Outside the Church There is no Salvation?

[huskerfan]

I work with a woman that is Lutheran and said that they believe in the Catholic church as being the one true chuch. She said that Luther started his own church and that they state they believe in the way of the Catholic church when they say the Apostle’s Creed. I find this very confusing. I also work with a man that is Lutheran but belongs to a different synod and he refuses to pray with someone outside of his church and he believes that only those that believe the way he does with get to heaven. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Dan-Man916]

Maybe a better question should be, why is the Church necessary for salvation?

On another discussion forum, we discussed this ad nauseum a few years ago. This was when I was a lapsed Catholic and was attending an evangelical denomination.

I couldn’t believe that the Catholic Church would teach something so completely anti-biblical, in my opinion.
How dare they be so self-righteous, i assumed because salvation is in Christ alone, not some church. No church is going to stand between me and Jesus, was the way i was receving this dogma, and it was a big turn off.

But when i really understood why the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, and understood the relationship between Christ and His Church, I saw that salvation in Christ alone necissarily meant that salvation must be through Christ’s Church because of the mystical unity of the Body of Christ.

It is a bit complicated, but when properly understood, it really is the same as saying salvation is in Christ alone.
The Church doesn’t stand inbetween me and Christ. There is a unity there not a middle man.

 

[neophyte]

The Iambic Pen:

…If the Catechism is indeed in error, as waxednwaned says,…

The key word here is IF. waxed is entitled to his opinion, but I don’t believe that it’s supportable. It seems to rely on picking and choosing among dogmatic decrees, and on an unwillingness to accept all of the ways that doctrine has developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the Magesterium.

I’m hardly an expert, but one thing I’ve found is that it can be extremely important to parse the nuances of church teaching in order to not fall into error.

**

…We positively maintain that the will of man cannot be upright nor his conduct good while his intellect is the slave if crass ignorance! A man who has become blind is certain to walk into the mouth of danger. There is always some hope for the reform of evil-living so long as the light of faith is not wholly extinguished; whereas, if, as a result of ignorance, lack of faith is added to corruption, the situation scarcely admits of remedy, and the road to eternal ruin lies open.

** This we solemnly affirm: the majority of those who are condemned to eternal punishment fall into this everlasting misfortune through ignorance of the Mysteries of the Faith which must necessarily be known and believed by all who belong to the Elect.** **

As I read it, “this everlasting misfortune” is the state of turning away from God, with full culpability, as a result of crude ignorance and the lack of discrimination and sensibility. It is an act of the will in turning away from God in response to His divine initiative, whatever understanding one may have. It is to refuse to submit one’s intellect and will to the working of His grace.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the baptism of desire, which by definition would hold to the case of one who is indeed ignorant (but not because of an intentional lack of discrimination or sensibility), and who nonetheless makes an act of the will to turn toward God in response to His divine initiative.

Sorry for the lousy formatting, my machine is acting up…

 

[banjo]

Dan-Man916:

Maybe a better question should be, why is the Church necessary for salvation?
But when i really understood why the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, and understood the relationship between Christ and His Church, I saw that salvation in Christ alone necissarily meant that salvation must be through Christ’s Church because of the mystical unity of the Body of Christ.

I agree Dan-Man. Below is an excerpt from my earlier post quoting Fr. John Hardon.

*Christ alone is the mediator of salvation and the way of salvation. He presents himself to us in his Body, which is the Churrch. *

Says the same thing you posted in just about the same words.

 

[banjo]

The Iambic Pen:

As a Protestant who is studying Catholicism, I find it discouraging to discover that the Catechism is full of error…

IP,

Don’t let yourself be troubled, if the Catechism were “full of error” it would have been yanked years ago. I hope you get a copy for yourself and you can check the statements in it with the scriptural references in its “Index of Citations.”

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[Dan-Man916]

banjo,

I have found that talking about this subject with protestants is mostly futile because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theology behind the Mystical Body of Christ.
They see the term “Body of Christ” as a symbolic unity, rather than a Sacramental reality.

 

[pnewton]

The Iambic Pen:

As a Protestant who is studying Catholicism, I find it discouraging to discover that the Catechism is full of error.

“Full of error” is a very inaccurate way of looking at it. Of course it is not infalliable. Much of it is disciplinary and the concept of infallability can not apply.

I wouldn’t worry too much about those that pop on the board to post a few posts (contrary to Catholic teaching) as if they should have any authority. Stick with your Bible, Cathechism and your priests. They have just a little more credibility.

PS - I hope things go well with the RCIA. I myself went through 8 years ago. If y ou have any questions, feel free to pop in and ask. Just take this stuff here with a grain of salt. You can also search the main Catholic Answers homepage for a lot of information.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Dan-Man916:

I have found that talking about this subject with protestants is mostly futile because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theology behind the Mystical Body of Christ.
They see the term “Body of Christ” as a symbolic unity, rather than a Sacramental reality.

Well, I wouldn’t assume too much. I assure you that any discussion of Catholic doctrine with me is most certainly not futile.

And, I should make clear that I don’t really believe the Catechism contains false teaching. I just thought it was odd that a Catholic would disagree with part of it and claim that it contradicted infallible teaching. I had never heard anyone make that kind of claim before.

 

[pnewton]

The Iambic Pen:

I just thought it was odd that a Catholic would disagree with part of it and claim that it contradicted infallible teaching.

If you think that is odd, there are a hand full of Catholics that think they are the pope (besides Benedict XVI, of course) and even more that believe there is no pope. It should not be surprising that even more try to take the role without the title.

 

[CARose]

IP,

Please do not allow yourself to be concerned by the fact that there are those, even within the body of Christ, who claim to know better than the publications put out with the Pope’s note of it being a sure norm for the teaching of the Faith. Recall in scripture that it says that the seed will be cast, some on rocky ground, some on furtile soil, and there will be weeds that grow with the wheat and they are to be allowed to grow for they will be seperated at the threshing.

So, it is to be expected that in the Church there will be those who believe things in error, alongside those who know truth. It is our responsibility to remain humble so that on those occations where we are the one in error (and I assure you, there will be a time, when unwittingly, each of us takes our turn) we do not lock into that error through our pride. Humility is the greatest defense against false teachings. Pray for clarification, seek an answer using reference materials and looking to a qualified authority for the answer. You may find yourself amazed at how efficient the Holy Spirit can be in providing you with the answers you need, when you need them.

For me, I’d take the word of the CCC first, over a person posting on these forums claiming the contrary. If, however, I had a gut feeling that the poster was correct and that the “evidence” supplied made a strong case, I’d take it to another authority in the Church for further clarification. If it was a serious matter and I trusted the orthodoxy and learning of my Pastor (I’m lucky, I trust my pastor on both counts, YEAH!), I’d ask him. If not, I’d check with Ask an Apologist, or one of the Holy Priests who minister via EWTN on a subject related to the topic of concern.

But you don’t just take a position based on your private interpretation of some old documents and the say so of an individual without the backing of the Church. Verification tends to lead to clarification.

That’s my 2 cents worth.

God Bless you as you progress through the RCIA program.

CARose

 

[Scotty_PGH]

The Iambic Pen:

As a Protestant who is studying Catholicism, I find it discouraging to discover that the Catechism is full of error. If the Catechism is supposed to be a statement of Catholic belief, why doesn’t it state the correct beliefs? If the Catechism is indeed in error, as waxednwaned says, how are those who approach the Church supposed to know what is true? If Catholicism is true, I want to accept it fully, so I’m not looking for excuses to remain Protestant.

Here you illustrate perfectly the horrible crisis of confusion facing the modern Church.

However, I must say that I find the “no salvation whatsoever outside the Church” view to be very depressing (to say the least). What this means is that all of those billions who have not heard the Gospel are condemned to Hell. In effect, God, knowing these people would never hear of His Church, created them for Hell. Plus, this basically means that all those righteous men and women of the Old Testament are also damned. So much for justice and mercy.

This is precisely why Catholic missionaries USED TO tirelessly evangelize those parts of the world that had not heard the Gospel. Many missionaries met brutal deaths at the hands of natives, but they kept working to spread the Gospel.

Nowadays, however, it is considered unecumenical to “force” our religious beliefs on others. So instead we now welcome these same people into our buildings and let them perform their rituals side-by-side with ours.

It’s a different world.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But for Grace:

JKirkLVNV - I have to agree with waxednwaned on this one. Regardless of what else may be said, the CCC is a document of the CDF and therefore not infallible. If, and I chose my words carefully here, the CCC is found to be contradictory to any known infallible document then it must be rejected. Its authority lies in its apparent lack of error, not on its de facto infalliblilty. Besides, isn’t it better to read what the Church says about herself (councilar documents) then to ponder an abreviated text? Besides I have never been one for “cliffnotes”.

They also developed the declaration that definitively excluded women from the priesthood (promulgated by JPII, using essentially the same language as he used to promulgate the catechism), but HE is the one who invoked his authority to promulgate it (the Holy Father doesn’t merely publish things). The Holy Father doesn’t have to actually write it or think it up even to make in infallible. He must only mean to invoke his authority as the Vicar of Christ and the Keeper of the Keys on a matter of faith and morals and direct that teaching to the whole of the Church (he called it a “sure norm” for teaching the faith. This isn’t merely a dubium submitted to the Holy Office. People actually think that infallibility only covers the Doctrine of Infallibility itself and the two Marian dogmas. It goes a lot further. Declarations of sainthood are infallible, for example. If the Holy Father invokes his apostolic authority on a matter of faith and morals (one that is obviously faith and morals, and not mere discipline or mere taste, ie, he cannot declare infallibly that cats make better pets than dogs) and directs it to the whole of the Church, then he cannot lead the Church into error. As far as “cliff notes,” I wouldn’t say that. It was requested by the Synod of Bishops (themselves the successors of the Apostles) of the Sucessor to Saint Peter. It’s a fairly large deal.

Besides which, the CCC doesn’t contradict EENS. It merely enlarges upon it and explains it. Our understanding of who has been “joined” to the Church has been enlarged, but the CCC never said the Church wasn’t necessary for salvation.

To some Catholics, this is just another exercise in Roman triumphalism, ie, “we’re better than you,” as though part of their heaven will be to watch the suffering of the damned in hell. Others of us have family members who are not reprobate hellions, but devout Christians of other ecclesial communities, who have ever and always followed Christ and who love him, who know of the Catholic Church, but who will never enter it due to profound predjudices (some of them fairly well founded, not in the teachings of the Church, but in the actions of some Catholics). For us, the thought that those we love might burn everlastingly in Hell (indeed, in the case of my beloved and devoutly Baptist grandmother, who died, could even now be burning in hell) is a temptation to madness (literally) and despair. I believe in Peter’s power to bind and loose. I take great comfort that it has been exercised the way it has toward our seperated brethren. I’m grateful for this teaching in the Catechism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

pnewton:

Much of it is disciplinary and the concept of infallability can not apply.

Now THAT’s certainly true. Popes are not protected by the charism of infallibility when it’s a matter of discipline.

 

[Jaypeeto2]

I have a problem myself with one point in the New Catechism. It states that the Old Covenant (the Law of Moses) has never been revoked (i.e. that the Law of Moses is still in force). The Council of Florence, however, infallibly defined that the Law of Moses in fact HAS ceased and that no one can observe it’s rites without committing mortal sin. New views cannot legitimately contradict once-defined dogmas. Love, Jaypeeto2

 

[Catholic2003]

waxednwaned:

The highest authority comes in Decrees spoken in Dogmatic Councils and Bulls.

No, you forgot one. The highest authority is found in the Sacred Scriptures, which are not only infallible but inerrent. Thus, from Romans 10:9,
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
it is clear that membership in the Catholic Church is not a requirement for salvation.

Hopefully this illustrates the problems that can happen when you substitute your own private interpretation of written Church documents for the true authority of Church’s Magisterium.

The Magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church, residing in the living Pope and the living Bishops. What they teach trumps your private (and flawed) interpretation of historical Church documents. Otherwise, you just as well might be a Protestant, and interpret the Bible for yourself.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Catholic2003:

No, you forgot one. The highest authority is found in the Sacred Scriptures, which are not only infallible but inerrent. Thus, from Romans 10:9,if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.it is clear that membership in the Catholic Church is not a requirement for salvation.

Hopefully this illustrates the problems that can happen when you substitute your own private interpretation of written Church documents for the true authority of Church’s Magisterium.

The Magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church, residing in the living Pope and the living Bishops. What they teach trumps your private (and flawed) interpretation of historical Church documents. Otherwise, you just as well might be a Protestant, and interpret the Bible for yourself.

Let’s quote Jesus:

John 6:53-57

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

So is validly consecrated Communion not necessary for salvation?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Catholic2003:

it is clear that membership in the Catholic Church is not a requirement for salvation.

This statement needs A LOT of expounding.

It is true that VISIBLE membership is not necessary (depepnding upon the knowledge/understanding of the individual), but anyone who does make it to heaven (whether they were “Catholics” in the visible form or not) get there only through the Church - this is a great mystery!

 

[Catholic2003]

Scotty PGH:

So is validly consecrated Communion not necessary for salvation?

I assume what you meant to ask was, “So is validly consecrated Communion not sufficient for salvation,” because the passage you cite does not discuss necessary conditions, but only sufficient ones.
E.E.N.S.:

This statement needs A LOT of expounding.

This is exactly my point. When individuals try to interpret historical Church writings for themselves, they get into all sorts of problems. This is why Jesus founded a Church, the Catholic Church, and gave it the authority to teach the truth. This authority currently resides in Pope Benedict XVI and all the Catholic Bishops, not in waxednwaned’s interpretation of what Pope Boniface VIII wrote in 1302, nor in my (strawman) interpretation of what St. Paul wrote in circa 60.

 

[Catholic2003]

Catholic2003:

I assume what you meant to ask was, “So is validly consecrated Communion not sufficient for salvation,” because the passage you cite does not discuss necessary conditions, but only sufficient ones.

Sorry, my bad here. I missed the first verse (53).

Good point.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Pius IX’s Encyclical Qui Pluribus:

“Also perverse is the shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs [religious indifferentism], a theory that is greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Bhelial.”