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]

Try here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html

[Mr Rogers]

You are saying that we know humans cannot be bred for behaviour the way a dog can, when no one has ever TRIED to breed humans for 10 or 20 generations, let alone 100.

You are making a leap of faith again!

[Semper Mark]

“We also don’t know why gravity is, but we know it is.”

How do we know gravity is?

[kosta50]

[why does anything have to have a purpose?] I don't know, but without one we don't ask such questions - or get up in the morning

Try just enjoying life and good fortune, and if you are believer, give thanks to God and put everything in his hands. Wasn't Jesus the one who said sparrows don't worry, and neither should you?

I think purpose is a reflection of man's overblown ego.

I have no clue what my purpose is and I get up in the morning and go about my business. Animals do too. The earth keeps going endlessly around the sun and the sun around the black hole in the canter of our galaxy, and our galaxy rotates around the local group of galaxies, etc. all going around in circles...for no apparent reason whatsoever.

[absolutes] I know they are necessary to fully use reason/logic in determining human decisions

I don't think they are necessary at all. If anything we sue them to force our beliefs as true and judge others as false. They are theoretical constructs that "explain" things we cannot comprehend, man-made constructs, speculative tales.

Do you think we are any lesser because we don't know why gravity exists? Or higher because we figured out why it rains? I submit it makes no difference whatsoever.

[if an absolute cannot be known by reason, by which means it is known?] You are not frozen, you have purpose and values. So you know or act as though you know absolute truth/values. Find what these, maybe one, are - a simple exercise will work - and ask yourself the same question. I think this is the most useful answer.

But they are not really absolute truth are they? They are human constructs we are crazy or even stupid enough to believe to be true. I don't know what my purpose is. Do you know what's yours? And if you do, how do you know it?

[kosta50]

How do we know gravity is?

We observe what happens to bodies (i.e. falling, why we can stand 'upside down" on earth and not 'fall" off, etc). We can also measure the force. It is detectable, consistent and it is universal. We just don't know why it exists. But you are free to doubt and jump off a cliff. That's why there are not that many doubters of gravity today—they're all at the bottom of some cliff.

[kosta50]

I never even suggested breeding humans for certain behavior traits. You did. I simply said that humans show no demonstrable innate behavior. I also suggested a much quicker way to make humans aggresive (based on that old proven saying "I am not violent but I can be driven to violence"). Beats waiting 20 generations, doesn't it?

Closed societies with much multigenerational inbreeding (demonstrated by polydactily and certain dieseases) do not demonstrate specific behavior patters further attesting that human behavior is not 'inbred.' Lots of other things are. So, there goes your hypothesis.

I think it's time for you to let go of that strawman.

[kosta50]

Try here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html

"Conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is founded on its being spoken by God..." This is your proof? Soudds like "it is because I say it is" type of "proof." If all else fails we will just use a dogmatic sledge hammer. Please, let's move on. It's obvious you don't know and can't answer it.

[Semper Mark]

Mr Rogers

I think that kosta50 will make an Evangelist yet.

All except for the “there are not that many doubters” part,
that was a good description of God's Word. Post 2,765

[D-fendr]

I don't know what my purpose is.

I remember a comic book: Turns out earth is a farm for humans who are grown for their eyebrows which are of high value in making coats for an alien culture. We're only a few thousand years away from harvest.

But that's not the purpose I'm talking about. What is our purpose to ourselves in our own life?

This is tied to what we value, each conditional value dependent on another and finally an absolute one - something we value inherently, in itself. Something that, all other conditions being equal, is more valuable, better than, than its contrary - to us.

We can follow our own trail of conditional values to learn that which we value absolutely.

I would guess that for you we would likely quickly end on either truth or knowledge.

[Mr Rogers]

No, my hypothesis does NOT go away. IF we can breed dogs for behaviors, then behavior CAN have a genetic base. And if it can be genetic in dogs, then it can in humans.

With dogs, it takes perhaps 20-30 generations of selection to get fairly reliable results. There is no reason to believe humans are different, except singling out a behavior genetically for humans is impossible - not because genes don’t work that way, but because we cannot do the tests to prove it.

Your ASSERTION that a chasm exists between humans and other animals would rightly be laughed at by behaviorists. And, your ASSERTION is a leap of faith of your own.

If you choose to make leaps of faith, why not do so in the right direction?

[Mr Rogers]

You obviously misread Calvin. Scripture is no more open to proof than God is. God isn’t mathematics. God isn’t someone we dissect. God, if he exists at all, is too big for our minds.

Therefore, you believe or you do not. But reason cannot be an infallible guide, because your reason is inadequate for the task.

Please understand! I’m not even TRYING to prove Scripture is God’s Word to you. I assume it, and go from there. It is part of my belief that NOTHING I do or say will ‘prove’ God or Scripture.

Now, once one assumes Scripture is God’s Word, and infallible, then those who agree can use it for rational discussion about their beliefs.

But I have never tried to prove God or Scripture to you. That is above my pay grade. You cannot know God by reason. It takes revelation, and I’m not divine, so I can’t give it.

[kosta50]

I think that kosta50 will make an Evangelist yet. All except for the “there are not that many doubters” part, that was a good description of God's Word. Post 2,765

LOL! God is detectable, measurable, and observable?

[kosta50]

What is our purpose to ourselves in our own life?

I guess I could come up with a possible list, but these are just speculations. We have no way of knowing that because we have no way of knowing what the purpose of existence is, and I mean the whole universe. Even talking of any purpose is a speculation.

This is tied to what we value, each conditional value dependent on another and finally an absolute one - something we value inherently, in itself.

What absolute one? Purpose seems to be what people use as an excuse to justify their acts.

Something that, all other conditions being equal, is more valuable, better than, than its contrary - to us

So, it's all a human construct. It's all about us. It's narcissism, egotism, exaggerated self-value. Self-deification.

We can follow our own trail of conditional values to learn that which we value absolutely

Relativism. In the end there the only "absolute" is really relative, i.e. how it relates to us. Thus, in the name of the almighty purpose, we justify what we do for us and in our name. But if you strip it of fancy rhetoric, the purpose of the bigger fish is to eat the smaller fish. Not very exalted, is it?

Ask yourself what is all this about? And if you think you know, ask yourself how do I know that? Let me help you: we don't know. We just exist. That's about all we know. The rest is filled in with our fancy.

[kosta50]

No, my hypothesis does NOT go away. IF we can breed dogs for behaviors, then behavior CAN have a genetic base. And if it can be genetic in dogs, then it can in humans.

You are right, a hypothesis that is never tested will not go away, so your strawman has nothing to worry about. You can speculate all you want, you will never know. What we do know is that in inbred communities no specific behavior has been linked to anything genetic, unlearned, innate among humans.

There is no reason to believe humans are different, except singling out a behavior genetically for humans is impossible - not because genes don’t work that way, but because we cannot do the tests to prove it

There is every reason to believe that humans are different because they are. We can demonstrate that, even if we don't know why. You don't have to take that on blind faith. No human known complex behavior (except for some maturational reflexes such as Babinski, grasping and sucking, but they are not really 'complex') is unlearned, innate, or "instinctive". Yet in animals there are plenty of such innate behavior patterns.

Your ASSERTION that a chasm exists between humans and other animals would rightly be laughed at by behaviorists. And, your ASSERTION is a leap of faith of your own.

Leap of faith? You wish. Sorry to disappoint you: it's an assertion based on fact. Humans simply do not show the same genetically-based behavior patterns the animals do. That constitutes a functional chasm.

If you choose to make leaps of faith, why not do so in the right direction?

How do you know it;s the 'right' direction?

[kosta50]

You obviously misread Calvin. Scripture is no more open to proof than God is. God isn’t mathematics. God isn’t someone we dissect. God, if he exists at all, is too big for our minds

Excuse me, I thought God was an objective truth (or so it is claimed by the believers). Only fantasy, fairy tales and delusions are not subject to proof. Objective phenomena are verifiable, certifiable reality.

How do you put all your eggs in that unprovable basket and say you are "at peace?" That's like sticking your head under the pillow and pretending the sun doesn't shine.

Therefore, you believe or you do not. But reason cannot be an infallible guide, because your reason is inadequate for the task

Reason is inadequate, but blind faith is adequate? How revealing.

Please understand! I’m not even TRYING to prove Scripture is God’s Word to you

Well, you should because you keep asserting that they are.

I assume it, and go from there.

You assume that they are and then go around stating they are as if it were a fact? I find that somewhat misleading.

It is part of my belief that NOTHING I do or say will ‘prove’ God or Scripture

How convenient. First you assume something is God's word, then you peddle it as if it were a fact knowing that you can't prove it (because it is your own creation) but you will nevertheless continue to offer it as absolute truth and a matter of fact?

Now, once one assumes Scripture is God’s Word, and infallible, then those who agree can use it for rational discussion about their beliefs.

Sure, you can start a Pink Unicorn on Jupiter Believers Club too. You may even call it a "church" because it will be a gathering of those who believe (on an a priori assumption) that pink unicorns really live on Jupiter! And you can advertise the club as a place where people can have rational [sic] discussions about their belief in pink unicorns on Jupiter.

But I have never tried to prove God or Scripture to you. That is above my pay grade. You cannot know God by reason. It takes revelation, and I’m not divine, so I can’t give it.

I never asked you to. I simply asked you how do you know it's God you believe in (and yet none of us knows what God really is or even if he is) and how do you know scriptures are God's words. Obviously you don't know, but you believe that some entity you assume to be God is real, and that some collection of writings is this imaginary and assumed God's own infallible words. You then proceed to state this presumptive belief as something factual, real and even 'right.'

Let me say, for the sake of posterity, that I have no intention of attacking your beliefs. I have no problem with what you believe as long as you do not confuse and claim and present and state your beliefs as absolute truth and fact while knowing that you don't know that for a fact and that it is all based on an a priori assumption.

I do have a problem with the inherently deceptive way the faith is presented as something factually sound, including your last statement, namely that it takes revelation when you admit that it takes an a priori assumption.

[Mr Rogers]

You joined this thread somewhat late.

The thread is a discussion between Catholics and Protestants about who may be saved. Since we both accept scripture, we use it in discussion.

You then jump in after a few thousand posts, and ask for proof that God is God and Scripture is Scripture.

To which, I reply, no. God is not a mathematical theorem, to be proved or disproved by logic. God doesn’t seek your approval. He doesn’t need your acceptance. You need His.

“Only fantasy, fairy tales and delusions are not subject to proof.”

Incorrect. You think you are capable of subjecting God to proof. I look at the scope of the universe, with countless galaxies, each galaxy with countless solar systems, and say you and I are not up to the task of evaluating a creator.

You can choose to reject anything you cannot prove. I would not accept as God anything you could.

Therefor, we will have to agree to go separate ways. You think I’m a fantasist, and I think you are insane.

[D-fendr]

But what is your purpose in telling me this?

[kosta50]

You joined this thread somewhat late.

I did, and I asked a simple question. Then you joined in. So, as far as this particular discussion is concerned, you are late, not I.

The thread is a discussion between Catholics and Protestants about who may be saved. Since we both accept scripture, we use it in discussion

I know. I asked how does one know. Is there a problem with that?

You then jump in after a few thousand posts, and ask for proof that God is God and Scripture is Scripture

Not really Mr. Fingerpointer. I asked how does one know and I was told it's in the Bible. So I aksed how does one know it is so just because the Bible says so, and I was told because the Bible is the word of God. So, I asked how does one know the Bible is the word of God...and I was told because of the Holy Spirit, so I asked how does one know it's the Holy Spirit, and so on, until you showed up and told me that it's on a priori assumption (blind faith), but then you seem to change your story an tell me that it's on revelation, or just because you say it is!

You also allege things I never asked, or said, which I find curious.

To which, I reply, no. God is not a mathematical theorem, to be proved or disproved by logic

There you go with your dogmatic sledge hammer statements again. How do you know that God is not a mathematical theorem, to be proved or disproved by logic? WHAT exactly is God, an dhow do you know that?

He doesn’t need your acceptance. You need His.

How do you know that? Because you say so?

Kosta: “Only fantasy, fairy tales and delusions are not subject to proof.”

Mr Rogers: Incorrect. You think you are capable of subjecting God to proof.

You speak of God as something real. That which is real and is known/detectable can be subjected to proof. I am not asking for proof. I am merely asking how do you know God is not subject to proof? All I am getting from you is more meaningless dogmatic (better yet ideological) sweeping generalizations.

I look at the scope of the universe, with countless galaxies, each galaxy with countless solar systems, and say you and I are not up to the task of evaluating a creator

Then stop evaluating the creator. You keep telling me what God is or is not. I merely want to know how do you know all that?

Therefor, we will have to agree to go separate ways. You think I’m a fantasist, and I think you are insane

I never took the liberty of judging you or labeling you, but you not only took the liberty of labeling me "insane" (are you licensed to make medical diagnoses?), but also to suggest that you know what I think (reminder: reading minds is considered personal on this forum, sir). That's really sad for someone who claims to be a Christian.

[kosta50]

But what is your purpose in telling me this?

It's an activity that, at this moment, attracts my interest. I never suggested a purpose. If you mean intent as being the "purpose" then it's curiosity and exchange of information, learning. I would call it a self-appointed goal rather than a purpose.

[D-fendr]

it's curiosity and exchange of information, learning

Why is learning better than not learning?