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.

[MarkBsnr]

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

You are actually making sense here; with the exception of the Church, no author can be sure of inspiration.

***Could God make an infallible man??? Sure he could...BUT HE DIDN’T, OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST...***

Oh, oh. Are you saying that God made a man called 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.***

Very good. The OT is the story of the Jews waffling to and fro.

***Nope, your pope is definitely NOT an infallible man and your religion is definitely not an infallible religion...***

Not quite. The Pope is a fallible man. Yet, God promised us He will be with His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

***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...***

I have given you proofs of the stewardship of Peter; can you provide proofs that the Holy Spirit is the subordinate of Jesus?

[MarkBsnr]

***King Henry VIII? Did you get your history lessons from a Cracker Jack box or what?
Did I say King Henry the VIII???

Everyone knows the history of Tyndale and also know why he was hunted and ultimately killed by the RCC...***

Evidently some do not know. Henry VIII, no friend of the Catholic Church, had Tyndale hunted down and killed by the Belgians for treason against him. No Catholic Church involvement here.

***The Catholics didn’t want the scriptures to be readable in the hands of the average people and they bristled at the idea that Tyndal was using the Majority Texts to translate from***

Perhaps the idea that Cracket Jack boxes were used to recreate history for certain Protestants has merit.

[MarkBsnr]

***As for the early Church ‘canon’ the only thing that is sure is that every one quoted whatever they felt was true.***

Nice essay. A little more extended than the ones I hurriedly googled up.

***The oldest Bible (Codex Sinaiticus, c. 350 AD) has Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas as part of the canon.

It is clear, then, that canon fluctuated form person to person, and that even those who recognized pretty much the same books as we have today, still considered many others as either of value or outright canonical (inspired).***

Exactly. Where are the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc.? All of them floated around to one degree or another. I remember a conversation I had with a CofC preacher who in a fit of apoplexia (debating Scripture with a lowly Catholic - me) told me that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for me. I think that he was just angry enough to have believed it.

It is amazing the folks that believe that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with a KJV tucked in their pouches.

[kosta50]

Why is learning better than not learning?

Did I say it was? Where did the value judgment come from?

[kosta50]

A little more extended than the ones I hurriedly googled up

The pieces of the Church puzzle, Mark, are so minuscule, and so numerous, a quick Google check will do the Church and the seeker injustice. I spend hours, days, weeks, researching this stuff. It's fascinating and yet it's also very revealing that the mental image we have is not what it was all about way back then, even if the terms used were the same.

Where are the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc.? All of them floated around to one degree or another

Spot on, Mark. The Acts of Peter were at one time read in Rome. Early Christianity, even the orthodox party that eventually prevailed, was profoundly heterodox in some aspects.

It is amazing the folks that believe that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with a KJV tucked in their pouches.

Pretty much. Some seem to believe the Bible fell down from the sky like the manna. Scary.

[MarkBsnr]

***A little more extended than the ones I hurriedly googled up

The pieces of the Church puzzle, Mark, are so minuscule, and so numerous, a quick Google check will do the Church and the seeker injustice. I spend hours, days, weeks, researching this stuff. It’s fascinating and yet it’s also very revealing that the mental image we have is not what it was all about way back then, even if the terms used were the same.***

Exactly so. The image that many of our separated brethren have is of a prepackaged Twinkie Bible that the Catholics spent 1500 years suppressing until the magic of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli (the weird old uncle that nobody talks about) et al zapped a KJV into every pot. At the same time, they also believe that the NT was written and correct before Jesus was even born so that every country gathering had that KJV to pound on before Jesus was even grown.

The way things were is not the popular version.

***Where are the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc.? All of them floated around to one degree or another

Spot on, Mark. The Acts of Peter were at one time read in Rome. Early Christianity, even the orthodox party that eventually prevailed, was profoundly heterodox in some aspects.***

The loss of such as Origen resulted from the way that the early Church worked. In a Church closer to today, Origen might have been reclaimed.

***It is amazing the folks that believe that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with a KJV tucked in their pouches.

Pretty much. Some seem to believe the Bible fell down from the sky like the manna. Scary.***

The folks that have tried to save my soul that have no idea whatsoever of what Christianity really is, astounds me. My wife’s best friend (a preacher’s daughter in the CofC) breathlessly informed me that the only books of the Bible that I needed for my salvation were Luke, Acts, and Paul.

Later, she admitted to my wife that perhaps, just perhaps, even some Catholic might be admitted to Heaven. On a case by case exceptional basis only.

[kosta50]

My wife’s best friend (a preacher’s daughter in the CofC) breathlessly informed me that the only books of the Bible that I needed for my salvation were Luke, Acts, and Paul.

I thought salvation comes from faith and faith from God, not from the Bible. But they make things up as they go along...

Later, she admitted to my wife that perhaps, just perhaps, even some Catholic might be admitted to Heaven. On a case by case exceptional basis only.

How does she know that? Is she on God's Rescue Board or something? :)

[Semper Mark]

“but you not only took the liberty of labeling me insane”

You're not insane, maybe a little too smart for your own good, but not totally insane.

You asked a question of me and I told you that I would answer to the best of my ability, and I did. And you scoffed.

Will you permit me to ask one question of you?
Whether I have your permission or not, I'll ask anyway...

Are you a believer?

Judging from your posts on this thread and others, I perceive that you're not. With such comments as “I don't know what God is” and the likes of, "I don't know my purpose in life", you seem to me to be lost.

You accuse me of “circular reasoning”, but you're the one running in circles like a chicken with it's head cut off spouting meaningless drivel. I am at peace. You seem to be in torment.

“I don't know what God is.” God took upon Himself flesh and gave Himself a face, and that face is Christ. If you'll get alone with God and His Word and pray, He'll reveal Himself to you. He promises us as much.

[MarkBsnr]

***My wife’s best friend (a preacher’s daughter in the CofC) breathlessly informed me that the only books of the Bible that I needed for my salvation were Luke, Acts, and Paul.
I thought salvation comes from faith and faith from God, not from the Bible. But they make things up as they go along... ***

They sure do. I am just fine with the entire Bible, including the Deuterocanonicals. It’s funny how different denominations focus on different books. The WWCoG focuses entirely on Revelation, for instance.

***Later, she admitted to my wife that perhaps, just perhaps, even some Catholic might be admitted to Heaven. On a case by case exceptional basis only.

How does she know that? Is she on God’s Rescue Board or something? :)***

Many of our separated brethren believe that they can give policy to God. It is only a short step from believing that one knows one’s eternal salvation pre Judgement, to believing that one knows others’ eternal salvation pre Judgement.

[MarkBsnr]

***You’re not insane, maybe a little too smart for your own good, but not totally insane.***

Thank you, Doctor Markos. I am relieved that kosta is not totally insane. Might he be let out during the day, do you think, if properly medicated and brought back at night?

***If you’ll get alone with God and His Word and pray, He’ll reveal Himself to you.***

Not only a qualified psychiatrist, but a latter day angel Gabriel speaking for God. Wow; I hadn’t realized just whom we were debating with.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[kosta50]

RM to Mark: Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

With all due respect, RM, it was Mr. Rogers who took the liberty of (1) reading my mind and (2) calling me (personally) insane (see post 2776, last sentence). No warning to him.

Now it seems one can't say somone's Angel Gabriel, because that's making it personal, but reading someone's mind and calling someone insane is not? Oh boy!

[Religion Moderator]

I don't care who started it, two wrongs do not make a right.

From the Religion Forum guidelines on my profile page:

I diligently try to read all of your posts, but am not here 24/7 and cannot remember all of the slights and parties involved on every single sidebar much less when posters carry grudges between threads. So if you are wondering why I singled one guy out and not the other involved in a dispute, often it is because I either did not see a previous post or did not remember it as part of the sidebar.

If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.

[kosta50]

You asked a question of me and I told you that I would answer to the best of my ability, and I did. And you scoffed

I did not. I followed up with another question.

Are you a believer?

I don't have to be. The world exists. Something caused it to be here. What that something is I don't know.

With such comments as “I don't know what God is” and the likes of, "I don't know my purpose in life", you seem to me to be lost.

Well, then why don't you tell me what God is and when you are done with that why don't you tell me how do you know that?

Then you can tell me what your purpose is and how do you know that. Much obliged.

You accuse me of “circular reasoning”, but you're the one running in circles like a chicken with it's head cut off spouting meaningless drivel. I am at peace. You seem to be in torment

There was no accusation. You are free to go back and see why it was circular reasoning. My questions are menaingless drivel but a priori assumptions are not?

What torment is there in acceptance?

“I don't know what God is.” God took upon Himself flesh and gave Himself a face, and that face is Christ.

How do you know that? Does it say so even in the Bible? I believe John says that the Word became flesh. He didn't 'cake' himself with flesh.

If you'll get alone with God and His Word and pray, He'll reveal Himself to you. He promises us as much.

Is that a fact or something you a priori assume to be true?

[kosta50]

That’s fair, RM. Sometimes we forget how much there is to read and moderate and how demaning it is.

[MarkBsnr]

***Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”***

Understood.

[D-fendr]

Did I say it was?

You chose it - as part of your self appointed goal. It's logical to assume you choice was not random but the result of your judgement of its value.

[kosta50]

You chose it - as part of your self appointed goal. It's logical to assume you choice was not random but the result of your judgement of its value

Do you honestly believe that? Our choices can be reflexive, random, judgmental or "just because." Do you think it's possible it's not really my goal, but curiosity?

Your post is pretty much mind-reading like I noticed with some other posters here. My choice does not have to be my "self-appointed goal," (such as retirement, getting married, children, etc.), but a mere diverison of curiosity, so it's not logical to assume anything about my or anyone else's thought processes.

Maybe this maind-reading streak is just characteristic of a particular crowd of poeple who, by their own admission, live by and subject everythng to a priori assumptions without realizing how wrong that can be.

[D-fendr]

I’m only trying here to communicate effectively and efficiently what I said before about values, logic, conditional and absolute. The same communication, only by an example or an illustration. For efficiency sake.

Only after it’s communicated effectively, can we discuss and evaluate it. We’re not to that point yet.

I’m not trying to read your mind, I’m asking you. And I’m not judging the rightness or wrongness of your reply. Just discussing the process.

What you choose and value is not the point I’m focusing on. Whatever you said your purpose or self-appointed goal was, the question is the same: Why did you choose this? Why is it better than its contrary. As an illustration for means of communication.

It is logical to assume that our choices illustrate what we value - that’s why we choose them. Our choices reflect what we value. Certainly there are instincts, reflexes, random picks of numbers at Las Vegas.

To examine values, these latter are of little use. We would need something a bit larger. I picked why you are posting your views on this topic to me, because I believe it large enough to illustrate the terms and points I’m attempting to communicate.

I’m asking you, and not judging the reply. Examining the process. Working backwards in examination of our choices and the values they reflect.

You also said: “Try just enjoying life.” I would ask “why is enjoying life better than not?”

You said: “ I get up in the morning and go about my business”. I would ask “why is going about your business better than not?”

The answers lead us up the hierarchy of our values.

Before, I said that ultimately we think we know what has value or we accept someone else’s, or we go about it unaware.

I don’t see you in the last category. Your are inquisitive, knowledgeable and look for truth. Which is why I value your responses and this discussion with you.

[D-fendr]

You included learning in your reply before, as your intent or goal, I asked “why is learning better than not learning?”

You objected at this point. To attempt to overcome your objection: Is learning better than not learning? (to you).