Radio discussion question: Membership in the Church necessary for salvation?

[laocmo]

I just listened to a discussion that went as follows. Is membership in the Catholic Church necessary for salvation? A quick answer by a Catholic radio priest speaker was an absolutely yes. In essence his argument was that anyone who knows the Catholic Church is the one true church and rejects it will never attain salvation. I suppose that means they are bound for Hell. Then he qualified his answer with a big “however”. Exceptions are made for those who have never heard of the Church, or have heard of it, but do not know its teachings. In other words the answer is also no. An answer that is a no nullifies the one that was yes. You can’t have a no and a yes answer to a simple two choice question like that. My question is why isn’t that question answered with a no to start with? I don’t like loopholes, especially ones that cover the great majority of the human race who are non-Catholics. Is it somehow more fitting to say yes, then contradict yourself with a no than to admit the answer is no?

 

[Nelka]

 

[JurisPrudens]

I just listened to a discussion that went as follows. Is membership in the Catholic Church necessary for salvation? A quick answer by a Catholic radio priest speaker was an absolutely yes. In essence his argument was that anyone who knows the Catholic Church is the one true church and rejects it will never attain salvation. I suppose that means they are bound for Hell. Then he qualified his answer with a big “however”. Exceptions are made for those who have never heard of the Church, or have heard of it, but do not know its teachings. In other words the answer is also no. An answer that is a no nullifies the one that was yes. You can’t have a no and a yes answer to a simple two choice question like that. My question is why isn’t that question answered with a no to start with? I don’t like loopholes, especially ones that cover the great majority of the human race who are non-Catholics. Is it somehow more fitting to say yes, then contradict yourself with a no than to admit the answer is no?

That person responded in conformity with the Catechism. There is no contradiction. Yes, only the members of One True Church will be saved, However, not all of them are visible members of the Church: many of them even don’t realize themselves that they are the members of the Church or that they want the Messiah to come. So, everyone has a chance for salvation. Nevertheless, we are to evangelize them to increase their chances, for only wicked people will reject the Truth after they have fully learned and understood it.

 

[MT1926]

I just listened to a discussion that went as follows. Is membership in the Catholic Church necessary for salvation? A quick answer by a Catholic radio priest speaker was an absolutely yes. In essence his argument was that anyone who knows the Catholic Church is the one true church and rejects it will never attain salvation. I suppose that means they are bound for Hell. Then he qualified his answer with a big “however”. Exceptions are made for those who have never heard of the Church, or have heard of it, but do not know its teachings. In other words the answer is also no. An answer that is a no nullifies the one that was yes. You can’t have a no and a yes answer to a simple two choice question like that. My question is why isn’t that question answered with a no to start with? I don’t like loopholes, especially ones that cover the great majority of the human race who are non-Catholics. Is it somehow more fitting to say yes, then contradict yourself with a no than to admit the answer is no?

It took me a few times hearing this to better understand it, but there is no contradiction.

Tim Staples does the best job explaining this, here is one of his blogs to read.

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-there-really-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church

He’ll do a much better job explaining than I would.

 

[Lover_of_truth]

Yes. It is absolutely necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.
)

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, 468-469)

Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.)

 

[laocmo]

Comments on a couple of quotes from above:

“………Yes, only the members of One True Church will be saved, However, not all of them are visible members of the Church: many of them even don’t realize themselves that they are the members of the Church or that they want the Messiah to come. So, everyone has a chance for salvation. …”

I’ll bet a devout Muslim would be offended if you told him he was an invisible member of the Catholic Church and that he really wanted Jesus to come to earth.

“…there is no contradiction. Tim Staples does the best job explaining this, here is one of his blogs to read. catholic.com/blog/tim-sta…atholic-church……”

As far as Tim Staples explanation, in this blog he has written a total of 3638 words beating around the bush to arrive at no real answer to the simple Yes or No question.

Again, is membership in the Catholic Church necessary for salvation? A yes or no answer please. No yes,…but. No yes with qualifications…. Just a simple “Yes” or “No” will do.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. It is absolutely necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins.

Be careful… you seem to be mis-interpreting ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ as if it were ‘nemo extra ecclesiam salvatur’. Well… you know what I mean…

 

[Gorgias]

I’ll bet a devout Muslim would be offended if you told him he was an invisible member of the Catholic Church

I’m sure he would be. On the other hand, there are folks who are offended that they can’t choose a bathroom based on a particular ‘truth’ that they identify with; and that doesn’t hold water, either…

and that he really wanted Jesus to come to earth.

Cute. Yet, what we’re saying in that case is something that he’d agree with: he wishes to be saved by God, and he is doing what he is able to see as the best way to do so. (As Catholics, we’d say that his ‘best way’ isn’t what saves him, per se – since it’s Jesus who saves – but we’d say that his act of doing what he is able to do is seen favorably by God; and, this ‘being seen favorably’ is what includes him (so to speak) in the Church.)

Again, is membership in the Catholic Church necessary for salvation? A yes or no answer please. No yes,…but. No yes with qualifications…. Just a simple “Yes” or “No” will do.

Tell me – have you stopped beating your wife? A yes or no answer please. No ‘yes, …but.’ No ‘yes with qualifications’… Just a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do.

(In other words, laocmo, not all questions admit of a simple ‘yes or no’ answer.)

 

[Lover_of_truth]

Be careful… you seem to be mis-interpreting ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ as if it were ‘nemo extra ecclesiam salvatur’. Well… you know what I mean…

I don’t even know Latin, so you could please explain to me what you are accusing me of doing instead of being condescending? Also, how am I misinterpreting EENS? I just quoted ex-cathedra quotes from past Vicars of Christ.

 

[laocmo]

…Tell me – have you stopped beating your wife? A yes or no answer please. No ‘yes, …but.’ No ‘yes with qualifications’… Just a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do.

(In other words, laocmo, not all questions admit of a simple ‘yes or no’ answer.)

Your example is not a valid yes/no answerable question as it presupposes that the beating of a wife was a fact. If it was a fact then it could be answered yes or no depending on whether you still did it or do not.

“Is membership in the Catholic Church necessary for salvation” presupposes nothing and is therefore answerable with a simple yes or no.

In my opinion the obvious answer, NO, is too painful to admit, therefore all the thousands of words beating around the bush to avoid saying it.

 

[MT1926]

Again, is membership in the Catholic Church necessary for salvation? A yes or no answer please. No yes,…but. No yes with qualifications…. Just a simple “Yes” or “No” will do.

Gorgias hit the nail on the head:

Tell me – have you stopped beating your wife? A yes or no answer please. No ‘yes, …but.’ No ‘yes with qualifications’… Just a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do.

(In other words, laocmo, not all questions admit of a simple ‘yes or no’ answer.)

Um no :bigyikes: I mean yes. :doh2:

However, I can expand a little further. The reason we can not give a definitive yes or no answer is because only God can judge us. We are bound by his rules and sacraments be he is not. Taking this into account and what little I can guess of your level of culpability, if I were to give my opinion I would say for you and I the answer is “YES” being Catholic is necessary. My reason being is because we both state that we are already members of the Catholic church and we both are here on Catholic.com studying to further our knowledge of the truth. We now know where to find the answers, I don’t think our Lord will be willing to accept any excuses from us from this point on.

To further expand, I just thought of this example. The Catholic church acknowledges that Baptism in non-Catholic churches, if preformed properly, is still a sacrament. Thus the reason if a protestant converts they do not need to be re-baptized. Well say a 1 year old Baptized (non-Catholic) Presbyterian dies, obviously no sin on their soul. The answer to the question in this case, I am sure you would agree, would most likely be a “NO”.

Do you see why a “YES/NO” answer is not so easily given?

 

[John_Martin]

Most equate “saved” with “going to heaven”.

However, “saved” in the bible meant, “being included as a member of the Church”, it meant “being granted citizenship in the Kingdom established by God” (via a baptism and catechization to observe all Christ commanded). Being saved meant, “Okay, you are one of us now, since we gave you citizenship by baptizing and teaching you.”

Going to heaven was the inheritance that would be granted to faithful citizens, or the inheritance is abandoned by those who wished to live in sin unrepentantly.

Going to heaven would also be given to those who were charitable to the least of Christ’s disciples (rather than persecuting Christ’s disciples) (See Matthew’s Gospel - “When I was naked you clothed me…”)

 

[Lover_of_truth]

Gorgias hit the nail on the head:

Um no :bigyikes: I mean yes. :doh2:

However, I can expand a little further. The reason we can not give a definitive yes or no answer is because only God can judge us. We are bound by his rules and sacraments be he is not. Taking this into account and what little I can guess of your level of culpability, if I were to give my opinion I would say for you and I the answer is “YES” being Catholic is necessary. My reason being is because we both state that we are already members of the Catholic church and we both are here on Catholic.com studying to further our knowledge of the truth. We now know where to find the answers, I don’t think our Lord will be willing to accept any excuses from us from this point on.

To further expand, I just thought of this example. The Catholic church acknowledges that Baptism in non-Catholic churches, if preformed properly, is still a sacrament. Thus the reason if a protestant converts they do not need to be re-baptized. Well say a 1 year old Baptized (non-Catholic) Presbyterian dies, obviously no sin on their soul. The answer to the question in this case, I am sure you would agree, would most likely be a “NO”.

Do you see why a “YES/NO” answer is not so easily given?

Except Pope Eugene IV did give us an answer ex cathedra

 

[MT1926]

Except Pope Eugene IV did give us an answer ex cathedra

Haven’t studied the old Pope’s yet could you post it please.

 

[Lover_of_truth]

Haven’t studied the old Pope’s yet could you post it please.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.)

 

[MT1926]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.)

Thanks Truth this was a great insight to study.

I must admit on the first read of this my mind went straight to an infallible yes anyone outside the church is going to hell.

However, being the faithful Catholic that I am if something doesn’t sound right I know the problem is most likely on my end and that means I need to do a little more research. So I read it a few more times.

On the second read I noticed this was written in 1441, 76 years prior to the Protestant reformation. Interesting, that would mean the only Christians at this time would all be Catholic. Ok this kind of lessens the blow a little. I’m getting closer so I better read again.

This time I noticed He starts with “Holy Roman Church firmly believes” then states “outside the Catholic Church”. The first statement leads me to think he is speaking of the “institution” of the Roman Catholic Church which would lead me to wonder why he then states Catholic Church. Why the change? He must be meaning something else by these words. So a little more thought and research.

The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” Also, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation”

This lessens the blow a little more for me, because I am now understanding his statement as "all those who are outside the Catholic Church (the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head).

With this in mind the next statement now reads "unless they are joined to the Church (Christ’s Body) before the end of their lives. How this joining occurs is not defined in this infallible statement.

This next statement was a rough one. I must of read it 20 times. “that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation”. That is when I noticed the word “contribute” which means to help to bring about. It does not give a definitive yes it is necessary for salvation. Also, notice the unity is to the “body”.

Finishing off that sentence we notice he states the works are for eternal rewards not for salvation. That would be a good line to point out to any anti-Catholics who say Catholics try to work their way into heaven. He even continues to further define that no one can work their way into heaven. Finishing off by letting us know works must be done through the Body of Christ.

I didn’t spend a ton of time on this, but after some careful study I don’t see anything in here as a great big “YES”. Basically, to me it is just some fancy words of the time, 1441, reaffirming what we were already taught by Jesus:

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

The only way to heaven is through Jesus. I believe Jesus was smart enough to leave us a visible shepherd (The Catholic Church) here on earth to lead us to the truth. Believe me I raise sheep, without the shepherd they would of been dead years ago.

However, he also said:

John 15:22
22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

Basically, you can’t reject what you don’t know or understand. I think when the word outside is being used it means “knowingly reject” the Body of Christ. All in all I prefer to just leave the judging to God.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t even know Latin, so you could please explain to me what you are accusing me of doing instead of being condescending? Also, how am I misinterpreting EENS? I just quoted ex-cathedra quotes from past Vicars of Christ.

My apologies. Having read your assertion of a particular interpretation of EENS, I presumed that you were familiar with it.

I’m merely reminding you that “outside the church there is no salvation” is not equivalent to “no one outside the church is saved.”

 

[Gorgias]

Your example is not a valid yes/no answerable question as it presupposes that the beating of a wife was a fact. If it was a fact then it could be answered yes or no depending on whether you still did it or do not.

Fair enough: my question is not reasonable, since it makes an unreasonable presumption. Yet, that’s precisely the point: your demand is not reasonable, since it too makes an unreasonable presumption – namely, that your question may be fully answered by simple a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ that fits all cases. The presumption you’re making has a different basis, of course – but it’s an invalid presumption nevertheless.

Let’s take another sort of question that might – on the surface – admit of a “simple yes or no” answer: is it legal for you to drink alcohol?

On the surface, a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ suffices. Yet, that analysis (however attractive) proves to be insufficient. After all, the answer depends on the person being asked: depending on where the person lives and the age of the person, the answer might be ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There’s no single answer that fits all cases, and a complete answer includes not only a single word, but a description of the circumstances that give rise to the particular answer.

“Is membership in the Catholic Church necessary for salvation” presupposes nothing and is therefore answerable with a simple yes or no.

The question itself presupposes nothing… but your assertion that a “simple yes or no” is possible does make an invalid presupposition.

 

[Gorgias]

Is membership to the Catholic church necessary for salvation?

To most Catholics, yes.

Doing good so far…

To non-Catholics and some Catholics, no.

Good distinction…

To a lot of the population, there isn’t even any need for any sort of “salvation”.

Ouch. After a good start, that was a poor finish. All are in need of salvation… :sad_yes:

 

[John_Martin]

Is membership to the Catholic church necessary for salvation?

To most Catholics, yes.
To non-Catholics and some Catholics, no.
To a lot of the population, there isn’t even any need for any sort of “salvation”.
.

You are making the word “necessary” refer to the instinct of the one in need, rather than to the objective goal and the only path to that goal. It is true that a lot of the population do not know of nor think the goal is worthwhile, but whether they know or want the goal, there is a necessary path for anyone to get there. The Shepherd defines what is necessary, not the sheep.

But, again, “being saved” means being anointed in Baptism into membership in the Kingdom of God, means being a member of the Church, means the establishment of “sonship with an intended inheritance”. It does not mean “going to heaven”.

“going to heaven” is not the same as being saved - going to heaven is the receipt of the inheritance. And those who abandon the hope and dwell willfully in sin have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God and of his Christ, while others who were not expecting an inheritance will find they receive one anyway because they fed Jesus when he was hungry.