Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[XBaptist]

I was a Baptist, but have been attending a Catholic Church for the past 3 years. I really felt like the Catholic Church might be the true Church, but I am hopelessly hung up on the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma, and haven’t been able to figure it out.

As I understand it, “No Salvation Outside CC” is a dogma. That means that once it is set in place, it can’t be changed, right? As I read old “classic” Catholic literature (Alphonsus Ligouri, Theresa of Avila, Augustine, etc), I see a literal “no nonsense” understanding of “No Salvation Outside CC”. I have many pages of quotes and Church writings that say so. This teaching began (as far as I can tell) even before the year 100, and had been taught consistently up until about the last 50 years or so.

Okay, here’s the confusing part. In the modern Catholic Church, this isn’t taught anymore. In fact, the opposite it now taught. I talked to “my priest” and asked him about it, and he said that the CC realized that had been too harsh, and had changed it’s mind - they are more “merciful” since Vatican II. I didn’t think that dogma could be changed like that, can it?

I’m very confused about the whole dogma thing. Can dogma change? Can ex-cathedra dogma be wrong? Is my priest wrong? Is this just something that I’m not supposed to understand?

Also, am I the only Catholic that is hopelessly confused about this topic? I’ve looked for information about this, and all I can find is sedevacantist stuff, which has it’s own set of big problems. It seems everyone else I talk to (several other priests included) is satisfied with the explanation that 1900 years of beliefs have changed in the last 50 years. Am I the only one who is frustrated with this?

I can post some of the saints’ and Popes’ quotes if requested, but I didn’t want to make this post go unnecessarily long.

Can anyone help me, please?

 

[Rolltide]

…I am hopelessly hung up on the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma, and haven’t been able to figure it out.

As I understand it, “No Salvation Outside CC” is a dogma. That means that once it is set in place, it can’t be changed, right?

That is correct.

As I read old “classic” Catholic literature (Alphonsus Ligouri, Theresa of Avila, Augustine, etc), I see a literal “no nonsense” understanding of “No Salvation Outside CC”. I have many pages of quotes and Church writings that say so. This teaching began (as far as I can tell) even before the year 100, and had been taught consistently up until about the last 50 years or so.

Okay, here’s the confusing part. In the modern Catholic Church, this isn’t taught anymore. In fact, the opposite it now taught.

Not true, although the doctrine has developed somewhat over time.

I talked to “my priest” and asked him about it, and he said that the CC realized that had been too harsh, and had changed it’s mind - they are more “merciful” since Vatican II. I didn’t think that dogma could be changed like that, can it?

Dogma cannot change, although we can develop a more thorough understanding of it.

When we say that there is “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”, it does NOT mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved! It means that they might be saved in SPITE of a lack of knowledge. They will be doing the will of God, as passed down through the Bible and proclaimed most fully through the Catholic Church, without even realizing it. It’s akin to this. Imagine the Catholic Church as a 16 year old who goes out and buys a brand new car. They read the entire instruction manual, sign up and take driving lessons, and successfully make it to school. Now, imagine other groups are 16 year olds who go out and buy used cars. They have only partial instruction manuals, or perhaps no instruction manual at all. Some get lessons, but some do not. Now, they may eventually make it safely to school as well, but if school represents the Kingdom of Heaven, which route is the safer choice? If they DO make it to school, it will be by unintentionally following the rules that were in the book they never read and the lessons they never signed up for. (In other words, they were still saved THROUGH the Catholic Church).

Here’s how some of this confusion comes about. If someone knows that the Catholic Church is the true church, or they grow up Catholic and abandon the faith (assuming they have full knowledge of the faith), then they have committed a mortal sin and lose hope of salvation. Most Protestants in the period of the Reformation fell into this category, and so that’s why there are so many harsh condemnations. However, today, many Protestants don’t know the first thing about Catholic doctrine, and so they might fall into the “invincibly ignorant” category. If you are “invincibly ignorant”, then you still have a chance at salvation based on what you know, and it’s always been that way, as the story of the Thief on the Cross attests to. Non-Christian groups may fall into this “invincibly ignorant” category as well, especially if they had no way of knowing about Christianity in the first place. Many documents were written in the 1500s about the chance of salvation for Native Americans when they were first discovered (try reading the papal document Sublimus Dei from that time period about how Indians should be regarded). Many asked, “How could God create two entire continents of people, just for them all to have no chance at salvation and go to hell?” Well, the answer was that they would be judged on their actions based upon the limits of their knowledge and understanding of God.

 

[Hesychios]

Most of your answers will have to come from knowledgeable Catholics, rather than people like me, but as I understand it dogma never really changes.

However, we are all imperfect intellects, and we may not fully understand a dogma, even as we teach it or repeat it to others. There might be some dimension of understanding we just don’t grasp at first, or ever (which begs the question: “if we don’t understand it, what is it for?”). Discussing the subject is difficult because we tend to have emotional reactions to questions which seem to be a challenge to the Faith.

There was a recent thread on the subject of the possibility of dogmatic change here, primarily this is a discussion among Catholics, and although it is long and goes every which way you sound like a very intelligent person and might glean something out of it.

 

[XBaptist]

Thank you very much for your replies…!

I think I am having this trouble because of the forceful language that is used to define and defend this dogma in the pre-Vatican II Church. It doesn’t seem that the current teaching of the Church is a “development” of the dogma, but rather a renunciation of it. As in the words of my priest: “They don’t believe that anymore.” Seems my priest believes that the dogma is actually reversed, and he’s fine with that.

Here’s an example of the “forceful” pre-VII language that I’m talking about. (Also, the following even seems to veto the idea of further developments of dogma, as I understand it.) Anyway, here’s the quote:

*Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: *“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. The only meaning of the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation is that which holy Mother Church has once declared in Her definitions. That meaning is that all who die without the Catholic Faith or outside the Church or in a non-Catholic religion cannot be saved.”

I showed my priest this quote (and several other quotes as well), but his response is that I have to trust the Church’s interpretation of these dogmas and not my own. I’m really struggling with putting my faith into something that doesn’t make any sense to me… that in fact seems to contradict itself. This is why I left the Baptists - because it didn’t make sense to me.

Sorry - I’m not trying to be difficult - it just comes naturally…

 

[shondrea]

First reply really hit the nail on the head. I just want to ad dmy two cents into “knowing” the truth.

Some people say that a person who hears of the Catholic Church, and hears that it is the true church and denies it is damned. But it’s not quite that simple. You can be told something without having any knowledge of it’s truth.

The analogy of the doctor is a good one. Let’s say you are ill, and you need medicine. You’ve needed this medicine your entire life. Every doctor you know, and know very well, tells you that this medicine is what will cure you. And it does. You feel good, and it helps you with your sickness.

Now imagine that another doctor comes to you with a different medicine. He says that this medicine is MUCH better than the one that you are taking. He says that this medicine will make you feel even better, will make you more well.

Who would you believe? You may have heard of this “other” medicine before, but you have no proof of it’s claims of superiority. You have NO reason to believe that your current medicine isn’t enough. You’re living a full, meaningful life on this medicine; why change?

This choice, to stay with your lifelong medicine, is comparable to a Protestant, raised protestant, faithfully Protestant. Their medicine for sin is the Protestant church. it is guiding them through full, meaningful lives, and they have no reason to believe that there could be anything better.

Now, let’s say you decide to look into this OTHER medicine. You read about it. There are a lot of mixed messages from it, but many people are saying it truly IS the best medicine for this sickness. There could never be anything better! After reading, researching, asking people who have taken both medicines, you come to the conclusion that this medicine really IS better, and you should take it.

The Protestant who converts to Catholicism after believeing it to be True takes the new medicine. The one who does not has not taken the medicine, despite KNOWING in their hearts that it is the best medicine. Now, if the sick person falls sicker and dies because they don’t want to change their care to a medicine they KNOW to be better, who do they have to blame but themselves?

BOY that was long. So basically,

There are those who know OF the Church, but have no reason to leave theirs (They were offered this pill, but have no reason to believe it will make them better, as they feel 100% that their medicine is what will give the life) These people may well be saved

There are those who learn about the new medicine, who still don’t think it is true. Those who have heard the teaching’s of the Catholic church, in it’s entire, non distorted manner, and still hold that their faith is what God (their doctor) wants of them. God knows their intentions, and they may be saved

There are those who Know of, learn of, and finally believe the church is TRUE, and will become Catholic. They have taken the new pill.

And finally, there are those who know, learn, and believe, but do not take this medicine. If they die, it’s not the doctor’s fault.

…I heard the analogy somewhere, but I’m not sure if I got it NEAR right!

 

[Monica4316]

Here’s how I see it

the Church has always believed that Christ gives us grace through the Church, through the Sacraments.

In this way, the Church is involved in our salvation, and if a person is outside the Church, they would receive less graces and it might be more difficult for them. But even the graces they do receive, would still be linked to the Church which is the Body of Christ.

So where is the Church?

we believe it is the Catholic Church. At the time they really stressed this point, was before the Reformation and when if you weren’t Catholic you were probably a non Christian. In this way, they were supporting the truth of Christianity. Today, it is still believed that salvation is in the Church, - but because there are many Christians who are not Catholic, the Church had to answer the question: are these Christians in the Church or outside of it?

the answer in the Catechism is that they are linked to it by their baptism, but are not in perfect Communion. That means that the graces they receive come to them through their link with Christ in the Church (by faith and baptism).

So - if Protestants will get saved, it will be through the Church also. But that is assuming they haven’t knowingly and deliberately rejected the full truth of the Church.

Does this mean that only Catholics will be in Heaven? - no
but does it mean that salvation is only found in (through) the Church. - yes.

that’s just my understanding…

dogma doesn’t change, but our understanding and application of it changes.

It’s important to look at this idea in context, imo

God bless

 

[kepha1]

The first time No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church was used was back in the 14th century, when there was only one church, schisms aside. The best article I know of on the subject comes from Fr. W. Most, here.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 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.336

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.337

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."338

 

[Bookcat]

if someone is saved…without ‘knowing Jesus’…which is not their fault…it is still Jesus who saves them…and they still are in communion with his Church…

if someone is saved …without ‘knowing that the Church was founded by Jesus and thus is the ‘ark’ of salvation’…but it is not their fault…they are still saved by Jesus and are in a kind of communion with his Church…

Jesus saves …sometimes without the person explicitly knowing him …or his Church in this life…but it is he that saves…and the Church is present for it is the very body of Christ …

so one can say I think that person is in a sense…not saved “outside the Church” but is like a drowning man …nearly unconscious but still reaching and crying for help…who is fished out of the water by Jesus and hauled aboard the ark …

 

[Bookcat]

*Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: *“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. The only meaning of the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation is that which holy Mother Church has once declared in Her definitions. That meaning is that all who die without the Catholic Faith or outside the Church or in a non-Catholic religion cannot be saved.”

I looked this up in the documents of Vatican I …and IT DOES NOT EXIST.

 

[Bookcat]

A good article by Jimmy Akin the chief apologist of Catholic Answers

chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

In A.D. 400, Augustine said, “When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body … All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (Baptism 5:28:39).

 

[Bookcat]

A good article by Jimmy Akin the chief apologist of Catholic Answers

chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

In A.D. 400, Augustine said, “When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body … All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (Baptism 5:28:39).

Jimmy notes in it:

"What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements…"

and one must remember…that new questions etc come with new centuries etc…and every statement must be understood in the analogy of Faith…that is the totality of the Faith…

 

[Bookcat]

related to the above posts…

A Baptist could take the words of Jesus in Mark " he who does not believe will be condemned".

and take them by themselves and in a way that says that it is not possible for someone to be saved with out an explicit faith in Jesus…

but Jesus can save them…even though they have never heard his name…

so…

just as Scripture must be understood in relation to the whole as well as via the analogy of Faith …as is understood within the Church …so to must various statements from Popes…and Saints etc…which may emphasize on aspect of the Faith in a particular context…be understood via the analogy of Faith and as the Church understands them…

but again…read my above posts too…

by the way – welcome aboard the Ark!

(there are all sorts of animals aboard…some really cool and beautiful…and some less so…and of course there is a good deal of dung on the floor from some of the members…but always look to Noah ( I mean here Peter) and listen to the official teachings etc…which means sometimes one will need to ignore the *** or donkey or even aardvark next to you who does not listen well or who thinks he knows how the boat ought to float…as well as the animals that jumped overboard and who are making a lot of horrible racket outside…while Noah and the crew try so hard to help them back aboard…(I am not here referring to the Protestants in good faith who were born off the ark…for they are linked up with the ark to various degrees…and often are in very cordial conversation with Noah and his crew…)

 

[chaunceygardner]

Here is what Pius IX does say in the documents of Vatican I, Session II on Jan. 6, 1870, in talking about the Profession of Faith:

“This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved…”

This is one of the dogmas of the Church, found on various Catholic sites:

Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

Here is part of what a Catholic website has on this topic. The statement by Eugene IV is particularly chilling:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation” is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“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 and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, 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 by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the 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 he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus )

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos )

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

So the position of the Church has been very consistent over the centuries, and the doctrine as it appears to exist today is a huge departure from that stance. I can understand and appreciate XBaptist’s confusion.

 

[Bookcat]

I can understand and appreciate XBaptist’s confusion.

One would have to check each quote …and as noted above…one must not take them out of the context of the whole! Or outside how the Church understands them…

Just as one needs to understand the words of Jesus…about those who do not believe in him …as well as his words about hating ones mother…and father…and his words about…cutting off hands and eyes…

all must be understood correctly

but it is true…

If someone *knows *that Jesus is the Son of God…and rejects him…then yes he can be choosing to not be with him for eternity…

If someone knows that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and thus wants him to be in that Church…aboard the ark…if he decides to jump overboard etc…he can drown…it is possible…

This does not mean that someone cannot be saved by Jesus (with him involving the Church)…even though the person does not know the name of Jesus or his Church…or has only some distorted view of them…

of course God will be the Judge…and he can do much more than we ever see…

 

[XBaptist]

I’ve read all the above posts, and will be re-reading them over and over in the next few days. I wonder if it just takes a while for my “protestant” brain to adapt to this? I don’t know - but it’s very frustrating to be stuck in this confused state. I’m not trying to cause problems, honest.

Can I add one more thing that is adding to my confusion? In John 6, Jesus talks about the Eucharist being necessary for salvation. He even stresses it - I think 4 times. He says “Truly, truly, I say to you…” Well, where do we get the Eucharist? It’s not available in Protestant churches (at least as far as I understand it).

I recently found a YouTube video (youtube.com/watch?v=gkHsl8hl4yo) where Cardinal Arinze talks about the necessity of the “Catholic Eucharist” and other Catholic Sacraments for salvation. How can someone be saved without it? It would violate Jesus’s specific words. Is it “legal” for the Magesterium to teach something against Jesus’s own words?

Oh - I forgot where it is, but Paul also says something like “If anyone teaches you a different gospel than I have preached to you, even if it’s an angel, or even myself, let him be accursed.” (paraphrase…) So if Paul was a Catholic, this is basically saying “There is no salvation ouside the Catholic Church” isn’t it?

I agree with the part of the Magesterium being the guide (and that we shouldn’t be privately interpreting things), but what happens when the Magesterium actually contradicts what Christ said? (I know you’re going to say that the contradiction is only my interpretation!) Or when the Magesterium says one thing for 1900 years, and the opposite thing now? (Again… my private interpretation, but it’s very hard to just blindly accept what seems to be a contradiction.)

Isn’t there supposed to be an apostasy in the last days? Maybe this is it. Maybe the “changed mind” of the Catholic Church is the thing that we were warned about - and that we’re not supposed to fall into it. Yet, then again, the gates of hell are not supposed to be able to prevail against the Church. If this is the apostasy, what are we supposed to do about it? Keep going to the Catholic Church no matter what it is teaching?

I understand the doctor analogy, and also the idea that someone can be saved “in spite of” their beliefs – or at least I think I understand it… until I re-read the dogmas that have been taught, which seem to contradict these “common sense” approaches. It doesn’t seem “fair” that I would be condemned for being an ignorant (but devout) Baptist, but that’s what Paul, Jesus, the popes, and many saints seem to be saying. The Church’s current beliefs seem much more “reasonable,” but there is so much pre-V2 stuff that seems to be against the current teaching.

I’m very sorry - I’m just not “getting it” yet. I’ll keep trying to understand. Oh - and I’m sorry if that Vatican 1 quote is erroneous - I found it in multiple places on the internet and never bothered to specifically look it up. But… there are so many such pronouncements even dating back to Ignatius (who died in 107, I think) and Clement (4th pope - pre 100’s) that this “no salvation outside…” message is a well-established theme. I can’t believe that all these statements were invented by sedevacantists.

I promise that I’ll keep re-reading your replies, and try to keep my mind open to them. Again, I’m sorry that I’m having so much trouble with this.

 

[Bookcat]

I’ve read all the above posts, and will be re-reading them over and over in the next few days. I wonder if it just takes a while for my “protestant” brain to adapt to this? I don’t know - but it’s very frustrating to be stuck in this confused state. I’m not trying to cause problems, honest.

Can I add one more thing that is adding to my confusion? In John 6, Jesus talks about the Eucharist being necessary for salvation. He even stresses it - I think 4 times. He says “Truly, truly, I say to you…” Well, where do we get the Eucharist? It’s not available in Protestant churches (at least as far as I understand it).

When things are said to be “necessary for salvation” it must be understood that this is not in the absolute sense…it is necessary for those who know and can do so…

Baptism is ‘necessary for salvation’ but the thief on the cross could not be baptized…one can say of course it was a kind of baptism of desire…but still he was not baptized in water…

many things are said to be ‘necessary for salvation’…but this again can not be taken in a ‘Baptist sense’ but in a Catholic sense…

it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus…but it still possible for a person to never have heard of Jesus to be saved by Jesus…

 

[Bookcat]

I recently found a YouTube video (youtube.com/watch?v=gkHsl8hl4yo) where Cardinal Arinze talks about the necessity of the “Catholic Eucharist” and other Catholic Sacraments for salvation. How can someone be saved without it? It would violate Jesus’s specific words. Is it “legal” for the Magesterium to teach something against Jesus’s own words?

humm…so Jesus is contradicting himself in his words to the thief…???

Again all understood in the analogy of Faith…

 

[Bookcat]

Oh - I forgot where it is, but Paul also says something like “If anyone teaches you a different gospel than I have preached to you, even if it’s an angel, or even myself, let him be accursed.” (paraphrase…) So if Paul was a Catholic, this is basically saying “There is no salvation ouside the Catholic Church” isn’t it?

yes Paul was Catholic …and yes this is not what he was talking about…he was talking of other ‘gospels’ which were opposed to the Gospel…not to listen to them…

we need to hold fast to the Gospel as taught by the Apostles and as proclaimed and understood by the Church…

 

[quasimodo]

The key to this is the Catholic dogma that God rewards those who genuinely seek him … if they truly seek him , even if they are not there yet at the time of their death, they will be rewarded.