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]

John 3:5
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

WATER and Spirit. Baptism.

Now go read Luke 3. Even Christ got baptized with water, and what happened? The Holy Spirit descends. WATER and SPIRIT.

That's so far above your head you couldn't reach it with the space shuttle

I think this statement says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Kingdom of heaven means kingdom of HEAVEN, no matter how many hermeneutic cartwheels you attempt in order to interpret it your own, esoteric way.

But then I don't expect much from someone who has rebuked logic, reason and common sense.

[bronxville]

From your last statement, it seems to me that you are Reformed, and I will admist that some Catholic posters here (and I have sometimes done this myself), lump all Protestants into the same confession. I have stated many times that Lutherans, Traditional-Anglicans and Reformed-Calvinist Protestants are easier to discuss in the context that one can grasp the theological tradition one is comming from.

I have stated this in the past that “it seems to many (including me)” that Protestants start with St. Paul and interpret Christ and the Gospels from that context. This, from the Catholic perspective, is incorrect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church correctly points out how the Sacred Scriptures should be interpreted, that is with Christ as the reference point, and how the Bible was interpreted throughout Christian History.” I still hold to that position as most of the Protestant literature that one sees (and I have only lived in 3 states in the Southern U.S.), does in fact start with St. Paul and usually calls it the “Roman Road of salvation” The passage that most often starts the Protestant view of justification is Romans 3:28-30; and it is usually complemented by passages from Galatians and Ephesians

I think your quotes from the NT support my thesis above. As Pope Benedict points out in his reflection on the Apostles Creed entitled “Introduction to Christianity” notes that Christology and the Doctrine of Redemption must be rooted in the person of Christ Jesus and thus Christology.

The view you are stating, i.e. talking about debts, if I am not mistaken, is and extension of Anselms [1033 to 1109] theology which was entirely a Theology of the Cross and is very one-sided as it states that Christ had to die to repair an infinite offense, and thus while Anselm does state that Grace saves, he also talks about justification as a restoration of a right, etc. In sum, Anselm’s view becomes rigid and mechanical and in fact there is no mention of God is Love (c.f. 1 John 5:16] in his theology. It is correct only to a point in what it affirms, but the problem is what it seems to deny or not mention at all.

Catholic doctrine of justification is rooted in Christology, and thus links the Theology of Incarnation along with the Theology of the Cross. Accordingly, I think it is accurateto say that Catholic theology does not make it an Incarnation Theology vs. Cross-Theology. Catholic Doctrine, all of it, connects the Doctrine of Incarnation with the Doctrine of the Cross. Sacraments are tied to both Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery (Passion, Death, Resurrection, etc).

Pope Benedict’s great quote from his book Jesus of Nazareth where the Pope links Incarnation and Cross Together illustrates this point nicely:

Pope Benedict states “In this Chapter (Chapter 8 on the images in St. John’s Gospel) the theology of Incarnation and the Theology of the Cross come together; the two cannot be separated. There are thus no grounds for setting up and opposition between Easter theology of the Synoptics and St. Paul, on one hand, and St. John’s supposedly purely Incarnational theology, on the other. For the goal of the Word’s becoming-flesh spoken of by the prologue is precisely the offering of his body on the Cross, which the sacrament makes accessible to us”

So Catholic doctrine develops everything from the person of Christ, and links Incarnation to the paschal mystery (Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension) and all of Christ’s teachings in between Incarnation and Paschal mystery.

The Catholic Doctrine of justification (soteriology) again is anchored on the person of Christ, Incarnation, life/teachings, and paschal mystery. We become united with God by his Grace, through his son Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The process of “Theosis” starts at Baptism where the CCC states the Baptized person has become a New Creature, (see CCC para. 1265). So the purpose of the Incarnation is to restore the image of man when God created him. So, here is a point that both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine part ways with much of the Protestant theology on the “nature of humanity”. In Genesis, God created man and woman in his image. So, humans were created in the Divine image (c.f. Gen 1:27). God looked at his creation, which included man and woman and found it “very good” (c.f. Gen 1: 31). Of course we see in Genesis chapter 3, the fall of man.

Of course, this fall was not part of God’s plan that death and sin would enter the world. Thus, if you go back to Gen 1:27, God created us in “the Divine image”, one can see that death and sin are not part of our nature and not part of God’s plan. Because of original sin (Genesis Chapter 3), sin and death entered the world and those are attacks on our “true nature” that God originally created. So, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology does not use “sinful nature” for this is rooted in one of Calvin’s 5 Points called “Totally Depraved” or man is totally evil. Rather, Catholic’s see man as “wounded by original sin and fallen from the original stature he had in Genesis 1”, but not totally sinful and not Totally depraved.

So through the Incarnation, Christ takes on our full human nature, only without sin, and through his passion, death, and resurrection, Christ restores/transforms humanity back into the original “Divine image” (c.f. Gen 1:27) that we were originally created. This is how Catholics and Eastern Orthodox understand Justification/Salvation, as oppose to the Legalist/forensic/imputed salvation/justification of the Calvinistic theology.

So from this context, the passages in the Gospels where Christ commands man to live in faith and love become part of the Catholic doctrine of justification, which are all due to God’s Grace, which is consisent with St. Paul’s teachings of faith working through love (c.f. Gal 5:6) and also St. Paul speaking of Faith, Hope and Love, of which Love is the greatest (c.f. 1 Cor 13:13). For example, the parables of the wise and foolish builders (c.f. Mt 7:24-27); the two sons (c.f. Mt 21:28-32); the good Samaritan (c.f. Lk 10-25-37); the talents (c.f. Mt 25:14-30, the sheep and the goats (c.f. Mt 25:31-46), Love of God and Neighbor (c.f. Matt 22:39; Mk 12:29-31), keeping God’s commandments (c.f. Luke 6:46-47), which is love of God and neighbor, if you Love Christ you will keep his commandments and also love one another (John 14:15-21), Christ teaching on the beatitudes, which goes beyond just intellectual faith (c.f. Matt 5: 2-11), and I can go on and on. In addittion, the New Testament epistles also speak of Love of God and Neighbor (c.f. 1 John 5:16-21; 1 Pet 1:22), consistent with the commands of Christ himself.

And again, all of what I documented above, faith itself and the ability to live a life of Love and charity, are possible only because of God’s gift of Grace(see CCC link below for more discussion if interested)
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3art2.shtml

Well worth reposting.

Agree with your thesis.

Here’s just one example where atheists started with S Paul and after their ‘research” concluded that....

“Jesus did not talk about the atonement and that this innovation came from Paul of Tarsus.”

“It is to Paul that Christianity should trace its roots. The origins of Christianity as we know it came, not from Jesus, but from Paul.”

“The leadership and importance of James, brother of Jesus, was suppressed by the developing Gentile Church but it is through James that we would most likely be able to trace the original teachings of the earthly Jesus.”

“The original followers, the successor to James and the apostles of Jesus (whether they number twelve or not), were the Jewish Christians (called Nazarenes and Ebionites), who never preached of a heavenly divine Jesus. They fought Pauline Christianity to the end of their days.”
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html#paulvsjeru

The conclusions speak for themselves. Christianity was started by S Paul not Christ and the leader of the true Church was S James leaving S Peter a usuper. There are posters here who also conclude that S James was the leader...sad they’re on the side of atheists.

[bronxville]

“Well I guess he’s destined for purgatory...”

I hope and pray I get there...for real. :)

[Petronski]

...12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...

It does not say "all who received Him become the children of God," but rather "...to all who received Him...He gave the right to become children of God."

Not automatic.

Faith AND works.

[CTrent1564]

Markos33:

Well I think I would correspond with you, even before you were a baptized Christian, because we share a commom humanity and we are both created by the same God.

Again, I think the differences in how original sin impacted humanity between Catholic and confessional Reformed Protestant theology, also impacts how each of our traditions understands justification and sanctification.

And on another note, an LSU fan here. I have always rooted for Tennessee in the East, as we play you all every 4th year and you all are Alabama’s permanent SEC-East team. However, I must faithfully confess that Kiffin is making it tough as he seems a little nuts, LOL.

[MarkBsnr]

***“If you go to the beginning of Luke, e.g., there is no claim of divine authorship; there is only the earnest desire to tell people about Jesus. Luke 1:”

There doesn’t need to be such a claim.***

Many if not most of your compatriots claim divine authorship.

***Where does the Bible say that God dictated the NT?”***

Nowhere; that is the point.

***I know of no Christian that claims dictation as the means for producing the Bible. Nevertheless, the Scripture is clear that the Bible was not the product of the “will of man”. It is a document of Divine, not human origin.***

Just for the record, would you please elaborate on this?

[Mr Rogers]

I don't doubt many Catholic saints agree with your interpretation. After all, their agreement with Catholic teaching supported their becoming Catholic saints.

And Saint Francis de Sales would CERTAINLY agree with Catholic teaching against what Protestants teach: "Saint Francis de Sales...(August 21, 1567 – December 28, 1622) was Bishop of Geneva and is a Roman Catholic saint. He worked to convert Protestants back to Catholicism..."

It is rather like citing your Catechism to prove your doctrine...

However, THEY disagree with plain reading of the language. If I have to choose between 'here is how the listeners would interpret what was said' and 'here is how various Catholic theologians interpret it', I'll go with the former.

If you ASSUME Purgatory, then you can try to twist the scripture to make this passage support it - although I'd love to know why we need to come to agreement with our Accuser, who is Satan. However, I don't believe anyone who had never heard of Purgatory would read these passages and say, "Jesus is talking about a place where people forgiven of their sins suffer in torment until they've paid the penalty of their sin."

Here the Gospel according to Matthew again supports the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. If sins can be pardoned in the age to come (the afterlife), then, in the nature of things, this MUST BE in purgatory.

I read this [" in this age or in the age to come"] as, 'not in this life, nor on Judgment Day, will you be pardoned for denying the goodness of God'. The Jews who were listening certainly had no concept of Purgatory, so none of His listeners would take it that way. But the Jews had evolved their views from Sheol to Hell, and expected a Day of Judgment where your life would be reviewed.

If Jesus meant Purgatory, he needed to introduce the idea to his listeners. Indeed, he would need to spell it out and explain it in small words, for there is nothing intuitive about 'you are forgiven, now receive you punishment'.

"Your sins are washed away, now burn in torment for X years as punishment for them" just doesn't sound like Good News (Gospel).

I've copied John Gill's commentary below. It explains how the Jewish listeners would have understood it:

"...neither in this world, nor in the world to come; that is; they shall never be forgiven, see Mark 3:29. The distinction here used, does not refer to a common one among the Jews, of the Jewish state and the times of the Messiah; but to the present state of life, and that which will be after, or upon death: and it does not suppose there may be forgiveness of other sins, though not of this, in the other world; but strikes at a notion the Jews had, that there are some sins, which repentance and the day of atonement expiate in this life; but there are others, which repentance and the day of atonement do not expiate; and these a man's death expiates, or makes atonement for {a}. The form of confession used by sick persons is the following {b}; "I confess before thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, that my cure is in thy hands, and my death is in thy hands; if it be thy good pleasure, heal me with a perfect healing: but if I die, hxylo yttym aht, "let my death be for the pardon," forgiveness, and atonement of all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions, which I have sinned, acted perversely in, and transgressed before thee; and give me my portion in paradise, and justify me "in the world to come," which is hidden for the righteous." But the sin against the Holy Ghost is such, as is not forgiven, neither before, nor at, nor after death, nor by it: all sins that are forgiven, are forgiven in this world, and that perfectly and at once; and all that are forgiven in this world, there will be a manifestation and declaration of the pardon of them in another; but such sins as are not forgiven here, there will be no declaration of the pardon of them hereafter. In short, the sense is, that the sin against the Holy Ghost never has forgiveness; it is not pardoned now, and consequently there will be no declaration of the pardon of it hereafter. The Jews use the phrase in the same sense {c}; a certain sick man said to his son, "give me water, and such certain food; but if not, I will not 'forgive thee, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.'" That is, I will never forgive thee.

{a} T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 86. 1. {b} Seder Tephillot, fol. 333. 2. Ed. Basil. Vid. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 60. 1. {c} Sepher Chasidim: num. 234.

[CTrent1564]

Mr. Rogers:

First off, I appreciate the non-polemical tones of your posts, even though you and I have disagreements on certain theological points. Hopefully, I have also made my points in non-polemical ways as well.

Purgatory has to be understood in the context of how Catholics understand Grace and sin. Sin ruptures and breaks our communion with God and it is Grace that justifies us and makes us Holy. Thus, Grace, from the Catholic perspective is “transformative” and not just a covering of God’s Grace, which is the classic Protestant understanding. The Catechism discusses Grace in paragraph 1996 and 1997:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

The Catechism states that as sanctifying Grace, God shares his divine life and friendship with us in a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that enables the soul to live with God and act by his love. As actual grace, God gives us the help to conform our lives to his will.

With respect to Purgatory, the Catechism states:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

I have already cited 1 Corinthians 3:15 as a passage consistent with Purgatory, and this passage along with Matthew 12:31; 1 Peter 1:7, 2 Mac 12:46 are all cited in the CCC 1031 cited above.

Now, I acknowledge that scripture passages can have multiple meanings, all being true. In fact, this is in line with Catholic Doctrine. For example, the Catholic Church interprets scripture through Typology (see CCC 128-130), i.e. the Old Testament signs, persons and events prefigure Christ and find there conclusion in Christ, and thus the Epistles are interpreted in the context of Christ and the four Gospels (e.g., Gospels are central, see CCC 127). The Catholic Church also uses the “Four Senses” of Scripture approach to get the fullness of revelation from the Sacred Scriptures (see CCC para 115-119). Link to Catholic Catechism and Catholic principles for interpreting Sacred Scripture follows:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml

Thus, I don’t disagree with the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:12-16, that you gave in a previous post, in that yes, Christians will face trials during this life with respect to their faith and passing through fire could mean an allegorical image of those who remain committed to Christ will be saved. However, while I agree that interpretation is a good one, and is not unorthodox, the interpretation that I referenced about 1 Cor 3:15 being seen as purgatory is also a possible interpretation, and thus I believe both are possible and don’t detract from each other.

Furthermore, the interpretation that 1 Cor. 3:15 is part of the theological tradition of St. Augustine as he writes in his Explanation of the Psalms [i.e. a collection of Homilies/sermons and commentaries written on the Psalms from 392 to 418 AD] as follows:

“Lord rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger [c.f. Psalm 38:2]….In this life You may cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire…For it is said “He shall be saved, but as if by fire [c.f. 1 Cor 3:15]. And because its says he shall be saved, little is thought of that fire. Yet plainly though, we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life”

In his defense of the Book of Genesis [written 388-395 AD] against the Manicheans [who were dualistic and thus had problems with Creation and the fact that God had given man free will], St Augustine uses the term “purgatorial fires” as he writes:

“The man who has cultivated that remote land (c.f. Genesis 3:17) and who has gotten his bread by his very great labor is able to suffer this labor to the end of life. After this life, however, it is not necessary that he suffer. But the man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of the land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment.”

St. Augustine talks of purgatorial fires in his reflection “Faith and Works” (413 AD) and The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love {421 AD}, and also speaks of the doctrine of purgatory in The City of God, as I mentioned earlier [413-426 AD].

The Doctrine of Purgatory is consistent the Liturgical Rites of the early Church, both West and East [St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Cathechetical Lectures, 350 AD; St Gregory of Nyssa in Sermon on the Dead, 382 AD, and St. John Chrysostom in Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 392 AD], which offered prayers for the Dead at Liturgy [c.f. 2 Macabees 12: 43-46].

With respect to Praying for the Dead at Liturgy, St. Augustine writes in his Sermons [391-430 AD] “There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended .”

Again, St. Augustine writes in his Sermons [391 to 430 AD] “ But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead.”

So again, while you you may not agree with the doctrine of Purgatory, the Catholic Church’s doctrine is well grounded in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and is cleary within the expression of faith in the early Church.

Regards

[MarkBsnr]

I’ll go to Scripture Catholic for a dump of Scripture that supports Purgatory:

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, “be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and “under the earth” which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are “made” perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the “prison.” These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.

Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.

Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol,” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven).

Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God.

Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.

Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.

2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.

I don’t usually use a dump like this, but I think that the overwhelming Scriptural support for Purgatory needs to be conveyed.

***”Your sins are washed away, now burn in torment for X years as punishment for them” just doesn’t sound like Good News (Gospel).***

We don’t have any knowledge of the process of Purgatory other than that it is not especially pleasant. Also; once out of this world, we are out of time; I don’t think that time has any meaning in the afterlife. God is out of time; so will we be once we are with Him.

[Mr Rogers]

"I have stated this in the past that “it seems to many (including me)” that Protestants start with St. Paul and interpret Christ and the Gospels from that context. This, from the Catholic perspective, is incorrect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church correctly points out how the Sacred Scriptures should be interpreted, that is with Christ as the reference point, and how the Bible was interpreted throughout Christian History.” I still hold to that position as most of the Protestant literature that one sees (and I have only lived in 3 states in the Southern U.S.), does in fact start with St. Paul and usually calls it the “Roman Road of salvation” The passage that most often starts the Protestant view of justification is Romans 3:28-30; and it is usually complemented by passages from Galatians and Ephesians"

I agree, we start with Christ. However, if I have to choose between understanding Christ's actions by the admitted divinely inspired words of Paul, or doing so by the Catholic theologians who followed, then I will cheerfully stick with Paul. Not because Paul supplants God, but because God inspired Paul.

As for 'totally depraved' vs "wounded by original sin and fallen...but not totally sinful", my answer is:

10As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." 13"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know." 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Oh golly. There I go quoting Paul, when I ought to be reading Augustine...

But Paul was quoting Psalms, primarily, and Isaiah...and Jesus certainly knew those as well.

And what of Peter?

"4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes..."

John, maybe?

"16 For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world."

Perhaps the comments of Jesus on the Pharisees, who by all accounts worked very hard to obey the Law?

" 27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

Doesn't sound like someone who was “wounded by original sin and fallen from the original stature he had in Genesis 1”.

6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

But then, that is Paul creating Christianity without Christ...if only he had a Catholic theologian to point him to Christ!

[Mr Rogers]

I will try to reply later. It will take a while, and I’ve got chores to do...

[MarkBsnr]

***I will try to reply later. It will take a while, and I’ve got chores to do...***

Appreciate it.

[Iscool]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

WATER and Spirit. Baptism.

Now go read Luke 3. Even Christ got baptized with water, and what happened? The Holy Spirit descends. WATER and SPIRIT.

No comparison at all...Jesus didn't get born in the river...He got wet...

John got the people wet who repented of their sins as a testimony of that repentance...

Ther eis no water baptism in John 3;5...

But then I don't expect much from someone who has rebuked logic, reason and common sense.

God never said understanding the scripture was based on intellect, logic, reasoning, common sense...That's a man made religion...Jesus says as much, and more...

[Mr Rogers]

It is true that passages of scripture can have multiple layers of meaning. However, in interpretation, one should strive not to read in what is not there.

Augustine wrote, ““Lord rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger [c.f. Psalm 38:2]….In this life You may cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire…For it is said “He shall be saved, but as if by fire [c.f. 1 Cor 3:15]. And because its says he shall be saved, little is thought of that fire. Yet plainly though, we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life”

He jumped from what is absolutely clear in scripture - that we build on the foundation, which is Jesus Christ, and that what we build will be tested ‘by fire’ - not by torment, but by analogy to building with stone or straw, to see what construction we used in our ministry - he jumped from there, to saying that WE will be burned by fire due to sin.

That is adding meaning, not interpretation. And though Augustine is “reputed to be [a] pillar[s]”, I would oppose him to his face, were he here, because he is clearly in the wrong...

We should interpret scripture, not add new meanings to it.

[CTrent1564]

Mr. Rogers:

I think you are mis characterizing what I stated. Catholic Justification looks at the person of Christ and thus Christology as the starting point, and thus St. Paul’s doctrines are understood in reference to the person of CHrist, which is Incarnation, his life and teachings, passion, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven.

As for the quote you cited about total depravity, I still think that is a bad term, as it applies man is absolutely evil, and something totally evil is really non-existance, of course following the neo-Platonist. Now while our understanding of original sin might be different, I agree that without God’s Grace, man can’t believe and follow God. Still, the notion that you are citing, which seems to support Calvin’s Total Depravity, implicitly seems like a rejection of free will, which of course is also wounded by original sin.

So again, original sin in Catholic Doctrine is not a positive inclination to do moral evils, which seems like what is the logical conclusion of Total depravity, but rather the lack of the facilities to do what is moral and just.

Grace restores us back to the original justice God intended for humanity before the fall and thus through Grace, our passions, will, intellect, etc or transformed and humanity is renewed and thus has communion with the Holy Trinity, which is Love itself.

So again, I think how you and I understand original sin, and its consequences, impacts how we understand Grace and Justification. If one accepts the Reformed understanding of Grace and Justification, that many is only declared forensically righttous through imputed Grace, then purgatory makes no sense.

However, that is not the way Grace and Justification were understood in the early Church, and thus not the Catholic view, so purgatory is consistent with the Catholic Notion of Grace and Justification

Regards

[Iscool]

I’ll go to Scripture Catholic for a dump of Scripture that supports Purgatory:

You are right, it's a dump...

I stopped at this one because it was too outrageous to ignore...

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering.

But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity.

So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

How about just believing God instead...

Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

So you are 200% wrong...Proven by the word of God...The man is in HELL, not purgatory...And obviously people in Hell DO have compassion...

Abraham's bosom is now empty...There's no one there...The locks are unlocked and the gates are open, thus, 'and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Certainly. And whose righteousness is saving anyone? The righteousness of Christ, freely imputed to the believer.

Boast about your own righteousness all you want. It will not save you; it only reveals your lack of understanding.

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." -- Romans 3:24-28

Freely justified by the righteousness of Christ according to the forbearance ("an abstaining from the enforcement of a right") of God. Read Ephesians 2. How anyone could read Ephesians 2 and not understand is a sad mystery. Saved by grace through faith.

[MarkBsnr]

***I’ll go to Scripture Catholic for a dump of Scripture that supports Purgatory:

You are right, it’s a dump...***

Hello Iscool. How is the LaZBoy seat in the Church of Iscool (population 1)? Haven’t seen much of you lately. Are the rocks overhead stifling things?

*** stopped at this one because it was too outrageous to ignore...

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering.

But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity.

So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

How about just believing God instead...***

Unlike some, we do believe in God - the God of the OT and the New. Not outrageous - you’d post a reasonable opposition otherwise. What have you got?

***Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

So you are 200% wrong...Proven by the word of God...The man is in HELL, not purgatory...And obviously people in Hell DO have compassion...***

Umm, no. The folks in hell are done for. And I might, if I were you, look at the translation of what the hell in this passage means. Can you show me where the denizens of hell have any compassion? Christianity is built upon compassion and mercy. Those in hell have none.

***Abraham’s bosom is now empty...There’s no one there...The locks are unlocked and the gates are open, thus, ‘and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’***

You have some novel ideas, sir. Can you back them up with Scripture?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

How about just believing God instead...

Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

AMEN! Astounding how some can read the printed words and not see or hear the truth. Almost as if they had been blinded.

The over-arching point the RCC misses (intentionally, after all these centuries) is that we are meant to be conceptual beings, above the coarse "feelings" and "instincts" of animals. This very reason is why God determined to speak to man through His written word. Concepts. Not just sight and sound and emotion. Reasoning and conceptualizations. Smells and bells don't cut it.

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2

[bdeaner]

Jesus didn't get born in the river...He got wet...

God did not give you authority to distort scripture at your whims.

God never said understanding the scripture was based on intellect, logic, reasoning, common sense...That's a man made religion...Jesus says as much, and more...

This false belief of yours explains a lot.