No Salvation Outside the Church

Catholic Answers ^ | 12/05 | Fr. Ray Ryland

[Iscool]

I believe the point made in the article bdeaner posted is that, since the Catholic Church considers itself to be the universal church, at least since Vatian 2, it accepts that there are folks who reject the form of their church, but who are still inside the fold. From their perspective, this is true even if some of us don’t feel like we are part of the Catholic Church in that sense.

I've read that statement in numerous publications and on FR numerous times...It is usually made clear that those non-Catholics who claim they have received Jesus as their Saviour but reject the notion that the Catholic religion is the one, true, blah, blah, blah, are not participants or recipients of the salvation that Jesus Christ offers...

[papertyger]

Corinthians 1:12 says nothing about separate congregations. Indeed the singular letter would imply factions in a single congregation. Therefore, your contention would seem contrived in applying a scriptural example to a completely different post-reformation circumstance.

Clearly, this is not the perfect will of God - but also clearly it is part of His permissive will.

"Clearly" in what sense? There is not a single example of Christian congregations separated by anything but locale in the entire scripture.

Only one of the current fragments of Christianity claims (but does not possess) infallible perfection

Such a denial requires a demonstration of authority for making it.

Although the papists tried to exterminate them, there were Christians living outside papal domination from the first century until the Reformation.

Where does scripture authorize THAT claim?

[CTrent1564]

Iscool:

First, off, I have not posted a comment to you in a year and don’t care to encourage your diatribes. You jump in every Catholic post and you clearly have your own anti-Catholic agenda. Further, if I remember correctly, your views of Christology, are defacto heretical in that your views mirror the heretic Nestorious, whose doctrines where rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.

Second, “Nope” according to you, and I have already been on this board to know that you believe in Sola Meo. I stand by my post as again, Paul, Peter, James, John, etc, were all Apostles and part of the One Church, not each setting up there own churches apart from each other.

I will stand with the Fathers of the Church, the same ones who debated the canon of the Scripture and settled the canon, and their interpretations, rather than your “own personal interpretation.” No Church Father of the post-apostolic Church ever interpreted the disputes recorded in Acts 15 and Galatians 1 has a rejection of Peter being first among the apostles, or his being an Apostle. It is only those extremely anti Catholic Protestants, who want to make it say what they want it to say, in order to confirm there rejection of the Primacy of Rome and Peter’s authority given to St. Peter by Christ, which St. Paul could not, nor would he want to, undue and reject.

[papertyger]

I DO believe it’s the only authority. Nice try.

It is contradictory to claim belief in an authority, then claim authority for a belief not validated by the previously mentioned authority. We Catholics have demonstrated ad nauseum how Protestants are intellectually dishonest in this regard, yet adhere to their "Bible only" fraud with cult-like mindlessness.

[bdeaner]

He left the Holy Spirit. HE is our rudder.

I agree with that statement in principle, BUT how does the Holy Spirit manifest itself? How are we to discern between what is from the Holy Spirit or what is from our own self-centered desires, or, for that matter, what is demonic?

If your claim was true, then all Protestants who sincerely seek out the Holy Spirit to guide their discernment of Scripture would ALL be in agreement in terms of doctrine, as the Bible could not simultaneously teach contradictory beliefs. And yet the reality is that there are literally THOUSANDS of Protestant sects and denominations, each of which claims to have the Bible as its only guide, each of which claims to be preaching the truth, yet each of which teaches something different from the others. Protestants claim that they differ only in non-essential or peripheral matters, but the fact is that they cannot even agree on major doctrinal issues such as the Eucharist, salvation, and justification--to name a few.

For instance, most Protestant denominations teach that Jesus Christ is only symbolically present in the Eucharist, while others (such as Lutherans and Episcopalians) believe that He is literally present, at least to some extent. Some denominations teach that once you are "saved" you can never lose your salvation, while others believe it is possible for a true Christian to sin gravely and cease being "saved." And some denominations teach that justification involves the Christian's being merely declared righteous, while others teach that the Christian must also grow in holiness and actually become righteous. Even the original "Reformers"--Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli--did not agree on doctrinal matters and labeled each other's teachings heretical.

Our Lord categorically never intended for His followers to be as fragmented, disunited and chaotic as the history of Protestantism has been since its very inception. Quite the contrary, He prayed for His followers: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21). And St. Paul exhorts Christians to doctrinal unity with the words, "One body and one Spirit...One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. 4:4-5). How, then, can the thousands of Protestant denominations and sects all claim to be the "true Church" when their very existence refutes this claim? How can such heterodoxy and contradiction in doctrine be the unity for which Our Lord prayed?

In this regard, we should be reminded of Christ's own words: "For by the fruit the tree is known." (Matt. 12:33). By this standard, the historical testimony afforded by Protestantism demonstrates that the tree of Sola Scriptura is producing bad fruit.

But this problem of doctrinal incoherence is resolved if there is ONE, singular teaching authority to which Christians can appeal. And there is really no other Church other than the Catholic Church that can be Biblically and Apostolically linked to a teaching authority provided directly by Christ, to serve as the "pillar and ground of truth." If the Catholic Church does not have this authority, then there is no teaching authority -- and the idea that there is an absence of such Holy Spirit-guided authority fits neither with logic nor scripture.

God bless.

[papertyger]

Jesus says what He means and means what He says.

So remind me again of the protestant excuse for taking the thrice mentioned "born again" literally, while figuratively understanding "this is my body" ...mentioned five times.

[Marysecretary]

Maybe protestants aren’t the ones who are interpreting it wrong.

[goat granny]

All of the church's were not practicing the same, in Revelations Jesus writes to the 7 Churches and give some an “atta boy” and some strict warnings...they were not in unison in the early church....They must have been practicing some things Christ was pleased with and some that he was not pleased with...

[Semper Mark]

“BUT how does does the Holy Spirit manifest itself?

There's your first problem right there...the Holy Spirit isn't an itself...he's an Himself. He is a member of the Godhead, the Trinity.

“How are we to discern what is from the Holy Spirit or what is from our own from our own self-centered desires or, for that matter, what is demonic?”

Simple, The Holy Spirit will never speak of Himself, He was sent into this world to glorify Christ. If you're in a situation where Christ isn't being taught, praised, or glorified, then get out! Because the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Good works are the evidence of true faith in Jesus Christ, not a requirement for it. Good works are the good fruit of a redeemed life. We are saved by grace through faith alone, per Ephesians 2.

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:4-5

---

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost...

"And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful." -- Titus 3:5,14

[Dr. Eckleburg]

one, true, blah, blah, blah

lol.

[Semper Mark]

I apologize for the does does...

These old eyes that were once sniper quality 20-15, now need a proof reader!

[bdeaner]

The biggest issue is “What do you mean by the Church?”

That's precisely the issue, yes, and this was clarified by Vatican II.

And not all Roman Catholic theologians agree with the article, some on catholic.com are a lot more limited on who outside the Roman Catholic Church can be saved.

Well, frankly, there are a lot of "Catholic" theologians out there who are really just heretics and Catholic-in-Name-Only (CINOs). They have to answer to Vatican II whether they like it or not.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

BUT how does the Holy Spirit manifest itself? How are we to discern between what is from the Holy Spirit or what is from our own self-centered desires, or, for that matter, what is demonic? I

The Holy Spirit is manifested through the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit.

But this problem of doctrinal incoherence is resolved if there is ONE, singular teaching authority to which Christians can appeal.

There is no "doctrinal incoherence" in the Protestant faith. There are shadings of differences but NONE of them careen into the blasphemy Rome teaches.

A Christian's "one, singular teaching authority" is the holy Bible. Not a decrepit behemoth that directs men away from Christ and toward the stock of trees.

[Iscool]

I didn't inject a private interpretation...I read and posted the scripture...You or anyone has an option to believe it or no...

I have no concern what your religions councils or fathers want the verses to say or twist them to say...My concern is what they actually do say...

Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

There is the rebuke from Paul...It's clearly a doctrinal issue...It has to do with justification by works of the law as opposed to justification by faith...

I stand by my post as again, Paul, Peter, James, John, etc, were all Apostles and part of the One Church, not each setting up there own churches apart from each other.

Well of course they were (albeit the one church is not the Catholic church)...That what the dispute was over...Peter was slipping back into the circumcision thing teaching a false doctrine which was of course against the doctrine of the gospel of Grace...Paul rebuked him and pulled him back into the group...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So remind me again of the protestant excuse for taking the thrice mentioned "born again" literally, while figuratively understanding "this is my body" ...mentioned five times.

Perhaps you mean "taking 'born again' spiritually," not literally. No one relives childbirth, thank God.

Since Scripture interprets Scripture, we find Scriptural support for the Christian's spiritual rebirth and for the spiritual understanding of the Lord's Supper -- "Do this in remembrance of me."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That what the dispute was over...Peter was slipping back into the circumcision thing teaching a false doctrine which was of course against the doctrine of the gospel of Grace...Paul rebuked him and pulled him back into the group..

Isn't it strange how some RCs cannot bring themselves to admit even the tiniest flaw in Peter?

I don't recall any other apostle denying Christ three times or being called "Satan" by Christ.

And this is the guy they want to be their latex salesman.

[bdeaner]

shed blood for the name of Christ

By the way, you (understandably) misinterpreted this statement of the Papal Bull. It has an unintended ambiguous meaning. You interpreted the statement to mean someone who has shed SOMEONE ELE'S blood in Christ's name--which indeed would be twisted. But in fact the statement is in regard to martyrs who have had their OWN blood shed for the name of Christ. The meaning is clearer in the original language.

[cva66snipe]

The church is the bride, the body, the fullness of Christ who fills all in all.

That is the church. Inclusive to all churches who worship Christ as Lord and Savior. Salvation can come at anywhere at anytime. It is the rejection of that call that condemns a person.

The Laws of Moses and especially the added rules and conditions set forth by the Jewish leaders following that was a burden no man could live under and be righteous without sin. GOD knew it and sent His Son for our salvation.

[bdeaner]

the Holy Spirit isn't an itself...he's an Himself. He is a member of the Godhead, the Trinity.

You are right on this point, and I thank you for the correction. I did not choose my words carefully enough. The Holy Spirit is indeed a person, and that is precisely what the Catholic Church professes as well. The appropriate term is "Himself" not "itself."

Per the Church, "The Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. Though really distinct, as a Person, from the Father and the Son, He is consubstantial with Them; being God like Them, He possesses with Them one and the same Divine Essence or Nature. He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle."

Simple, The Holy Spirit will never speak of Himself, He was sent into this world to glorify Christ. If you're in a situation where Christ isn't being taught, praised, or glorified, then get out! Because the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it!

I do not have a problem with this statement, in principle. However, I think the problem arises when one begins to explore which doctrines glorify Christ and which do not. If one believes that to glorify Christ is to remain obedient to his expressed desires for his followers, and if you understand the Bible to say that Christ established a Church to serve as a teaching authority with the power to bind and loose, and by which hell will not prevail against it, then you glorify Christ by your allegiance to that Church. The Church is not the ultimate authority, Christ is, and by implication, by being obedient to His command through allegiance to the Church He established is to glorify Him.