On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | 15 June 1998 | Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)

[annalex]

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Monday, January 23, 2006

[originally uploaded on 15 June 1998; from The Catholic Catechism, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1975, 234-236]

*****

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself that are easily misunderstood, especially in the modern atmosphere of pluralism and ecumenism. Among these claims, the most fundamental is the doctrine of the Church's necessity for salvation. Not unlike other dogmas of the faith, this one has seen some remarkable development, and the dogmatic progress has been especially marked since the definition of papal infallibility. It seems that as the Church further clarified her own identity as regards the papacy and collegiality, she also deepened (without changing) her self-understanding as the mediator of salvation to mankind.

The New Testament makes it plain that Christ founded the Church to be a society for the salvation of all men. The ancient Fathers held the unanimous conviction that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. St. Ireneus taught that "where the Church is, there is the spirit of God, and where the spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace." (35 ) Origen simply declared, "Outside the Church nobody will be saved." (36) And the favorite simile in patristic literature for the Church's absolute need to be saved is the Ark of Noah, outside of which there is no prospect of deliverance from the deluge of sin.

Alongside this strong insistence on the need for belonging to the Church was another Tradition from the earliest times that is less well known. It was understandable that the early Christian writers would emphasize what is part of revelation, that Christ founded "the Catholic Church which alone retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the home of faith; this, the temple of God." (37) They were combating defections from Catholic unity and refuting the heresies that divided Christianity in the Mediterranean world and paved the way for the rise of Islam in the seventh century.

But they also had the biblical narrative of the "pagan" Cornelius who, the Acts tell us, was "an upright and God-fearing man" even before baptism. Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were "God-fearing" people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized. Ambrose and Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions. By the twelfth century, it was widely assumed that a person can be saved if some "invincible obstacle stands in the way" of his baptism and entrance into the Church.

Thomas Aquinas restated the constant teaching about the general necessity of the Church. But he also conceded that a person may be saved extra sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by reason of his at least implicit desire to belong to the Church.

It would be inaccurate, however, to look upon these two traditions as in opposition. They represent the single mystery of the Church as universal sacrament of salvation, which the Church's magisterium has explained in such a way that what seems to be a contradiction is really a paradox.

Since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 defined that "The universal Church of the faithful is one, outside of which no one is saved," there have been two solemn definitions of the same doctrine, by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 and at the Council of Florence in 1442. At the Council of Trent, which is commonly looked upon as a symbol of Catholic unwillingness to compromise, the now familiar dogma of baptism by desire was solemnly defined; and it was this Tridentine teaching that supported all subsequent recognition that actual membership in the Church is not required to reach one's eternal destiny.

At the Second Council of the Vatican, both streams of doctrine were delicately welded into a composite whole:

[The Council] relies on sacred Scripture and Tradition in teaching that this pilgrim Church is necessary for salvation. Christ alone is the mediator of salvation and the way of salvation. He presents himself to us in his Body, which is the Church. When he insisted expressly on the necessity for faith and baptism, he asserted at the same time the necessity for the Church which men would enter by the gateway of baptism. This means that it would be impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or to remain in the Catholic Church, unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made it a necessity.

Full incorporation in the society of the Church belongs to those who are in possession of the Holy Spirit, accept its order in its entirety with all its established means of salvation, and are united to Christ, who rules it by the agency of the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops, within its visible framework. The bonds of their union are the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and fellowship. Despite incorporation in the Church, that man is not saved who fails to persevere in charity, and remains in the bosom of the Church "with his body" but not "with his heart." All the Church's children must be sure to ascribe their distinguished rank to Christ's special grace and not to their own deserts. If they fail to correspond with that grace in thought, word and deed, so far from being saved, their judgment will be the more severe. (38)

Using this conciliar doctrine as guide, we see that the Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man's salvation. The reason is that, since his ascension and the descent of the Spirit, the Church is Christ active on earth performing the salvific work for which he was sent into the world by the Father. Accordingly, the Church is necessary not only as a matter of precept but as a divinely instituted means, provided a person knows that he must use this means to be saved.

Actual incorporation into the Church takes place by baptism of water. Those who are not actually baptized may, nevertheless, be saved through the Church according to their faith in whatever historical revelation they come to know and in their adequate cooperation with the internal graces of the Spirit they receive.

On both counts, however, whoever is saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ. It is to this Church alone that Christ entrusted the truths of revelation which have by now, though often dimly, penetrated all the cultures of mankind. It is this Church alone that communicates the merits won for the whole world on the cross.

Those who are privileged to share in the fullness of the Church's riches of revealed wisdom, sacramental power, divinely assured guidance, and blessings of community life cannot pride themselves on having deserved what they possess. Rather they should humbly recognize their chosen position and gratefully live up to the covenant to which they have been called. Otherwise what began as a sign of God's special favor on earth may end as a witness to his justice in the life to come.

*****

[Footnotes]

35. St. Ireneus, Adversus Haereses, II, 24, 1.

36. Origen, Homilia In Jesu Nave, 3, 5.

37. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, IV, 30, 1.

38. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, II, 14.

[annalex]

If the intent of the authors was to form a distinction from the Hebrew and pagan priesthoods

They are genetically linked, just as the Eucharist is the successor of the Hebrew levitical sacrifices.

The rest of your post simply argues that in 5c the Old English would have done better sticking to their own word "elder" rather than borrowing from Greek. It is late to re-argue that; it was late in 15 c to re-argue that. Substituting "elder" for "priest" is simply another Protestant obfuscation.

[roamer_1]

Who did that? I do the exact opposite:[...]

It seems to me that you do imply that all of Protestantism is to be discounted because of the poor works of a few of it's branches.

It is unfortunate to deny the whole of Protestantism in that way, as each denomination, each branch of each denomination, and each church of each branch are different things.

[...] explain to you that claim of the leadership of the Holy Spirit is hollow at least in some [...]

But that is expected, or at least inferred (that some churches would fail) as can be witnessed in Christ's own words to the churches in the Apocalypse of John. Note what is said to the church at Ephesus:

Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

(e-Sword: KJV)

This passage flies in the face of any church's infallibility.

[...] and in fact very many cases of Protestant denominations.

I think that to be largely untrue. There are branches of each denomination that retain closeness to their orthodoxy. Look at what is happening to the Episcopalians right now- Their membership is fleeing. Whole churches are leaving to join with the more conservative Anglicans.

Likewise, as I have said to you before, one cannot paint all Presbyterians for the sins of the Presbyterian USA branch- The Presbyterian Church of America, which I attend, while adhering to the same exact Westminster Confession, eschews the liberalism present in her sister church, and is among the most conservative and orthodox churches there is.

Note that Catholics do not claim individual leadership of the Holy Spirit.

How very unfortunate.

We know that our Church as a whole has it on the promise of Christ in Matthew 16.

See the quote above from Revelations. As an aside, How does the RCC square itself with the seven-fold church and that the council of liturgical churches now has but six members?

We also know that any disunity (I am not talking of liturgical diversity, but of doctrine) cannot be but from the Devil, because of Christ's priestly prayer in John 17.

I used to be of a similar rigidity, but I do not have that same opinion anymore. Most of the disagreements within the Protestant orthodoxy amount to little more than picking nits.

That one confession does not fully embrace the Trinity, or baptizes infants, or other such infractions is really of little consequence in comparison to the souls they minister to, and is more a matter of exhortations and debates at ecumenical councils.

What matters is the presence of the Spirit. If the Spirit abides, that is the evidence of Christ's own sanction, which is more powerful to me than any disagreement I may have with the doctrine involved.

[roamer_1]

[It is quite a different thing when experiencing the liveliness and vibrancy of churches which have not strayed away from their fundamental roots]

Definitely. As an outsider, I think that there is a dangerous amount of emotionalism in Pentecostalism in particular, but one canot deny the vibrancy.

My meaning regarding 'fundamental roots' was meant to impart orthodoxy, rather than Pentecostal/Fundamentalism. I was describing a liveliness and vibrancy in all orthodox Protestant denominations.

While I am of an orthodox Presbyterian (Reformed/Calvin) church, I do have Pentecostal leanings, and am equally comfortable in either environment. The 'emotionalism' you speak of provides for an intensity of Spirit which I have only experienced elsewhere (among others) in roadside revivalists' tents. (mus/vid)

John the Revelator proclaims that one should 'pray in the Spirit' as often as one can, and David 'danced in the Spirit' before the Lord- If one has not been caught up in the Spirit, and many have not, one is missing an entire (and important) facet of the Christian experience (IMHO).

That being said, I think that each of the Protestant denominations provide a different focus, and in that sense, provide for a diversity that the world would be worse off without.

[Quester]

That one confession does not fully embrace the Trinity, or baptizes infants, or other such infractions is really of little consequence in comparison to the souls they minister to, and is more a matter of exhortations and debates at ecumenical councils.

What matters is the presence of the Spirit. If the Spirit abides, that is the evidence of Christ's own sanction, which is more powerful to me than any disagreement I may have with the doctrine involved.

How true.

Despite it's importance, doctrine is not the most vital aspect of church life.

1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

The Catholic church attempts to wield authority through doctrine.

It would do better to put the greater emphasis on love.

[roamer_1]

[the modern English word priest does not properly capture the essential meaning of the NT Greek word, which is plainly "elder".]

That is the argument to make in 5c when England was evangelized.

But, but... the 5th c. translations were made by the RCC...

[roamer_1]

They are genetically linked,

Could you elaborate upon this point?

[roamer_1]

It would do better to put the greater emphasis on love.

Thank you for your post.

[annalex]

It seems to me that you do imply that all of Protestantism is to be discounted because of the poor works of a few of it's branches.

No. Protestantism is to be discarded altogether because its unifying principles of sola scriptura and sola fide are wrong. The poor works of some members illustrate why (1) the aforementioned principles are weak foundation and (2) the claim of divine leadership is often hollow and altogether a poor, illogical argument.

[Rev. 2:4-5] flies in the face of any church's infallibility

It only flies in the face of that particular church's infallibility. No one is arguing that there will be no heresies.

Sorry for being repetitive. I realize that there is this sorting out of Protestant denominations. I like some far better than others myself. I do not mean to tar your church, for example, by the defects of the liberal denominations. I am simply saying that the existence of liberal denominations disproves the foundational tenets of Protestantism, because they subscribe to them as well, yet fail as churches.

How does the RCC square itself with the seven-fold church and that the council of liturgical churches now has but six members?

No clue, sorry.

What matters is the presence of the Spirit

That is the reason I question the claims of the divine guidance, coming from theological fantasies that are late in coming (15c is late), scripturally false, and produced a zoo of self-evident fallacies.

[annalex]

doctrine is not the most vital aspect of church life

Very true. The Church is there to save souls. The doctrine is important because there will be anti-Christs coming as well, and one has to tell them apart.

[annalex]

In the 5c the worship was in Latin, which is a good practice for that very reason: less translations, less obfuscation.

[annalex]

Priest is one offering sacrifice to God. Now, sacrifice is the essential part of worship: if you don't give something of yourself freely, then you are not acknowledging that you don't own anything that God doesn't own as well. If you don't sacrifice, then you are a practical atheist: you may talk of God, but you don't do what you say.

Animal and other material good sacrifices were true worship as soon as they were done in clear monotheistic understanding. That is, Hebrew levitical worship was first true worship. It did not offer salvation, but it prepared for Mary and once she was there, Christ came.

Jesus is one priest forever, because His Perfect Sacrifice defeated death and freed man from sin.

The Catholic priest joins us to that Perfect Sacrifice through the vehicle of the Catholic Mass. As we see the Lamb slain and live, and go to heaven we do the perfect worship where the giving of ourselves -- such as our own suffering -- is at the same time the hope of our salvation by grace.

This is the connection. What the Hebrew priests did imperfectly, we do perfectly: we are heirs of Israel.

A book to read on this is probably Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: Experiencing the Mass.

[quadrant]

I never said there was unity among Protestant churches based on the creeds. Theses churches are divided, often bitterly, over many issues - including abortion, gay clergy, etc - but all agree that the Creeds of the Church are valid and that churches who profess them (or at least do not reject them outright) are within the Christian community.

[roamer_1]

In the 5c the worship was in Latin, which is a good practice for that very reason: less translations, less obfuscation.

Yes. An insistence on Latin in England... where the common language was Brythonic (Britons), Gaelic (Celts), and possibly Germanic (Anglo-Saxon)... No obfuscation there whatsoever.

No difference to the main point I made, though, that the RCC was in total control of all translations until the Protestant Reformation, with few notable exceptions. It is quite predictable that presbuteros would be translated in a way to justify their priesthood.

One must remember, the RCC preserved herself with all the power of empire, crushing all dissent with the force of the Roman state. Add to that the general illiteracy of the people, higher learning controlled by the RCC, She was largely taken at her word regarding the Word of God. Not because she was worthy of trust, but rather because there was no way to oppose her.

[annalex]

Latin in England

Of course, precisely because of the multiplicity and poor development of the vernacular languages. The movement away from Latin is one of Vatican II worst mistakes.

[Quester]

Protestantism is to be discarded altogether because its unifying principles of sola scriptura and sola fide are wrong. The poor works of some members illustrate why (1) the aforementioned principles are weak foundation and (2) the claim of divine leadership is often hollow and altogether a poor, illogical argument.

What do the poor works of the Catholic Church illustrate ... ?

[annalex]

That Catholics are human. The difference is that all these grossly heretical Protestant denominations — that marry gays, or allow abortion, or praise greed — derive their heresies from sola scriptura and sola fide. When a Catholic fails at something he does not start a denomination whereby his failure is proclaimed a good thing. When a Protestant fails at something, chances are he can find a denomination that fits his failure, or if not, start his own.

[Quester]

So then ... it seems to be, primarily, a matter of organization.

False Catholics are spread throughout the Catholic church (witness your latest crisis) ... while false Protestants are clumped together in associations which are demonstrably outside of traditional Protestant belief and practice.

[roamer_1]

No. Protestantism is to be discarded altogether because its unifying principles of sola scriptura and sola fide are wrong.

Utter pap.

The poor works of some members illustrate why

(1) the aforementioned principles are weak foundation

Then we might as well quit trying. If the Word of God Almighty is a 'weak foundation' then the authority of any church or apostle based in that Word cannot be proven beyond the simple means of any other religion. Without the sure foundation of the Word, Christianity is lowered to the mundane.

And as to sola fide being a 'weak foundation', then there is certainly *nothing* for any of us but doom. The Levitical system and the Law behind it have already proven that man is incapable of winning salvation by works. None are made worthy by such things.

(2) the claim of divine leadership is often hollow and altogether a poor, illogical argument.

While the RCC assumes it remains aloof, above all of her many transgressions, any honest look at her leadership through the centuries would be proof enough of the reliance upon the Spirit for leadership.

While there are churches in Protestantism which wander astray, they become removed by attrition. The Protestant vine is self pruning in that regard. But the monolithic and hierarchical RCC is designed to be hostile to any such pruning, preserving her folly within herself.

I am simply saying that the existence of liberal denominations disproves the foundational tenets of Protestantism, because they subscribe to them as well, yet fail as churches.

It is no different than the liberal dioceses that feign submission to RCC doctrine while 'looking the other way' when faced with enforcement.

That is the reason I question the claims of the divine guidance, coming from theological fantasies that are late in coming (15c is late), scripturally false, and produced a zoo of self-evident fallacies.

Bah! Being relatively new to this debate, I find myself continually astounded by the utter lack of evidence supporting the Catholic position. So much is made of whole cloth that in each and every subject I have joined, I have been able to reject the RC position in a speedy fashion. Fantasies indeed.

[annalex]

Right. Which invalidates the claim of the Holy Spirit leading all of them.

[annalex]

Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are not scriptural. This is why they are weak foundation: they are false theologies.

As a Catholic, I don’t think I am doomed at all. I have the Church that gives clear guidance toward salvation and is in full accord with the Holy scripture. I am fine, believe me.

Yes, there is an enforcement problem in the Catholic Church, but there is also unity of doctrine. That is a sign of divine guidance.