Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | 15 June 1998 | Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)

Posted on 05/16/2008 4:46:28 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism
KEYWORDS: catholic; ecumenism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-167 next last
To: annalex

I’ve read it - no mention of an hierarchical church where authority flows from top to bottom.


61 posted on 05/18/2008 6:22:43 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
it is not the act which saves

Where does the Scripture teach this?

I would most certainly disagree if that church supposes to put itself on a par with it's Master

So would I.

62 posted on 05/19/2008 8:07:41 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
those who believe that Peter was the ROCK the Church was built upon.

He certainly is, in the precise sense of what the papacy is. You are trying to fight a metaphor with literalism. That never works. Of course Peter did not become rock; of course "rock" is a noun that requires different propositions that proper noun such as "Peter"; and of course the whole thing is related to Peter's confession, and not, for example, his capabilities as a fisherman. The Protestant watering down of Matthew 16 has no basis in scripture. We also see the gift of the keys to heaven personally to Peter, the prayer at the Last Supper in part referring only to Peter "I prayed for you that you confirm your brethren", and the charge to feed the sheep was personally to Peter. One can legitimately say the the way papacy has been exercised in the West is too strong compared to the Early Church standard of the antiquity, but one cannot deny that among the Apostles Peter had a leadership role.

Further, all other solemn renamings in the Bible have a deep theological meaning: Abram becomes the father of the nations, and Jacob becomes the father of the Jewish nation. Jesus could not have been unaware of these.

63 posted on 05/19/2008 8:21:45 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ (1 Cor 4:1)

be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach every where in every church (1 Cor 4:16f)

the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world? (1 Cor 6:2)

... you are the body of Christ, and members of member. And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Cor 12)

are the firstfruits of Achaia, and have dedicated themselves to the ministry of the saints: That you also be subject to such, and to every one that worketh with us, and laboureth (1 Cor. 16:15-16)


64 posted on 05/19/2008 8:40:07 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Not one word in any of these passages commanding the church to become an institutional, hierarchical body where authority flows from top to bottom.


65 posted on 05/19/2008 9:05:48 AM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

Sure it does. The first and the last say that laity is accountable to priests; the second illustrates how apostles consecrate and empower bishops, and establishes Christ as their top authority; the third shows that the members of the Church ought to judge others; the next explains that different members have different responsibilities depending on their particular charisms.


66 posted on 05/19/2008 10:05:11 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Your reasoning reminds me of the arguments used by deconstructionsists to justify the reading into texts of all sorts of ideas according to the personal predilections of the reader.
Neither a loose nor a close reading of those texts justifies the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church or the authority granted those at the top.


67 posted on 05/19/2008 10:45:24 AM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

The scripture I gave you shows a hierarchical Church; the precise structure of the hierarchy adapts to the needs of the times. The strong papacy in the West, for example, was a natural way to compensate for the feudal fragmentation of political power, and thanks to that it was easier for us to beat down of various Protestant heresies. The episcopacy system in the East also formed in response to their unique challenges.


68 posted on 05/19/2008 3:07:12 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: annalex
[it is not the act which saves]

Where does the Scripture teach this?

The baptism is a circumcision made without hands, and is an operation of faith:


Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
(e-Sword: KJV)

It is the fulfillment of the outward circumcsion of the Old Testament. Yet being a circumcision 'made without hands', it is the circumcision of the heart- A commitment of faith in the recipient, in the hope of salvation by the Word of God, and is ongoing, beyond the act of baptism:

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(e-Sword: KJV)

In that circumstance, baptism, as the fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision, must certainly be treated philosophically in the same way as circumcision:


Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
(e-Sword: KJV)


Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
(e-Sword: KJV)

[I would most certainly disagree if that church supposes to put itself on a par with it's Master]

So would I.

Then can you endorse these words from the OP?

Using this conciliar doctrine as guide, we see that the Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man's salvation.

On both counts, however, whoever is saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ.


69 posted on 05/19/2008 3:23:03 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
baptism, as the fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision, must certainly be treated philosophically in the same way as circumcision:

I strongly disagree. Circumcision is a works of Jewish law, which St. Paul explained is not salvific. Baptism, however, is a rebirth in Christ and it is described as salvific in John 3 and 1 Peter 3. St. Peter explains that baptism is foreshadowed in the story of Noah and does not analogize it to circumcision.

Surely there are similarities as both are also rituals of entry into a community of faith. However, if you read Col 2 further you see that St. Paul -- who so emphatically denied the salvific character fo circumcision -- hold baptism to be onto forgiveness of sins (Col 2:13) and therefore salvific.

Regarding the role of the Church, she is ordained by Christ to teach, baptize, forgive sin and offer the Eucharist, in order to save the world. I don't understand why doing what Christ commanded her to do is in any way diminishing the sovereignty of Christ.

70 posted on 05/19/2008 3:43:59 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The passages you quote show no such hierarchical Church. Even if the early church developed as it did in response to the “needs of the times”, that does not mean the contemporary church need maintain the same structure.
I'll pass over the remark about beating down Protestant heresies, except to comment that you didn't beat them down all that well.
71 posted on 05/19/2008 6:36:34 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

Yes, they do: they show that different parts of the church are in subordination to other parts. It is not the only book where the hierarchy of the Church is described, but this one shows the hierarchical principle.

The early Church was strictly hierarchical from bishops down to priests, deacons and laity. Due to the difficulty of communication and the persecutions, papacy did not have a chance to fully develop till somewhat later.

Modern Catholics have a great gift in the papacy especially, because of the unique challenges of modernity. Thanks to that, the Church in the West was able to maintain unity that is a complete unknown in the Protestant world and is a bit tentative among the Orthodox. Conservative Catholics — the salt of the Church — want even stronger papacy today.


72 posted on 05/19/2008 7:39:54 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: annalex

That’s just your opinion.


73 posted on 05/19/2008 8:15:28 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

The scripture is not just my opinion, the structure of the Early Church is a matter of historical evidence, and the thousands of Protestant denominations wandering about like sheep without a shepherd is an objective fact.


74 posted on 05/19/2008 10:22:42 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: annalex
It is just your opinion. The historical evidence you cite is unconvincing; and if it were remotely true, such a authoritarian structure in the 21st Century is unnecessary.
I thank God that my faith is strong enough I don't need a human shepherd. We have pastors that lead and preach, but they are wise enough to know that unity cannot be imposed from above but must spring from the heart of each individual believer. Unity imposed from above is but a brittle shell, hard from the outside but lacking flexibility. In any event, the Holy Spirit, the Counselor of whom Jesus speaks, is Shepherd enough for me.
And I thank God that my church trusts me and my faith enough that it does not feel compelled to declare its leader to be infallible in matters of faith and morals.
75 posted on 05/20/2008 4:24:48 AM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

What exactly do you find inconvincing? I did not cite any historical evidence.

To claim that the multitude of Protestant denominations are all guided by the Holy Spirit is riduculous.


76 posted on 05/20/2008 12:43:17 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21
I do not need the roman catholic church to be saved

Tell that to Jesus whose bride she is.

77 posted on 05/20/2008 1:19:40 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The catholic church (note the little “c”) is the bride of Jesus.

I use to really enjoy going to church at FreeRepublic, and frankly, I expected more, but if this is all the religious threads are going to turn into, mere "nanny, nanny, boo, boos", I will kindly stop responding and let them die a natural death around 10 or 15 posts so they dont clog up my forums page.

See, its easy-
(Jud 1:9) But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, "Let the Lord rebuke you!"

78 posted on 05/20/2008 3:42:14 PM PDT by Delta 21 ( MKC USCG - ret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: annalex
[baptism, as the fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision, must certainly be treated philosophically in the same way as circumcision]

I strongly disagree. Circumcision is a works of Jewish law, which St. Paul explained is not salvific. Baptism, however, is a rebirth in Christ and it is described as salvific in John 3 and 1 Peter 3. St. Peter explains that baptism is foreshadowed in the story of Noah and does not analogize it to circumcision.

I find your statement to be a bit disingenuous by it's diminishing of what the rite of circumcision was. It is not merely a matter of 'Jewish law', as you submit, but rather the very sign and seal of the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham:

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you.
(e-Sword: KJV)

Surely there are similarities as both are also rituals of entry into a community of faith.

There is more than a similarity- one is the sign and seal of the Old Covenant (Testament), and the other is inarguably the sign and seal of the New Covenant (Testament). The RCC makes the connection in regard to infant baptism:

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Catholic.com: Infant Baptism

However, if you read Col 2 further you see that St. Paul -- who so emphatically denied the salvific character fo circumcision -- hold baptism to be onto forgiveness of sins (Col 2:13) and therefore salvific.

As well he should promote the difference. We know now that there was no salvation in the Levitical priesthood. The sacrifice, and thereby the blood, of animals was only a placeholder for the Blood of Christ- Nonetheless, it was the only pattern of salvation available at the time. It is also a concept pursuant to our conversation- Paul rails against the symbolic rites in preference for the real. In the same way, I argue that the symbolism of the sacrament is outweighed by the reality of the circumcised heart. It is the function of the sacrament to symbolize the conviction of the heart toward the forgiveness and perfection in the Blood of Christ, for the purpose of bringing us close to the Father.

Regarding the role of the Church, she is ordained by Christ to teach, baptize, forgive sin and offer the Eucharist, in order to save the world. I don't understand why doing what Christ commanded her to do is in any way diminishing the sovereignty of Christ.

Because the Church is but a tool in the Master's hand. The tool makes nothing. It is the hand of the Craftsman that wields the tool, and it is the mind of the Craftsman that shapes the work. For the tool to claim credit is absurd.

79 posted on 05/20/2008 4:33:23 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: annalex; quadrant
The scripture is not just my opinion, the structure of the Early Church is a matter of historical evidence, and the thousands of Protestant denominations wandering about like sheep without a shepherd is an objective fact.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
(e-Sword: KJV)

*rolls eyes* Without a Shepherd... That is not yours to declare.

80 posted on 05/20/2008 4:45:29 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-167 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson