No Salvation Outside the Church

Catholic Answers ^ | 12/05 | Fr. Ray Ryland

[bdeaner]

Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is "no salvation outside the Church"? Doesn’t this contradict Scripture? God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Peter proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that "extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is "an infallible statement." But, it added, "this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it."

Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

Work Out Your Salvation

There are two distinct dimensions of Jesus Christ’s redemption. Objective redemption is what Jesus Christ has accomplished once for all in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension: the redemption of the whole universe. Yet the benefits of that redemption have to be applied unceasingly to Christ’s members throughout their lives. This is subjective redemption. If the benefits of Christ’s redemption are not applied to individuals, they have no share in his objective redemption. Redemption in an individual is an ongoing process. "Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling; for God is at work in you" (Phil. 2:12–13).

How does Jesus Christ work out his redemption in individuals? Through his mystical body. When I was a Protestant, I (like Protestants in general) believed that the phrase "mystical body of Christ" was essentially a metaphor. For Catholics, the phrase is literal truth.

Here’s why: To fulfill his Messianic mission, Jesus Christ took on a human body from his Mother. He lived a natural life in that body. He redeemed the world through that body and no other means. Since his Ascension and until the end of history, Jesus lives on earth in his supernatural body, the body of his members, his mystical body. Having used his physical body to redeem the world, Christ now uses his mystical body to dispense "the divine fruits of the Redemption" (Mystici Corporis 31).

The Church: His Body

What is this mystical body? The true Church of Jesus Christ, not some invisible reality composed of true believers, as the Reformers insisted. In the first public proclamation of the gospel by Peter at Pentecost, he did not invite his listeners to simply align themselves spiritually with other true believers. He summoned them into a society, the Church, which Christ had established. Only by answering that call could they be rescued from the "crooked generation" (Acts 2:40) to which they belonged and be saved.

Paul, at the time of his conversion, had never seen Jesus. Yet recall how Jesus identified himself with his Church when he spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus: "Why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4, emphasis added) and "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5). Years later, writing to Timothy, Paul ruefully admitted that he had persecuted Jesus by persecuting his Church. He expressed gratitude for Christ appointing him an apostle, "though I formerly b.asphemed and persecuted and insulted him" (1 Tim. 1:13).

The Second Vatican Council says that the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and the mystical body of Christ "form one complex reality that comes together from a human and a divine element" (Lumen Gentium 8). The Church is "the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:23). Now that Jesus has accomplished objective redemption, the "plan of mystery hidden for ages in God" is "that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Eph. 3:9–10).

According to John Paul II, in order to properly understand the Church’s teaching about its role in Christ’s scheme of salvation, two truths must be held together: "the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all humanity" and "the necessity of the Church for salvation" (Redemptoris Missio 18). John Paul taught us that the Church is "the seed, sign, and instrument" of God’s kingdom and referred several times to Vatican II’s designation of the Catholic Church as the "universal sacrament of salvation":

"The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all humankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message" (RM 20).

"Christ won the Church for himself at the price of his own blood and made the Church his co-worker in the salvation of the world. . . . He carries out his mission through her" (RM 9).

In an address to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (January 28, 2000), John Paul stated, "The Lord Jesus . . . established his Church as a saving reality: as his body, through which he himself accomplishes salvation in history." He then quoted Vatican II’s teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation.

In 2000 the CDF issued Dominus Iesus, a response to widespread attempts to dilute the Church’s teaching about our Lord and about itself. The English subtitle is itself significant: "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It simply means that Jesus Christ and his Church are indivisible. He is universal Savior who always works through his Church:

The only Savior . . . constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: He himself is in the Church and the Church is in him. . . . Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord (DI 18).

Indeed, Christ and the Church "constitute a single ‘whole Christ’" (DI 16). In Christ, God has made known his will that "the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity" (DI 22). The Catholic Church, therefore, "has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being" (DI 20).

The key elements of revelation that together undergird extra ecclesiam, nulla salus are these: (1) Jesus Christ is the universal Savior. (2) He has constituted his Church as his mystical body on earth through which he dispenses salvation to the world. (3) He always works through it—though in countless instances outside its visible boundaries. Recall John Paul’s words about the Church quoted above: "Her activity is not limited only to those who accept its message."

Not of this Fold

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus does not mean that only faithful Roman Catholics can be saved. The Church has never taught that. So where does that leave non-Catholics and non-Christians?

Jesus told his followers, "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). After his Resurrection, Jesus gave the threefold command to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17). The word translated as "tend" (poimaine) means "to direct" or "to superintend"—in other words, "to govern." So although there are sheep that are not of Christ’s fold, it is through the Church that they are able to receive his salvation.

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).

Obviously, it is not their ignorance that enables them to be saved. Ignorance excuses only lack of knowledge. That which opens the salvation of Christ to them is their conscious effort, under grace, to serve God as well as they can on the basis of the best information they have about him.

The Church speaks of "implicit desire" or "longing" that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with "a sincere heart." In that seeking they are "related" to Christ and to his body the Church (address to the CDF).

On the other hand, the Church has long made it clear that if a person rejects the Church with full knowledge and consent, he puts his soul in danger:

They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).

The Catholic Church is "the single and exclusive channel by which the truth and grace of Christ enter our world of space and time" (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, "though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat." And when they eat of it, "without knowing it or willing it" they are "incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church."

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR



Fr. Ray Ryland, a convert and former Episcopal priest, holds a Ph.D. in theology from Marquette University and is a contributing editor to This Rock. He writes from Steubenville, Ohio, where he lives with his wife, Ruth.

[bdeaner]

According to this Online Etymology Dictionary, the word heresy was first used pejoratively around 1330.

This is perhaps not surprising since this was the time of great turmoil and confusion in the Church. This was during the time of the Avignon Papacy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for those beautiful Scriptures!

[Alamo-Girl]

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

[Mr. Lucky]

I think you'll find that the term was used at least as early as 180 by St. Irenaeus in his epistle Adversus Haeresus (Against Heresies) to refer to those Christians whose professed doctrines differed from the Truth as revealed in the Gospels.

[bdeaner]

Yes, of course, St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies! I wonder why the etymology dictionary missed the boat on that one.

[Mr Rogers]

Quick prayer request: “American Soldier Feared Captured in Afghanistan”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124653079297385075.html

When I was in Afghanistan, a detachment of Afghans soldiers was overrun. When our guys took the hill back, they found the beheaded bodies of the captured Afghans.

Most of us hoped to be able to shoot ourselves, if needed, before capture.

There are many things we disagree about, but it seems this should be one to unite us.

[bdeaner]

Quick prayer request: “American Soldier Feared Captured in Afghanistan”

Thank you for the alert. This soldier is in my prayers.

Lord God, Almighty Father,
creator of mankind and author of peace,
as we are ever mindful of the cost paid for the liberty we possess,
we ask you to bless the members of our armed forces. Give them courage, hope and strength.
May they ever experience your firm support, gentle love and compassionate healing.
Be their power and protector, leading them from darkness to light.
Watch over the soul of the young, courageous American soldier who has been captured in Afghanistan -- protect him and keep him in Your care.
To you be all glory, honor and praise, now and forever.

Amen.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I appreciate your reply! As far as the first claim that the Church is necessary for salvation, I would again say that it has not been answered. What Jesus told us is that we need faith (which is not the church) and Jesus/God will provide the Grace (which may represent Jesus, but is NOT Jesus).

I believe that again it is figurative use, like Jesus' parable in John 2:13-21. We often also say that our bodies are a temple; does that mean we have a courtyard with 13 gates, four corners each with gates, etc? No! It means we are a holy place when we accept Christ.

Similarly the church as the body of Christ. We are not the literal body of Christ; we are figurative members of it, and we should work together as a human body does, under the direction of Christ.

As far as the author's use of the term "Catholic Church" I do not think it was meant as ecumenically as claimed. the phrase "Catholic Church" is different than catholic Church"; in the former, the word "Catholic" is a formal noun; in the latter, "catholic" is an adjective.

Would the author's article still hold true if you dropped the word "Catholic" altogether and use the word universal? Would you be OK with changing the Nicene Creed to say "one holy universal and apostolic Church;"? If indeed the intent is that catholic means universal, then the switch is meaningless.

Regarding the sacrament of the Church, I reject that for there is no scriptural basis for the Church being a sacrament. There is no scriptural requirement that a Christian be a member of a formal church. It is not a holy thing being part of a church. That is not to say there is no benefit in being in one! On the contrary, being part of a church is a wonderful, enriching thing; but it is not required to be saved.

Lastly, I reject the Vatican II teaching that you quote:

Christ alone is the mediator of salvation and the way of salvation. He presents himself to us in his Body, which is the Church

Christ presents Himself in many ways, not just the church. The church is the sum of all the components, but the singular component through which salvation flows and is required by God to be accepted is Jesus. The head.

Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ

As is the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, the Nazarenes, the Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, etc. ALL are founded by Christ.

Look, I think it boils down quite a bit to the insistence by many that Catholic is not catholic. The former is a proper noun; the latter is an adjective. If the author chose to be ecumenical then use the word universal. Would the author's statements hold if you replaced Catholic with Baptist, or Methodist, or Protestant, or dropped the word Catholic altogether?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So you say I’m wrong, but have nothing to back it up or even can point out what you disagree with.

I guess you are part of the fallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

You are, in fact, irrelevant.

[Petronski]

So you say I’m wrong...

You are.

...but have nothing to back it...

I do but will not.

...up or even can point out what you disagree with.

I can but will not.

You have displayed a pattern of anti-Catholic behavior and a real taste for the gotcha game. Have fun with that.

[bdeaner]

I was writing my replies to you EARLY in the morning. So, I didn't get around to answering your question about insering the word "baptist" into the quote. I will do that shortly, and when I get a chance, will more fully reply to your post here.

The point of contention clearly is what is meant by Church in Scripture. But, again, I will get back to you on this a little later...

[bdeaner]

Quick question, which will help me in my subsequent reply, if you would.

How do you believe Christ currently interacts with us? By what means does He achieve grace in the world? How does He spread to the world the Good News of our salvation through Him? This is basically the same question put three ways, just to make sure I am understood.

[Petronski]

You are, in fact, irrelevant.

Anyone interested in knowing where you stand can compare the your post 1406 with the original article (as well as bdeaner's excellent 1475 and 1478) and decide for themselves.

You don't need my help to make your posts look disingenuous and twisted.

[Petronski]

...Catholic is not catholic. The former is a proper noun; the latter is an adjective.

They are both adjectives that modify Church. The only difference is the faulty capitalization of the ignorant or the animus of the anti-Catholic fetishist.

[bdeaner]

I'll take "By Ignoring It" for $2000, Alex.

*crickets chirping*

I think you win the two grand.

[Petronski]

Yeah, but the prize is paid with a Cali IOU. :O(

[bdeaner]

Yeah, but the prize is paid with a Cali IOU. :O(

LOL. In that case, kiss it goodbye!

Here in PA, they just drain it out of our property tax anyway. At least it's not as bad as NY, where we used to live.

[Mr. Lucky]

Probably an evil plot by a secret order of gnostics. Yeah. Either that or the Masons.

[bdeaner]

The Baptist Church is "the single and exclusive channel by which the truth and grace of Christ enter our world of space and time"

I could not accept this statement, no. I will give you a short answer first, and then a long answer.

Short answer:

The statement is a contradiction in terms. Baptist Christianity is, by definition, a plurality of theological views, not a belief in a single, unified theological truth. The claim to be a single and exclusive channel of "TRUTH" would require a commitment to a single, unified set of doctrines with claims to infallibility. Only the Catholic Church fits that description.

The longer answer:

What is Baptist Christianity anyway? Do you guys even know? Is it Calvinist or Arminianist? What is the nature of Law and Gospel? Should women be ordained? What about the place of homosexuality in the Baptist churches? How about eschatology and a theology of the end times?

These key, foundational doctrines are a shifting ground within Baptist Christianity, hardly a "pillar and ground of truth."

In contrast, the Catholic Church has historical and scriptural basis for claiming authority through Apostolic Succession -- and even if one disagrees with this claim, there simply is no Christian denomination outside of the Catholic Church that could legitimately make such a claim that could be validated by history.

Baptist Christianity is often tracked to John Smyth and the Separatists -- a group that severed themselves from the Mother Church, Christ's Bride. That was not all too long ago in the early 1600's. In contrast, the Catholic Church has a history that, without question, goes all the way back to the early Church, in the very first century following Christ's birth. So how could any Protestant Church, the earliest which can be traced being around 500 years ago, have any such claim? It would mean that for the first century and a half of Christianity, Christians had no truth or grace. Such a claim would, in effect, undermine any authority of the Bible, which was canonized by the early Church long before the Reformation.

So, basically, if there is one single channel of the Lord's truth and grace in the world, the Catholic Church is the only body of belief and believers that fits the bill. So, either there is one truth, or there are multiple truths, or some third option that no one has articulated as yet -- but which I doubt could be established with any validity. If there are multiple truths, then that is to endorse relativism -- a slippery slope that undermines the authority of Scripture and opens the way to the legitimate adoption of any old faith. I mean, why not then Islam? Or Buddhism? Or Hinduism? If we are going to be democratic about our doctrines, as the Baptist churches are, then why not open the door to every religion, and put it up for a vote? The answer is simple: The truth is not up for a vote. It's the Truth, whether or not the majority of people believe it.

Where there is Christ, there is Truth. Where there is Truth, there is Christ. Where there is Truth, there is Christ's Body, the Church. Where there is Christ's Body, the Church, that is the one, single channel of truth and grace operating in the world.

God bless.

[bronxville]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying the popes were inconsistent on a teaching of faith and morals? I can assure that this is not the case which leaves the burden of proof on you. It’s easy to make sweeping statements without proof. Please keep in mind that there’s a distinct difference between discipline and doctrine.

The Church’s doctrine cannot change because it comes from Christ through the apostles. Disciplines, of course, can and do change, and the popes have made these changes throughout history (days of obligation, hours of fasting, liturgical things, etc.)

When Jesus told Peter “whatever you bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19), He was promising to protect Peter from teaching error to the universal Church. Otherwise, Jesus could not make such a sweeping promise to Peter. Because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), Peter must be protected from teaching error, since what he binds or looses, heaven binds and looses as well. Indeed, God intrudes into the mind of the pope and prevents him from teaching error, just like the Father penetrated the mind of Peter when he confessed that Jesus was the Christ.

You recall what happened next. Jesus said Peter is the rock upon which He would build the Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The basis for infallibility is the ability of the pope to accept and confess God’s divine guidance without error. It has nothing to do with the pope’s private opinions or conduct. The fact that all the popes have spoken with one voice over the past 2,000 years when it comes to dogmatizing principles of Catholic faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise. Yes, as we’ve discussed before, there were at least 8-12 ‘bad popes’ but none of them changed Dogma. No pope can chang Dogma - period! If this ever happens then it’s over!

Note also that nothing the Church teaches on faith or morals just ‘pops up’. This is because the Church’s teaching comes from the Tradition of the apostles, which we call the sacred deposit of faith. The Church may try to clarify the way she expresses doctrine, but there can be nothing new under the sun, as they say. Often, the Church will issue a dogmatic teaching to clarify a point of contention or refute a heresy. But clarifying the way in which she expresses the divine deposit of faith does NOT mean she makes up new doctrines. The doctrines remain the same. Trust me on this and if not I invite you to prove otherwise. I repeat the Dogma has NOT changed for 2,000 yrs.

Regarding Galatians, which I’ve observed you still have a problem with...the passage has nothing to do with Peter leading people astray. Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. Paul was criticizing Peter’s CONDUCT, not his teaching AUTHORITY. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope’s private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority.

I believe Peter’s conduct can be viewed as legitimate. Peter had a mission to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was therefore very concerned about how the Gentiles were evangelized. Paul viewed Peter’s conduct as a possible scandal to the Gentile’s evangelization. However, Peter had his own reasons. In the book of Acts, we read that the Jews were angry that Peter was dining with Gentiles. They could not understand this, since they always viewed themselves as having a preferential position with God. Peter was trying to pacify them for the moment by trying to make the best out of a difficult situation.

Paul probably should have known this as he did the very same thing, and Peter could have just as easily called Paul a hypocrite. Paul engaged in the Jewish purification ritual, and also had Timothy circumcised, even though Paul perennially taught that we were now free from the law of Moses. Why did he do this? For PASTORAL reasons. He was reaching out to the Jews, while trying to evangelize the Gentiles. Peter did the same thing.

Who prevailed in the end? Peter!