R
rcwitness
Guest
great explanationThe problem people have with this teaching is understanding it in a modern (hence almost assuredly false) reductive sense than in the proper, classical sense of fulfillment. That is people try to understand “salvation” by cutting away what is inessential and arriving at an “essential” core. This is the equivalent of saying that, since I am a man and would still be a man even if I have no arms, arms are not essential to me so I may as well cut them off. That’s nonsense. In a strict, minimalistic sense, it is possible to be saved without being a member of the visible, institutional Church, but it does not follow that such membership is therefore irrelevant to salvation.
It is not the case that anyone not in the Church is doomed, but rather that, if you want to think of it probabilistically, as you get “closer” to salvation, you are drawn deeper into the life of the Church. A virtuous pagan on a desert island may be saved, but the archetype of the saved person is the Catholic saint who lived a life of heroic virtue and perhaps died a martyr.
