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.

[Marysecretary]

I’ve never been shy about telling what tradition I am from, but it’s mocked and ridiculed by a couple posters here so why bother. If you are really interested, I’ll freepmail you.

[bronxville]

“I spent some time last night reading about the history of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has had multiple Popes at one time, bitter fighting (with folks killed) between factions, Popes excommunicating Popes...its record as a single teaching authority is very spotty, to say the least.”

Glad to see you’re reading up on the history Mr Rogers though perhaps starting in the middle with ‘bad popes’ isn’t the way I’d go but suggest you start with the Apostolic Fathers and work your way forward.

Yes, Catholics agree there were bad popes. Historians say there were at least 8-12 out of 266 who were morally corrupt. A few of them were selected by corrupt secular governments while a few others passed it from family to family. Benedict IX 1032-1045 AD was morally corrupt. He became Pope in his late teens and early 20’s and was running around with many different women. He incited a riot in Rome because the people were fed up with him. Probably the worst pope was Alexander VI (1492-1503). He had several illegitimate children before and during his reign as pope. He was into bribery, deceit, debauchery and anything else you could imagine. Pope Innocent VII (1484-1492) and Pope Leo X (1513-1521) were from the Borgia and Medici families which were kind of like the Good Fellas of the middle ages. They were infamous in Italy. It was these three popes who contributed significantly to the unrest that led to the Reformation - which in turn (we Catholic would argue) led to secularism (the disintergration of Christendom —Christian civilization), and thus our long-overdue response to it at Vatican II, which (if you notice) rid the Papacy of a lot of its “imperial trappings” and restored it to much of what it was in the earlier centuries of the Church but Catholic Dogma was NOT nor can it be changed nor was it blurry except to those who wanted it blurred for their own personal agenda. Some of the changes are that the Pope is no longer carried around on an imperial-style litter, for example and no longer wears the three-crowned tiara, etc. He also (per the canons of Vatican II) permits the bishops to manage the internal affairs of their own dioceses. Of course, this has recently back-fired on us with the homo/pedophile scandal in the priesthood, with our critics claiming that Rome itself is to blame because of the mis-management of American bishops. So, it seems we Catholics can’t “win” with our critics, no matter what we do.

Also keep in mind that the Reformation didn’t escape many of the same kinds of corruptions that it was accusing Catholic courts of practicing. Martin Luther was disgusted with the conduct of many of fellow protestants who had authority. Church historian John Laux writes:

...in his own Wittenberg, where Protestant Princes confiscated the wealthiest bishopbrics and monasteries for their own use…while the preachers often suffered the direst want. Irreligiousness, immortality and vices of all sorts flourished...

In a 1545 letter to his wife Martin Luther writes about the Reform...

Let us get out of this Sodom. I prefer to wander about homeless and to beg my bread from door to door than to poison my poor last days by the spectacle of all these disorders. We experience it daily that the people are seven times worse today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemperate, more dishonest... [John Laux, CHURCH HISTORY, p.431]

The Catholic Church claims that its teaching is infallible, but it does NOT claim that its people are not indefectible. Even Jesus chose a bad disciple, Judas. We don’t say “Hey Jesus can’t be the Saviour, he had a bad disciple.” Ten of the disciples deserted him.

What is really amazing regarding the bad popes is that they stayed silent on issues of faith and morals. They could have defined all kinds of crazy doctrines in the name of their teaching authority, but they didn’t. Catholics think this is a testimony in favour of the Papacy. These bad popes did NOT define any doctrines. Catholics think this is part of God’s infallibility promise. Not only will God direct popes in their teaching, but He’ll also shut them down. Catholics believe God protected his Church during those periods when there were bad popes. We believe He meant what He said:

...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Mat 16:18)

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

[Marysecretary]

No we aren’t. We take the wine and bread in remembrance of Him, as He said.

[Marysecretary]

Thank you for your clear explanation. Hope your nose is better. I have a bit of an infection in mine this week.

[Marysecretary]

Excellent. Thank you.

[papertyger]

So either Jesus is lying because he claimed in one place that you must eat His body (taking John 6 literally) as well as faith being all that's needed (John 5 and John 6 literally)

- or -

Jesus is talking figuratively throughout about being consumed. That we must take His teachings internal to us to change our hearts.

Or the more likely alternative:

You are constraining Christ to your punctilious, parochial, rhetorical standards.

For example, I've actually had people tell me the Bible has errors because God doesn't seem to know that bats aren't birds, as if the boundaries of modern species classification were written in stone at the foundation of the world.

The truth is God may not consider faith and works nearly as exclusive as you do. And by the way, that's the understanding of my Church.

I guess you can insist Deuteronomy 14 is bona fide error, but I don't think God will be too impressed by your reasoning...if for no other reason than I just explained it to you.

[bronxville]

““11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.””

“It fails to address Galatians 2:14 - “I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?””

“Apart from that, I think we’ll have to respectfully disagree with the most accurate interpretation of what happened that day in Antioch.”

What is the most accurate interpretation?

“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!”

Why is that a stretch?

“Frankly, force is a much stronger word than teach, since it implies a penalty if the teaching is not followed.”

Yes, there would be a penalty.

[Marysecretary]

What utter nonsense, papertyger. You act as though the Jesus of the Bible isn’t ours, just yours. That’s foolishness and not true. Jesus isn’t a Catholic.

[Petronski]

Mocking and ridiculing a religious tradition (the Catholic Church) is an Elimcult speciality.

[papertyger]

Now to even pray beyond a couple of complete thoughts I generally must go off alone meaning away from the house to seclusion.

You would be amazed by the effect ritual has on overcoming this very problem.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

You are constraining Christ to your punctilious, parochial, rhetorical standards.

And you are not?

The truth is God may not consider faith and works nearly as exclusive as you do. And by the way, that's the understanding of my Church.

And then again, He very well may. See, there is not 100% provable solution here, nor a 100% agreed-to position. Thus it is dogma. It cannot be proven conclusively.

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by grace; it is not by communion or baptism. Thus the issue of transubstantiation - while interesting - is a minor, dogmatic issue.

[bronxville]

“THE Catholic Church.
Yes, THE Catholic Church that ‘banned’ the Gospels they found unacceptable.

Where’s the Gospel of Thaddeus? Where’s the Gospel of Silas or Andronicus? Oh that’s right. The Catholic Church burned them....

THE Catholic Church that burned women as witches and stole their property.

THE Catholic Church that sold indulgences for money.

THE Catholic Church that granted absolution to murderers for political power.

THAT Catholic Church...

“Put not your faith in the Princes of men...” Jesus said that I believe. And there ain’t one single word in my Bible about a Pope.”

Okay I’ll bite. I’ve observed the Baptists try and have a conversation while calvinists just throw slime. You want a conversation, then start over, otherwise you’re just being a silly little nilly.

[papertyger]

...do you now call me a heretic or deceiver?

I do if you have a faith that can remain strong even if God is having nothing to do with you.

Would you recognize it if God were ignoring you?

[papertyger]

No ... you haven’t.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Are you insinuating that God has nothing to do with me?

[Hacksaw]

I’ve observed the Baptists try and have a conversation while calvinists just throw slime.

Excactly. And Calvinists are the last people who should bring up witch burnings and stealing property, after their looting of Ireland.

[papertyger]

Does all that mean I gotta wash behind my ears before church?

[cva66snipe]

You would be amazed by the effect ritual has on overcoming this very problem.

Nope. I can sit in a church and my concentration is maybe 5 minutes on a good day. On a bad day the sounds there would make it unbearable. Look if I can't complete the thought process of saying The Lords Prayer at times that says there is another prevailing issue at hand I am dealing with and it's not a spiritual cause. It's the same reason I have problems reading and concentrating. But I can go take a two mile walk and say my prayers such as they are. I'll return much more recharged spiritually than I would an hour in church.

For that matter on a good day I can put on the headphones with Gospel Music and achieve the same. Ironically one of the few things I can do that come easy i playing my old six string. I learned to play on Gospel Songs. Actually it was listening to a Willie Nelson album The Troublemaker LOL. One of my top favorites of several hundred CD's.

GOD gives to each of us our callings and places to be.

[Semper Mark]

“Jesus isn’t a Catholic.”

There will be no Catholics in Heaven...

or Baptists, Presbyterians, or Methodists and so on.

Only lost sinners saved by the grace of God will ever step foot inside of those pearly gates.

Human affiliations in this world will not add one iota to your standing before a Holy God. Faith in Christ alone will save you.

[papertyger]

I have the assurance of my salvation NOW, not after the casket is closed.

You have no other "assurance" than your interpretation of Scripture.