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

[RedBert]

People, people, people! Has anything really be resolved with all this haggling? Let’s face it. We are all wannabe religious scholars but, in truth, believe only what we want to believe. I’ve been on both sides of the fence—sixty years as a “born again” Protestant, and five years as a convert to the Catholic faith. If I ever thought for one brief moment that salvation belongs exclusively to Catholics, I would not have joined the church because that would have meant to deny my dear mother and father the hope of heaven. Or, have I got it all wrong and misunderstood what’s being said here? …

All (?) would agree that salvation does exist outside the Catholic Church.
The elephant in the room is Papal / Magisterium infallibility:

Was the Church WRONG when it said there is no salvation outside the Catholic church?
Because if the Church was wrong with an Ex Cathedra statement….then…….you know…

That’s why the sides are so dug in.

Some will point out that that the Church stated on dozens of occasions, in various ways , that there is “No salvation outside the Catholic Church.”

Others will point out that all who are saved are connected to the Catholic Church, but they are connected invisibly , imperfectly or unknowingly.

Then someone will point out that is NOT what the dozen of past statements said.

Then of course the : “we don’t have the authority to interpret Papal statements either”.

Etc…

 

[Abu]

RedBert
You don’t have to wallow in confusion. You know that from Pope St Clement in (circa A.D… 95) it was clearly acknowledged that pagans could be saved.

Further, *Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus *(literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”) needs Latin savvy. 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].

You are also aware now that Christ gave us His Church with His authority to teach infallibly.
Rest assured.

 

[usemelord]

Catholics love to cite stuff that comes directly from Rome to support their arguments, but seem to forget that non-Catholic Christians give no weight or credence to such things which is akin to my earlier example that I give no weight to almost anything connected to the Mormon Church. Catholic doctrine is foreign to a lot of non-Catholics just as Mormon doctrine is foreign to most non-Mormons. Basically you believe, therefore, what you’ve been taught. Although my faith is indescribably more deep and rich in the past five years after coming into the Catholic Church, I have to admit that I am no more, or no less, entitled to salvation by the mere fact that I now practice the Catholic faith. My non-Catholic brothers and sisters are equally entitled. The significant difference, of course, is that in addition to Christ’s saving grace I now also have the Eucharist.

 

[RedBert]

RedBert
You don’t have to wallow in confusion…

not confused at all :
The statements are very clear.
I think the ex cathedra statements were in error :
I think the Popes were wrong.

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.
And obviously in error.

 

[Abu]

RedBert
I think the Popes were wrong.

You have therefore unreasonably denied the clear affirmation of Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95): “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.”

You have unreasonably denied the fact that the Church has condemned the interpretation you hold (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

You have unreasonably denied the meaning of the Latin as understood by Christ’s Church: that we cannot be saved without His Church.

The greater problem is that therefore this is a denial of Jesus the Christ. Why would you want to deny Christ?

 

[RedBert]

You have therefore unreasonably denied the clear affirmation of Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95): “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.”

You have unreasonably denied the fact that the Church has condemned the interpretation you hold (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

You have unreasonably denied the meaning of the Latin as understood by Christ’s Church: that we cannot be saved without His Church.

The greater problem is that therefore this is a denial of Jesus the Christ. Why would you want to deny Christ?

too too funny!

 

[bbentrup]

The statements made ex-Cathedra are of course infallible and correct. Catholics will accept that as a matter of faith, and frankly there are harder things to accept of faith than this. One question is how to reconcile this with the idea of individuals or groups that were never baptized in the Catholic Church (Abraham and all the Biblical fathers, aborted babies, the repentant thief, and many, many more). Before that question, another one? Why worry about it? We can always hope and trust in God who is infinitely just that his mercy will be even more expansive. A person is either saved or he isn’t; frankly it doesn’t help us that much to speculate on this issue. Some potential converts feel they must solve this riddle beofre joining - not an ideal use of time, but understandable. So, then, back to how to reconcile our understanding with the infallible statements. As bookcat has mentioned several times, this is a point of “both/and” - both the saving and the statements are true.

How can Father Abraham be saved through the Catholic Church? How is he subject to the Roman Pontiff? Could an infinite just and merciful God condemn this man of righteousness since he wasn’t Catholic? Obviously, not. God gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. What Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, same for loosing. Peter, the first Roman Pontiff, actually effects binding and loosing in heaven. Is this done by his words, thoughts, actions, decrees? I haven’t the foggiest - but it happens. I am sure the Roman pontiffs are quite willing to open the gates to all souls who have died trusting in Jesus who have not merited any personal condemnation. All are saved through the Pope, even if during their lifetime they were not recognizably part of the Church. There is no salvation outside the church, but all those people who were outside the church are saved! An apparent contradiction ceases to be one when you think about it. I hope this helps - welcome to the Church in your inquiry stage. To the glory of God! Amen!

 

[RedBert]

You have therefore unreasonably denied the clear affirmation of Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95): “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.”

You have unreasonably denied the fact that the Church has condemned the interpretation you hold (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

You have unreasonably denied the meaning of the Latin as understood by Christ’s Church: that we cannot be saved without His Church.

The greater problem is that therefore this is a denial of Jesus the Christ. Why would you want to deny Christ?

Protestants do NOT accept the authority of the Pope or the Doctrine of Infallibility… But we are still connected invisibly, unknowingly, and imperfectly with the Catholic Church , right?

 

[Abu]

RedBert
Why would you want to deny Christ who gave us His Pope with primacy and infallibility in His Church. Surely you accept Her Sacred Scriptures?

 

[EDWARDJL]

I am sure the Roman pontiffs are quite willing to open the gates to all souls who have died trusting in Jesus who have not merited any personal condemnation

This is a troubling statement even for a devout Catholic to make. If you died trusting in Jesus, you do not need the Roman pontiffs blessing to be saved. Jesus is the one who saves. He is the rock of our salvation. The church does not save you, Jesus does.

 

[RedBert]

RedBert
Why would you want to deny Christ who gave us His Pope with primacy and infallibility in His Church. Surely you accept Her Sacred Scriptures?

Do you really need the Protestant answer?: I reject that Christ gave us the Pope with primacy and infallibility in Christ’s Church.

BTW they are HIS (God’s) Sacred Scriptures, not Hers!!!

Try gotquestions.org for any other off topic “whys” you may have.

 

[Des]

My non-Catholic brothers and sisters are equally entitled. The significant difference, of course, is that in addition to Christ’s saving grace I now also have the Eucharist.

I’d be careful how I say something like this since being in the bosom of the Church increases tremendously the chances of being Saved by the very Graces flowing from Her that we knowingly participate in.

How many protestants out there do not even give the Church a chance because certain teachings wouldn’t fit their lifestyle. ( Birth Control, Confession to a Priest, Abortion, Divorce etc.) The sin of pride and pleasure I’m sure plays a large part in protestants remaining where they are. I also wonder if they make a perfect act of contrition with every repentance. I have some serious doubts that many do since a few things have to be present. Catholic have a better chance of forgiveness in the Sacrament of Confession than those who remain outside, even the ones who remain in complete ignorance.

 

[Abu]

RedBert
I reject that Christ gave us the Pope with primacy and infallibility in Christ’s Church.
BTW they are HIS (God’s) Sacred Scriptures, not Hers!!!

That’s why, unreasonably, you reject Christ, without realising.
Our Lord wrote nothing, but built His Church on Peter the Rock, and She gave us the NT, and infallibly declared which books, and no others are the inspired Word of God to form the Bible which you and I would not have without Her. Jesus redeemed us (opened heaven) we can be saved (gain eternal life) only through His Church, even if pagans. That is precisely why He gave us His Church.

Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Most non-Catholic Bibles are missing seven books and thus many miss out on vital truths as they follow Luther’s error of “Scripture Only”…
From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading; half-educated Catholics don’t know this. Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned. Without the Holy Mass, Protestants had only the Bible for spiritual growth and came to see it as the only way to God, missing out on many essential truths, and splitting into some 50,000 differing denominations. Also, the Scriptures privately interpreted cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning and many other modern problems - this results in uncertainty and lack of unified Christian action at times.

Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604. The Church has declared that the Sacred Scriptures are without error as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, while individual opinions and interpretations are not without error. Error is incompatible with truth.

 

[bbentrup]

I am sure the Roman pontiffs are quite willing to open the gates to all souls who have died trusting in Jesus who have not merited any personal condemnation

This is a troubling statement even for a devout Catholic to make. If you died trusting in Jesus, you do not need the Roman pontiffs blessing to be saved. Jesus is the one who saves. He is the rock of our salvation. The church does not save you, Jesus does.

Hey, you do realize that their wills are one in this matter, right?!

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t read all the postings and probably will repeat what others have said.

1. If God is love, as Christians believe, how could he condemn people who are not Catholics? Even those who know Catholic teachings and reject them because of their disagreement will be saved, with exceptions.

 2. We are not saved by our doctrines or by our church affiliation. Consider Jesus when he was asked who will inherit the kingdom. Did he say only those who believed certain dogmas? No, he replied:  love God and love one another. When he was pushed, he gave the parable of the Good Samaritan which held up a Samaritan as the example to follow. The Samaritans belonged to a despised group who had rejected Judaism and had a different set of beliefs, a different holy city, etc. That tells me that church affiliation or subscription to a certain set of beliefs is not necessary.

3. The teaching that outside the church there is no salvation, if it ever were taught, has been set aside, much as limbo has. I seem to recall a Fr. Feeney in the Boston area who tried to keep that teaching alive after Vatican II. I believe he was condemned by the church, unless my memory is flawed, as it sometimes is. 

 4. The teaching that outside the church there is no salvation is one reason why Catholicism has been mistrusted and even despised by many non-Catholics. It sounds so smug and arrogant, like one groups of Christians alone are the chosen people. It may be true that no one comes to the Father except through Christ, but why can't Christ in his mercy allow people of most (maybe all) faiths into the celestial kingdom? Frankly, I envision Christ as doing just that. He will judge us by our simple faith and our love of God and one another and not by church affiliation, loyalty to the Pope, belief in the Immaculate Conception, and other very secondary considerations.

 5. When some have suggested that EWTN carries heresies and heretics, I have to chuckle. EWTN and Mother Angelica - in my view - do what they can to preserve most of pre-Vatican Catholicism. Catholicism needs to make more and more progress into the current times, else it could be bypassed by history. If you believe that Catholicism will survive regardless, you can relax, of course. But when I look around, see Catholics leaving the church in droves, when roughly 10% attend mass in such heavily Catholic areas as Italy, Spain and the province of Quebec, I have to wonder. Let those who live in the past continue to live there, but most Catholics I know want to make reasonable changes based on the real world and not be guided by medieval traditions when superstition was rampant and heretics were put to death. Those were not the 'good old days'. I have read the early Church Fathers. For the age in which they wrote, they could be brilliant. But much of what they wrote was primitive, clearly indicating that the lack of a decent telescope and no micrscope was a major handicap. 

 Why are so many Catholics afraid of significant and urgent change? Don't they trust in the Holy Spirit? 

 God bless people of every faith - all Christians, but also Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Let us take pride in our religion but not denigrate those of other religions. That attitude has been the source of so much hatred and killing and injustice over the centuries. We all can learn from one another.

 

[Abu]

Roy5
most Catholics I know want to make reasonable changes based on the real world and not be guided by medieval traditions when superstition was rampant

Your unfortunate rambling will help little to clarify anything.

The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, are referred to in *Christ Denied *(TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

How many Catholics know this? What are “reasonable changes” ?

 

[Janet1983]

It is NOT Tom, Dick, or Harry that are quoted:
Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans*, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Enchiridion Patristicum)

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

Pope Gregory XVI: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies” (Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832)

St. Bede the Venerable (died A.D. 735): “Just as all within the ark were saved and all outside of it were carried away when the flood came, so when all who are pre-ordained to eternal life have entered the Church, the end of the world will come and all will perish who are found outside.” (Hexaemeron)

etc etc

Well the question is whether or not these things are official teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[RedBert]

Well the question is whether or not these things are official teachings of the Catholic Church.

In the Pope Gregory XVI statement we read

" THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"

Just look at the quantity of statements from 1215 to the 1930s…many are Ex Cathedra at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=390318&
posts 2, 4, 5 and there are more.

so I would say “yes” these WERE the " official teachings of the Catholic Church".

But not any longer…

 

[Abu]

Red Bert

Learns nothing.

Has unreasonably denied the clear affirmation of Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95): “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.”

He has unreasonably denied the fact that the Church has condemned the interpretation he holds (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).
[BTW, this is from the *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor, by Msgr Cormac Burke who is a prelate of Opus Dei and has been a judge of the Roman Rota – the Church’s court in Rome].

He has unreasonably denied the meaning of the Latin as understood by Christ’s Church: that we cannot be saved without His Church. [Extra = without: Msgr Cormac Burke as above].

He has denied that the Sacred Scriptures show that Peter has been given Christ’s authority to teach infallibly.

He has denied that the Sacred Scriptures of the N.T. have been given to us by the Church’s members (including Paul and Christ’s apostles) and the whole canon carefully protected and transcribed and printed and declared infallibly to be the Word of God by Christ’s Church.

He learns nothing.

 

[roman6320]

Well that is the issue, isn’t it?

Through personal observation and common sense clearly show that there are non –Catholics that are saved. (or will end up in heaven).

so Catholics are left with a dilemma on how to reconcile the dozens and dozens of previous Ex Cathedra and other statements by the Popes and early church fathers.

The previous statements, no matter how numerous or clear or repeated, actually meant the opposite of what they stated.
There is Salvation outside the Catholic Church, but dozens of decrees just didn’t clarify that?

I believe najmensi’s post went a long way towards clarifying the situation. As others have said in this thread, historical context is important. The ex cathedra quotes you recently posted came from a time when it was believed that everybody knew the gospel . Therefore those who did not believe were deliberately refusing to join the Church and were in willing rebellion. It was this deliberate refusal that was condemned. As Najmensi pointed out Vatican II STILL condemns this deliberate refusal and affirms the teaching that we must become members of the Church when this truth is presented to us by the Holy Spirit. Again,this central truth HAS NOT CHANGED!
What has changed is the historical situation. We now know that many have not heard the gospel and many are invincibly ignorant. People of other faiths nowadays are born into them and are not rebelling against Catholicism. Many of those who convert are rebelling from the secular humanist world view.(even if many are nominally Catholic) They are NOT rebelling against the Church. It is in this context that the teachings of Vatican II must be understood.
Once the historical context of various quotes are understood one can find that the teachings of the Church have more consistancy than it looks on the surface.