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.

[Iscool]

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.

I'm unfamiliar with those promises you are referring to...What might they be???

[papertyger]

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.

I'm unfamiliar with those promises you are referring to...What might they be???

You know, I understand the inclination to be sceptical. But asking that question in response to that comment is up there with asking "so what color *was* george washington's white horse...."

[kosta50]

Markos33: Not that the Gospels are unimportant, be we have graduated from the milk of newborn babes to the meat.

MarkBsnr: 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?

Indeed, sure sounds like they hold Paul higher than Christ! You "graduate" from the "light" stuff, the baby formula of the Gospels, to the "real meat" of Paul's epistles. Paulianity at its best.

Markos33: Are you saying that Paul’s writings weren’t inspired by God, and that the Spirit of Christ [sic] wasn’t speaking through Paul in his Epistles?

Are you saying his writings were inspired by God and that the Spirit of Christ [sic] did speak through Paul? If you do, would you mind telling us just how do you know that?

[bdeaner]

No, what you’ve been taught vs what she has been taught. The New Testament knew of one, universal church. The Catholic CLAIM to be that one is disputed by many others in existence at the time. But the scriptures allow Marysecretary’s interpretation at least as validly as yours.

No, you missed the point. The point is that Marysecretary has not referred to scripture, PERIOD. NO references to Scripture vs Scripture-based argument is no contest. The latter is the winning argument, based on YOUR criterion of sola Scriptura. She did not mount a scripture-based counter-argument, but only her opinion. I do not respect an argument with no evidence to back it up. I respect your posts because you at least use evidence to support your statements. I can back up everything I say with Scripture. You may not agree with the interpretation, but I can back it up not only with scripture but also with evidence from early Christian history and the use of our God-given faculty of reason. I respect a counter-argument, but not one that fails to even make a counter-argument on its own terms, based in scripture. Can you blame me? Now stop trying to defend Marysecretary and let her stand up for herself, otherwise she might never break open her Bible.

[Iscool]

You know, I understand the inclination to be sceptical. But asking that question in response to that comment is up there with asking "so what color *was* george washington's white horse...."

Whatever...I thought it was a legitimate question...

[Iscool]

Are you saying his writings were inspired by God and that the Spirit of Christ [sic] did speak through Paul? If you do, would you mind telling us just how do you know that?

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

2Co 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Eph 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
Eph 6:20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Here's a start...

[boatbums]

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

How easy to defend when you don't know the first thing about the circumstances. My MOTHER was the Catholic. They were married by a CATHOLIC priest. Father initiated divorce, step-mother also got divorced. My mom was the one who was not contacted about the annulment quest even though we all knew where she was living. Priest contacted for the annulment didn't bother to try to contact her.

She has never remarried. Care to rethink your knee-jerk response!

[MarkBsnr]

***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.***

Do you mean that you believe that the Holy Spirit turns the individual into an automaton? That’s what I mean by the frogmarching.

***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...***

Which Scriptures were in existence at the time? Which Scriptures do you mean? Chapter and verse please, for context.

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

The only words that Jesus are recorded to have written were in the dust. I don’t know what Jesus spoke; I believe that he spoke the red letter words or words very close to what was recorded. As Luke says, he gathered all the information he could and wrote it out. The other three Gospels were written the same way.

***Paul was not a Bishop***

Scripture and the Fathers say that he was.

***Paul was an Apostle***

As were Peter and James and Thomas and the rest of the Twelve. Judas was an Apostle, too, you know.

***Stop trying to drag him down to the level of your pope***

The Pope is the current Steward of Christ. That is some level.

***They not only are not on the same team, they are not even in the same league...***

Both were/are Catholic. That puts them both on God’s team.

***Jesus spent His ministry on earth teaching and preaching to the JEWS...NOT Gentiles...***

That’s interesting. Mark 6 gives the account of the loaves and fishes (after preaching to the Gentiles, and then he heads to Gennareset, a place of Gentiles).

He is almost exclusively preaching to the Gentiles, to be sure. But the occasional Gentile sneaked in there.

***Salvation was of the Jews...If you don’t believe that you are calling Jesus a liar because that’s what He said.***

Are you speaking for Christ again? Bring forth your chapter and verse again please so we can examine in context.

***So what do you know about the church from the Gospels alone??? ***

That Jesus created it and named it to be his authorized Church on earth, with Peter as the first steward, and the Apostles able to forgive sins. Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And one or two other authorizing things.

***Where did you learn about the church??? (Not where you heard about it)***

Could you explain a little further please?

***It wasn’t in the Gospels...***

The Church is most certainly in the Gospels. Jesus left us with his hands and body (the Church) and the Holy Spirit to look after it.

***Paul spent a considerable time in heaven talking to Jesus face to face.***

When? Chapter and verse please.

***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...***

Paul was kinda slow warming up. He spent 3 years with the Jews in Syria, then returned to the Jews in Jerusalem, where he was finally consecrated a bishop. He then took it in turns to visit Jew, then Gentile, then Jew, then Gentile and finally went to Rome.

***That’s me...That’s my church...

I know that you have a church and that you are the primate of it. You keep telling us. Whereas I do not have a church nor do I have a god. I follow the Church of Jesus Christ and He has me. God does not belong to me; I belong to Him; I am His creature, not vice versa. This is a portion of why I think that you and I do not understand Christianity whatsoever alike. I have the Faith of the Church and I do not get to create new ones if I don’t like the Faith.

***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...***

Demonstrate my hypocrises or post an apology.

[MarkBsnr]

***Indeed, sure sounds like they hold Paul higher than Christ! You “graduate” from the “light” stuff, the baby formula of the Gospels, to the “real meat” of Paul’s epistles. Paulianity at its best.***

I do try to avoid pinging as a rule, however, I thought that you might like to see a frank admission of Markos, which I find a breath of fresh air, actually, compared to the usual whispered half truths and hurried denials.

I have to hand it to you Markos. You have come out and declared what many deny, but keeps coming out in their posts.

***Markos33: Are you saying that Paul’s writings weren’t inspired by God, and that the Spirit of Christ [sic] wasn’t speaking through Paul in his Epistles?

Are you saying his writings were inspired by God and that the Spirit of Christ [sic] did speak through Paul? If you do, would you mind telling us just how do you know that?***

Knowledge is an interesting thing; the path of enlightment and its accuracy is often even more interesting. Claiming belief as knowledge is a wonderful thing; it must be.

[MarkBsnr]

***He is almost exclusively preaching to the Gentiles, to be sure. But the occasional Gentile sneaked in there.***

Ahem; I meant He was almost exclusively preaching to the Jews. Apologies.

[Semper Mark]

...”I thought you’d like to see a frank admission of Markos,”...

What admission would that be?

[MarkBsnr]

***...”I thought you’d like to see a frank admission of Markos,”...

What admission would that be?***

That Paul is more important than Christ to many Protestants.

[Semper Mark]

How did you come to that conclusion from anything that I have said?

[MarkBsnr]

***How did you come to that conclusion from anything that I have said?***

From your post in which you said:

***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.

That is why I came to this conclusion. And I thank you for very bravely confirming it. This shall not go unnoticed at your Judgement, I believe, since once you have the power to admit sin, you are on the way to preparation to repent from it. Let me congratulate you.

[Semper Mark]

I'll once again explain what the post you speak of meant.

We have tried the Gospels, meaning we have read them, we know them, and we believe them. And most of all, we believe in the One that they speak of.

If we are to GROW spiritually in grace and truth then we must read the whole word of God. And that includes the Epistles, and not only the Epistles of Paul, but ALL of them. The Epistles explain what took place on the Cross of Christ. And they explain to us the free gift of grace extended to us by God because of Christ's death on the Cross. They explain to us what the Gospels were about.

And if don't realize that, then let me recommend more Bible study.

“Your statements put Paul above God.”

Paul spoke God breathed truth. Paul was an instrument.
How can a tool be above it's Master?

[kosta50]

Here's a start...

Impressive. In other words, because Paul says so in the Bible? And how do you know what's in the Bible is true? Wait, let me guess—because Paul says so, right? And how do you know what Paul says is true? Wait, I get it—because it's in the Bible! Right!?

The only "start" I see from your array of verses here is a beginning of circular reasoning...

[Semper Mark]

Am I saying that Paul's writings were inspired by God?

Yes. Absolutely.

Are you saying that they weren't?

“Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said unto him in a vision:
Ananias. And he said, behold I am here, Lord.

And the Lord said unto him: Arise, and go into the street that is called Straight, and seek the house of Judas, one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold he prayeth.

(And he saw a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hands on him that he might receive him by sight.)

But Ananias answered: Lord I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem.

And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that invoke thy name.

And the Lord said unto him: Go thy way; for this man is to Me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my names sake.”

Acts 9:10-16

[kosta50]

Knowledge is an interesting thing; the path of enlightment and its accuracy is often even more interesting. Claiming belief as knowledge is a wonderful thing; it must be.

Precisely.

[kosta50]

The Epistles explain what took place on the Cross of Christ. And they explain to us the free gift of grace extended to us by God because of Christ's death on the Cross.

And how did Paul know what took place on the Cross since he wasn't there?

Because Paul says so?

Paul spoke God breathed truth. Paul was an instrument.

How do you know he spoke God breathed truth? How do you know he was an instrument? Is it not, again, because Paul says so?

[kosta50]

Am I saying that Paul's writings were inspired by God? Yes. Absolutely.

How do you know that?

Are you saying that they weren't?

I am not making any claims, dear frined. You are. I am merely asking how do you know what you claim is true?

Acts 9:10-16

So what? I don't see any certificate of authenticity attached to Acts 9:10-16. So, again, how do you know this is true?