Outside the Church there is No Salvation

[Jlcastagna]

The bottom line is that God’s will should also be our will. God desires that we should all be one. Our will should not be to focus on the exception but to draw all ever closer to the fullness of faith contained within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Regardless of where a persons position is within the Church or outside of it, we should attempt to be instruments of God and draw them and ourselves closer to the fullness of faith which is contained only completely within the Church that Christ founded.

May God bless and protect us,
JLC

 

[JaneFrances]

Hey Montie,

Check out Lumen Gentum, Chapter 2. It should give you a very specific explantation of what “No Salvation Outside the Church” is and all its facets.

Suffice it to say, NO, you need not necessarily be a baptized, confirmed, active practicing Catholic to recieve Christ’s gift of salvation. Yet, as his Body, the Church is ordered primarily towards Christ in the way of salvation and, we we know through Sacred Scripture, that Christ himself intends for his Body to serve as the ordinary and primary means for us to join in the rewards of his Life, Death, and Resurrection. To know his Body, the Church, and to deny it is to deny Christ himself.

Having said that, the Church in her wisdom, recognizes that while she is the visible Body of Christ on earth, our all-powerful and all-merciful, loving Lord may choose to draw anyone to himself by any extraordinary means he sees fit. This would include those not explicitly united with his Church.

Lumen Gentum, is a wonderful document which clarifies this doctrine for our edification and imbues us with a sense of humility and charity, as we are ever reminded that Christ came that all men could be saved!

 

[fix]

It is an exception to the general rule that women are not allowed to use birth control pills.

I agree. And I also think that, in our advanced culture, not many will have an excuse for being ignorant of the Catholic faith.

I agree. I am not arguing for the exception here. I am just trying to make the point. I also don’t think there are many exceptions to the rule that “outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation”.

That is my point. People have watered down the rule to the point of nullifying it.

I’m not sure if we are disagreeing here. The point of my post was to show how the rule is watered down by an over emphasis on the exception.

I had a discussion with a modernist “theologian” one day, which lated about an hour. We discussed all kinds of issues. One of them was abortion, which, of course, he was in favor of. How did he seek to justify abortion? You guess it. By pointing out an exception.

He said, the Church allows a women to put an end to a tubal pregnancy. That kills the fetus, just like abortion.

BTW, this modernist heretic is the “spiritual director” to the local Archbishop. I just typed his name, his loction, and the name of the Archbishop, but decided to delete it.

I would say there are no exceptions to any of these issues you raise. They just have to be properly defined and properly undestood. Contraceptive intercourse is always wrong. Direct abortion is always wrong. There is no slavation outside the Church. Each statement is true and there are no exceptions.

Double effect does not allow for contraceptive intercourse. Indirect abortion is not an exception to direct abortion. All salvation is throught the CC.

If we see this reasoning as simply some type of exception or easing of the rule then I think we need to better understand the rule.

 

[Joysong]

Jane Frances:

Lumen Gentum, is a wonderful document which clarifies this doctrine for our edification and imbues us with a sense of humility and charity, as we are ever reminded that Christ came that all men could be saved!

Agreed … and Jane, anyone who reads #847 of the CCC (posted above) would find that the footnote refers directly to the source of its doctrine as being LG, meaning Lumen Gentium. Whatever was understood imperfectly prior to Vatican II and its documents is now set aside for that which is more perfectly defined and promulgated.

 

[steveandersen]

…
What is interesting today is that almost no one will mention the rule. And if they do it is only to bring up the exception. Today almost all teaching the exception rather than the dogma.

Probably because the exception is bought up in response to an anti-Catholic attack
Anti-Catholic: “The Church teaches you’ll go to Hell if you’re not a member.”
Apologist: “No, She teaches…”

The exception is an integral part of the Dogma.

With your birth control example you seem to be implying that folks will get confused over complex or detailed answers. Well…we’re not fundamentalists. Our doctrines have 2,000 years of thinking behind them. Knowing the how’s and why’s of the exceptions highlights to rule.

I know in this era of 5-second sound bites, yelling & screaming talk radio, and polarization, that subtlety and sophistication of thought is branded as weakness or sophistry. And I know that in Apologetics the first task is to get your audience to listen to you. But our Doctrines are well thought out and well reasoned. I don’t like the idea of playing their black/white literalist game.

 

[southernCONVERT]

Just thought I would throw this article in the discussion. It’s one of the best I’ve read.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=20

JC

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I would say there are no exceptions to any of these issues you raise. They just have to be properly defined and properly undestood. Contraceptive intercourse is always wrong.

Exactly. While the chemicals in a birth control pill can be used for legitimate medical conditions, to actually use them as “birth control” is always objectively sinful.

Double effect does not allow for contraceptive intercourse. Indirect abortion is not an exception to direct abortion. All salvation is throught the CC.

If we see this reasoning as simply some type of exception or easing of the rule then I think we need to better understand the rule.

I see the problem being mainly with semantics, wishy-washy “authorities” telling people what the Church supposedly teaches (but doesn’t) and the fact that many people either a) can’t wrap their mind around a nuanced and philosophically intricate concept, b) use this as easy justification for their own sins or c) don’t know, don’t care but think they heard such and such on TV.

In a way, it was better when everything was more black and white because even though people might have taken things to the extreme at times, the masses knew what was right and wrong and didn’t try to confuse the matter. Abortion, contraception, defecting from the True Faith etc. was absolutely wrong without question and that is the way it is, period.

Now we try to engage in way too much “Well, maybe they didn’t really sin…” which may very well be true but is solely up to God. I think it is probably better to err on the side of harshness than to err on the side of laxity.

 

[fix]

Just thought I would throw this article in the discussion. It’s one of the best I’ve read.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=20

JC

Very good.

 

[fix]

Exactly. While the chemicals in a birth control pill can be used for legitimate medical conditions, to actually use them as “birth control” is always objectively sinful.

I see the problem being mainly with semantics, wishy-washy “authorities” telling people what the Church supposedly teaches (but doesn’t) and the fact that many people either a) can’t wrap their mind around a nuanced and philosophically intricate concept, b) use this as easy justification for their own sins or c) don’t know, don’t care but think they heard such and such on TV.

In a way, it was better when everything was more black and white because even though people might have taken things to the extreme at times, the masses knew what was right and wrong and didn’t try to confuse the matter. Abortion, contraception, defecting from the True Faith etc. was absolutely wrong without question and that is the way it is, period.

Now we try to engage in way too much “Well, maybe they didn’t really sin…” which may very well be true but is solely up to God. I think it is probably better to err on the side of harshness than to err on the side of laxity.

Yep, I think USMC basic point has some validity.

 

[havemercy]

USMC, brother,

I’d really like an explanation from you on the situation of those belonging to Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions. What does the Church teach of our separate bretheren? I am asking you because perhaps you can make this clear as day when apparantly the Church has failed to do in the CCC.

Bless you,

 

[ReflectiveDove]

I don’t really think I’m qualified to join in on this “debated issue.”

However, I’m currently considering conversion to Catholicism. Why? Because I feel it’s where I can find God more than anywhere… That’s not to say I don’t find Him in other churches, but the Catholic Church is where I find more stability, more closure, more empowered. All I know is it will cause debates with some family and friends… but I know that they too are saved, just as I.

Why should the Body of Christ, TRUE believers (not Catholic, not Protestant), argue about these things? Yes, I can understand both sides of the point.

Catholics have a point when they trace back roots to the Apostles, and that honestly Protestant churches are just branches, and some are extremely branched out.

But if the doctrine is still the same basis (the Apostles’ Creed) and adhere to the same Trinity… are we all not of the same Body?

I’ve also heard that phrase as well… but is it a serious phrase or is it just meant to exemplify on the factor that a true relationship with Christ is a true salvation?

Peace be with you,
Brian

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I’d really like an explanation from you on the situation of those belonging to Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions. What does the Church teach of our separate bretheren? I am asking you because perhaps you can make this clear as day when apparantly the Church has failed to do in the CCC.

That those born into Protestant groups are not guilty of heresy and those born into Eastern Orthodoxy are not guilty of schism.

But if the doctrine is still the same basis (the Apostles’ Creed) and adhere to the same Trinity… are we all not of the same Body?

In a sorta-kinda way. If they use the proper Trinitarian formula for baptism-they are recognized by the Church as Christians. However, it is more complicated than that. A Catholic who leaves the Church for one of these other groups commits the sin of heresy or schism (depending upon what beliefs they adhere to or discount) and so Protestantism is still objectively heretical no matter which way we cut it and Eastern Orthodoxy is still is schism no matter which way we cut it, but those who were raised this way cannot be faulted for being born into these groups.

 

[Scott36]

Just thought I would throw this article in the discussion. It’s one of the best I’ve read.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=20

JC

I liked this article too. One question though. I get a little nervous when I read statements like “if such and such_____, then he/she is going to hell” I believe the Church is free to claim that someone is in heaven (i.e. a saint) but I don’t think the Church ever says with certainty “if such and such_____, then you are going to hell”. I believe that is for God to decide. Am I wrong? Does the Catholic Church stipulate definite pronouncements that “if such and such_____, then he/she is not saved”.

 

[Scott36]

Just thought I would throw this article in the discussion. It’s one of the best I’ve read.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=20

JC

This is good and is consistent with both the statement “Outside the Chruch there is no salvation” and also consistent with the revelation to Saint Faustina that Jesus calls out in his devine mercy to every soul at the hour of death. I think the good theif is a good example of that. Also consistent with the “Universal salvific will of God” which is discussed in this vatican document DOMINUS IESUS which I think has already been mentioned.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

I don’t think it’s a matter of making an exception.

 

[USMC]

I would say there are no exceptions to any of these issues you raise. They just have to be properly defined and properly undestood. Contraceptive intercourse is always wrong. Direct abortion is always wrong. There is no slavation outside the Church. Each statement is true and there are no exceptions.

Double effect does not allow for contraceptive intercourse. Indirect abortion is not an exception to direct abortion. All salvation is throught the CC.

If we see this reasoning as simply some type of exception or easing of the rule then I think we need to better understand the rule.

When people are discusses subtleties, such as we are discussing, it is very easy for each person to take one side of the issue and argue against the other.

I understand completely what you are saying. However, I stand 100% by my point which is valid, and has been proved by experience. There is indeed an exception to the rule of not being allowed to take birth control pills. The exception is based on the intent, and when the prevention of conception is merely a secondary effect of the principle intent.

But can you honestly say that if the focus was placed, almost continuously, on the times in which birth control pills are allowed, that it would not result in confusion in the minds of the average Catholic who doesn’t know the basics of the faith? Of course it would.

The same is true for the domga “outside the Church there is no salvation”. Those who are familiar with the minute details of this dogma understand the true meaning and the subtleties; however, based on the threads on this message board that have popped up during the time I have been on here, it is obvious that MOST do not properly understand the subtle points.

The result of the average Catholic being continuously taught of the “exceptions” to the rule, has been the watering down of the dogma and the explicit rejection of it by most Catholics today. The average Catholic is not supposed to understand these subtleties - that is the job of the hierarchy.

Now, just to reiterate: The “rule” of the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” is that in order to attain salvation a person has to be a member of the Catholic Church, subject to the Pope, must believe all of the teachings of the Church, and must partake of the same sacraments. That is the rule as defined by the Church.

There can be exceptions to this rule, but these are just that - exceptions.

 

[USMC]

USMC, brother,

I’d really like an explanation from you on the situation of those belonging to Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions. What does the Church teach of our separate bretheren? I am asking you because perhaps you can make this clear as day when apparantly the Church has failed to do in the CCC.

Bless you,

Yes, I can explanin this. After my explanation, I would be happy to comment on any quote from the new Catechism (however, I am pretty busy at work and it may take a day or two to respond). I will give you the explanation but I don’t have time to include quotes from the magisterim to back it up…

“Without faith it is impossible to please God”, and therefore impossible to be saved. For a person who does not have the ability to make an act of faith prior to baptism (a baby, for example) supernatural faith is infused into their soul, along with supernatural hope and charity, when they are baptized.

CATEGORY 1: A person who is capable of making an act of faith, must at least believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation. According to St. Thomas and the council of Florence, those two doctrines must be believed explicitly. The remaining doctrines, such as the true presence or Papal Infallibility, etc. only need to be believed explicitly if they have been explained to the person. As long as the person does not reject them, they believe them implicitly. Ignorance of those doctrines does not exclude, or prevent, a person from having supernatural faith (there is speculation on further “exceptions”, but I won’t get into it here).

CATEGORY 2: Now, if a person who has the capacity of making an act of faith (an adult), does believe in the two necessary dogmas, then if they are baptized (even by a heretic or schismatic) they will be incorporated into the soul of the Catholic Church, even if they are not a visible member of the Church due to ignorance. However, if a person who has the capacity of making an act of faith explicitly rejects any dogmas of the Catholic faith (such as Papal Infallibility), then this heresy prevents them from receiving the grace (sanctifying grace) from the sacrament (St. Thomas) when they are baptized. They receive what is called the “character” of baptism (a indellible mark on the soul), but do not receive sanctifying grace, since their explicit denial of the dogma makes them a heretic, and heretics are not members of the soul of the Church (their denial can either make them a material or formal heretic. This depends on their knowldge of what they are rejecting, and the extent to which they reject it).

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation of previous post…

Now, a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox in “category 1” is actually considered a member of the soul of the Church, since they have been baptized and have not rejected any dogmas of the faith. They believe what is necessary (the Trinity and Incarnation), and have been baptized. However, as soon as they adhere to one of the many errors taught by their sect (or reject any dogma of the Catholic Church), they sin mortally against the supernatural faith within them, become a heretic, and fall from grace. At that point they are no longer united to the soul of the church, but have been cut off and are, as one of the Church fathers said, “united to a harlot”.

The most common quote from the Catechism on this point explains that heretics and schismatics (it doesn’t use the term, but gives the definition) “are united to the Church in many ways”. It them lists certain ways in which they are said to be “united with the Church”.

What the Catechism says is not wrong, but can be very misleading. Why? Because, the unity necessary for salvation is a supernatural unity; not merely a natural unity of belief in this or that point. And supernatural unity has no gray areas. It is either 100% unity, or no unity at all. No in between.

Just like a person who is either in the state of grace or mortal sin. There is no middle ground. They may have venial sin, but they are still in the state of grace. Either they are in the state of grace, or they are not. No gray areas. Similarly, either a person (or group) is united to the Church or they are not. No middle ground.

It is true that a person can be united to the soul of the Church and not the visible body, but their unity with the soul is either 100% or none; and the union with the soul of the Church is what saves. Think of how many people claim to be Catholics yet reject this or that dogma. These are united to the body, but not the soul.

As you may be able to see, when you get into the subtle “exceptions” it can become a little confusion. That is why the Church used to boldly proclaim the dogma; and why Pope Pius IX told the Bishops of his day to teach the dogma, and not the exception. In fact, he forbade the Bishop from inquiring into the possible exceptions. The reason is pretty clear to me: For one, if there are any exceptions that have resulted in the salvation of a soul, only God knows. And two, too much focus on the exception has, in our day, resulted in an explicit denial of the dogma by many; and this denial constitutes heresy…

I hope that helped a little. If not, let me know and post any follow up questions.

 

[fix]

I understand completely what you are saying. However, I stand 100% by my point which is valid, and has been proved by experience. There is indeed an exception to the rule of not being allowed to take birth control pills. The exception is based on the intent, and when the prevention of conception is merely a secondary effect of the principle intent.

But, there is no rule about not taking any pill. The rule is no contraceptive intercourse. Pills are not intrinsically evil.

But can you honestly say that if the focus was placed, almost continuously, on the times in which birth control pills are allowed, that it would not result in confusion in the minds of the average Catholic who doesn’t know the basics of the faith? Of course it would.

I would say there was, and is, a failure on the part of priests and bishops to teach openly and consistently on this topic. There is a failrue on the part of we laity to make the necessary effort to learn the faith and have an ongoing conversion to holiness.

The same is true for the domga “outside the Church there is no salvation”. Those who are familiar with the minute details of this dogma understand the true meaning and the subtleties; however, based on the threads on this message board that have popped up during the time I have been on here, it is obvious that MOST do not properly understand the subtle points.

OK, I do not disgaree with you at all. It is not this one teaching; it is a symptom of a greater problem.

The result of the average Catholic being continuously taught of the “exceptions” to the rule, has been the watering down of the dogma and the explicit rejection of it by most Catholics today. The average Catholic is not supposed to understand these subtleties - that is the job of the hierarchy.

Well, I think that the average Catholic, myself included, can do more. We live in a very advanced culture and know all sorts of nonsense. Certainly, we have room to study things more deeply. Now, I do not think we each have to be an expert in every arcane matter of theology, but if we are to have a zeal for evangelization we need to at least try to understand we salvation through the CC is taught. I see your point and I agree a failure to grasp this teaching has serious implications for immortal souls.

Now, just to reiterate: The “rule” of the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” is that in order to attain salvation a person has to be a member of the Catholic Church, subject to the Pope, must believe all of the teachings of the Church, and must partake of the same sacraments. That is the rule as defined by the Church.

There can be exceptions to this rule, but these are just that - exceptions.

Now, I would say that the ordainary means is what you wrote, but those means do not exclude those outside visible membership.

 

[USMC]

Fix,

I wrote an article several years ago that deals with the topic “exceptions” to the rule, and goes into a few more related points. Pleas read it and give me your comments.

Here’s the link: seattlecatholic.com/article_20030523.html

(BTW, the name I used is a pen-name, and not my real name.)

 

[havemercy]

CATEGORY 1: … As long as the person does not reject them, they believe them implicitly …

When you say “implicitly” you mean that since they haven’t even thought of it (i.e. Papal Infallibility, Mary as Mother of the Church and of all Christians) or couldn’t possible know of it due to their tradition (in which they grew up) their faith in the Incarnation and Trinity is sufficient. Right?

CATEGORY 2: … However, if a person who has the capacity of making an act of faith explicitly rejects any dogmas of the Catholic faith (such as Papal Infallibility), then this heresy prevents them from receiving the grace (sanctifying grace) from the sacrament (St. Thomas) when they are baptized.

I’ll give you the classic case of our times: a staunch Calvinist who grew up in a Presbytarian home. He or she would obviously deny certain Catholic dogmas…Especially if they grew up Lutheran (Papacy as a hoax, and anti-christ, etc.)! Wouldn’t their being predesposed towards not agreeing with “Romish” doctrine be a form of ignorance though?

They receive what is called the “character” of baptism (a indellible mark on the soul), but do not receive sanctifying grace, since their explicit denial of the dogma makes them a heretic, and heretics are not members of the soul of the Church.

Who makes this indellible mark on the soul? The Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit dwell within this person at all – or is sanctifying grace a proof of the Holy Spirit’s presence?

continued…