many church-goers are just that, and nothing more?

[Petronski]

I say it is minor because communion is not required for salvation.

Readers of this thread can believe you, or Christ (John 6).

[papertyger]

Do you see anything in the verses you have cited that precludes the normative Catholic understanding?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Yes, your dogma. Considering you refuse to acknowledge the clear explanation of bieng “born again” that Christ gave - just a verse after your cherry-pick - there is no way you will ever accept any Biblical explanation of why the Last Supper is symbolic, not literal.

Those with an open mind will accept that both interpretations are valid; both traditions - transubstantiation and symbolism - lay equal claim. Meaning both positions are positions of dogma.

And those with an open mind will understand that it is a relatively minor point since Christ does not make communion a requirement to salvation.

[Petronski]

...there is no way you will ever accept any Biblical explanation of why the Last Supper is symbolic, not literal.

Why would a Catholic accept such lies?

[Petronski]

...Christ does not make communion a requirement to salvation.

Except for John 6.