Salvation and Church

OSV.com ^ | 03-14-18 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Salvation and Church The teaching of ‘no salvation outside the Church’ is important and one that must rightly be understood

Msgr. Charles Pope

3/14/2018

Question: I hear the Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the Church. This would seem to condemn most to hell. Or am I missing something? — Name, location withheld

Answer: It is in fact a doctrine of the Church often repeated by the Fathers of the Church and taught formally. However, it must be understood properly.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say by way of explanation:

“‘Outside the Church there is no Salvation.’ ... Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church ... is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence, they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church” (CCC, Nos. 846-847).

This much is sure: Whoever is in heaven was saved by Jesus Christ in and through his Body the Church. But, as we know, there are many barriers to people fully understanding that the Church is the sole and necessary means for salvation, and thus, simply being outside the Church usually does not alone bring condemnation.

God can and, it would seem, does draw others unto himself in ways not always known to us. All of this can console us and bring an understanding that the teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation” is not understood absolutely.

But this consolation must not be the source of letting our missionary zeal wane. While it is possible to be saved beyond the Church, sacraments and explicit faith in Christ, it is much more difficult. Consider the following teaching from the Second Vatican Council:

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. ... But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator (cf. Rom 1:21, 25). Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mk 16:16), the Church fosters the missions with care and attention” (Lumen Gentium, No. 16).

And therefore, we see that people often are deceived or let themselves be deceived. So, the fact that people can be saved apart from the Church is not a blank check or presumption that they likely will be saved. It must always be our earnest work to evangelize, for many “prefer the darkness” (see Jn 3:19).

[daniel1212]

Your Pope priest is excluding parts of Lumen Gentium and other modern teaching that TradCaths object to as being contrary to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus , such as ( emphasis added):

Lumen Gentium [1964]: 16. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26)

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...

They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...

those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church .”62 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

[daniel1212]

I agree Dan, but sometimes one must thoroughly define what it means to “believe.”

And why that pertains to, which is the context I was responding to.

[ADSUM]

I accept and believe that the Holy Eucharist is the Body Blood of Jesus. The consecrated host has been scientifically examined and determined to be heart muscle that was stressed and the blood type AB.

I realize that you do not believe in the Truth of Jesus as Jesus stated:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26:26-28; cf. Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:17-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25)

Perhaps the following article may help you understand.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. However, your word and posting a few passages from the Bible does not change the word of Jesus. I believe in Jesus as the Apostles did. Some Jews did not believe and left.

Perhaps you may want to read about the tough love of Jesus in expressing His love for us and hoping that we do not reject His Word.

When our dear Lord was teaching the crowds of the Jews about the Holy Eucharist, in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, he was giving them his heart, his burning love, the means of their salvation. But this meant also that he was beginning the sacrifice of his own life for them, which is what the Holy Eucharist is in essence: the offering of the Body and Blood of the Lord, given up and poured out for us sinners.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-love-with-courage

To receive Christ in the Eucharist, one can consider joining the RCIA program at a Catholic Church.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/who-we-teach/rite-of-christian-initiation-of-adults/index.cfm

[ADSUM]

Just your opinion.

[daniel1212]

Yes, of course. I too read and study however my conclusions agree with the Fathers, Doctors and Saints of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Jesus. Your conclusions it would seem do not.

The uninspired words of such simply cannot be determinitive of what the NT church believed, for the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

And in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest .

[infool7]

I am a Catholic, I was taught the Truth and my life experience and own personal study has reinforced that Truth. You on the other hand were either not taught or taught lies as evidenced by your consistent misstatements and misrepresentations of what the Catholic faith actually is. You are either confused or purposely misleading people here on FR for your own selfish purposes.

Here is an easy test for you: Go into a Catholic Church kneel and pray before our Lord Christ Jesus, reposed in the tabernacle, truly present in the Eucharist. He is there waiting for you to return to Him.

[infool7]

Your sentence structure is truly bewildering have you had your morning coffee yet?

Try again maybe next try you can make some sense.

[daniel1212]

It is from the teachings of Jesus and from the traditions that were established by Jesus and the Apostles before the New Testament was written.

Which is a fundamental error, and which are a testimony to the progressive accretions of traditions of men. For the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. And in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest .

Just as the Old Testament had bloody sacrifices of animals as an offering to God, Jesus gave us the New Covenant and the Eucharist and the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass that we offer to God everyday in most countries.

No, that is simply not what the wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed teaches. In which, rather than being the central focus of the life of the church, any manifest description of the Lord's supper is only seen in one epistle (aside from the mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 and the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts);

and is never shown to be conducted by pastors (while that would be a function, there is no basis for this being a unique and primary function of them), and never as a sacrifice for sins conducted by a separate class of believers for which the distinctive Greek word for such is used , as Catholicism does.

Nor does 1 Corinthians 10 or 11 teach literally consuming the flesh of Christ, much less according to the Catholic metaphysical contrivance of it, but of communally taking part in the commemorative "feast of charity," thereby showing oneness with the object of their worship and with each other. Like as pagans had fellowship with the object of their dedicatory feasts.

To save time, just read my examination here , by God's grace.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Ah, it is as I expected.

The bonds of false works and religion are too strong.

I was an altar boy and confirmed before I came to know Christ. It was reading the Word of God and seeking His truth alone, that I came to saving faith.

You have chosen to seek comfort instead of truth.
Religion instead of Him.
Self-righteousness instead of salvation.

This is sad for you. Nothing in any church saves.

Christ alone saves.
But you must seek truth to find it.
When you refuse to seek truth, you do not find Him, and will settle for a fake wafer, relying on men.

I wish better for you.

This is on you bro.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“pray before our Lord Christ Jesus, reposed in the tabernacle, truly present in the Eucharist. He is there waiting for you to return to Him.”

Worth noting and drawing attention to...

Rome’s motto:

We’ve got Jesus in a box!
He’s just resting as a wafer.
He’s waiting for you to come visit Him.

Instead, Scripture teaches Christ lives inside the believer as His tabernacle.

I’d much rather have The Savior forever, than pretend to have Him temporarily.

[infool7]

It seems to me that you are mistaken as to the actual Doctrines and Dogma regarding works, grace and the very definition of the word Religion. You have come to believe the lies that you have been taught(by men) that have allowed you to fabricate your own personal religion that ratifies the life choices you have made that contradict the scripture that you are so familiar with.

It is you that has chosen to seek comfort instead of the Truth.

Take time to listen to that small still voice, His law is written on your heart.

The road back is hard but through God’s Mercy there is a way back and I pray that you will find it.

[ADSUM]

Your comment: “How do you read and study the Bible? We’ve been told a person cannot on his/her own read the Bible and understand it.”

Again you make false statements.

Today, priests are obliged to read Scripture in their Office, or daily prayers, for about an hour and a half every day. The laity are more than encouraged, they are urged to read the Bible. By Pius VI (1778), by Pius VII (1820), they were earnestly exhorted to read it, by Leo XIII a special blessing was given to all who would read the Gospels for at least a quarter of an hour daily. Benedict XV (himself the founder of the Society of St. Jerome for distributing the Gospels in Italian, which sells great numbers every year) sent, by the Cardinal Secretary of State, the following message to the Catholic Truth Society: “It was with no little gladness of heart that the Holy Father learned of the work of the Society and of its diligence in spreading far and wide copies of the Holy Gospels, as well as of the other books of the Holy Scriptures, and in multiplying them so as to reach all men of good will. Most lovingly therefore His Holiness blesses all who have put their hand to this very excellent work; and he earnestly exhorts them to persevere with ardor in so holy an enterprise.” . . .

[infool7]

You are seriously confused.

Our Lord fully gives himself to us through His One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

He would much rather that you receive Him in Holy Communion (Daily Bread) than just visit however for those that are not properly disposed a visit is the first step on the road back.

He is waiting especially for you.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You could not be more wrong.

I don’t need to rely on any man, but on Him.

Only His truth from Scripture, which I’ve studied on my own, in seminary, and in the original languages. Also, importantly, the historical development of doctrine from the Hebrew Scriptures forward, using only original sources.

Most Romans have no clue as to why they are taught certain doctrines and dogmas. Nor the pagan origins of their practices and beliefs.

No one who seeks truth and finds it comes back to Rome. The cost of accepting paganism is never worth giving up truth.

Yet, you’ve refused to even seek truth without preconception. So you are stuck pretending Jesus lives in a box and giving up the assurance of salvation.

Your call bro. It won’t work out well, according to His book. I’ve read the end. Works and false sacraments and scapulas and prayers to departed saints do not save.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Our Lord fully gives himself to us through His One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

An assertion without Scriptural mooring.

A slogan, taught, but not anchored in Truth.

[infool7]

How about a historical mooring then. Nothing could be more solidly planted on the solid foundation of rock that is the undeniable history of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Jesus.

To deny it is to deny history itself.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Friend, you wrote the following...

How about a historical mooring then. Nothing could be more solidly planted on the solid foundation of rock that is the undeniable history of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Jesus. To deny it is to deny history itself.

Unfortunately, your argument demands a very selective reading of history and that you must make vast assumptions. To keep up this idea, you must never look under the rug, for if you do, your world will be changed. This would be a good thing.

The Roman church of today is not the Apostles Church.

Most of what Rome teaches was not taught before 100 ad.

Christ did not found a "church". He created an "assembly" of those who entrust themselves to Him.

The later accretions from paganism, talking to departed saints, Mary being sinless and remaining a virgin, Mary being everyone's mother, patron saints, temples, popes, holy water, the sacramental system of grace, Christ as physically present, etc. is indeed historical, but not from the time of the Apostles - nor rooted in the historicity of the Scriptures.

It was added much later, as Rome incorporated the pagan practices of those they conquered. And of course, some is directly from Greek idolatry.

And we come full circle to why God's Word is primary Truth and authoritative and unchanging.

And why we are commanded to "love God with all our mind" and to seek and do His truth.

[daniel1212]

I accept and believe that the Holy Eucharist is the Body Blood of Jesus. The consecrated host has been scientifically examined and determined to be heart muscle that was stressed and the blood type AB.

While that is what a specious claim purports, regardless, that is simply not what your own Eucharistic theology teaches, as you are equating "presence" with testable properties and thus your belief is contrary to your own dogma, rendering your, like salvation, to be a contrary to you own church.

For what is your own metaphysical Eucharistic theology teaches is that at “consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood,” thus becoming the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings. (John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence) Thus the statement, "Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)

Yet not as a body "sensible, visible, tangible, or extended, although it is such in heaven ," but under a "new mode of being,"(John A. Hardon, S.J., Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Encyclical "Mediator Dei") so that the Eucharist being "the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ," "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross," etc. does not mean the bread and wine are literally transformed into actual literal human flesh, thus "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh ." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation") The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Futhermore it is imagined that that at the moment of the completion of the words of consecration by the priest (and only by ordained priests) then the bread and wine no longer exist, while the "Real Presence" of Christ's body that these elements are changed into (which change is said to be occur outside of time) only exists until the bread or wine - which again, are held to no longer exist - begin to (visibly) decompose, as Aquinas affirms (Summa theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 6) as well as others: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (CCC 1377; Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 32) Thus persons with celiac disease can suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten in the Eucharistic host) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.), in which case "Christ has discontinued His Presence therein." (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)

Thus, rather than the Eucharistic species/hosts being as the same actual physical body and blood as was manifest in His incarnated, death and resurrection, and which looked, felt, behaved, and would taste and test as actual human flesh - and which manifest physicality John emphasized in contrast to a docetist Christ or gnostic Christ who appeared to be something He was not (as the Eucharist does) - the Eucharist is said to be the "true body" of Christ under a "new mode of being."

Which means the invisible substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ , even though the Eucharistic species still looks, feels, behaves, and would taste and test as actual bread and wine, and thus such decays even though it is said to no longer exist.

And which is actually akin to Gnostic thought, while the only Christ in Scripture is one that was manifestly physical.

RCC (and basically EOs):

at the moment of the Consecration which is when the priest says, "This is my body," "This is the cup of my blood" the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ who is then really present as God and as Man sacrificing himself for us on the altar as he sacrificed himself on the cross.

The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

"If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation")

"Christ's presence in the Eucharist challenges human understanding, logic, and ultimately reason. His presence cannot be known by the senses, but only through faith." (Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America)

"the Most Holy Eucharist not only looks like something it isn’t (that is, bread and wine), but also tastes, smells, feels, and in all ways appears to be what it isn’t." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 22)

Bible:

And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:38-39)

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.. (John 1:14) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (1 John 1:1)

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:3) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)

More : Eucharistic theology

[MHGinTN]

She takes only some of His words. Note she rejects what Jesus explained a little further on. Satan uses snippetology to insult God, turning over the Truth to trap so many in his lies.

[daniel1212]

The uninspired words of such simply cannot be determinitive of what the NT church believed, for the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. And in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest .

Your sentence structure is truly bewildering have you had your morning coffee yet? Try again maybe next try you can make some sense.

Your recourse to ad homimem when faced with what refutes you is consistent with your past history. Go find others who find the above bewildering and insensible, unless coffee would actually remedy your lack of comprehension.