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]

diminishing of what the rite of circumcision was

Sorry if I gave that impression; I merely followed St. Paul in Galatians who explained that neither circumcision or uncircumcision matters for Christians, and indeed the Jerusalem Council confirmed that.

I argue that the symbolism of the sacrament is outweighed by the reality of the circumcised heart

Of course. If, for example, one sponsors a baptism of a baby, or enters into baptism himself without the proper intent, and in the second case, without repentance for past sins, then the sacrament is invalid. The point is not that it requires nothing of the baptisee -- it requires proper disposition, -- but that it is a sacrament, that is a visible sign of grace.

[annalex]

The lack of direction in Protestantism is not self-evident?

[quadrant]

Of course the structure of the RC Church early and
modern is a matter of historical evidence. How could
it me otherwise as it was created by men?
I have visited several Protestant churches and been a member of four denominations: Southern Baptist, Episcopalian, Independent Anglican, and Reformed. With the exception of the Episcopalian, none of the churches to which I belonged were “wandering,” nor were any of the churches I visited, with the exception of the United Methodist. Again with the exception of the Episcopalian, the churches to which I belonged and those I visited (with the exception of the United Methodist) were vibrant bodies, infused with the power of the Holy Spirit. These churches knew their mission and they knew to whom they belonged: Jesus Christ. None felt the slightest needed for a pontifical shepherd and would scorn the suggestion or at least laughed at it.
I have attended a RC Church, St Peter Chanel in Atlanta. As a former Episcopalian, I could follow easily the service.
Unfortunately, I did not feel any of the enthusiasm or power that I was accustomed to. Perhaps, I shouldn't judge the RC Church after one trip, but to me if any church in the world seems to be drifting, its the Roman Catholic.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[annalex]

To no one in particular, I wanted to post this quote from St. Augustine

AUG. We must take care that this saying of the Lord appear not to be contrary to that, where He says, He who is not with me is against me. Or will any one say that the difference lies in that here He says to His disciples, For he that is not against you is on your part, but in the other He speaks of Himself, He who is not with me is against me? As if indeed it were possible that he who is joined to Christ's disciples, who ate as His members, should not be with Him. How if it were so, could it be true that he that receives you receives me? Or how is he not against Him, who is against His disciples? Where then will be that saying, He who despises you, despises me? But surely what is implied is, that a man is not with Him in as far as he is against Him, and is not against Him as far as he is with Him. For instance, he who worked miracles in the name of Christ, and yet did not join himself to the body of His disciples, in as far as he worked the miracles in His name, was with them, and was not against them: again, in that he did not join their society, he was not with them, and was against them. But because they forbade his doing that in which he was with them, the Lord said to them, Forbid him not; for they ought to have forbidden his being without their society, and thus to have persuaded him of the unity of the Church, but they should not have forbidden that in which he was with them, that is, his commendation of the name of their Lord and Master by the expulsion of devils. Thus the Church Catholic does not disapprove in heretics the sacraments, which are common, but she blames their division, or some opinion of theirs adverse to peace and to truth; for in this they are against us.

Catena Aurea Mark 9

[roamer_1]

The point is not that it requires nothing of the baptisee -- it requires proper disposition, -- but that it is a sacrament, that is a visible sign of grace.

But therein you argue that the 'visible sign' is of more importance inherently, a position I find to be false.

While I do not mean to diminish the value of the sacrament, there are exceptions to the rule, wherein the ritual is not necessary for salvation, but there is no exception for the need of the inward sign, the circumcised heart.

[roamer_1]

The lack of direction in Protestantism is not self-evident?

Not at all. How do you assume it to be so?

[roamer_1]

the churches [...] were vibrant bodies, infused with the power of the Holy Spirit. These churches knew their mission and they knew to whom they belonged: Jesus Christ.

Therein lies the evidence of grace, and of reasonable claim. That the Spirit moves within the Protestant churches corporately is what gives them legitimacy, not any sanction of any other church, nor by any blessing of any man.

[annalex]

Yeah... It is not exactly un-Catholic what you say. For example, we have a clear teaching of St. Paul on the reception of the Eucharist that it also condemns those not of right disposition. I think that the fatal leap that anti-clerical elements of Protestantism make is when they ignore the sacraments of the Church because of this. That has no scriptural support, as every time you find a call for faith it is immediately balanced with a call for action, — for works. Repent and be baptized: convert your heart and seal it in a sacrament. Discern Christ in the Eucharist, and receive it. Fail to discern Him — go home.

[quadrant]

Agreed.

[annalex]

The only unifying element of Protestantism is that they do not want to be Catholic. We have Protestants who want to play a sacramental church, like Lutherans and Anglicans; we have those who don’t, like the Evangelicals. But all claim that the Holy Spirit led them where they are. We have Protestants who believe in the Trinity and those who read the same scripture and do not see it there. But all claim that the Holy Spirit led them where they are. We have those who baptize infants and those who don’t; who marry homosexuals and those who don’t; and all claim that the Holy Spirit led them where they are. Al Kresta, a former evangelical preacher and now a Catholic radio host once said that he can make a distinct Protestant denomination out of any randomly chosen five verses of the Bible. This is a sorry state of affairs for Luther and Calvin to have lead you in, — are you sure the Holy Spirit did this to you?

[roamer_1]

I think that the fatal leap that anti-clerical elements of Protestantism make is when they ignore the sacraments of the Church because of this.

I honestly know of no Protestant branch that ignores the sacraments, though some apply them differently. All the churches I am familiar with participate in the sacrament of baptism- Some, as you (RCC), at infancy; All, I assure you, by the time of profession of faith. It is no small thing to Protestants, so why do you accuse them?

[quadrant]

What evidence do you have that these churches aren't guided by he Holy Spirit? Do you think the Holy Spirit incapable of guiding these churches?

[annalex]

Most Protestants have valid baptism, and can officiate at marriages. That is because these are the two sacraments that do not require a priest. Only Lutherans and Anglicans teach real presence of Christ in the Eucharist so they attempt to also have that, as well as to have priesthood; the Evangelicals would deny any salvific effect of any sacrament, including baptism and the “Lord’s Table”, have no priests, and want no priests. Protestant ordinations and confessions are weak approximations of the Catholic sacraments of the same name; the underlying Protestant theology eviscerated them since in Protestant worldview no human agency has been ordained by Christ.

[annalex]

The evidence is that Christ wanted His disciples to be “one as my father and I are one” and instead we have every pastor going where he alone wants to go.

[roamer_1]

The only unifying element of Protestantism is that they do not want to be Catholic.

That sounds a bit bitter, annalex, and it is not true. Primary among all of the Protestants is sola fide and sola scriptura.

We have Protestants who want to play a sacramental church, like Lutherans and Anglicans; we have those who don’t, like the Evangelicals.

So what?

We have Protestants who believe in the Trinity and those who read the same scripture and do not see it there.

Again, so what?

We have those who baptize infants and those who don’t;

And?

who marry homosexuals and those who don’t;

Yes, and those same liberal forces pressure the RCC too.

This is a sorry state of affairs for Luther and Calvin to have lead you in, — are you sure the Holy Spirit did this to you?

Why is it a sorry state of affairs?

[annalex]

Primary among all of the Protestants is sola fide and sola scriptura.

Yes: the unifying doctrines of Protestantism are, not surprisingly, these two unscriptural ones. Now let us examine what sort of unity these two produced, -- not much.

Note that I am not talking about dissent. Surely there are dissenting Catholics, but they dissent from a well defined dogma, which isn't going to change because they dissent. The may fall off, but it doesn't splinter the Church. We have heretics, you have independent pastors. Big difference.

[roamer_1]

the Evangelicals would deny any salvific effect of any sacrament, including baptism and the “Lord’s Table”, have no priests, and want no priests. Protestant ordinations and confessions are weak approximations of the Catholic sacraments of the same name;

So in fact, you are moaning because we will not sanction a priesthood, not that we don't attend the sacraments. It is your opinion that our sacraments are invalid because of that lack of priesthood, not that we do not observe the sacraments.

the underlying Protestant theology eviscerated them since in Protestant worldview no human agency has been ordained by Christ.

Indeed, and rightly so. It is not that there is no human agency, It is just a lack of priesthood, as is only proper. The only priesthood recognized by the Father is the Order of Melchizedek, and there is only One Priest of that order, which is the Christ.

[roamer_1]

Yes: the unifying doctrines of Protestantism are, not surprisingly, these two unscriptural ones.

I deny that outright. Both are wholly defensible within the Word.

Now let us examine what sort of unity these two produced, -- not much.

That depends upon the sort of unity one would define. That each is different does not suppose disunity necessarily.

[annalex]

It is your opinion that our sacraments are invalid because of that lack of priesthood, not that we do not observe the sacraments.

Only in part. Only Anglicans and Lutherans observe the sacraments in some way. The rest of Protestantism has no coherent sacramental theology: you cannot even agree if they are mere symbols or the real thing. Priesthood and sacraments are two sides of the same coin: misunderstand the sacrament and you lose priesthood (happened to the Lutherans and the Anglicans) or misunderstand priesthood (the rest of you) and you don't have sacraments.

The lack of priesthood invlidates any attempt at sacraments. That is because Christ never said to every believer "whoever sees you sees me, and whoevdr hears you hears me, and wohever hears me hears my father who sent me". He told that to the apostles with a mission to evangelize, and then to Peter to feed "the sheep" and to correct "his brethren". Christ taught human agency and a church of priests.

The scripture never says that there are no other priests (presbyteroi) but Christ. Melchisedech is called "archhiereus", and that is indeed Christ alone.