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.

[papertyger]

Don’t you ever question your beliefs? Don’t you ever investigate for yourselves if something is true the way they’ve taught you? Talk about blindly following...

Bwahahahahahha! You must have forgotten. Questioning my beliefs is how I left evangelicalism for the Catholic Church. Protestants keep making promises for God that he doesn't keep, then they contrive a holy loophole for letting God off the hook.

More than twenty years of slavery to sin that evangelicals told me to "give to Jesus" prove they are selling a bill of goods.

My freedom from the law of sin and death came AFTER receiving the body and blood of my Lord and Christ, and there is no amount of slander you people can sling that can take that experience from me.

[Petronski]

We just deny the need to re-sacrifice Him every Mass.

The Catholic Church denies that too.

Holy Eucharist is a re-presentation of the same one-time sacrifice on Calvary.

[Mr Rogers]

Not to put words into anyone's mouth, but I suspect it has to do with this:

"11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."

I've had some explain that God is not affected by time, and therefor the one sacrifice, to God, is always ongoing. However, God is the One using the past tense - not me.

[CTrent1564]

Mr Rogers:

Thanks for the link from Pope Benedict. I try and read everything he writes and I missed that homily of his. It is a very good read and I think Pope Benedict interpreting the scripture in a fashion that stresses both Peter and Pauls concerns, while at the same time stressing they remained in the bond of communion with each other and the other apostles.

Also, I think my post is entirely consistent with what the Pope Wrote. Again, it is clear that St. Peter was accused of being hypocritical, as the Pope notes. Also, you are you are correct, I laid the charge of envy and presumption towards St.Jerome, when he in fact was indicating it was a charge made by others and he was writing to St. Augustine to stress that both of them needed to protect both of the Apostles [Peter and Paul] from shameless blasphemies.

I thank you for catching that as I did not read the link I gave you close enough on that point. Thus, with your correction, and I appreciate the charitable manner you exhibited in pointing that out, I think we can say that St. Jerome was concerned with protecting the integrity of both St. Peter and St. Paul as apostles who both were sent by Christ to preach the Gospel and not have either of them subject to false attacks. Thus, the charges that St. Paul being envious of St. Peter are being refuted by St. Jerome and the charges that St. Peter taught false doctrine, which was the claim that others in this forum made, not you, is also being rejected by ST. Jerome.

Still, I think you would agree that what St. Paul was accusing St. Peter of, he himself also did, so in the end, I think both had to make sure that when confronted with the potential for division between the Jewish-Christians and Gentile Christians, they tried to be pastorally sensitive to not causing the Jewish Christians to reject Christianity and return back to Judaism.

Pax et bonum

[papertyger]

But I for one have searched the scriptures high and low for a way for someone to make this blood drinkable and have it taste, look and feel like wine...It ain't there...

Then you haven't run into John 6 or The Last Supper. If Christ says I'm a jelly doughnut, then I'm a jelly doughnut whether I look and taste like one or not.

To deny Christ's authority to pronounce reality and existence is to deny his deity. To ignore Christ's statements of John 6 and refuse to "interpret scripture by scripture" in understanding the events of The Last Supper is to deny the body and blood of Christ.

[Mr Rogers]

Galatians was written pretty early, and I’ve always thought that if Paul wrote it at a later date, he might be a bit more careful. I’ve learned, and re-learned, and will need to relearn again, that being right avails you for naught if you are so bombastic that people tune you out after the first words.

The Pope was spot on about how a difference in ministry can lead to a difference in approach, with neither meaning harm. Apart from that, I think we’ll have to respectfully disagree with the most accurate interpretation of what happened that day in Antioch.

Cheers.

[papertyger]

I’ve NEVER met a Protestant who believes in taking ‘born again’ literally.

Then you've never met a protestant.

Being "born again" is an act unto itself, not a repetition of birth. Look up "church" in the phone book, and pick one. They'll explain it to you.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Christ is condemning human traditions that contradict Scripture.

Yes. The Scripture is complete as written; it does not need extra traditions or rules.

Traditions of the Church Christ founded are not man-made, and they do not contradict Scripture.

Proof please? Where does the tradition that priests are to be celibate come from Scripture? Just that one, for example...

That is not a Scriptural position. At all. It is a tradition of man. That means it is fallible. That does NOT mean ALL the Church's traditions and teachings are wrong, but it also means the Church itself is fallible.

[Iscool]

All translations have ambiguities in them that often are not captured by the original translators at the time. Get over it.

But NOW, after those hundreds if not thousands of translations, you have found a translator who has a REAL understanding of what needed to be translated, eh???

Let's see, you old church fathers are better at understanding biblical times because they were nearer to the action...

But recent translators are better because; what was your reasoning again??? Hmmm...

[papertyger]

Most adults interpret ANY writing as a whole. If I want to know what the author thinks, I need to read the ENTIRE book. It isn’t Protestant doctrine, just the way adults behave in trying to understand the author’s intent.

That is irrelevant. When the only authority one accepts is Scripture, everything not specifically explained and authorized by Scripture is NOT an authoritative, therefore binding, precept.

You can't have it both ways.

[papertyger]

We DO deny that wine is turned into blood by a priest, or that bread becomes actual flesh...

Then you are denying the body and blood of Christ.

or that Christ is sacrificed repeatedly.

At least we can agree on something ;o)

[papertyger]

Psalms 57: “ 1 Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me, for in you my soul takes refuge; in the shadow of your wings I will take refuge, till the storms of destruction pass by.”

In this verse, we learn God is a chicken...

So tell me where the word "chicken" shows up in that verse and I'll agree you aren't mocking God.

[papertyger]

Where in the Bible do you find the requirement for Communion in order to be saved?

John 6.

[papertyger]

I don’t know any Christian who denies the blood and body of Jesus Christ.

Neither do I...but I know plenty that THINK they are Christians.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Being "born again" is not a literal phrase; it is a metaphor for a spiritual action. Please see John 3:1-21.

You are not physically "born again"; you are born in the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus got it wrong, he misunderstood and took it literally. Not the figurative/illustrative way in which the Lord said it.

Perhaps that same mistake can be made with the phrase "this is My body given for you, do this in remembrance of Me"; perhaps Jesus meant to reflect on the sacrifice He would make by re-enacting the action. Not actual transubstantiation of the host and wine?

Jesus spent most of His ministry talking in parables, preaching and teaching allegorically. To deny that extending that understanding is a valid position for this one phrase is quite close-minded and restrictive.

But ultimately, the action of Communion, while an important and building action for a Christian, is NOT required for salvation. That is by faith alone, as Jesus specifically said. No allegory, no parable, direct statement with no further clarification asked or offered.

[cva66snipe]

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. All your supposed points have been used in the past to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity. Do you reject the Trinity, too? If not, then on what basis do you reject the doctrine of the Real Presence, and why do you zero in on "remembrance" while rejecting "DO THIS?"

I know the scriptures. What took place at the Last Supper and at the cross? The Lords Supper the establishment of The New Covenant. "This is my body" replacing the Lamb and "this is my blood" replacing the blood placed on the door and also the sign of a Blood Covenant of which is not dependent upon man to fulfill but rather GOD Himself. The bread is just that it is bread as the wine is just that it is wine it is a TOKEN or a way to remember or to honor.

The presence of Christ or The Holy Spirit can come at any time at any place. It can happen in a church or in a hospital room. Why do people believe that the only way to achieve such is through rituals? Have you ever felt the very presence of such? It is a very overcoming experience and can be a very peaceful one as well. The peace that surpasses all understanding a comfort within not obtainable by any worldly means.

I don't reject "Do This". But I do understand that is established for our benefit so we remind ourselves of the price that was paid for us. Paul taught how it was to be done. Christ presence is where two or more are gathered in His name. The words Christ spoke was so the Disciples would understand who he was and what His death on the cross actually meant. When they took the bread and wine at the Last Supper to them it was part of the Passover Feast. They did not understand. When Christ appeared to them after His resurrection and offered them bread and wine they understood what had happened. It was only then they knew what The Lamb of GOD meant.

The Lamb as by Hebrew tradition was without blemish, lived among them away from the other lambs, and the family was close to the Lamb. The sacrificial Lamb was not plucked from a field it was picked way in advance and kept close with the family. In today's sense it was like killing a beloved pet. This was done so they would feel remorse for their sins that caused the required death of the Lamb at the Passover Feast. Thus the reason Paul instructed the churches in question about The Lord's Supper. It is the Gentile equivalent of The Passover Feast from the Laws of Moses.

[papertyger]

However, God is the One using the past tense - not me.

Are you saying that because the creator is using the past tense while communicating with temporal creations he is somehow less than eternal?

[Mr Rogers]

We may agree, and be using different phrases to mean the same thing.

James 2:

"21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

Note, James does not say, "Abraham had faith, and maybe someday he'll accumulate enough good deeds to complete his faith and save him".

I became a Christian in the 7th grade. I had been thinking over what I had been taught for a while. One day, several kids - older and bigger - wanted to fight me. I decided that God didn't want me to fight, so I took a pretty thorough beating.

I've always considered THAT to be the moment of salvation for me. In retrospect, I'm not a pacifist. In fact, I spent 25+ years in the military. But at that moment, I believed God didn't want me to fight, and IN FAITH, I obeyed.

"...and his faith was made complete by what he did." Not 'will be made complete', and not, 'is in progress' - but "his faith was made complete by what he did."

For some, that moment may be marked by baptism. For some, going forward on an altar call. For me, it was getting beat up. Frankly, baptism would have been easier...cleaner, too!

[Mr Rogers]

“Then you are denying the body and blood of Christ.”

No, I’m RELYING on the body and blood of Jesus.

I’m DENYING the bread and wine...

[Mr Rogers]

God is eternal. I assume He had His reasons for using the past tense.