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.

[roamer_1]

St. Peter responded to the question of what to do to be saved with “Repent and be baptized all of you”

Even so, the baptism is mere facility. The church saves no one.

Were St. Peter an Evangelical Protestant, his response would have been “accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior”... right?

*shrugs* It was good enough for the criminal on the cross. It is the acceptance of Christ that is paramount, after all. One may be saved without any sacrament, without any catechism, with nothing but the bare words of acceptance. All is covered by the Blood.

It is not that I deny the sacraments, or any normal purpose of the church, but neither does it's role ascend to a position to credit for itself those things that certainly belong to Christ, one of those being the sole power of salvation.

[OLD REGGIE]

Actually you need to look again. Jesus said to peter “you are the rock upon which I will build my church” I for one don’t beleive that he made a mistake.

I believe it is you who is mistaken. I am aware of no Bible translation which even comes close to your version. Care to enlighten me?

[OLD REGGIE]

18... thou art Peter; upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I doubt Jesus was calling Peter a "this", "my church" or an "it".

Maybe the Catechism Of The Catholic Church can shed some light of the official teaching:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

-or-

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

-or-

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

[annalex]

the baptism is mere facility

Not so: Peter in Acts 2:38 sure did not sound as checking off mere facilities, and indeed, according to his Catholic opinion, "baptism ... now saveth you also" (1 Peter 3:21).

It was good enough for the criminal on the cross

Why, the Good Thief did everything the Catohlic Church requires for salvation: he repented of his sin, did good works defending an innocent from abuse and God from blasphemy, and asked Christ for mercy. Could he get off the cross into a baptismal font he surely would have. Of course, the Church was not visibly in existence till the Pentecost, but in essence the Good Thief's salvation would have been the same under the graces given the Church: he wouldn't have been asked a thing different, had there been a priest ministering to him at that time.

You realize, do you not, that by providing means of salvation the Church takes nothing away from Christ and everything from Christ?

[annalex]

Is there a question for me in this?

[Alas Babylon!]

I would say, as a Catholic, that even I have trouble believing the Church saved me. It didn't; Jesus did.

Once saved, I became part of the Church. I obey her teachings, as I know they come through Jesus. I would definitely struggle, however, through any teaching, doctrine or dogma that was opposed to what Jesus instructed.

Suppose one says that they were saved in Jesus, but the vehicle that led them to Him was the Bible. This would certainly be in line with Evangelical believe, no?. So I could say, as a Catholic, that I was saved in Jesus, but the vehicle that brought me to Him was the Church and the Bible that the Church teaches.

I cannot subscribe to the idea that the Church has any value or power EXCEPT through Christ.

[firebrand]

I do pray FOR the Church, however, every day.

That's good!

[Marysecretary]

Amen, Alas Babylon.

[roamer_1]

Not so: Peter in Acts 2:38 sure did not sound as checking off mere facilities, and indeed, according to his Catholic opinion, "baptism ... now saveth you also" (1 Peter 3:21).

Yet it is not the act which saves, nor the priest, nor the water, but the contrite heart within the applicant, lifted before the throne of God. It is the circumcision of the heart which provides the salvation.

You realize, do you not, that by providing means of salvation the Church takes nothing away from Christ and everything from Christ?

I would most certainly disagree if that church supposes to put itself on a par with it's Master. It's purpose is to serve its Master. How can the servant be equal to the Master?

[roamer_1]

I would say, as a Catholic, that even I have trouble believing the Church saved me. It didn't; Jesus did.

AMEN, and that is the proper view.

Suppose one says that they were saved in Jesus, but the vehicle that led them to Him was the Bible. This would certainly be in line with Evangelical believe, no?. So I could say, as a Catholic, that I was saved in Jesus, but the vehicle that brought me to Him was the Church and the Bible that the Church teaches.

Certainly much better, and that, I hope, would be the prevailing view.

I cannot subscribe to the idea that the Church has any value or power EXCEPT through Christ.

We are in agreement. Thank you for your clarifying post.

[Fidelus ut Deus]

Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church may someday find a good way to resolve the "separated" status of Protestants, as the RCC has found a way to heal its own relationship and origins with the Jewish people (now seen by the RCC as being in an irrevocable salvaic Covenant with God while comprising, with the Church, the People of G=d, etc.)... Some of the leading Protestant denominations have done likewise, so perhaps (for He does indeed work in strange ways!) this area of agreement within today's Christiandom may blossom some flowers of harmony between and amongst the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism? One good thing, certainly much of the most heated invective and antagonistic preaching has been, well, toned down in recent times. When the heated shouting is turned down, we all may better hear the quiet voice of God. Best regards, ps: as a quick summary of much of the progress (for any reader that may be interested) that has been made by the Roman Catholic Church in its understanding of its origins and character, here are a few paragraphs from the US Catholic Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, 2002, which explains this far better than anything (or at least, anything short) I could write (all that follows is quoted directly from the Bishops statement): Christianity has an utterly unique relationship with Judaism because “our two religious communities are connected and closely related at the very level of their respective religious identities.” The history of salvation makes clear our special relationship with the Jewish people. Jesus belongs to the Jewish people, and he inaugurated his church within the Jewish nation. A great part of the Holy Scriptures, which we Christians read as the word of God, constitute a spiritual patrimony which we share with Jews. Consequently, any negative attitude in their regard must be avoided, since “in order to be a blessing for the world, Jews and Christians need first to be a blessing for each other.” In the wake of Nostra Aetate, there has been a deepening Catholic appreciation of many aspects of our unique spiritual linkage with Jews. Specifically, the Catholic Church has come to recognize that its mission of preparing for the coming of the kingdom of God is one that is shared with the Jewish people, even if Jews do not conceive of this task christologically as the Church does. Thus, the 1985 Vatican Notes observed: Attentive to the same God who has spoken, hanging on the same Word, we have to witness to one same memory and one common hope in Him who is the master of history. We must also accept our responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation. To this we are driven, Jews and Christians, by the command to love our neighbor, by a common hope for the Kingdom of God and by the great heritage of the Prophets. If the Church, therefore, shares a central and defining task with the Jewish people, what are the implications for the Christian proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ? Ought Christians to invite Jews to baptism? This is a complex question not only in terms of Christian theological self-definition, but also because of the history of Christians forcibly baptizing Jews. In a remarkable and still most pertinent study paper presented at the sixth meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in Venice twenty-five years ago, Prof. Tommaso Federici examined the missiological implications of Nostra Aetate. He argued on historical and theological grounds that there should be in the Church no organizations of any kind dedicated to the conversion of Jews. This has over the ensuing years been the de facto practice of the Catholic Church. More recently, Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, explained this practice. In a formal statement made first at the seventeenth meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in May 2001, and repeated later in the year in Jerusalem, Cardinal Kasper spoke of “mission” in a narrow sense to mean “proclamation” or the invitation to baptism and catechesis. He showed why such initiatives are not appropriately directed at Jews: The term mission, in its proper sense, refers to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one God, who revealed himself in the salvation history with His elected people. Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore, and this is characteristic, there exists dialogue but there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews. As we said previously, dialogue is not mere objective information; dialogue involves the whole person. So in dialogue Jews give witness of their faith, witness of what supported them in the dark periods of their history and their life, and Christians give account of the hope they have in Jesus Christ. In doing so, both are far away from any kind of proselytism, but both can learn from each other and enrich each other. We both want to share our deepest concerns to an often disoriented world that needs such witness and searches for it. From the point of view of the Catholic Church, Judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation. As Cardinal Kasper noted, “God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.” This statement about God’s saving covenant is quite specific to Judaism. Though the Catholic Church respects all religious traditions and through dialogue with them can discern the workings of the Holy Spirit, and though we believe God's infinite grace is surely available to believers of other faiths, it is only about Israel’s covenant that the Church can speak with the certainty of the biblical witness. This is because Israel’s scriptures form part of our own biblical canon and they have a “perpetual value . . . that has not been canceled by the later interpretation of the New Testament.” According to Roman Catholic teaching, both the Church and the Jewish people abide in covenant with God. We both therefore have missions before God to undertake in the world. The Church believes that the mission of the Jewish people is not restricted to their historical role as the people of whom Jesus was born “according to the flesh” (Rom 9:5) and from whom the Church’s apostles came. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger recently wrote, “God’s providence … has obviously given Israel a particular mission in this ‘time of the Gentiles.’” However, only the Jewish people themselves can articulate their mission “in the light of their own religious experience.” Nonetheless, the Church does perceive that the Jewish people’s mission ad gentes (to the nations) continues. This is a mission that the Church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples “of all nations” (Greek = ethnē, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history. Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people. In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted. However, it now recognizes that Jews are also called by God to prepare the world for God’s kingdom. Their witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with the Church’s experience of Christ crucified and raised, must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. The distinctive Jewish witness must be sustained if Catholics and Jews are truly to be, as Pope John Paul II has envisioned, “a blessing to one another.” This is in accord with the divine promise expressed in the New Testament that Jews are called to “serve God without fear, in holiness and righteousness before God all [their] days” (Luke 1:74-75). With the Jewish people, the Catholic Church, in the words of Nostra Aetate, “awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder (Soph 3:9; see Is 66:23; Ps 65:4; Rom 11:11-32).” ________________________________________

[Grunthor]

I didn’t understand what OR posted so I just left it unanswered.

[roamer_1]

Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church may someday find a good way to resolve the "separated" status of Protestants [...]

Alas, I think it an unlikely possibility- I believe the Reformation has formed an irreparable rift between our two confessions. One that cannot be healed without certain instruction from the mouth of our Master. I take it, by good estimation, that we will have to be content to pester each other until the end of the age- Not an insufferable length of time, by any account.

Not that our time cannot be well spent... For there are many things that we agree upon, and we can, and do go forward together in that respect.

[...] as the RCC has found a way to heal its own relationship and origins with the Jewish people (now seen by the RCC as being in an irrevocable salvaic Covenant with God while comprising, with the Church, the People of G=d, etc.)...

My position mirrors your own. Jehovah says He has two witnesses on this earth, that one is Judah, and the other Ephraim. One cannot see, and one cannot hear. I think that Judah worships in a synagogue, and Ephraim (by some near miraculous contrivance) worships in a church. The people of Israel have much to do even yet, before we see the coming of the Messiah.

Some of the leading Protestant denominations have done likewise, so perhaps (for He does indeed work in strange ways!) this area of agreement within today's Christiandom may blossom some flowers of harmony between and amongst the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism?

Who can say? But I think that such a condition is afar off as long as Rome supposes the Protestants will ever submit. Our paths have long wandered apart, and those things which Rome insists upon are the very things which Protestants will never abide.

One good thing, certainly much of the most heated invective and antagonistic preaching has been, well, toned down in recent times. When the heated shouting is turned down, we all may better hear the quiet voice of God.

On that we can agree.

Best regards to you too.

[OLD REGGIE]

Is there a question for me in this?

Not really unless you are among those who believe that Peter was the ROCK the Church was built upon.

[OLD REGGIE]

Is there a question for me in this?

Have pity my friend. My tired old eyes (and probably brain) can't begin to digest your post. Formatting is your friend.

[Grunthor]

Is there a question for me in this?

Not really unless you are among those who believe that Peter was the ROCK the Church was built upon.

---

I am not a Catholic, as my posting history would clearly show you but I do not believe that ANYONE honestly believes that Peter was made of stone, and that a Sanctuary was physically built on top of him.

Or did I misunderstand you? Are you saying that if Christ IS the church, why would he build on a fallible mortal man?
If that was your meaning, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

[OLD REGGIE]

"[...] as the RCC has found a way to heal its own relationship and origins with the Jewish people (now seen by the RCC as being in an irrevocable salvaic Covenant with God while comprising, with the Church, the People of G=d, etc.)..."

Yet Pope Benedict XVI saw fit to change the "Easter Prayer".

"Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men."

Step backwards? Perhaps. It certainly resulted in many forced "explanations".

[OLD REGGIE]

I am not a Catholic, as my posting history would clearly show you but I do not believe that ANYONE honestly believes that Peter was made of stone, and that a Sanctuary was physically built on top of him.

Or did I misunderstand you? Are you saying that if Christ IS the church, why would he build on a fallible mortal man? If that was your meaning, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. :)

As a child I was taught that Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built. Many Catholics, to this day, believe Peter was that Rock.

I posted the Catechism to show this is not the "Official" teaching of the RCC.

[Fidelus ut Deus]

As for formatting, yes indeed! I have just discovered the
“word wrap on/off” button and turned it off and we will see
if this helps.
As for the new Latin prayer, yes it is, in my humble opinion,
discouraging — but this is the same Pope who wrote that
the Jewish witness or wait for the messiah is not in vain
(which was explained as a reference to the salvaic efficacy
of Jewish faith). Result? Professor Neusner (author of some
900 or 1000 theological books and tomes, highly respected and
one who Pope Benedict XVI engages in dialog on matters of
theology, see for instance Benedict’s recent Jesus book)...
Neusner says the Church is free to pray as it wishes, that
the Latin prayer does not constitute any cause for concern.
I am not so sanguine but this does recall the very old joke,
which Pope Benedict was reportedly prone to relate when he was
yet Cardinal Ratzinger, that when the Messiah comes or returns,
we will ask him if this is his first or second visit and at
that time one or the other of us will be proven out. Of course,
there is ALSO the old joke about Cardinal Ratzinger rushing into
tell Pope JP-II that the good Cardinal had both good and bad
news, which did His Holiness wish to hear first? And JP-II
supposedly said, “Ratz, we are in the Good News business, do tell
me your good news first...” and Ratzinger said, “Jesus, your Holiness,
Jesus has returned!!” And the Pope says, well — get on the phone
right away to Jerusalem and have the rabbis put Jesus on the
line to us!” And, Ratzinger says, “No, your Holiness, that’s the
bad news. He’s not in Israel.” And JP-II said, ‘Well, then,
he must have come here to Rome, go and usher him
in to see me right away!” And Ratzinger said, “No, he’s not here either.”
And the Pope says, “Well, Joseph, just where IS he, then!?” And
Ratzinger says, “That’s the bad news, Your Holiness. He’s in ...
Salt Lake City.....”
Which is all to say, old jokes aside, that we are all looking
forward to the same thing....(so maybe together we can figure out how
to help all our bretheren get along a bit better in the meanwile? Just a thought..
...)
Best,

[OLD REGGIE]

Which is all to say, old jokes aside, that we are all looking forward to the same thing....(so maybe together we can figure out how to help all our bretheren get along a bit better in the meanwile? Just a thought.. ...) Best,

It helped only in that it was shorter. I do appreciate your thoughts though.

You need a short primer on HTML coding.

Here: HTML - Getting Started.