Sermon: No Salvation outside the Catholic Church

[Lycorth]

I know what the Bible teaches, and have never been a Catholic. Funny, my interpretations agree with the Church’s too in almost all cases. How’s that possible?? He never said we needed a Church to do this for us. His Word is for all to hear, not to be “told” what we hear. He created a Church for fellowship, not for it’s leaders to claim infallibility and create rules, doctrines, etc. The Jewish Churches of past did much the same and look what Jesus had to say about them.

And the Catholic Church hasn’t been feuding with itself and others since it’s establishment? Wow.

Comparing the Catholic Church to what the Jews did is apples and oranges. Christ most certainly established a Church for us; check this out for a proper explanation of why the Catholic Church is most certainly Biblical as well as the only Church the Lord gave us. If no Church were needed, all Christians would teach and believe the exact same things; this is not the case, hence a natural authority must be required in order to properly understand the Scriptures or know God’s Will for us all.

As for your interpretations agreeing with most of what the Church already says - then, why do you not make the final leap to the Church, then? Furthermore, just because you (claim to) have such natural conformity with the Church, doesn’t mean everyone else who picks up a Bible and claims he knows what it means does. If that were so, there would not be *thousands *of Protestant sects today, each teaching different doctrines.

As for the Church feuding with itself and others - you have that in any organization with fallible human beings running things. There, however, is infinitely more feuding and chaos outside the Church than within, and the shambles of Western Civilization’s moral and cultural integrity since the so-called “Reformation” ought to be proof enough of this.

Now if we’re going to sidetrack into Sola Scriptura, it ought to be enough to note that the Bible itself does not contain a single direct or implicit statement that the Bible alone is all we need. Scripture alone disproves Scripture Alone.

 

[Dogmatist]

What these post are missing, is that through baptism a person becomes part of the body of Christ and through baptism are saved. The Catholic Church recognizes other christian faiths as less than whole, but it does recognize the salvation offered within them. What is the Church as we speak of it but the body of Christ. So no salvation outside of Christ.
Yet since Christ came for all, the qustion is what is meant that no one can go the Father except through Him. The Church also reconizes the salvation available through none Christian faiths. That the Holy Spirit works through these faiths as well and if they are dong the work of Christ, perhaps not in His name, of taking people form evil and bring them into redemtion and knowlege of God, they aslo are saved.
This is not a coruption of Catholic teaching, this is the teaching. It doesn’t change waht was taught in the past, but expands our understanding of God’s redemption for mankind.

Peace,
FAB

What you’re saying is utterly false and contrary to the church’s perennial teaching. It finds absolutely no support in the Conciliar documents.

Outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. If someone is saved while existing outside of the church’s visible structure, it is because they are innocently ignorant of her, yet believe in one God, attempt to do his will, observe the natural law, and desire implicitly to be part of the church. If someone is saved in a Protestant or Orthodox Church, it is because they are baptized, have true faith, are free from grave sin, and have not culpably rejected Catholic doctrine but believe it implicitly. Children below the age of reason would be the most obvious people who fall in this group.

False religions and false doctrines do not save people. Heresy and schism sever one from the Church. Your statement reduces “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” to the sort of meaningless formula which Pius XII warned against.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

What you’re saying is utterly false and contrary to the church’s perennial teaching. It finds absolutely no support in the Conciliar documents.

Outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. If someone is saved while existing outside of the church’s visible structure, it is because they are innocently ignorant of her, yet believe in one God, attempt to do his will, observe the natural law, and desire implicitly to be part of the church. If someone is saved in a Protestant or Orthodox Church, it is because they are baptized, have true faith, are free from grave sin, and have not culpably rejected Catholic doctrine but believe it implicitly. Children below the age of reason would be the most obvious people who fall in this group.

False religions and false doctrines do not save people. Heresy and schism sever one from the Church. Your statement reduces “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” to the sort of meaningless formula which Pius XII warned against.

I think what you just said is what he was saying. You’re using different language but I think you’re saying the same thing.

 

[Dogmatist]

I think what you just said is what he was saying. You’re using different language but I think you’re saying the same thing.

The difficulty is that he gives the impression that people are perfectly fine in false religions, as if salvation is offered through them and not in spite of them. It has to be made clear that there is a certain obligation to join the Catholic Church once one is exposed to it. Only those who are innocently prevented from joining it can be saved outside of its visible structure.

 

[FAB]

What you’re saying is utterly false and contrary to the church’s perennial teaching. It finds absolutely no support in the Conciliar documents.

Outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. If someone is saved while existing outside of the church’s visible structure, it is because they are innocently ignorant of her, yet believe in one God, attempt to do his will, observe the natural law, and desire implicitly to be part of the church. If someone is saved in a Protestant or Orthodox Church, it is because they are baptized, have true faith, are free from grave sin, and have not culpably rejected Catholic doctrine but believe it implicitly. Children below the age of reason would be the most obvious people who fall in this group.

False religions and false doctrines do not save people. Heresy and schism sever one from the Church. Your statement reduces “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” to the sort of meaningless formula which Pius XII warned against.

I’m not going to argue with you, but your possition is what is in error. I used the Caticism of the Church to show that it does recongize the Holy Spirit working in other faiths. you need to catch up to current teaching and stop quoting Pius XII becuase you believe it supports your position.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The difficulty is that he gives the impression that people are perfectly fine in false religions, as if salvation is offered through them and not in spite of them.

Truth always comes in spite of false religions’ errors, but there are often true teachings in false religions. For instance, the Golden Rule is found in many major religions. There are other elements of various religions that are consistent with Catholic belief and consequently, I would say, emanate from the Catholic Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Through holding fast to the truths of the Catholic Church that can be found in other religions, people can draw closer to God. That’s what FAB was saying. Every false doctrine in a religion is a barrier between souls and God. Every true doctrine in a religion inclines the soul toward God. Through the real truths that exist in other religions, which are the truths of the Catholic Church, God can draw souls in invincible ignorance toward Himself.

It has to be made clear that there is a certain obligation to join the Catholic Church once one is exposed to it. Only those who are innocently prevented from joining it can be saved.

Agreed.

And speaking as a convert, I don’t think any of us should push too hard any personal notions we might have of what is sufficient exposure to qualify as drawing souls out of invincible ignorance. One can know a little about the Catholic Church but not enough to be aware that this faith is true, or a lot, but still not enough if the Spirit has not impressed His truth upon the soul yet. It is the Holy Spirit that impresses the knowledge of His truth upon a soul, not human beings. It is hard for us to judge others and say when they have received such knowledge. The only one who really knows whether a soul is invincibly ignorant or not is God.

I’ve heard people on CAF say that if someone has even heard the name, “The Catholic Church,” they are no longer invincibly ignorant. But in reality, a person is shed of invincible ignorance when the Spirit Himself impresses His truth upon the soul’s consciousness, for He is the only One that can convert anyone. When He speaks to our souls, we must make a choice against what He reveals or for it. Head knowledge about Catholicism doesn’t translate directly into spiritual knowledge. People can know a lot about Catholicism while remaining interiorly deeply ignorant.

And each soul must decide for the Church not only when the Spirit confronts them with the Catholic faith but when the Spirit confronts them with any Catholic truth they might stumble across in the course of their lives.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

The Priest in the sermon in question was 100% in line with Church teaching.

1. No salvation outside the Church is de fide.
2. Invincible ignorance reduces culpability but cannot save you in itself.
3. Baptism of desire and a perfect act of contrition should not be banked on - the Saints say a perfect act of contrition is a rare act indeed.
4. Odds are stacked against someone being genuinely invincibly ignorant, desiring baptism (at least implicitly), living steadfastly according to the natural law and living free of mortal sin their entire life or if they do fall into sin making a perfect act of contrition – all without the sacraments of Christ.

No wonder Ludwig Ott in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” states that the Church only “hesitantly” speaks of the possibility of salvation outside the VISIBLE confines of the Church (not anymore). All the more reason to pray and sacrifice for the conversion of sinners as Our Lady of Fatima requested.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m not going to argue with you, but your possition is what is in error. I used the Caticism of the Church to show that it does recongize the Holy Spirit working in other faiths. you need to catch up to current teaching and stop quoting Pius XII becuase you believe it supports your position.

Peace,
FAB

Pius XII did not disagree with the Catechism about salvation, so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t refer to the Catechism as “current teaching,” as if it differed from the pope. Dogmatist has as much right to use a papal text as you have to use the Catechism. Both are valid Church documents and neither contradicts the other.

 

[HisWill777]

Now if we’re going to sidetrack into Sola Scriptura, it ought to be enough to note that the Bible itself does not contain a single direct or implicit statement that the Bible alone is all we need. Scripture alone disproves Scripture Alone.

I have no interest in manmade arguments about scripture or manmade words “Sola Scriptura”. As if using older language in all these arguments somehow gives them more importance. The Bible of course doesn’t say the Bible is all we need. The books weren’t even all put together by the Church then! The Bible does say faith in Jesus is what we really need, why is that such an argument? Because the Catholic Church loses importance? If the Church were so concerned and followed Jesus’ lead, it would humble itself and not be so in your face with “you need us and what we say to be saved”… You need Jesus to be saved. Love Him, believe in Him, read His teachings in the Scripture, walk in His ways.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have no interest in manmade arguments about scripture or manmade words “Sola Scriptura”. As if using older language in all these arguments somehow gives them more importance. The Bible of course doesn’t say the Bible is all we need. The books weren’t even all put together by the Church then! The Bible does say faith in Jesus is what we really need, why is that such an argument? Because the Catholic Church loses importance? If the Church were so concerned and followed Jesus’ lead, it would humble itself and not be so in your face with “you need us and what we say to be saved”… You need Jesus to be saved. Love Him, believe in Him, read His teachings in the Scripture, walk in His ways.

Would you respond to the two posts I wrote to you?

 

[Shin]

1. Invincible ignorance reduces culpability but cannot save you in itself.

I think this is good to emphasize as a number of people are starting off on the presupposition that it is natural, normal, and automatic for everyone to by default go to Heaven.

Because they have never been taught properly about original sin, its consequences, and the difference between that and where we actually have to be to be holy and pleasing to God.

By default we go to Hell. For most of mankind’s history, no one, absolutely no single person went to Heaven, that is achieved the beatific vision of God. Not a single one.

Until Christ, the doors were closed. Moses, Job, even the holiest men of the old times, had to wait. All Creation waited and groaned.

After, the doors were opened, there was much rejoicing, the path was opened – that path we are told is narrow and few enter therein.

Christ tells us this.

When you understand how few Catholics are saved, the necessity of being Catholic takes on a whole new order of magnitude. When you see what the Church’s true, and constant tradition is regarding the likelihood of salvation for those outside of her visible confines until the end of their lives is…

Evangelization, real evangelization, not the ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ business, achieves its true place in our lives and hearts.

And that real evangelization involves the Way of the Cross, the crucifixion of Christ and your own self, for your own soul’s sake and everyone else’s. We do penance, we pray, we love like Christ… for God’s sake… and for all.

 

[Dogmatist]

Truth always comes in spite of false religions’ errors, but there are often true teachings in false religions. For instance, the Golden Rule is found in many major religions. There are other elements of various religions that are consistent with Catholic belief and consequently, I would say, emanate from the Catholic Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Through holding fast to the truths of the Catholic Church that can be found in other religions, people can draw closer to God. That’s what FAB was saying. Every false doctrine in a religion is a barrier between souls and God. Every true doctrine in a religion inclines the soul toward God. Through the real truths that exist in other religions, which are the truths of the Catholic Church, God can draw souls in invincible ignorance toward Himself.

I think that’s perfectly reasonable and basically completes my thought.

Agreed.

And speaking as a convert, I don’t think any of us should push too hard any personal notions we might have of what is sufficient exposure to qualify as drawing souls out of invincible ignorance. One can know a little about the Catholic Church but not enough to be aware that this faith is true, or a lot, but still not enough if the Spirit has not impressed His truth upon the soul yet. It is the Holy Spirit that impresses the knowledge of His truth upon a soul, not human beings. It is hard for us to judge others and say when they have received such knowledge. The only one who really knows whether a soul is invincibly ignorant or not is God.

I’ve heard people on CAF say that if someone has even heard the name, “The Catholic Church,” they are no longer invincibly ignorant. But in reality, a person is shed of invincible ignorance when the Spirit Himself impresses His truth upon the soul’s consciousness, for He is the only One that can convert anyone. When He speaks to our souls, we must make a choice against what He reveals or for it. Head knowledge about Catholicism doesn’t translate directly into spiritual knowledge. People can know a lot about Catholicism while remaining interiorly deeply ignorant.

And each soul must decide for the Church not only when the Spirit confronts them with the Catholic faith but when the Spirit confronts them with any Catholic truth they might stumble across in the course of their lives.

I’m a lot less comfortable with what you said here. My interpretation is quite a bit stricter, although I don’t think that what you’ve said is outside the bounds of Catholic doctrine.

I think that the burden is placed on the individual to join the church once one is exposed to it or ought to know that it exists. I don’t think that a lack of conviction that the church is true sufficiently reduces culpability for a failure to enter it. I don’t think that any moment of epiphany is necessary in order to be bound to enter the church.

 

[Lycorth]

I have no interest in manmade arguments about scripture or manmade words “Sola Scriptura”. As if using older language in all these arguments somehow gives them more importance. The Bible of course doesn’t say the Bible is all we need. The books weren’t even all put together by the Church then! The Bible does say faith in Jesus is what we really need, why is that such an argument? Because the Catholic Church loses importance? If the Church were so concerned and followed Jesus’ lead, it would humble itself and not be so in your face with “you need us and what we say to be saved”… You need Jesus to be saved. Love Him, believe in Him, read His teachings in the Scripture, walk in His ways.

I’m sorry, but it seemed quite plain to me that you were arguing from a Sola Scruiptura basis. If you were not, I apologize, but there really is no other way to take your posts.

The “argument” I was making is that the Church is necessary and given to us by God for guidance in the Christian walk. The Bible also says that works are needed:
*
Matthew 16:27 - For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

James 2:17 - Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2: 21-25 - Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

1 Peter 1:17 - The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work. *

To claim faith alone saves is a heresy. The Church teaches that it is God’s grace that saves us; faith and works are both necessary, but in the end, it comes to God’s grace:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

265 By the grace of Baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and after death in eternal light.

It is not an issue of the Catholic Church “losing importance”, it is an issue of Catholics remaining loyal to the Church Christ Himself established, in order that we may remain loyal to Christ Himself (which lies at the root of this thread’s actual topic). The Catholic Church never says that we need what it says to be saved but that we need *Christ; *perhaps you need to study what the Church actually teaches (and what it does not) before you slander it.

 

[HisWill777]

Dear HisWill777,

First of all, I love your “777”! The perfection of God overcomes the imperfection of man.

To answer your question, it’s important to know some about the nature of Scripture. When the New Testament’s first books were being written, Christianity had already existed for about 20 years. During those 20 years, Christianity was passed on exclusively through preaching, through the oral passing on of Jesus’ revelations from one mouth to another. As Acts 2:42 says, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” During that period, when people had a question, they didn’t look to the Bible for an answer. They asked the apostles their question and the apostles would tell them what Jesus told them.

When the Bible was originally written, it wasn’t intended to be a doctrinal dissertation or a list of all the truths of the Christian faith. You have a couple epistles to the Corinthians, focused on their specific needs, a long and very deep epistle to the Romans discussing the faith, some short epistles to other churches or individuals, and some long. None of them says in the introduction that it is going to present a compilation of all the truths of Christianity, though. That wasn’t the writers’ purpose. Their purpose was to meet the needs or situations of the churches or people they were writing to. In fact, certain parts of the Bible indicate that the authors didn’t even know they were writing God’s inspired Word. Maybe the Apostle John did when writing the Apocalypse, but Paul doesn’t seem to have known when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:12, “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her . . .” He doesn’t seem to have known that the Lord was inspiring his words, for he says here that they are his words not the Lord’s. Is this the only uninspired passage in the Bible? No. Paul simply didn’t know how remarkably God was using him at the time.

… This teaching was transmitted in oral tradition which was considered infallible, protected by God from error just as the Bible is protected from error. The Bible wasn’t written to tell every doctrine of Christian truth and it wasn’t needed to tell every doctrine of Christian truth (though IMO, it does that too, because God is so glorious). Therefore one wouldn’t have needed to see the “outside of the Church there is no salvation” dogma explicitly laid out in the Bible. The Christians of the period had the teachings of the apostles, Tradition, the same guide Christians used in the first 20 years of Christian history. The Bible was added to the teachings of the apostles, presenting the teachings of the apostles that were originally provided through oral transmission, and much (though not all) of its New Testament is written by apostles.

Now, as far as this particular issue we’re discussing goes, you need to take into account what the Church meant at that time. At the time of the apostles, the Church was both visible and invisible, mystical and corporal. It had a human structure with elders, presbyters and overseers (or bishops) who had authority over the members of the Body, the Church. As Paul wrote in Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.” There are many other passages referring to the authority of the Church leaders. I won’t take the time to present all of them here.

In this time period, the dawn of Christianity, there was only one Church. All Christians were united in the apostolic teaching at that time without any division. If anyone believed in Jesus, they entered the Church. So when Peter insists to the crowds in the Book of Acts that everyone must believe in the Name of Jesus to be saved, it is assumed that they will enter the Church of Jesus, which is the Salvific Body of Jesus. There was no need for the Bible’s writers to say, “you must enter this Church of Jesus to be saved and no other,” because there was no other. But that teaching was one of the original beliefs of the Church from the very beginning, as many quotes from the Early Church Fathers prove. They believed that this was part of the apostles’ teaching, and this doctrine is actually very glorious and beautiful. I want to show you that in my next post.

I do not deny there was one Church established, and that is the way it was intended. However in my opinion the Church and all of us broken away have really messed things up. Catholics (and Protestants) tend to sweep all of the awful things that have occurred under the rug, and just move on with more rules hoping we’ll all forget. If we as Christians all got our act together, united, and focused on Christ and His teachings (as the apostles did) I would be all for one Church.

As for the apostles teaching much outside the Scripture, yes, they did, but they had all that Jesus said to go off of!!! They didn’t use a Bible, but what they taught and spread was the Good News. They taught Jesus life, his works, his resurrection, etc. They didn’t constantly talk about Mary, or saints or any of that. It was the Good News, which was also later contained in The Bible! Jesus and His ways are enough, we don’t need to add things.

 

[Rogerteder]

This is always such a fun debate.

Here is my take on the subject:

I am not to presume God’s mercy.
I can not know who is in the Catholic Church at the time of their death.
I can not know the soul and mind of another person.

God alone is the Judge. God alone will decide. God is just and reasonable.

It is our responsibility to love people into the Catholic Church not nit-pic them out of it.

That is true YOU cant know if an individual dies outside the Church. However, you can speak objectively, and say that if ANYONE dies outside the Church they are not saved. Leave the judging on who is and who isnt up to God.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I think that’s perfectly reasonable and basically completes my thought.

Yeah, I think you and FAB were just using such strongly different language that you started missing the fact that you agreed.

I’m a lot less comfortable with what you said here. My interpretation is quite a bit stricter, although I don’t think that what you’ve said is outside the bounds of Catholic doctrine.

I think that the burden is placed on the individual to join the church once one is exposed to it or ought to know that it exists.

Once one “ought to know” that it is true, not that it simply “exists.” And not by our determinations of when they ought to know, but by God’s.

I don’t think that a lack of conviction that the church is true sufficiently reduces culpability for a failure to enter it.

I think they need to have a consciousness that the Church is true in their souls to be culpable for rejecting it, but they don’t have to be aware of it in their conscious minds. All we deal with here on CAF is people’s conscious minds and what they choose to present. People can lie to themselves about truth as effectively as they can lie to others. In fact, we are much better at lying to ourselves, IMO.

Here’s the passage I think about when I consider people suppressing the truths of God they are conscious of, so that they become ignorant.

Romans 1:21, “Although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.”

The people Paul refers to know the truth in their souls but suppress it. In a sense they become little Satans, for Satan is the Father of Lies and people like these lie to themselves and trick themselves out of the truth. While they are “vain in reasoning” and “senseless,” they became so out of their own choice because at some point God made the truth known to them and they rejected it.

We’re talking about something very subtle here, the awareness of the spirit. It’s not like any good presentation of Catholicism will cleave through people’s invincible ignorance. The Spirit has to work on a soul to make the truth actually sink in or it will fall off like seed on the path. The Spirit cracks through invincible ignorance and when He does, all souls have a responsibility to heed His voice. As the Second Vatican Council said, all souls have an obligation to adhere to the truth insofar as they are aware of it.

This doesn’t let people off the hook for suppressing truth the Spirit has shown them, and that’s something people all too often do. Just because people don’t know the truth doesn’t mean they aren’t culpable for their ignorance; some people receive the light and let it pass them by, or reject it outright and strongly. The more light from God a person receives and rejects, the greater his or her culpability.

Luke 12:47-48

47 "Suppose a servant knows his master’s wishes. But he doesn’t get ready. And he doesn’t do what his master wants. That servant will be beaten with many blows.

48 "But suppose the servant does not know his master’s wishes. And suppose he does things for which he should be punished. He will be beaten with only a few blows.

“Much will be required of everyone who has been given much. Even more will be asked of the person who is supposed to take care of much.”

I think Catholicism is a fair and just religion, in that people are judged based on what they do with what they know (and I mean truly know), not on what they don’t truly know.

I don’t think that any moment of epiphany is necessary in order to be bound to enter the church.

Agreed, but I’m not talking about a moment of epiphany being necessary for the creation of culpability. The greater the truth God shows a soul, the more it is culpable for rejecting it. And truth can be suppressed when we lie to ourselves. But I’m talking about the truth God shows a soul, not the truth we show a soul.

 

[HisWill777]

You know, people make the same kind of statement when they say conservative Christians are being cult-like, ridiculous and harsh for believing St. Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12, when he said, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” I can’t tell you how many liberals and non-Christians got riled at me for believing in that when I was a Protestant. I continue to believe in it as a Catholic. The teaching, “outside of the Church is no salvation” is part of Acts 4:12, for Paul writes that the Church is the Body of Christ. Since there is no salvation without Christ and the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is one, it follows that there is no salvation without Christ’s Body. The Bride rises as one to meet her Bridegroom.

This is also an incarnational teaching. When Christ bought our salvation on the Cross, He suffered in His Body that we might be saved. He suffered with His whole being. Salvation flowed out to us through His Blood, which was, and is, part of His Body. Just as all salvation flowed through His Body on the Cross, all salvation continues to flow through His Body on Earth. And just as He on Earth was one, spirit as well as body, so He remains one here on Earth as well in the form of His Church, visible as well as invisible but not divided.

People like your grandmother may very well be saved. The Church teaches that those that are truly ignorant of Catholicism, through no fault of their own, can still be saved through her because they aren’t judged for what they don’t know but for how they act on what they know. They are saved through and in the salvation of the Catholic Church, for all salvation of Christ is the salvation of the Church because the Church truly is Christ’s Body. If your grandmother truly loved Christ, she truly loved the Catholic Church, though she did not know it at the time, because the Catholic Church is Christ’s Body and she cannot have loved Christ while disliking His Body. She may not have known the Catholic Church for what it was, but she did love it by loving Christ. She was also united with it directly through baptism.

The teaching, “Outside of the Church is no salvation,” is a complex bit of theology. It’s deeply centered on unity, the oneness God creates between us and Himself. So much of Christianity is focused on unity. This doctrine is about how Christ’s Body shares with the Head the task of bringing salvation to the world, and it reveals in broader and more glorious terms how Acts 4:12 is true, that only through and in Christ can anyone be saved. Because salvation is found in Christ alone and the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ and His Body are one, one must find salvation through and in the Church.

I’d like to talk about this more. I may in another post . God bless you!

That is an excellent post. I don’t think most Catholics think or care how they come across when responding to a nonCatholic. I’m all for passion in discussions and being passionate about one’s faith, but we aren’t discussing politics or sports, we’re (most of us) all Christians and should show Love toward each other.

I have said on here over and over that I am swayed by much of the Catholic faith. I mean step back, Lutherans and Catholics are FOR Christ, we all believe in Him, we all love Him and that fact alone should bring us together. We are not enemies, and I don’t care what “hardcore” Catholics say, Jesus would look down on us Christians and be mightily disappointed. Protestants for breaking away from the Church, and Catholics for being so prideful, willful, and in denial of all that is broken and has been broken. We are all culpible in this, and in my opinion, it is ALL of our responsibility to fix it. We and our leaders need to stop arguing and start healing. Not who is to blame, but how can we fix it?

 

[FAB]

Pius XII did not disagree with the Catechism about salvation, so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t refer to the Catechism as “current teaching,” as if it differed from the pope. Dogmatist has as much right to use a papal text as you have to use the Catechism. Both are valid Church documents and neither contradicts the other.

All Salvation Comes through Christ
General Audience — May 31, 1995
www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

The difficulties that sometimes accompany the development of evangelization highlight a delicate problem, whose solution is not to be sought in purely historical or sociological terms. It is the problem of the salvation of those who do not visibly belong to the Church. We have not been given the possibility to discern the mystery of God’s action in minds and hearts, in order to assess the power of Christ’s grace as he takes possession, in life and in death, of all that “the Father gives him,” and which he himself proclaims he does not want to “lose.” We hear him repeat this in one of the suggested Gospel readings in the Mass for the dead (cf. Jn 6:39-40).

However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited “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.” And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: “Many people do not have the 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” (RM 10).

We must acknowledge that, as far as human beings can know and foresee, this practical impossibility would seem destined to last a long time, perhaps until the work of evangelization is finally completed. Jesus himself warned that only the Father knows “the exact time” set by him for the establishment of his kingdom in the world (cf. Acts 1:7).

What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.” As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

Religions can exercise a positive influence on the destiny of those who belong to them and follow their guidance in a sincere spirit. However, if decisive action for salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, we must keep in mind that man receives his salvation only from Christ through the Holy Spirit. Salvation already begins during earthly life. This grace, when accepted and responded to, brings forth fruit in the gospel sense for earth and for heaven.

Hence the importance of the Church’s indispensable role. She “is not an end unto herself, but rather is fervently concerned to be completely of Christ, in Christ and for Christ, as well as completely of men, among men and for men.” This role then is not “ecclesiocentric,” as is sometimes said. The Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ (cf. RM 19). She thus exercises an implicit mediation also with regard to those who do not know the Gospel

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

Redemptoris missio
www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html

Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

1. 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.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.”

Peace,
FAB

 

[peary1]

Moses never joined the Catholic Church while on earth, are you saying Moses is in hell?

Or are you saying that starting at the moment of the Crucifixion, that every devout Jew who died without having heard of Christ is now in hell?

Or would you set the turning point at some other event, like the resurrection or pentecost? No matter where you set it, you’ll be condemning holy people who never heard of Christ to hell.

As the Creed states: He (Jesus) descended into Hell (or Shoal) - the abode of the righteous after He died in order to release all the souls to Heaven. Jesus opened up the gates of glory for them. These righteous souls were those who existed since the time of Adam and Eve. So, why would you even ask if Moses ever joined the Catholic Church? Why would you even ask if a devout Jew who died eithout ever hearing of Christ would go to hell?

The Church does not teach that. What it does teach (follow this closely because I know this is going to be extremely difficult on your part to comprehend) is that (as in Lumen Gentium - that’s a Vatican II document…you should take time to read it some time…very enlightening) those who, in good conscience, follow the precepts of their religion (nonChristian) and never heard of Christ *through no fault of their own *MAY - that is the word used - MAY be granted the grace of salvation.

But the Church also teaches that those who KNOW - the word is KNOW, understand - that the salvation of humankind resides within the Catholic Church yet refuse to accept this, cannot be saved outside of the Church.

The thing is, you have to know that the Catholic Church is Christ’s means of salvation on earth.