Salvation outside the church

[Riley259]

A sincere faithful Catholic friend posed this question to me and I’d like some clear, cogent responses to his inquiry:

This has been bothering me for the last few years and I’ve come to a point where I really need someone to give me a clear answer.​

On the subject of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation, there is, first of all, the Athanasian Creed, which begins: “Whoever wishes to be saved must, first of all, hold the Catholic faith, which, unless a man shall have held it whole and inviolate, he will most certainly perish forever.” This is not only a Creed of the Catholic Church that one must believe to be Catholic, but the Athanasian Creed was also part of the Church’s public liturgy. Before Vatican II, it was recited at the Office of Prime on Trinity Sunday.

As for the doctrine “Out-side the Church there is no salvation,” it has been three times defined by the Catholic Church. The most explicit and forceful of these three ex cathedra pronouncements is from the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV. Here the Church declared infallibly:

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442]

This truth is taught repeatedly by the Popes, Saints and holy Doctors throughout the centuries. There is no deviation from one Pope to the next. It is one unchanging doctrine taught from Apostolic times. In fact, according to the perennial teaching of the Church, the dogmatic First Vatican Council, and the Oath Against Modernism, a Pope is not allowed to change any of the doctrines of the Church, since the they are not his to change. Nor is it possible for a Pope to change an objective truth divinely revealed by God. Nor is a Pope allowed to explain doctrine in a manner differently from what the Church always held. To use the words of Vatican I, “The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding.” [Vatican I, Session III, Chap. IV, Dei Filius] Vatican I’s Dei Filius says clearly, “let therefore the understanding, the knowledge and the wisdom of individual men, and of all men of one man, and of the entire Church, grow and advance greatly and powerfully, over the course of the years and the ages, but only in its own class, in the same dogma, with the same meaning and in the same explanation.” The Oath Against Modernism brings out the same truth. The man who takes this Oath makes the following promise, “I sincerely receive the doctrine of faith handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers, with the same meaning and the same explanation (eodem sensu eademque sententia); and consequently I completely reject the heretical fiction of an evolution of dogma, changing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first held.”

For nearly 2000 years, the Popes taught the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation” faithfully, as they knew it to be a truth received from Christ and the Apostles. One of the many 20th Century examples of the continuity of this teaching is found in The Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X. Here we read, “Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics and excommunicated persons.” It states further, “No one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church."​

On the other hand we have the 1997 Catechism quoting Pius XI’s Vatican II document Lumen-Gentium:​

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race … His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city.
…
846 “Outside the Church there is no salvation”
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.
848 “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.”​

The wording here is needlessly vague, evasive even. “The plan of salvation also includes…” “saving designs extend to all…” “may achieve eternal salvation.” - Plans and designs of salvation? Does that mean salvation is found in their current situation or that it’s leading them to a necessary next step? May achieve? How? By eventually coming to conversion, or is it ok to continue in ignorance of Christ? It spends 10 paragraphs answering a yes or no question that it never actually puts in words, and in standard political fashion it leaves you unsure what the answer was. A book like the Catechism should be as clear as possible on the teachings of the Church, especially those that relate to essential conditions of salvation. This strikes me as intentionally avoiding giving a clear answer for fear of being unpopular. Furthermore, Lumen Gentium is not an infallible document and, considering what was quoted from Vatican I about not reinterpreting dogma, “Re-formulated positively” is an awful phrase that should never appear in a Catechism.

Ambiguous wording aside, the Church by and large has been propagating this idea that you don’t need to be Catholic to go to Heaven ever since Vatican II. Now, I’m aware of the modernist leaning - and indeed Masonic infiltration - of much of the hierarchy today. I’d have no problem dismissing the current version of the Catechism as invalid, as the 1966 Dutch Catechism that preceded it was eventually declared, or accepting that JPII willingly or unwillingly spread error, or heck, even that he was an open heretic (his opinion that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the new was plainly an error). My real dilemma is that I don’t want to believe this dogma. It’s difficult to reconcile with the idea of a god who is love incarnate. It doesn’t seem fair that a teenager born to a Muslim family in Nigeria who’s killed by his parents under Sharia law before he has a chance to encounter Christ should automatically go to Hell, or even that the Protestants we live with who probably have even less of an idea of what the Catholic Church teaches than we do and have never heard a convincing word in its favor are doomed because their great, great, great, great grandparents were self-delusional heretics who followed Luther and because we’ve been poor evangelists. So this is a plea for someone to help me understand, either by pointing out how the Vatican II party line is reconcilable with the preceding dogma or explaining this whole thing better. I know I’m not the only one who’s been confused by this.

 

[105lynne]

I, too, struggle with this question. I’m all ears to anyone who can explain it.

 

[CalCatholic]

In my opinion (for what ever it is worth), I believe you answered it for me in your following quotes:

I think the Church Council pondered these situations (among others) over the years and evolved in their thinking and interpretation of the the scriptures (especially the Gospels), with the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

 

[jschutzm]

Ok, that’s a lot to reply to.

Here’s my thoughts…

1. the Catechism is a VERY complex and academic document… not meant for laymen to merely pick up, without the first understanding, read and FULLY understand the Catholic faith. Even with a Catechism and a reasonably informed understanding of the Catholic faith, you are still going to need Church Authority to explain to you and teach you what it means.
   Especially the trickier parts.
2. You can affirm something positively without changing its interpretation. I see no issue with the Catechism trying to re-affirm something positively. Especially something that has been stated in the negative and misunderstood for so many centuries. Non-Catholics even USE that to try and lure people away from the faith. So I think it was ABSOLUTELY imperative that the Church explain the positive side of that dogma. EVERY negative statement has a positive flip-side. for instance: “You can not have icecream” stated postiviely is: “You can have ANY food you want but ice cream”
3. The Church teaches God’s truth on Earth. The Church teaches the truth taught to it which applies for all of mankind. Salvation THROUGH the church is the ‘normative’ means of salvation. But stated more positively… “We are bound by the normal means of salvation… God is not” also… “The sacraments are for us and we are bound to them…God is not, as the Sacraments are not FOR him…they are FOR us”
4. It is absolutely important to keep in mind that God’s PLAN for salvation is that ALL men are called and obtain it. That is his plan, and as fellow human beings… Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Protestants, ALL humans are called to that and we TRULY have that in common with them. This is an important point that the Catechism makes.
   It does not mean that ALL attain it, nor does it make truth subjective or ALL religions equal.
5. related to #4 - The Catechism is RIGHT in that we and Muslims BOTH worship the God of Abraham… the same single God. We DO have that in common with them. They are not right about a lot of things and they hold a different view of God. BUT… the Catechism only states that we share a heritage and we both believe in God. - That is true. The Catechism does not however say that therefore Islam is just as true and valid as is Catholicism.
   I don’t find ANYTHING confusing about what it says or how it says it.
6. You seem to assume that “through the Church” or “outside the Church” means the brick n mortar Church buildings. However… if you look carefully at how this was formulated in the Anthasian creed and other writings… they are almost ALWAYS directed towards those who KNOWINGLY reject the Catholic faith. That is… heretics - they are Catholics who knowingly TEACH false doctrines and pass them on as “catholic doctrines” Excommunicated - they are Catholics (not pagans, not Muslims, not Protestants) who have done something (often teaching heresy) that separates them from the body of Chirst. And lastly… some Pagans knowingly reject Christianity and God.

But in none of the readings I’ve found, does the Church talk about those who through no fault of their own or were raised outside of the Catholic faith and have little to no understanding of it.
That clarification came MUCH later… in the 21st century.

1. You have to consider the AUDIENCE of those earlier Creeds and writings by the forefathers. Christianity was ONE (essentially) there were no Protestant communities and multiple generations raised by Evangelicals or Baptist parents, etc. So the forefathers and Catholic explanations of “no salvation outside of the church” were not really addressing that issue. But they WERE addressing fallen away Catholics… heretics, and those persisting in their old Pagan ways.
   So of course their tone, how they state things, etc. are going to be more forceful and specific to those groups.
2. The analogy of the Ark is a very good one and it exactly what the current understanding is based on. The Catholic faith IS the ark and we have MANY Protestant groups sailing on that Ark, even if they disagree with how it is built. The animals on the ark weren’t aware of how it worked, was constructed, etc. But they benefited from it and sailed onboard, even if they didn’t fully understand.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think it is similar to the way the Catechism articulates the necessity of Baptism in CCC 1257:

*God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. *

The only way we know with certainty that we can be saved is by being baptized into the Catholic Church. This is the way that God has revealed to us as the ordinary way in which we can be saved.

However, since God is not bound to operate only in this way, there exists the possibility that others may be saved in some extraordinary way known to God alone.

Since we know that Jesus is the only Way to the Father and the only One who can save, and since we know that the Church is the Body of Christ on earth, we can still say that these non-Catholics who might be saved are truly saved through Christ and the Church, even if it is in a mysterious way known only to God. Christ is the One who paid the price and shed His blood. He can dispense that salvific gift any way He chooses.

Really, I find the Church’s articulation in the Catechism to be brilliant. First, it emphasizes the importance of the the Church as this ordinary way to salvation which gives us certainty. This discourages laxity in our evangelization efforts because the Church is vitally important. Second, it emphasizes God’s mercy and His ability to work outside of the means He has revealed to us. This discourages presumption in assuming we know the fate of any person’s soul. It also gives us hope that even those who have not been baptized may be counted among the elect.

So really, it gives us the best of both worlds. We cannot take a “live and let live” attitude as though the Church makes no difference. But neither can we adopt a smug, superior attitude as though we alone are going to Heaven. This teaching helps us navigate between those two opposite extremes.

Does that make sense?

 

[jschutzm]

. It doesn’t seem fair that a teenager born to a Muslim family in Nigeria who’s killed by his parents under Sharia law before he has a chance to encounter Christ should automatically go to Hell, or even that the Protestants we live with who probably have even less of an idea of what the Catholic Church teaches than we do and have never heard a convincing word in its favor are doomed because their great, great, great, great grandparents were self-delusional heretics who followed Luther and because we’ve been poor evangelists. So this is a plea for someone to help me understand, either by pointing out how the Vatican II party line is reconcilable with the preceding dogma or explaining this whole thing better. I know I’m not the only one who’s been confused by this.

The bible teaches us that the wages of sin are like a pebble dropped into a pond… the ripples extend outward across the pond. The sins of our forefathers DO impact us, even many generations later.

Secondly, Paul states 2 important ideas regarding salvation

1. that non-Christians will be judged based on how well they kept the laws of God. Their actions will just as easily condemn them as save them. - Stated positively, there is at least a hypothetical chance that a non-Christian who though ignorant of God, who lived by God’s teachings… may be found just and enter heaven.
2. Paul says that although he doesn’t know anything against himself (sin) that by no way means he is saved. - That means, even Paul, the Apostle, didn’t count on his salvation.

Therefore… based on these principles… the Catholic church can not make pronouncements on a specific person’s soul and tell them if they are going to heaven or hell.
Not only is it NOT the church’s place… it is not something she can know for sure, since one can not weigh all the contributing factors in a person’s life. - We can’t even know if a person TRULY believes in God or not.

HOWEVER, the Church has a responsibility to teach people the BEST and NORMATIVE or natural way to heaven. Whether or not God takes mercy on a small Sunni child who is killed by a Christian soldier OR if a wiccan teenager who never understood or was taught much about Christianity and who’s only experience with it was through an abusive parent goes to heaven or hell.
It if NOT for us to know. Perhaps God DOES show mercy on them…

Whether he does or not doesn’t change that the Church STILL teaches that we are to be authenticate to God’s teachings… and we call this orthodox faith that Christ taught us “Catholic” or in the Greek ‘Kathilokos’ - Universal

And regardless of whether a Baptist goes to heaven or not… their faith CAME FROM the Catholic church…for they would not have the Bible, the Trinity, nor Preachers, nor “faith alone” or any of these things without THEE Church founded by Christ.

They may not even have had Seminary schools to teach their Pastors, for the idea of a Seminary and Colleges came from the Catholic church.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Just a few points:

• There is no salvation outside the Church, but it is not necessarily the case that all those who are not formally part of the visible Church are outside it - see Baptism by desire.
• Any members of other religions who are saved are not saved by their religion, but rather because in following the law He has written on their hearts, these people are in fact following God (even if they do not know it).
• The language around such matters sounds vague, but it does say exactly what is meant - it is possible, but it is not to be relied on. I cannot even see into the heart of a Catholic who I know to be attending daily Mass and going to confession twice a week, and who I have never seen do anything that was not morally admirable, to know if he might be saved, how am I to know if a non-Catholic is saved? But I do know that the ordinary method of salvation is within the visible confines of the Church, so I know, all other things being equal(ish), to be inside than out.

Furthermore, while God is not bound to only work within the sacraments, I am not to take for granted that He will work outside of them. So there is no way for me to be certain. A similar situation is the Church’s position on unbaptized babies - we entrust them to God’s mercy, and we tend to hope (and to a certain extent, expect) that God would not condemn these souls that have committed no personal sins to Hell. But we cannot say with certainty that they are saved because we simply haven’t been told.

 

[Jehannette]

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442

The same Council also stated:

The holy synod especially condemns and censures

, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following…
[/quote]

 

[jschutzm]

The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following…

EXACTLY! I totally agree.

You see here that they are saying “and merely being PART of the Catholic church is not MERELY enough to save ya.”
They are in a way affirming that one is PART of the church (and therefore saved through it) if one follows Christ’s teachings.

They wanted to avoid people who were “Christian” in name only… or were ‘card carrying members’ but weren’t living the faith, or worse… specifically doing things against God’s teachings, yet believing they had ‘fire insurance’ - so to speak.

So this affirms that the teaching has not changed. Stated differently over time…but always the same.
One is ‘part of the church’ if one follows Christ’s teachings, even if not in perfect union with the One True Catholic faith. One is therefore saved ‘through the church’ because the Church is the source of our teachings about Christ.

And the MORE I read the early Church forefathers… the more I am convinced that this has always been the doctrine, even if it wasn’t always articulated in an easy to understand way for those living in the 21st century.

 

[Iaamiccwint]

Father Michael Manning once said on CNN on Lary King Live that salvation is possible outside the Church and that he doesn’t believe God is about sending people to hell.

Father Michael Manning is a good man, and believes good people who seek God are destined to heaven. He belives that salvation is in the Lord’s hands and not by Man.

Father Michael Manning’s teachings are revolutionary.

Peace and Blessings.

 

[MidnightSun12]

My real dilemma is that I don’t want to believe this dogma. It’s difficult to reconcile with the idea of a god who is love incarnate. It doesn’t seem fair that a teenager born to a Muslim family in Nigeria who’s killed by his parents under Sharia law before he has a chance to encounter Christ should automatically go to Hell, or even that the Protestants we live with who probably have even less of an idea of what the Catholic Church teaches than we do and have never heard a convincing word in its favor are doomed because their great, great, great, great grandparents were self-delusional heretics who followed Luther and because we’ve been poor evangelists.

The truth is that God has a specific plan for salvation in mind for every, single person. It doesn’t matter if that person is a cradle Catholic or if he/she was born in a tribe in the rainforest and was never even exposed to the Catholic church… if that person has gone to hell then it’s because they chose (with full knowledge and consent) to reject God from their lives and did what they knew was evil and remained unrepentent in that sin until they died.

For example, before I came into the church I committed all sorts of sins. I had almost no knowledge of the Catholic catechism so I didn’t “officially” know that the Catholic Church considered these things to be a sin, but my conscience let me know that it was wrong. Deep down, I knew fully and completely that what I was doing was very, very wrong and I felt very bad and tried to hide it away as a result. Now I might have been able to justify to a fellow human being that I’m innocent because I didn’t read the rules in writing, but I knew that if I was standing before God in judgment there would be nothing for me to hide behind regardless of whether I officially knew the teachings of the Church or not.

I quote St. Leonard of Port Maurice: - source: olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that** it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law**. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid. So it is their conscience that accused them at the Tribunal of God, and it tells them constantly in hell, “Thy damnation comes from thee.” They do not know what to answer and are obliged to confess that they are deserving of their fate.

 

[thistle]

I, too, struggle with this question. I’m all ears to anyone who can explain it.

Church teaching:

• Baptism is necessary for salvation (but does not ensure it as you must die in a state of grace).
• There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

So how can you be baptised and Catholic/deemed to be Catholic? There are 4 ways:

• Sacramental Baptism as a Catholic
• Baptism of Blood (non-Catholic dying for the Catholic Faith)
• Baptism of Desire - Explicit (e.g. a catechumen going through RCIA)
• Baptism of Desire - Implicit (invincible ignorance which means those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, His Gospel, or His Church but still live a life according to the teachings of Christ in that ignorance)

You can debate who may or may not be included under invincible ignorance but outside the above 4 there is no salvation.

Not all Catholics go to Heaven but everyone in Heaven is Catholic.

 

[R_C]

The real issue is the definition of Church.

The Church is not “the Catholic church”. The Church is the mystical body of Christ, whose members are “born of water and spirit”.

Ever since the First Council of Costantinople (381) we officially profess our belief in one universal (Καθολικὴν , katholicos) Church.

We do profess that the Church fully subsists in the Catholic church governed by Peter’s successor and the bishops in communion with him, as the Lumen Gentium states clearly:

Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata

But all baptized Christians are in the mystical body of Christ and may obtain salvation. This is very difficult without the Seven Sacraments, but, as the Doctor Angelicus wonderfully states:

Deus non alligatur sacramentis

As for non-Christians, the Magisterium of the Church states:

There is a bond between all peoples

The Catholic Church recognizes that whatever is good or true in other religions comes from God and is a reflection of his truth.

thanks to Christ and to his Church, those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.

Furthermore the blessed pope John Paul II stated in the encyclical Redemptoris Missio that

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

Pax Christi tecum

 

[NorthTexan88]

I have actually been having a problem with this lately, I know it’s been talked about like crazy on CAF, but I still cant wrap my head how people from other religions can be saved, this goes against what I was tought growing up. If the Church teaches it then I believe it, but I can’t seem to understand it.
All the quotes from the ECF’s and other writers in the Church were that there was no salvation outside of the Church, did this doctrine develop over time or something?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not all Catholics go to Heaven but everyone in Heaven is Catholic.

There’s a fair number of Orthodox saints.

 

[R_C]

There’s a fair number of Orthodox saints.

Unless I am wrong, the orthodox church has always professed to be part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

 

[R_C]

I have actually been having a problem with this lately, I know it’s been talked about like crazy on CAF, but I still cant wrap my head how people from other religions can be saved, this goes against what I was tought growing up. If the Church teaches it then I believe it, but I can’t seem to understand it.
All the quotes from the ECF’s and other writers in the Church were that there was no salvation outside of the Church, did this doctrine develop over time or something?

Why is it so hard to believe?

Maybe the teachings of our Holy Mother Church have evolved through time, but what did our beloved Lord say?

He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

See? The Lord, as He always does, goes straight to the heart of God’s infinite love and shows that salvation is truly catholic, that is, truly universal

More extensively He states:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. …] This is the judgment: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

And what did God speak through the prophets of old?

I have loved you with an everlasting love

The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors

I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord.

If a person in another religion feels close to God and loves Him - though he does not know Him - and loves his neighbor, would it be fair and fit of an infinitely just and infinitely merciful Lord to deny him salvation? Moreover, if that person truly knew Christ, would he or she reject Him?

The Church does not believe so, and has been stating it more clearly nowadays. But we always knew through the sacred scriptures that salvation is truly universal through Christ, either visibly or mystically.

“Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned.”

 

[thistle]

There’s a fair number of Orthodox saints.

The Orthodox Church is a schismatic part of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tetiaroa]

The real issue is the definition of Church.

The Church is not “the Catholic church”. The Church is the mystical body of Christ, whose members are “born of water and spirit”.

Ever since the First Council of Costantinople (381) we officially profess our belief in one universal (Καθολικὴν , katholicos) Church.

We do profess that the Church fully subsists in the Catholic church governed by Peter’s successor and the bishops in communion with him, as the Lumen Gentium states clearly:

But all baptized Christians are in the mystical body of Christ and may obtain salvation. This is very difficult without the Seven Sacraments, but, as the Doctor Angelicus wonderfully states:

As for non-Christians, the Magisterium of the Church states:

Furthermore the blessed pope John Paul II stated in the encyclical Redemptoris Missio that

Pax Christi tecum

Thank you,

As for Matthew 20:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Does this mean that there is no longer a need to baptize, no need to TEACH to observe ALL that Jesus commanded his apostles?

 

[R_C]

Thank you,

As for Matthew 20:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Does this mean that there is no longer a need to baptize, no need to TEACH to observe ALL that Jesus commanded his apostles?

I think I answered to your question in this post but I think now that yours was a rhetorical question…if Christ commanded to baptize and teach, how can there no longer be such need? But we are not God, so salvation of others is not limited to what us Christians do or fail to do…the Lord knows better