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.

[Mr Rogers]

“But you post far more Paul than Jesus.”

Is there a God of Jesus and a different God of Paul?

I’ve quoted both, at length. I’ve also quoted Peter.

Scripture has one author - GOD. And it is shocking to see Catholics disparage Paul, as though he was a heretic, and his writings not canon.

---

“Note that many of His disciples, who had formerly believed, left. They ceased believing, thus condemning themselves.”

Bad exegesis. Scripture says, “60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father...70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.”

This is why I say it isn’t that hard to understand scripture. “I ignore nothing of what Jesus said. He is the Word.” - Nothing, that is, except verses 64, 65 & 70.

[MarkBsnr]

***As far as trying the Gospels, we have tried them.***

And like the true children of the Reformation, found them wanting.

***They speak of Christ’s person; The son of man, The Son of God, and God in the flesh. And His death and resurrection.***

They give us instruction in all manner of life and death and belief; in repentance and salvation, and in the expectations and commands of the True God. You may have missed some of this.

***Not that the Gospels are unimportant, be we have graduated from the milk of newborn babes to the meat. ***

You guys claim that Jesus was the milk and Paul is the meat? Wow. I have thought this for a long time, but I haven’t had it confirmed so blatantly. You don’t mind if I share this revelation do you?

We are Christians, not Paulians nor are we Paulicians. We worship the Triune God; including His Son who is the Word of God. Paul was a good and fierce bishop.

***Are you saying that Paul’s writings weren’t inspired by God, and that the Spirit of Christ wasn’t speaking through Paul in his Epistles?

I believe that Paul was inspired by God and that his writings were influenced by God. But Paul is not God and the mere fact that you put his writings on a higher level than Christ’s speaks volumes to me as to the accuracy of Christian faith that so many here exhibit.

[Semper Mark]

“You guys claim that Jesus is the milk and Paul was the meat?”

---

You don't have a clue about the Bible do you?

The ENTIRE Bible was written about Christ, and by Christ.

When you compare Jesus and Paul you don't know what you're doing. Jesus and Paul are not in competition. Paul was commissioned by Christ, he wrote about Christ, and he was under the inspiration of Christ.

Who was the subject of Paul's Epistles? Christ.
The truth of the cross is in the Epistles and God's grace to us is explained in the Epistles.

Just because a man reads the Epistles doesn't mean that he's discounting the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gospels and the Epistles were written about, and by the same person, that being Christ.

[Mr Rogers]

The problem with Origen, Tertullian and Augustine and many other church fathers in that time frame is that they started spending more time as philosophers than as pastors.

I suspect if you asked most Catholics or Protestants to discuss the Trinity at the depth they did, or the nature of good and evil, you would find almost all are wrong somewhere.

This is because Scripture doesn’t explain the Trinity. If you are trying to explain God apart from revelation, you get into trouble.

[Mr Rogers]

As I pointed out in post 2561, you might want to refrain from boasting about your close reading of Jesus...

[MarkBsnr]

***“But you post far more Paul than Jesus.”

Is there a God of Jesus and a different God of Paul?***

Are you arguing, as is another poster on this thread, that you have surpassed Jesus and rely more on Paul?

***I’ve quoted both, at length. I’ve also quoted Peter.

Scripture has one author - GOD.***

Wrong. We have it from Luke specifically that this is not so.

***And it is shocking to see Catholics disparage Paul, as though he was a heretic, and his writings not canon.***

Paul is the second greatest Apostle in the Church. Paul is not a heretic; those who misinterpret him and use that misinterpretation to create non Christian theologies are; his writings are most certain canon and were among some of the first recognized by the Church.

***This is why I say it isn’t that hard to understand scripture. “I ignore nothing of what Jesus said. He is the Word.” - Nothing, that is, except verses 64, 65 & 70.***

Of course Jesus knew who would leave. He is God. But belief is something that can be lost; it can also be refound. I have posted both Jesus and Paul that indicates that. I can post again if it is needed.

[Mr Rogers]

Ahh...so God is not the author of Scripture? That would explain putting tradition above it, I guess.

You write, “But belief is something that can be lost”

“Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe...”

Notice the difference - those who did not believe, vs those who lost their belief.

[MarkBsnr]

***“You guys claim that Jesus is the milk and Paul was the meat?”

You don’t have a clue about the Bible do you?***

Markos, may I requote you just to put things in perspective?

From post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2281019/posts?page=2544#2544

in response to a question of mine as to why many Protestants prefer Paul over Jesus you wrote:

***As far as trying the Gospels, we have tried them.
They speak of Christ’s person; The son of man, The Son of God, and God in the flesh. And His death and resurrection.

Not that the Gospels are unimportant, be we have graduated from the milk of newborn babes to the meat. The Epistles explain Christ’s death, and resurrection.***

Here, you are referring to the Epistles of Paul. This posting, in context, says that the poster considers the Gospels to be as milk for newborn babes, while Paul provides the grownup meat for the theologically advanced. Your statements here put Paul above God.

***Just because a man reads the Epistles doesn’t mean that he’s discounting the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gospels and the Epistles were written about, and by the same person, that being Christ.***

If you prefer the words of a human being above the words of Christ Jesus, and look at words spoken by the Lord God and deem them less worthy than the words of a man, then I would say that you are not Christian because of that preference.

The Paulicians much preferred the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline letters and would refer to the other Gospels as spurious. Much of their belief comes from Manichaeism. They were iconoclastic and referred to the Catholics as Romanists.

***When you compare Jesus and Paul you don’t know what you’re doing.***

I’m not comparing them. You did. Jesus is God and Paul is a man. He is a great Bishop of the Church but still a man. He has great theological truths, but they do not supersede Christ.

[MarkBsnr]

***The problem with Origen, Tertullian and Augustine and many other church fathers in that time frame is that they started spending more time as philosophers than as pastors.***

They were bishops and theologian defending the Church against the attacks of the heretics. Their hubris climbed until it was greater than the Church.

***I suspect if you asked most Catholics or Protestants to discuss the Trinity at the depth they did, or the nature of good and evil, you would find almost all are wrong somewhere.***

That does not mean that there is not a right answer. Faulty teaching on the part of man does not mean that there is a faulty or relative truth of God. If the individuals are wrongly catechized it is the fault of the Church, not God. Individuals who are wrong does not make the teaching of the Church wrong.

***This is because Scripture doesn’t explain the Trinity. If you are trying to explain God apart from revelation, you get into trouble.***

I think that we have understanding. That is why the Church was created. God knew that Scripture is not entirely clear. Yet we have Trinitarian doctrine. Therefore some body (the Church) has authority to interpret.

[MarkBsnr]

***As I pointed out in post 2561, you might want to refrain from boasting about your close reading of Jesus...***

Maybe, maybe not. See my reply.

[MarkBsnr]

***Ahh...so God is not the author of Scripture?***

Give me a Scriptural quote that says that the NT is authored by God.

***You write, “But belief is something that can be lost”

“Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe...”

Notice the difference - those who did not believe, vs those who lost their belief.***

Those who did not belief - at that time. Remember that Jesus is God. All things at as at once to Him. Of course He knew who lost their faith at His words.

[Mr Rogers]

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3

“Is given by inspiration of God. All this is expressed in the original by one word \~yeopneustov\~ theopneustos. This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, God-inspired—from \~yeov\~, God, and \~pnew\~, to breathe, to breathe out. The idea of breathing upon, or breathing into the soul, is that which the word naturally conveys. Thus God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life, Genesis 2:7; and thus the Saviour breathed on his disciples, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” John 20:22. The idea seems to have been, that the life was in the breath, and that an intelligent spirit was communicated with the breath. The expression was used among the Greeks, and a similar one was employed by the Romans.” - Barnes

[MarkBsnr]

***“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3

“Is given by inspiration of God. All this is expressed in the original by one word \~yeopneustov\~ theopneustos. This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, God-inspired—from \~yeov\~, God, and \~pnew\~, to breathe, to breathe out. The idea of breathing upon, or breathing into the soul, is that which the word naturally conveys. Thus God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life, Genesis 2:7; and thus the Saviour breathed on his disciples, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” John 20:22. The idea seems to have been, that the life was in the breath, and that an intelligent spirit was communicated with the breath. The expression was used among the Greeks, and a similar one was employed by the Romans.” - Barnes***

And these are very good points. Let us further consider, though, that Adam, upon receiving the breath of God, was less than perfect and brought about the Fall. The Disciples were fallible men and showed their fallibility in Scripture and elsewhere. Therefore it is not God that is fallible, but men who are.

God caused the authors (and many others) to write about Jesus. But men are fallible men; many of those who had written fell short (where is the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul?).

Just as the OT recorded the history of the Jews falling short, so did the performance of the writers fall short on many occasions. The NT authors were not automatons, writing word for word from God; they wrote as best as they could, putting something of themselves and their understanding into the works. Otherwise, how do you explain four Gospels, with some contradictory text (e.g. who was at the tomb after the Resurrection and what did they see)?

Again, just as the Holy Spirit leads and guides us all, it is our human failing that leads us to fall short of the mark. It is not God’s fault; it is ours. But with His Grace, we get up and struggle on the best that we can on the Via of Christ.

[Iscool]

I have faith in the Triune God including the Holy Spirit. I don’t think that the practices of most Protestants who claim the leadership of the Holy Spirit are in fact led by the Holy Spirit. There is no frogmarching in Christianity.

I'd say that's pretty good evidence you don't know the Holy Spirit...

Because Jesus is God - the Word of God. The Gospels are His words. Paul’s scriptures are the writings of a great bishop to his flock. Not God preaching and teaching. Why would anyone call himself Christian if he did not place the Gospels as the pinnacle of God’s revelation to man?

Because he studied the scriptures like God commanded him to do...

How do you know all those red words in the Gospels are actually what Jesus spoke??? He didn't write it...

Paul was not a Bishop...Paul was an Apostle...Stop trying to drag him down to the level of your pope...They not only are not on the same team, they are not even in the same league...

Jesus spent His ministry on earth teaching and preaching to the JEWS...NOT Gentiles...Salvation was of the Jews...If you don't believe that you are calling Jesus a liar because that's what He said...

So what do you know about the church from the Gospels alone??? Where did you learn about the church??? (Not where you heard about it) It wasn't in the Gospels...

Paul spent a considerable time in heaven talking to Jesus face to face...It was to Paul that it was revealed of the adoption of Gentiles into the Body of Christ...And Paul was commissioned by Jesus to run this adoption agency for the Gentiles...

That's me...That's my church...

Now we know you are being hypocritical because your religion takes and distorts many of 'insignificant' Paul's scripture and twists them to fit your religion's agenda and claim them solely for your religion...

[papertyger]

I have no freedom from sin except what Christ gave me.

What? No Romans 8:2 in your bible?

At least I am truthful about mine and acknowledge I do sin which is far more than you do.

Weren't you the one floating the "once-I'm-forgiven-for-stealing-the-car-I-don't-have-to-give-it-back" view of adultery?

In Faith I'll ask for His mercy and grace and not depend on what I do otherwise for my salvation. My deeds or any good or bad I may have done as related to my eternal salvation are dust in the wind.

So your whole view of salvation rests on the idea that doing what he told you is a "work" and therefore not required. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that God may not share your gag-on-a-gnat definition of "works" and "free gift?"

Frankly, that definition sounds much more like the guy who buried his talent than the two who used theirs for increase.

BTW if you work for someone else and post on their time which they pay you for it makes you a thief :>}

That's kind of a tough case to make when the "someone else" doesn't object to any other personal activity that doesn't interfere with the job.

You quote law after law, verse after verse, condemnation after condemnation, plus church dogma, yet your posting and words lacks the very traits Christ asked of us to do the most.

Want to share that verse that makes justifying adultery a legitimate expression of loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength?

All your rituals, all the laws you love, all the doctrines and dogma you read and quote to others are empty because you ignore the important things of the law and I doubt you understand what they even are.

Now that's funny, because when I was a protestant for twenty years, and ignored all those things, I was still a slave to the law of sin and death (no matter how hard I thumped my bible to prove how "saved" I was). Only when I figured out God wasn't keeping the promises evangelicals were making in his name did I learn those empty rituals are actually an important part of maintaining the freedom of Romans 8:2.

[papertyger]

...sought an annulment for a 15+ year marriage w/5 children.

If you think that is relevant, you don't understand annulments, or sacrimental marriage.

[Mr Rogers]

Count me in as one who doesn’t understand annulments, then...sure seems like a divorce.

[papertyger]

Count me in as one who doesn't understand annulments, then...sure seems like a divorce.

Did you ever bother to ask a practicing catholic?

[Mr Rogers]

Yes. Still sounds like a divorce.

[papertyger]

Yes. Still sounds like a divorce.

I kind of suspected that would be your demeanor, which is why I didn't bother to explain the distinctions.

If someone was determined to find you a polytheist, even after you explained trinitarian theology to them, one really is getting into "teaching a pig to sing" territory.