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

[XBaptist]

Yip…stick with Peter. Stay on the rock.

Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church…so any apostasy will be those leaving the Church…leaving the office of unity…the office of Peter upon whom Jesus built his Church any through whom Jesus protects the Church and her teachings…

If apostates are those who are leaving the Church, doesn’t this include Protestants? The post-reformation Catholic writers (and Doctors of the Church) - Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Alphonsus Ligouri, etc. certainly consider protestants to be apostates - I’ve copied pages of quotes from them to that effect. So, are they wrong? Today’s Church would say so.

This type of thought started before the year 100 - and has continued all the way until Vatican II. This is the fundamental shift in Church thinking that I’m talking about.

From what I understand, apostates are lost, right? So this seems to reinforce the literal understanding of “No Salvation Outside the CC.”

 

[Bookcat]

If apostates are those who are leaving the Church, doesn’t this include Protestants? The post-reformation Catholic writers (and Doctors of the Church) - Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Alphonsus Ligouri, etc. certainly consider protestants to be apostates - I’ve copied pages of quotes from them to that effect. So, are they wrong? Today’s Church would say so.

This type of thought started before the year 100 - and has continued all the way until Vatican II. This is the fundamental shift in Church thinking that I’m talking about.

a good Thomistic or at least scholastic maxim is of use here.

Always distinguish

From the Catechism:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

---

 

[Bookcat]

From what I understand, apostates are lost, right? So this seems to reinforce the literal understanding of “No Salvation Outside the CC.”

God must judge each man.

Our maxim is judge not.

We do not know the fate of any man (in the negative sense).

 

[Bookcat]

Not a shift.

Time.

and that on the part of the parties involved…

Catholics can still become heretics …or schismatics…

One must be formally within the Church at one point to be formally a *heretic *or schismatic…(an apostate is one who later totally rejects the Christian faith they once professed…)

not the children of the children of the children…

 

[Rence]

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.

But nobody does this. People do not intentionally leave what they think is the Truth. They leave because they don’t believe it’s the Truth, and believe they have found the Truth elsewhere. How can another person judge that convert’s intentions? Isn’t that up to God since He is the only One who can see through a person?

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.

**But doesn’t this apply to those who have left the Church for another religion? **

 

[XBaptist]

I still haven’t gotten to all the articles in this thread, but I’m to the point of frustration, and need to quit for the night.

The Catholic Church claims to have protected the “store of faith” from error from the beginning of Christianity. It has taught at least the *concept *of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” in a *literal sense *since the beginning of the Church. I have exact quotes written down from many Church fathers. I’ve done a ton of reading over the last 3 years, and it seems obvious that for 1900 years, the Church has taught a very different understanding of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” than they do now. It was a very clear, literal, and resounding message until about 50 years ago.

I’m sure that the Jews of Jesus’s day had a hard time accepting Jesus’s radical gospel. When He preached, some believed, and some didn’t. Jesus was ALL ABOUT MERCY, and yet He said that those who heard - but didn’t believe - were condemned because they did not believe. That’s simple to understand. Obviously, nobody can be condemned for not believing what they have never heard (ie: invincible ignorance), but Jesus said that once they’ve heard, they either believe or are condemned.

Today’s ecumenical message seems to be that unbelief is no longer condemned. Now it is categorized as “Invincible Ignorance” which includes any excuse imagineable. “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” and “invincible ignorance” have become such a confused mess that they almost mean nothing at all. I can’t believe that we’re the only family that is confused and frustrated by this.

I understand what the Church is saying today. I just don’t understand how this teaching could have changed so drastically from the Pre-Vatican II teaching. I know I’m supposed to submit to the Magisterium, but I’m having a tough time doing that when today’s Magisterium seems to totally contradict previous Magisteriums and the direct words of the Bible.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not anxious to condemn non-Catholics. My entire family is Baptist. Quite frankly, we are all confused by the seeming radical change in the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma. This confusion is an obstacle to their conversion. Even my priest says that there was a radical change of this dogma after Vatican II. We didn’t think that was supposed to happen in the Catholic Church, so we’re a bit confused.

Okay… I’ll try to understand this stuff again tomorrow.

 

[Bengoshi]

Hi there! I was actually thinking of posting the same question on this thread when this came into my e-mail! I’m currently reading a book entitled “EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong” by Christopher Ferrara. I also bought another book with a similar thought entitled “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church” by Anne Roche Muggeridge. Basically, the authors are criticizing the Vatican II documents, with EWTN as a proponent of such “heretical” teachings such as the abandonment of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus est or “outside the church, there is no salvation”, among other things. They said that Vatican II has so promoted ecumenism that it had disastrous effects on the mission of the RCC. Ferrara even quoted Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Dr. Scott Hahn, Frs. Robert Levis , Vincent Serpa and John Trigilio, showing that they have taught doctrines that are contrary to the infallible pronouncements by the previous councils and popes regarding nulla salus and the novus ordo. The arguments seem persuasive, considering the quotes from official documents and encyclicals of the RCC. They further posit that none of the Vatican II documents declared itself infallible teaching unlike those of the earlier conciliar documents. Please tell me if anyone here has read these books and comment on them. Thanks.

 

[RedBert]

For reference here is a listing of some of the degrees or statements.
review posts #2 , #4, and #5 here at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=390318&

the statement “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.” has often been repeated in various ways at various times and it seems so very plain and so very clear.

In previous posts where I and others were questioning Papal degrees or statements (Many were Ex Cathedra), we were linked to this

chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm
The “Necessity” of Being Catholic by James Akin

see the section on " Private Judgment?"

*“**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**,”

so remember that

it is the current Magisterium which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements. not you; even-though the statement has often been repeated in various ways at various times and it seems so very plain and so very clear to you.

you do NOT have the authority to interpret what the plain and clear previous Papal statement actually meant.

And also remember ; the next Magisterium will be intrepreting this Magisterium, and the Magisterium after that will be intrepreting …etc, etc.etc.

in other words :
who are we to think we know what are the meaning of words?
because the clear and plain statements may mean something completely different. (according to the Magisterium)

and that really helps with 100% record on Papal infallibility too!

 

[Abu]

Looking at truth

I’ve only just spotted this thread, so hope I can help.
First, beware of Christopher Ferrara – he has dissenting and schismatic ideas. He will not give you the dogmas or doctrines with truth or clarity.

Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved:
Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC #846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

 

[Saved_Lady]

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…

Salvation and God is not that confusing. Read your Bible and let God give you the answers, not man. May God bless and keep you.

 

[michaelwjarvis]

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?

This question has been very well discussed in the book “Salvation Outside the Church?” by Francis A Sullivan SJ. He concludes (p.204) “What we have tried to show in this book is that it is only one way, and an imperfed\st way at that, in which Chrisianshave expressed their belief that God has given to his church a necessary part to play in his plan to save the world. We cannot be too grateful that in our day the Catholic Church has found a better way to speak of its own role in the divine economy of salvation.”

 

[driscll_books]

Jesus said to the ‘good thief’, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise.” He was never part of the embryonic Church; ergo, one can be saved outside the Church.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” (emphasis added).
Children in utero will have the opportunity, upon being aborted, to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, according to current Church teaching. Such salvation would be outside the Church.

 

[juliamajor]

Salvation and God is not that confusing. Read your Bible and let God give you the answers, not man. May God bless and keep you.

So Baptists never get confused about scripture-never ask their pastors questions, and he never gives any answers? OK!

 

[Bookcat]

Hi there! I was actually thinking of posting the same question on this thread when this came into my e-mail! I’m currently reading a book entitled “EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong” by Christopher Ferrara. I also bought another book with a similar thought entitled “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church” by Anne Roche Muggeridge. Basically, the authors are criticizing the Vatican II documents, with EWTN as a proponent of such “heretical” teachings such as the abandonment of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus est or “outside the church, there is no salvation”, among other things. They said that Vatican II has so promoted ecumenism that it had disastrous effects on the mission of the RCC. Ferrara even quoted Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Dr. Scott Hahn, Frs. Robert Levis , Vincent Serpa and John Trigilio, showing that they have taught doctrines that are contrary to the infallible pronouncements by the previous councils and popes regarding nulla salus and the novus ordo. The arguments seem persuasive, considering the quotes from official documents and encyclicals of the RCC. They further posit that none of the Vatican II documents declared itself infallible teaching unlike those of the earlier conciliar documents. Please tell me if anyone here has read these books and comment on them. Thanks.

NOT GOOD SOURCES…just like reading off the deep end Evangelicals those that are fundamentalist etc…are not good sources to read about the Evangelical movements in Protestantism!!! I mean this in all sincerity to give you context.

 

[juliamajor]

Hi there! I was actually thinking of posting the same question on this thread when this came into my e-mail! I’m currently reading a book entitled “EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong” by Christopher Ferrara. I also bought another book with a similar thought entitled “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church” by Anne Roche Muggeridge. Basically, the authors are criticizing the Vatican II documents, with EWTN as a proponent of such “heretical” teachings such as the abandonment of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus est or “outside the church, there is no salvation”, among other things. They said that Vatican II has so promoted ecumenism that it had disastrous effects on the mission of the RCC. Ferrara even quoted Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Dr. Scott Hahn, Frs. Robert Levis , Vincent Serpa and John Trigilio, showing that they have taught doctrines that are contrary to the infallible pronouncements by the previous councils and popes regarding nulla salus and the novus ordo. The arguments seem persuasive, considering the quotes from official documents and encyclicals of the RCC. They further posit that none of the Vatican II documents declared itself infallible teaching unlike those of the earlier conciliar documents. Please tell me if anyone here has read these books and comment on them. Thanks.

EWTN-as some kind of super liberal , modernistic tv station ?the thought of that is rather funny-why read the sedevacantist ultra wackos stuff?There is no authority other then the Church rhat interpret documents-none.So it doesn’t really matter what “they” say or what is quoted"usually out of context or twisted.These are interpretation of the authors.
EWTN is the most orthodox organization I can think of-so if they are denigrating it then more then likely they are heterodox.

 

[Bookcat]

Jesus said to the ‘good thief’, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise.” He was never part of the embryonic Church; ergo, one can be saved outside the Church.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” (emphasis added).
Children in utero will have the opportunity, upon being aborted, to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, according to current Church teaching. Such salvation would be outside the Church.

Jesus is the head of the Church…hence the Thief was not saved outside the Church… Nor would any aborted Children who go to heaven…

 

[Bookcat]

in other words :
who are we to think we know what are the meaning of words?
because the clear and plain statements may mean something completely different. (according to the Magisterium)

and that really helps with 100% record on Papal infallibility too!

Just as Peter says people can twist the writings of Paul to their destruction…people can twist the writings of the Popes etc …

Which is why Jesus founded a Church…formed a body…and gave authority to teach etc to the Apostles and their successors… who of course in turn were able to say even what went into the Bible…

without that teaching authority the world could be largely Arians…or something else (they too used the Bible for their teachings as did others who taught things no Protestant hold or at least most Protestants would not)

Of course persons can read both the Scriptures…and the Catechism etc…they are suppose to!..

but they need to read it within the Church …

letting those who were given authority by Christ to teach etc…do their job…is their task…with of course the help of the Holy Spirit…

“he who hears you hears me”

 

[Ludovicus]

The Catholic Church claims to have protected the “store of faith” from error from the beginning of Christianity. It has taught at least the *concept *of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” in a *literal sense *since the beginning of the Church. I have exact quotes written down from many Church fathers. I’ve done a ton of reading over the last 3 years, and it seems obvious that for 1900 years, the Church has taught a very different understanding of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” than they do now. It was a very clear, literal, and resounding message until about 50 years ago. . .I understand what the Church is saying today. I just don’t understand how this teaching could have changed so drastically from the Pre-Vatican II teaching. I know I’m supposed to submit to the Magisterium, but I’m having a tough time doing that when today’s Magisterium seems to totally contradict previous Magisteriums and the direct words of the Bible.

In fact, the Church has not taught a different understanding of “No Salvation Outside the Church;” it is true that there has been different emphasis, and generally the fathers of the Church were not addressing the case of non-Catholics who have been brought up from birth in a false religion or in paganism. Nevertheless, when they do address these cases, they are usually pretty clear in regard to their possibility for salvation.

Here is a link to numerous texts by the fathers affirming the current teaching of the Church on “No Salvation Outside the Church.”

outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/search/label/Fathers

God bless,

 

[mtliddy]

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?

 

[Bookcat]

I still haven’t gotten to all the articles in this thread, but I’m to the point of frustration, and need to quit for the night.

The Catholic Church claims to have protected the “store of faith” from error from the beginning of Christianity. It has taught at least the *concept *of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” in a *literal sense *since the beginning of the Church. I have exact quotes written down from many Church fathers. I’ve done a ton of reading over the last 3 years, and it seems obvious that for 1900 years, the Church has taught a very different understanding of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” than they do now. It was a very clear, literal, and resounding message until about 50 years ago.

a very terse page.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

One can see that here the same Pope in the 1800’s said both that “outside the Church there is no salvation” and that there are those who are saved who are not part of the visible Church!

This has been the case!

There is often in the things of God…a “both and”…

Those who are saved by Jesus in not the ordinary way…are STILL SAVED BY JESUS …and those who are saved by Jesus are still involved with the Church …both even if they do no know it.

One can take Scripture such as Acts 4:12

‘And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (RSV)

But we know that it is possible for Jesus to save a person who has never heard of his name…(not his fault…mine perhaps)

but it is still by him that he is saved if he is…by his name…and likewise…those who are saved who are not ‘visible members’ of his Church…Jesus still saves them in relation to his body the Church. And of course the Church triumphant as they say…the Church in heaven receives them and they will be filled in on what they were missing…

(but again this possibility does not mean we are to not preach the Gospel!..for persons need to know Jesus Christ and in him is salvation)

Christ is the head…and the Church is his body…the two go together…head and body.