Skip to comments.
No Salvation Outside the Church
Catholic Answers ^
| 12/05
| Fr. Ray Ryland
Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is "no salvation outside the Church"? Doesnt 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, doesnt the Churchs teaching greatly restrict the scope of Gods redemption? Does the Church meanas Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believethat 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 Churchs teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by Gods 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 Christs 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 Christs members throughout their lives. This is subjective redemption. If the benefits of Christs 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. 2:1213).
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.
Heres 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. 3:910).
According to John Paul II, in order to properly understand the Churchs teaching about its role in Christs 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 Gods kingdom and referred several times to Vatican IIs 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 IIs teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation.
In 2000 the CDF issued Dominus Iesus, a response to widespread attempts to dilute the Churchs 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 Christs 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 Gods 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 itthough in countless instances outside its visible boundaries. Recall John Pauls 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 21:1517). 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 Christs 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 Churchand those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioningare not necessarily cut off from Gods 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 consciencesthose 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
![](http://www.deepinhistory.com/images/frraytrans.gif)
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.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; church; cult; pope; salvation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 941-960, 961-980, 981-1,000 ... 2,801-2,817 next last
To: papertyger
And so Rome once again denies the work and purpose of the Holy Spirit. Same old, same old.
"Indeed the Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect... Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it." (Calvin's Institutes 3.2.34.)
Although we can have a reasonable certainty of our own salvation if we possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, none of us knows the names of the elect. However, we do have a good indicator in a man's good fruits of the Holy Spirit. Good fruits come from a good tree, planted and nurtured by God. A corrupt tree produces evil fruit and will eventually be dug up and destroyed by God.
"Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." -- Matthew 15:13
961
posted on
06/30/2009 10:48:12 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: Mr Rogers
And yet, for hundreds of years, weve been content to settle - or at least discuss - issues using the Bible as our ultimate authority.You call thousands of denominations "content?"
What non-scriptural excuses are you writing about?
A good example is all the rhetorical cartwheels that have to used to deny petrine supremacy.
The unsolvable problem for protestants is they can't simultaneously claim anyone can interpret the scriptures while denying the catholic interpretation. Has it never occurred to you that the Matthew 16 passage doesn't make a peep about all the things protestants have to bring into the discussion to "understand" verse 18?
The closest protestants can get is insisting on goofy, non-scriptural, totally conjectural, conclusions that "disqualify" peter because he gets slapped down soon after.
962
posted on
06/30/2009 10:56:17 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
To: Mr Rogers
If you will cite the scriptures it contradicts, Ill be glad to discuss it with you.I'd be glad to as soon as you repudiate the rhetorical absurdity protestants engage in with Matthew 16:18. If you can approve of that kind of pettifogging, discussion would be pointless.
963
posted on
06/30/2009 11:02:21 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
To: Mr Rogers
Amen. Isn't the Westminster Confession of Fatih a lovely document attesting to God's glorious mercy? Good works are the fruit of the Holy Spirit by which we "are enabled to believe to the saving of our souls."
As such, it is very close to the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. All the confessions of the Reformation stood solidly on Scripture which is "given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."
964
posted on
06/30/2009 11:02:38 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: Mr Rogers
How does your agreement with this NOT repudiate “once saved?”
965
posted on
06/30/2009 11:06:47 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
To: papertyger
I’ve already posted on Matthew 16 - and 18, and John 20. It is hardly ‘rhetorical cartwheels’ to compare 3 sections that use such similar wording.
It is pretty common and certainly not contrary to scripture or reason to use passages in scripture to flesh out and explain a paragraph in another.
I see no sign that Peter was made Supreme above the other Apostles. Matthew 16 doesn’t say that, nor does it say that any favor Peter had would be passed on to any who followed him.
If anything, James would seem to have been ‘highest’ among the Apostles in scripture. Peter wouldn’t fear the followers of James if he was above James in rank.
You can call this “goofy, non-scriptural, totally conjectural, conclusions” - but I give quotes and reasons. I don’t know how else to hold a rational debate.
966
posted on
06/30/2009 11:09:13 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: papertyger
“I’d be glad to as soon as you repudiate the rhetorical absurdity protestants engage in with Matthew 16:18. If you can approve of that kind of pettifogging, discussion would be pointless.”
Post 768. Since I cannot refute what I wrote, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Or, you can explain WHY you disagree.
But if all you have is, “The Pope disagrees, so you are wrong” - well, we cannot discuss that.
967
posted on
06/30/2009 11:12:32 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
And so Rome once again denies the work and purpose of the Holy Spirit. Same old, same old.Better to disagree with heterodox interpretations of the role of the Holy Spirit than openly deny the Body and Blood of Christ himself!
968
posted on
06/30/2009 11:13:18 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
To: Petronski
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS IS IDOLATRY
by John Knox
"...O Papists! where shall you hide from the presence of the Lord? You have perverted his law; you have taken away his ordinances; you have placed up your own statutes instead of his. Woe and damnation abide you! Albeit that the apostles had made laws other than the express word commanded, what appertains that to you? Have you the Spirit of truth and knowledge in abundance as they had? Was the kirk of Christ left imperfect after the apostles' days? Bring yourselves to mind, and be ashamed of your vanity. For all men, whose eyes Satan has not blinded, may espy that neither wisdom nor authority of man may change or set up anything in the religion of God, without his own express commandment and word..." Advert, Papists, and consider how Satan has blinded you; you do manifestly lie, and do not espy the same. You do blaspheme God at every word, and can you not repent?
969
posted on
06/30/2009 11:13:48 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
970
posted on
06/30/2009 11:14:50 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Knox is wrong.
There is no mystery or shock to this.
I worship in the Church founded by Christ, you worship in a church founded by men like Cauvin, Knox, Machen, etc.
971
posted on
06/30/2009 11:19:02 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
To: Mr Rogers
For the record, I was agreeing with 964. I do not consider Mass to be idolatry...
972
posted on
06/30/2009 11:26:10 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: Mr Rogers
Ive already posted on Matthew 16 - and 18, and John 20. It is hardly rhetorical cartwheels to compare 3 sections that use such similar wording.It is when you do so because you don't like the clear and obvious meaning of the original passage. There is no reason to go beyond Matthew 16 to understand Matthew 16 unless you are trying to make it say something other than what it says.
I mean really...the rhetorical device is so obvious it survives translation into another language!
If anything, James would seem to have been highest among the Apostles in scripture. Peter wouldnt fear the followers of James if he was above James in rank.
James was certainly the local Bishop, and as such chose the local implementation, but note the controversy was settled after Peter stood up and spoke, not after James ruled.
973
posted on
06/30/2009 11:33:38 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
To: papertyger
you do so because you don't like
Attributing motives to another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
To: Mr Rogers
Or, you can explain WHY you disagree.Occam's razor.
But if all you have is, The Pope disagrees, so you are wrong - well, we cannot discuss that.
The pope has nothing to do with it.I reject it because the ONLY reason to not give assent to the clear and obvious meaning is because it contradicts definitive tenets of protestant doctrine.
975
posted on
06/30/2009 11:42:44 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
To: papertyger
No Christian "denies the body and blood of Christ himself." The body and blood of Christ himself were sacrificed one time on the cross and God has accepted His one-time sacrifice as payment for all the sins of Christ's flock.
"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified...
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10: 12-14,18
The RCC keeps re-sacrificing Him so that it can tell its members it holds some power of administration over them. That's why ex-Roman Catholics are so angry. They know they were hoodwinked. Faith alone in Christ alone according to God's grace alone as revealed through His word alone for the glory of God alone.
PREACHING CHRIST ALONE
976
posted on
06/30/2009 11:43:11 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: papertyger
And note that Peter was afraid of the delegation from James, and that Paul called James (first in the list), Peter and John ‘so-called pillars’. And that his statement is found in writings the Catholic Church agrees is inspired by God.
Thus, I reject the ‘establishing the Papacy’ interpretation for the ones I mentioned previously.
The Catholic interpretation cannot be shown false, but it seems highly unlikely, given the statements and history found elsewhere in the Bible.
977
posted on
06/30/2009 11:45:23 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: Religion Moderator
That “you” was intended as third person, but thanks.
978
posted on
06/30/2009 11:47:35 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Preaching Christ AloneActually, that's preaching Michael S. Horton alone.
The RCC keeps re-sacrificing Him...
But the Catholic Church does not.
979
posted on
06/30/2009 11:49:33 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
No Christian "denies the body and blood of Christ himself."I agree.
980
posted on
06/30/2009 11:49:42 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 941-960, 961-980, 981-1,000 ... 2,801-2,817 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson