Outside the Church there is no salvation

[Writer]

John Donlan:

I was in a Catholic chat room the other day, and the administrator of that room claimed that those people who did not know Jesus Christ – could not attain salvation. I quoted her the section (paragraph #847) in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church which says that salvation IS possible for people who do not know Jesus Christ. She responded by stating that many passages in the CCC are ‘gray areas’ that need proper interpretation. Am I wrong in taking para. #847 at it’s face value…or is there a different meaning than what is written there? (see below)

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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, a pilgrim now on earth, 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.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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 conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. 337848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

I think the CCC is simply acknowledging that we don’t have all the answers, and some decisions are best left to God. I would still say that anyone saved would still be saved through Christ, even if he did not recognize that it was Christ in whom he was saved–e.g. the “noble savage” who has not had the Gospel brought to his home, a person who has not heard of Chirst. A good example of this kind of scenario might be seen in the end of C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle concerning the soldier who thought he served Tash, but actually served Aslan in his heart. I also hope and pray for special allowances for the Jewish people, and I seem to recall some reason for hope in that from Schoeman’s *Salvation is from the Jews, *or another source.

Having said the above, however, I think it is becoming more and more difficult to say one has not heard the Gospel. That is simply not going to be a valid excuse, I think, for much longer.

 

[piety101]

pnewton
Simply because Christian baptism was not a requirement of God to remove the stain of original sin at the time of Elijah and Enoch. God has dealt with men and nations in different ways throughout mankind's existence. We live in the church age when we are commanded to be born again to enter God's kingdom. The present requirement is Christian baptism with the seal of the Holy Spirit.

 

[James224]

Hi Piety,

Quote: “You ask about the little boy in Africa who never received the gospel? Will he perish? The question should be, is that little boy declared a sinner before God just as much as a GROWN heathen? Or even a heathen here in the United States? Of course, because of Adam’s sin being passed on to his posterity. All men, until they come to the faith of Jesus Christ are BY NATURE sinners and under the wrath of God. Eph 2:1 thru 5
Is repentance and baptism necessary for the remission of sins.”

My comment: I’m just pulling out the part of your post I want to discuss. Your view is wonderful and it shows the greatness of our Faith, however, It seems that through your posts you are denying Baptism of Desire. If you aren’t, I stand corrected. Even Trent says:

“A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Ch 4)

This is also stated in Denziger’s #847. It’s also in Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (p356-357)

The grace we receive through the sacraments are the normal means by which we obtain salvation but the Church teaches, as well as Aquinas and others that those, who through no fault of their own, who didn’t know Christ explicitly, can obtain salvation if they act on the graces God sends them. It’s much harder this way but it is possible.

By the way, 1 Tim 2:4 must also be taken into account as well as Eph 2:1-5.

May God bless,

James224

 

[gelsbern]

I try to explain it like this.

Let’s picture a burning building and the only thing that will quench the fire is water. Quenching the fire = attaining salvation.

The catholic faith is a firehose, and is the perfect method for fighting this fire, and it is guaranteed to put it out, there is no better way of doing it.

Other denominations, they are holding a garden hoses, some have buckets, others have squirt guns, a few are using dixie cups, and one or 2 have thimbles. Do they have a possibility of putting out the fire? Yes. Are their chances as good as those who have the firehose? Nope.

That is what is inside Dominus Iesus. The Catholic Faith is the perfection of the Church of Christ. Other denominations? Well let’s just say that if you get down to where your only option is trying to pee out the fire, you are in trouble.

 

[James224]

Hi Piety,

I thought I might add that those outside the visible Catholic Church, if saved, are only saved through the Catholic Church, ie, through Jesus Christ. As it says in Eph 4:5, “One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.”

May God bless,

James224

 

[A.Aaboe]

Greetings Christians!!

Greetings in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit:

I would like to comment on the dictum "outside the church there is no salvation." The scripture nails down that those outside Christ wont recieve salvation.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

If we say that there is no salvation outside the Roman Church then even the Eastern Orthodox who are in schism are lost.

I am a Christian who is leaning in the Lutheran direction and I must say that I agree with Martin Luther and his protests against the Roman church. However I dont believe that the Roman Catholics are non-Christians as many fundamentalists do. That would be intelectual suicide because even Martin Luther believed in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist and his views of infant baptism and Maryology etc were still very “catholic”

I believe that the Roman Catholic church preserved many of the main fundamentals of the faith…but sadly adopted many “traditions” not found in scripture or dont have a sound basis in scripture.

For example I was reading a post by a Catholic who said that Lutherans dont have proper priestly orders and therefore Christ is not present in their Eucharist. This I believe is tradition not supported in scripture. Peter said that we Christians have been made God’s holy people his unique people a royal priesthood. Scripture doesnt say that we must have apostolic succesion priesthood. Take this in the light that the Jews thought that Peter and the other apostles were ignorant and unlearned men but they took note that they had learned from Christ.

Peter wasnt even in the Jewish priesthood or a scholar before conversion he was a fisherman. Paul was a learned Jewish theologian before he was converted…maybe he should have been the pope!! LOL Well I rest my case…we must follow scripture…and tradition should only be accepted if it has a sound theological basis in scripture and doesnt contradict it. Thanks for listening A.Aaboe

 

[A.Aaboe]

Greetings Again Christians LOL!!!

I just wanted to give a comment here…I believe that the main difference between Catholics and Protestants is the subject sola scriptura…the reason it is hard to debate with catholics is because they frankly admit that not all their doctrine has to be based on God’s word. I have studied catholic doctrines where they will try to squeeze as much out of a verse as they can e.g. on Pergatory and the whole context of the scripture(s) their using refutes their theory!!

If the Roman Catholic church had to debate their beliefs by sola scriptura and accepted the consequences of their study they would be like the lutherans LOL OK see yall for now!! A.Aaboe GBU!!

 

[pnewton]

piety101:

pnewton

Simply because Christian baptism was not a requirement of God to remove the stain of original sin at the time of Elijah and Enoch. God has dealt with men and nations in different ways throughout mankind’s existence. We live in the church age when we are commanded to be born again to enter God’s kingdom. The present requirement is Christian baptism with the seal of the Holy Spirit.

This sounds like dispensationalism.

God can remove original sin apart from baptism, then, as evidenced by the fact that he did it for millinia (or did he do it at the time of the resurrection?). In any case, we have the unbaptized being joined with the body of Christ in heaven.

Those outside the visible memebership of the church may be joined to her and thus obtain salvation. If you do not agree then it would help if you could expain the **difference **between what you believe and that of Fr. Feeney’s heresy. I do not wish to make false assumptions about you or anyone.

 

[john_ennis]

A.Aaboe:

Greetings Again Christians LOL!!!

I just wanted to give a comment here…I believe that the main difference between Catholics and Protestants is the subject sola scriptura…the reason it is hard to debate with catholics is because they frankly admit that not all their doctrine has to be based on God’s word.

Ahh! A contradiction on your part. Implicit in your post is that you hold to Sola Scriptura. Then, you say that since Catholic doctrine does not have to come out of the Bible, it does not have to be “based on God’s word.” You have a belief, evidently, that has come from somewhere outside of Scripture: that no belief is God’s word, unless it comes from the Bible. That, my friend, is unscriptural.

peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

There is a sensible thing to say about all this, it seems to me: a child who dies at birth, an aborted baby, a first century North American, or my own child who died while still inside my wife…all of these, if they are condemned because of their lack of knowledge, faith, or acceptance of Christ, can legitimately say, “Christ did not die for me.”

If He died for all, as we all seem to agree here, then the possibility of receiving his saving grace must exist for all. Of course, that doesn’t mean all will be saved, only that all can be saved.

peace.
John

 

[piety101]

No, baptism for the remission of sins and especially original sin is not just based on scripture, but ALSO found in the tradition of the church. And chiefly in the writings of the early church fathers. The Catholic church upholds both scripture and church tradition as valid and binding.
As for Enoch and Elijah, this has nothing to do with dispensationalism, as you say, but rather with the fact that Christian baptism was never administered to these individuals during the time they lived. Their sins were atoned for in a different manner. In Elijah's case it was through the OT priesthood sacrifices. In Enoch's case, we don't know. For very little is known of his life. :)

 

[Scotty_PGH]

A.Aaboe:

Greetings Again Christians LOL!!!

I just wanted to give a comment here…I believe that the main difference between Catholics and Protestants is the subject sola scriptura…the reason it is hard to debate with catholics is because they frankly admit that not all their doctrine has to be based on God’s word. I have studied catholic doctrines where they will try to squeeze as much out of a verse as they can e.g. on Pergatory and the whole context of the scripture(s) their using refutes their theory!!

If the Roman Catholic church had to debate their beliefs by sola scriptura and accepted the consequences of their study they would be like the lutherans LOL OK see yall for now!! A.Aaboe GBU!!

The main difference actually is Authority. We recognize one visible earthly head as the leader of Christ’s Church (as He did), while you do not.

 

[gus]

If you compare life to a journey

Lets say from New York to LA
Your greatest chance of completing that Journey Is by Plane
Yea there are a few with enough determination to walk there but they are very few. Those in the Church are in the Plane those walking are outside.

 

[Writer]

A.Aaboe:

Greetings Again Christians LOL!!!

I just wanted to give a comment here…I believe that the main difference between Catholics and Protestants is the subject sola scriptura…the reason it is hard to debate with catholics is because they frankly admit that not all their doctrine has to be based on God’s word. I have studied catholic doctrines where they will try to squeeze as much out of a verse as they can e.g. on Pergatory and the whole context of the scripture(s) their using refutes their theory!!

If the Roman Catholic church had to debate their beliefs by sola scriptura and accepted the consequences of their study they would be like the lutherans LOL OK see yall for now!! A.Aaboe GBU!!

The issue of Purgatory is not as big a deal as Protestants believe. No one knows whether we will even be conscious of the time spent there; it may be concluded in the blink of an eye. I think of it as simply the process of stepping through the gate and into heaven beyond. Revelation 21:27 reminds us that “nothing impure will ever enter it {heaven}…” Purgatory is simply the process of cleansing the Spirit in preparation to stand before God. If anything, it takes the prospect of standing in God’s presence more seriously than the Protestants. Our priest mentioned that Purgatory has been badly misunderstood by non-Catholic’s ever since the rise in popularity of Dante’s Inferno. There are also other Biblical passages in support of Purgatory. 1 Corinthians is another passage which appears to support a belief in Purgatory. 2 Timothy also contains a prayer for a person who has died, which Catholics believe further supports the concept of Purgatory.

Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble - each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only
as through fire. [1 Cor 3:12-15]

May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus… may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day… [2 Tim 1:16 & 18]

One last note on the concept of Purgatory. It is a part of heaven and not hell. It is not a punishment, but a purification. For further insight into this, look up how many references there are in the Bible concerning the fire of heaven–from Old Testament through the New. (See Matthew 3:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, and Acts 2:3.)

***I believe in purgatory… Our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? Would it not beak the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleansed first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know.’ ‘Even so, sir.’ - C.S.Lewis ***

 

[john_ennis]

The fact that saved souls undeniably do suffer here on earth, should stop anyone from saying, “There’s no need for us to suffer for our sins–Christ did it all.”

Clearly Christ did NOT do it in a way that prevents even the saved from suffering. That suffering takes place every day before our eyes. The only issue any reasonable person could have with suffering aiding our salvation, is whether it can continue to take place after our death.

I’m glad it can.

Peace.
John

 

[fix]

Dan-Man916:

Eventhough the Catechism says that salvation IS possible, it doesn’t say that it actually will happen. Something can be posible and yet never happen.

It is possible that I will hit the lottery. It is also possible that I will get hit by lightning too.

I don’t know how many God saves who are ignorant of Christ. We can certainly hope, but we have no assurance of faith that they will be. that is why it is important to spread the gospel.

 

[LSK]

piety101:

LSK

The early church never taught that salvation was possible outside the church, for within the church is Christ and the sacraments. If one has time to receive Christ and the sacraments, especially baptism, they must do so at once, if they hope to obtain salvation and eternal life. Someone has been feeding you some ecumenical non sense.

Sorry - I stand by the exact words of the CCC. The CCC holds forth the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church and my CCC does not espouse nonsense.

The most important word is "possible’ and the most important thing to remember is that it is up to GOD and not you or me…read the CCC again and don’t read between the lines, just read the black part.

 

[LSK]

*“All sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”. *Mark 3:29

All sins are forgivable with repentance. The “unforgivable sin”(Matthew 12:31-32) of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin committed by one who knowingly and willingly rejects the grace of conversion in this life. If one dies in this self-imposed state of unrepentance, he cannot be saved.

“Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a “right” to persist in evil—in any sin at all—and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one’s conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one’s life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one’s self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins.”

Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable? How should this blasphemy be understood? Saint Thomas Aquinas replies that it is a question of a sin that is “unforgivable by its very nature”, insofar as it excludes the elements through which the forgiveness of sin takes place.

According to such an exegesis, “blasphemy” does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross.

And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this forgiveness of which he is the intimate giver and which presupposes the genuine conversion which he brings about in the conscience. If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this “non-forgiveness” is linked, as to its cause, to “non-repentance”, in other words to the radical refusal to be converted.” This is the answer on sins against the Holy Spirit - this answer was posted by Peggy Frye. I am putting it here because, again, it speaks to the idea of willfulness. When I look at the postings here, especially the postings of Piety, I see the stumbling block of understanding being rooted in willfulness.

The CCC addresses salvation outside the Church for those who - through no fault of their own - are ignorant of the Church and Jesus Christ. This is NOT willful. This is not willfully turning away from or rejecting Christ. THAT is why Piety thinks we are all wrong and that I have been fed "ecumenical nonsense’ despite my strict adherence to the CCC.

AGAIN - the joy of this is that it is not up to me to determine if a person is willfully turning away from teaching or does not know of Jesus Christ through no fault of their own. I can rest easy in the arms of Mother Church because there is a God, and it is not me.

 

[piety101]

LSK
There is no salvation apart from Christ, Catholic catechism or no Catholic catechism. Acts 4:11-12. Buddha won't save.Confucius won't save and Allah won't save. :thumbsup:

 

[LSK]

Originally Posted by A.Aaboe
*Greetings Again Christians LOL!!!

"I just wanted to give a comment here…I believe that the main difference between Catholics and Protestants is the subject sola scriptura…the reason it is hard to debate with catholics is because they frankly admit that not all their doctrine has to be based on God’s word. I have studied catholic doctrines where they will try to squeeze as much out of a verse as they can e.g. on Pergatory and the whole context of the scripture(s) their using refutes their theory!!

If the Roman Catholic church had to debate their beliefs by sola scriptura and accepted the consequences of their study they would be like the lutherans LOL OK see yall for now!! A.Aaboe GBU!!"*
Actually, Catholics consider themselves People of the WORD while some Protestants consider themselves PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. Big difference. All of our teachings are based on the Word of Christ. Protestants just place their beliefs on Holy Scripture alone and that is dangerous - afterall for many many years there WAS no Book.