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]

I'm not sure that I am "making it personal" in that Iscool himself has said he rejects logic as a pathway to the truth. I was only repeating what he has said. An ad hominem argument would attack the person, rather than the argument. The argument in this case is whether logic is a valid method for interpreting scripture. So I aim to attack this statement, not Iscool personally. I mean, I really find it to be quite astounding that anyone would reject logic...and so it does seem like an attack on a person to say they are without logic--and so I undertand your response. But what if the person being addressed is the one who explicitly rejects logic? How can one acknowledge this without making it personal????

Sorry for the rambling, but my head is aching over this one...

[Religion Moderator]

Look at 2678 and 2679 together. They are moving the conversation away from the issues and towards a criticism of the Freeper himself. That is “making it personal.”

[bdeaner]

With regard to 2678, I’m not sure how to respond to a style of argument that says, “You should listen to what we say because we are the Tiger Woods of X,” when X is the subject under discussion, without addressing whether the messenger has any valid personal claim to the said Tiger Woods-like qualities. The fallacious reasoning seems to beg a personal response. I will try in the future to simply point out the fallacious reasoning without resorting to sarcasm or discussion of personal qualities, even if the poster seems to be inviting them.

[Semper Mark]

“No, Markos, the Bible says that Jesus said that. How do you know that said that? Because the Bible said so. (circular reasoning)”

I don't know whether you realize it or not, but that was the shortest sermon on the authenticity of scripture that I've ever heard.

“But how do you know that what's in the Bible really happened? Because the Bible says so and because the the Bible is the word of God?” Simple faith can sometimes be frustrating.

“And how do you know the Bible is the word of God?”

What does Christ say about this...
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” John 10:27

How do I hear his voice today, does He speak to me in an audible voice? I'd drop over dead if He did, and besides, I wouldn't believe it anyway. I hear His voice in His Word and His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that His Word is true and it is indeed His Word.

“It is the spirit that quickenth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63

God's Word proves itself, it is alive!

“Other religions quote equally dogmatic statements from their holy books which they believe are from God. In fact, they claim they are from God.”

Oh really. So? Does that take away from the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures?

Because the Bible says so. Doesn't sound very high falutin’ does it. But it's all we have.

[Iscool]

How do you understand anything without logic? Sounds like blind faith to me.

The question is; how do you understand anything with logic???

Logic is nothing more than a guess...Logic is for people who don't know the answer to the question...

And what makes one person's logic superior to the person whose logic disagrees with his logic??? The answer of course is in the final equation...If the logic can prove itself in the end...

And when the logical episode is over with, knowledge is gained, experience is gained, and from that point on, logic falls to the bottom of the list...Logic never supercedes knowledge and experience...

I know of no one who has a good sense of logic in every area...Some are good with mechanics, some with math...Some with electronics...Logic however, does not apply to the scriptures...The only biblical logic is called wisdom...And the only Godly wisdom we get comes from God...According to God...

Try this one out...Many of the scriptures that Protestants relate to, to prove their position, are called a metaphor by you guys...That means it doesn't mean what it says...It means something else...But yet, in most cases, you have no clue as to what the metaphor means...That means that God wrote a lot of scripture that is meaningless and not applicable to anything...So where's the logic in that???

You pointed to some verses, Matt. 25 and more that show works are definitely required for salvation...Excellent...I agree with you 100%

But then we get to Romans, Galatians, Ephesians where it's is conclusive that works of any kind are forbidden for salvation...Of course you guys deny this to keep in line with your believing only what Jesus said...Regardless, the scriptures tell us that any kind of works are counted as a debt...

Logic would seem to tell anyone that there's a contradiction there...

And then James tells us that we are justified by works when Roman tells us absolutely no way...

Would seem even a minute amount of logic would tell someone there's a problem there...

But nope, one of 'em's got to be a metaphor...Don't know what it means but what ever it means, it's not what it says...

So I don't buy into man's logic that you claim is a gift from God...Not when your logic seems to be so, illogical...

[bdeaner]

I would say that Vesalius came along more than a THOUSAND YEARS after Galen had died.

So what? Vesalius was Catholic, which shoots down your claim that the Catholic Church is to blame for suppressing modern medicine. Not at all. It was our guy who starting it all with his groundbreaking work in anatomy! It's as simple as that.

The real difference between progress in western civilization and other parts of the world was plain and simply competition.

Competition? That might have played some part, but more fundamental than anything was the theological ground of Catholic theology, within which one God is understood to be the sole creator of the universe with a single Logos discoverable by reason via natural law. Every other civilization had competition. But not a single one could claim this unique theology which was the only theology that made modern science possible for human thought.

Christian tradition, from its Old Testament prehistory through the High Middle Ages and beyond, conceives of God--and, by extension, His creation--as rational and orderly. Throughout the Bible, the regularity of natural phenomena is described as a reflection of God's goodness, beauty and order. Fir if the Lord "has imposed an order on the magnificent workds of his wisdom," that is only because "He is from everlasting to everlasting" (Sir. 42:21). The world, as understood within the Judao-Christian tradition, is the handiwork of a supremely reasonable Person, and therefore is endowed with lawfulness and purpose. This lawfulness is evident all around us. This idea of a rational, orderly universe eluded other civilizations, such as the arabs, Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, Greek, Hinus, Mayan, and others, all of whom as much if not more resources to accomplish modern science, just not the cosmological and theological framework in which it could be conceived.

The major shift did not occur during the reformation, but prior to it, during the Middle Ages, as the Scholastics carried out the depersonalization of nature that was inherited from Aristotle.

The development of the concept of inertial motion goes back to this historical moment in the Middle Ages, given birth through the revelation of God's Word in the Church of the Middle Ages. Jeam Buridan was an especially important figure in this development. He was a 14th c. professor at the Sorbonne, who compelled by his Catholic theology, was led to reject the Aristotelian idea that the universe itself was eternal. His ideas paved the way for Newton's physics hundreds of years later.

Not to mention the 12th century emergence of the Cathedral School of Chartes, where the development of natural philosophy was the groundspring within which modern scientific method would emerge, as a result of a commitment to the idea of nature as something autonomous, operating according to fixed laws discernable by reason.

Luther had nothing to do with the development of modern science. If anything, the Reformers hindered scientific development by falling into various heresies that often conflicted with the natural philosophy of Catholicism that made science fit coherently within the overarching Catholic worldview. The young-earth Creationists of today are a good example of such heretics who undermine the natural philosophy of Catholicism within which science is able to flourish.

[Iscool]

Right. Gee, how could I have missed your genius for so long, Iscool? You are actually the infallible one and us Catholics and the Pope really have no idea what we're talking about. Thanks for straightening us out. /sarc

Nope...The scripture, the word of God is the infallible one...And when you guys misquote scripture to defend your position, I'm am for closer to the infallible one than you are...

was promised by Christ to be the pillar and foundation of all Truth so that hell would not prevail against it?

Jesus did not say that Hell would not prevail against the church...Jesus said the GATES of Hell...And you guys change the word GATES to POWER...You don't even know what the verse means so you change it and create a new definition for it...

So you're telling me that I should dispense with 2000 years of ( Catholic) Church teachings, and the teachings of the early (Catholic) Church fathers who (who make the claim they) were contemporaries of the Apostles, and the work of many (Catholic) theologians, and (our claim of ) infallible teachings of the Magesterium --- just throw it all in the trash

You forgot a lot of things in your rant...I made it a little more readable...

[bdeaner]

Nope...The scripture, the word of God is the infallible one...

Scripture is inerrant, because it was canonized by THE Church which is infallible by virtue of the charism of infallibility passed on by the Lord Himself and the Holy Spirit He sent in His absence--a reality that is itself validated by Scripture! Without that authority, you would be stuck sorting through Gnostic gospels trying to figure out which ones are inspired and which ones are not.

The Bible itself tells us that readers of Scripture are in need of a teaching authority, lest they be led astray. The very fact that you claim that Scripture can be distorted, or that individuals can differ in their understanding of Scripture, is actually a testimony in favor of the need for an infallible teaching authority -- which is exactly what the Lord gave us with the Magisterium of the Church.

Of course, many Christians (and also heretics or "cultists") distort and misunderstand the Bible, or at the very least, arrive at contradictory, sincerely-held convictions. This is the whole point from the Catholic perspective. Error is necessarily present wherever contradictions exist – clearly not a desirable situation, as all falsehood is harmful (for example, John 8:44, 16:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, 1 John 4:6). Perspicuity might theoretically be a good thing in principle, and on paper, but in practice it is unworkable and untenable. History has proven this beyond all doubt.

Yet Protestant freedom of conscience is valued more than unity and the certainty of doctrinal truth in all matters (not just the core issues alone). The inquirer with newfound zeal for Christ is in trouble if he expects to easily attain any comprehensive certainty within Protestantism. All he can do is take a "head count" of scholars and pastors and evangelists and Bible Dictionaries and see who lines up where on the various sides of the numerous disagreements. Or else he can uncritically accept the word of whatever denomination he is associated with.

In effect, then, he is no better off than a beginning philosophy student who prefers Kierkegaard to Kant -- the whole procedure (however well-intentioned, and I readily grant that it is) is arbitrary and destined to produce further confusion.

Thank the Lord we are not reduced to such a mess. We have the Lord's gift of the Magesterium, who through Apostolic succession, have the teaching authority, and the charism of infallibility, in their teaching of Scripture -- which is what would be expected if we are to take Christ on His Word that he would not leave the Church orphaned after His Ascension. He continues to operate through His Body, the Church -- the pillar and foundation of Truth.

[Iscool]

How do I hear his voice today, does He speak to me in an audible voice? I'd drop over dead if He did, and besides, I wouldn't believe it anyway. I hear His voice in His Word and His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that His Word is true and it is indeed His Word.

This seems to be a mystery to so many religious folks...

We talk to God and call it prayer...He answers our prayers (and sometimes says no)...He talks to us thru the scriptures...

Outside of our relationship with Jesus, the most important thing we have in this world is the scriptures...

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

It is so important to know the scriptures...

[Iscool]

The Bible itself tells us that readers of Scripture are in need of a teaching authority, lest they be led astray. The very fact that you claim that Scripture can be distorted, or that individuals can differ in their understanding of Scripture, is actually a testimony in favor of the need for an infallible teaching authority -- which is exactly what the Lord gave us with the Magisterium of the Church.

That true...But the Bible tells us the teaching authority is the Holy Spirit along with the scriptures...NOT thru your religion...

[bdeaner]

teaching authority is the Holy Spirit along with the scriptures...

If the Holy Spirit is available to all Christians, then explain why there are inreconciliable differences between sects of Christianity. Does the Holy Spirit lead some sincere Christians astray? If that were so, it would hardly seems to live up to Christ's promise to be with us until the end of the age. But of course it is not so: Christ gave teaching authority to his Apostles, who passed their teaching authority along to their successors, and that unbroken line continues today as the Catholic Church's Magisterium. Those who reject the Church's infallible teachings of Scripture, reject Christ who gave authority to the Church to teach His Word.

[Semper Mark]

“It is so important to know the scriptures...”

The oldest trick of the slandering father of all lies, is to cast doubt on God’s Word.

“But the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said to the woman, Ye shall not surely die.”
Genesis 3:3-4

[Iscool]

If the Holy Spirit is available to all Christians, then explain why there are inreconciliable differences between sects of Christianity. Does the Holy Spirit lead some sincere Christians astray? If that were so, it would hardly seems to live up to Christ's promise to be with us until the end of the age.

Jesus did not say He would keep anyone from error...You guys again add words to the scripture...

Jesus say He will lead but that doesn't mean everyone will follow...

Jesus was talking about His Spirit being HERE until the end of the church age...To guide us...He wasn't talking about hanging with your religion to keep it from error...He there for all of us...You chose your pope instead and hope (or assume) he's listening to the Holy Spirit...

I'll tell you this once again...The JW's have created their own little Green Bible...The Mormans have their Joe Smith Bible...The Catholic have their tradition...The Presbyterians and Anglicans and Greeks and Catholics are all pretty much the same bunch and don't put hardly any stock in the scriptures....

And then you have the individuals and priests and church leaders who think they can come up with some 'new' gem in the scriptures by correcting the hundreds of translators who already translated more than 200 bibles...

Amo 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
Amo 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

And don't tell us about your religion...Catholics are all over the map as well...Your church may proclaim to teach many things but it enforces none of 'em... You can ask ten different Catholics what your church teaches and you will hear ten different things...

[Iscool]

Christ gave teaching authority to his Apostles, who passed their teaching authority along to their successors, and that unbroken line continues today as the Catholic Church's Magisterium. Those who reject the Church's infallible teachings of Scripture, reject Christ who gave authority to the Church to teach His Word.

No He didn't...Jesus gave his teaching authority to the original apostles and then to the scripture...We are the ones who pass that authority along to other sinful men, NOT God...

[bdeaner]

Jesus gave his teaching authority to the original apostles and then to the scripture...

And the successors of the Apostles, the Magisterium.

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Mt 28:18-20)

He said "until the end of the age," not until all the original Apostles are dead.

It is clear that Christ intended that the Bishops (the Apostles and their successors) had the authority and duty to teach the faithful. This teaching authority is called the Magisterium.

The essential point is that there is absolute Truth, which has been revealed to the Apostles, and which they must teach to the faithful. Therefore, all the bishops, and each bishop, when they are in communion with the Magisterium have the power and duty to teach the Truths of the faith to the flock.

Note that Christ said go forth and teach them to observe what I have commanded you. He did not say, go forth and take a poll to see what everyone wants to do and then let them do it. The Pope and Bishops throughout the history of the Church have taken very seriously the onerous duty of preserving the Deposit of Faith and teaching it to the flock entrusted to them. Dissent from Church teaching (even Church teaching that has not been infallibly declared) is essentially an indication by the dissenter that they understand better what Christ commanded the Apostles than the Bishops to whom Christ promised that knowledge.

Without the authority of the Magisterium of the Church, the SCriptures would not have the authority that they now possess. In fact, they would not exist, because they would have been lost during the unruly first millenium of the Church's history. But the organization and commitment of the clergy preserved them, so that they can continue to teach and reveal their relevance to our lives even as society has changed across history.

[bdeaner]

James Cardinal Gibbons, in his best-selling book of Catholic apologetics, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917), eloquently defended papal infallibility against many of the common objections of Protestants and other non-Catholics:

"You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error . . .

Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not.

If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible . . . then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?"

Those who doubt the authority Christ gave to the Magisterium doubt Christ and His power to grant the gift of discernment. Christ did not cast us adrift in His absence; he did not leave us orphans; he gave us the authority of the Mother Church to preserve and teach His Word infallibly. This Church serves as the pillar and foundation of Truth, so that we know how to behave in the household of God.

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15

Of course the scripture is important, but it is the Church that leads us; it is the Church in fact which taught us what counts as Scripture and what does not. To resist the Church is to resist truth. When someone sets themselves up to interpret the scripture outside Church teaching, they are setting themselves above the Church. The following passage explains the importance of obedience to the authority, which includes the Church.

"Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." Romans 13:1-2

This passage should be frightening to those who do not submit to the Authority of the Church. When Christ founded the Church and commissioned its leaders, he granted them the authority necessary to fulfill its mission. So when we, in an independent spirit, decide that we can do it without the Church, we are in fact bringing judgment upon ourselves. One of the greatest gifts of God was free will. The only question is how will you use it.

"Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you." Hebrews 13:17

"Then Jesus approached and said to them, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.' " Matthew 28:18-20

Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach, not go forth and distribute Bibles and let the people figure it out for themselves. If you are not following the Church's teachings on Scriptue, you are actually following the "teaching" of a Church founded by man (Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII) instead of the Church created and commissioned by Christ.

"so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens." Ephesians 3:10

Faith is made known to all through the Church. Its as simple as that.

"We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit." 1 John 4:6

The Church did not allow each community to interpret what was right on their own. The "Jerusalem Council" council above was the first recorded Church Council. The last was Vatican II. The Church has, and always will, be tasked to be the voice of truth to mankind placed in context with the current time and place. Just as the Jerusalem Council dealt with the question of conversion to Christianity, today's Church deals with questions of genetic engineering, contraception, and other issues of this time and place.

[Iscool]

He said "until the end of the age," not until all the original Apostles are dead.

It is clear that Christ intended that the Bishops (the Apostles and their successors) had the authority and duty to teach the faithful. This teaching authority is called the Magisterium.

What??? How did your religion take sentence one and pervert it into sentence two??? Jesus is with all Christians by the Holy Spirit til the end of the age...Mabye even some Catholics...

Without the authority of the Magisterium of the Church, the SCriptures would not have the authority that they now possess. In fact, they would not exist, because they would have been lost during the unruly first millenium of the Church's history.

HaHa...God disagrees with your church again...

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Even tho it tried, your religion couldn't have stopped God's word from reaching the people because God said HE would preserve it, forever...

And then your religion created it's own 'scripture' and wouldn't allow any of the normal people read it...

The essential point is that there is absolute Truth, which has been revealed to the Apostles, and which they must teach to the faithful. Therefore, all the bishops, and each bishop, when they are in communion with the Magisterium have the power and duty to teach the Truths of the faith to the flock

More mumbo jumbo...The apostles wrote the scriptures down so there would be a teaching record (which escaped your attempts thru out history to destroy it...You then claim that your Catholic church fathers wrote their interpretations down and those are taught in your religion as actual Truth while you constantly trash the word of God...

[Iscool]

"You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error . . .

Why post this subversive propaganda??? Why not post the words of God to prove your point??? Does any one care what some author thinks???

This author is tying to convince you guys by being hypothetical...Could God make an infallible man??? Sure he could...BUT HE DIDN'T, OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST...

And God could have hypnotized all the Jews into accepting Him as their Messiah in which case, the church age would never have show up, BUT HE DIDN'T...Nope, your pope is definitely NOT an infallible man and your religion is definitely not an infallible religion...

If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.

You guys don't get it...From the bottom to the top, you don't get it...The Holy Spirit...Believers are filled with the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead...The only 'pope' we have is the Holy Spirit, the Vicar of Christ on Earth...

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible . . . then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?"

WoW...Who is this guy that you apparently approve of as an authority on matters Catholic??? This character is implying that there is someone in your church who knows everything in the scriptures...

Many of the things in the scripture haven't happened yet...Many of the things in scripture haven't been revealed yet...And NO ONE in your religion knows what the verses dealing with those events mean...If they say they do, they are liars...

Those who doubt the authority Christ gave to the Magisterium doubt Christ and His power to grant the gift of discernment.

This fella just shows his ignorance of scripture...Whoever believes this blind guy will end up in the ditch with him...

And the rest of the post follows along the same lines...

[Radix]

Playing with the grand kids right now. Just took a few minutes off to look around FR.com.

Some of your comments are interesting, valid, informative, and intriguing.

Certainly reasonable people will often disagree.

The refusal of Catholic apologists to acknowledge Rome's integral role in subverting medical progress over a millenia is curious to me.

Same when it comes to Bible translations.

I suppose that when one reads a King James version of the Bible and the introductions to just how that translation came about in the first place might be considered a sin by certain adherents of your Order.

The development of an English translation of the Old & New Testaments is fraught with horrific testimony.

What ever happened to William Tyndale and why?

Who was responsible for that?

Not Rome? Right?

Back later or tomorrow if able.

[kosta50]

[How do you know that Jesus said that? because it's in the Bible] I don't know whether you realize it or not, but that was the shortest sermon on the authenticity of scripture that I've ever heard.

Markos, that is not a sermon on authenticity of scripture, but a ridiculous reasoning offered by some as "authentic." It reminds me of a Russian exchange student who said "It must be true—it's in the computer (and believed it)!"

Simple faith can sometimes be frustrating

I asked how do you know, and you now introducing faith as surrogate "knowledge?" Okay, let me ask you then: How do you know that what you believe is true?

[And how do you know the Bible is the word of God?] What does Christ say about this...“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” John 10:27

But how do you know this is really what God said? All you are offering me is a book which you say is a word of God. How do you know it's the word of God?

How do I hear his voice today, does He speak to me in an audible voice? I'd drop over dead if He did, and besides, I wouldn't believe it anyway. I hear His voice in His Word and His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that His Word is true and it is indeed His Word.

How do you know it's the word and the spirit of God? Saying he bears witness that he is just doesn't cut it friend. How do we know it's not insanity, hallucination, illusion, delusion?

Your own experience doesn't necessarily make something universally true.  It's no different  than your preference for certain kinds of food. Just because you like it more than any other kind doesn't mean it's the best food there is in an absolute sense.

“It is the spirit that quickenth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63. God's Word proves itself, it is alive!

God's word "proves" itself? That's funny, you can't even prove that it's God's word? So, again, how do you know it is?

[Other religions quote equally dogmatic statements from their holy books which they believe are from God. In fact, they claim they are from God.] Oh really. So? Does that take away from the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures?

What makes the Bible authentic? You? Other people believe in their scriptures just as much as you believe in the Bible? What makes yours authentic and theirs not?

Because the Bible says so. Doesn't sound very high falutin’ does it. But it's all we have.

It's lame, and high faultin' to the hilt dear friend. It doesn't seem like we have anything, do we? If I post something on the FR and sign it "God" does that mean it is form God? It would take a real nut to believe it. The authenticity of the Bible, unfortunately, is conditioned upon someone's blind acceptance of it as God's word. That in itself does not make it true.

That's not knowledge. That's a belief, possibly an illusion or even a delusion,  based on some personal experience. Some people see lights in the sky and swear it was a UFO. It may have been, but there is no proof that it was. Of course, it could have been a whole slew of other things or even nothing at all.