Outside the Church there is No Salvation

A guy at school say me praying my Rosery and starting ranting at me how the Church is this horrible institution by teaching “Out Side the Church there is no Salvation.” I know that some church figures talked about that but, I am not sure if that ever made it as a Dogma. How should I respond (with scripture if there is any to be had on the issue)? Thanks and God bless.

“If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen” (Mt 18:17).

Tell him that if he is honest, and if he looks into it, he will learn that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus was referrig to. But tell him that he will only see that if he is sincere and honest.

And no salvation outside the Church is indeed a dogma - a dogma that liberalism, which pretends to be tolerant - cannot tolerate.

This is a bit of a simplification. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation can come also to Christians outside of the institutional Catholic Church, but only through their connection to the Catholic Church, primarily (exclusively?) through baptism.

“The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “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”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

…[FONT=Times]. This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

[/FONT][FONT=Times]“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

[/FONT]DOMINUS IESUS

The dogma is quite simple. When you get into the “exceptions” it can be complicated.

The dogma is that only Catholics, who believe all that the Church teaches, are subject to the Pope, and partake of the same saraments, can be saved. That is the dogma.

The exception to that rule is much more complex when you get into the minute details of it. That is why Pope Pius IX, who is often quoted as teaching the possibility of the invincibly ignorant attaining salvation, said it was forbidden, for the Bishops to inquiring into this possibility. Why did he forbid it? Because it is easy for even the learned Bishops to drift into error by focusing too much emphasis on the possibility of an exception.

What is interesting today is that almost no one will mention the rule. And if they do it is only to bring up the exception. **Today almost all teaching the exception rather than the dogma. **

[quote= CCC paragraphs 836- 838 Who belongs to the Catholic Church] 836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
[/quote]

[quote=CCC paragraphs 846-848"Outside the Church there is no salvation" ] 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” Mission—a requirement of the Church’s catholicity
[/quote]

To read this section of the CCC click here

You’re probably right there. But that might be because the exception, as it has developed over the years, could be said to have swallowed the rule. I suppose that statement is a bit of an exageration, but not totally off-base.

Scare tactics to build membership… hmmmmmm…

:confused:

I disagree with that characterization.

I’m just confused on what was meant by it…:confused:

This is what science teaches. Our behaviour is as much a product of evolution as our bodies. When we act, it is purely a way of spreading our genes. Even when someone thinks he is being moral or noble, the thought itself is merely a device that the genes use to get their own way.
Marx agreed with this, in his way, though he located the source of desire as material rather than genetic. So too did Freud, though he focused on the sexual act itself rather than on all the other activities a human needs to perform to succeed in life.

So Church and evolutionary scientist alike proclaim, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”. We should demand that the phrase is taught as a dogma in biology lessons. Where the Christian and the atheist disagree is whether the church can be an exception to this. We say yes, Jesus was not as other men. The atheist says no, Jesus was just another man, executing His meaningless genetic program.

This phrase is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: From the catechism:

[size=2]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.

[/size]
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.

I think you have a valid point here. I hope the Pope addresses this in the near future. It has implications for ecumenism and it has implications in terms of our zeal, or lack of zeal, to help save souls.

I think you are referring to the heresy of indifferentism?

The exception is part and parcel of the dogma. You can’t really seperate them. There was, if I remember correctly, a priest in the 1940s or 50s who got into quite alot of trouble for trying to teach the Dogma without the exception.


Bill

If you carefully examine the means used by liberals (wittingly or unwittingly) to undermine the truths of the faith, it is usually through an exadurated emphasis on the exception to the exclusion and eventual denial of the rule.

Some people are so lost in doctrinal indifferentism that you can only make the point with them by drawing a parallel with a moral issue, which I will now do…

Here is an example of how the teaching of the use of birth control could be watered down. First let me state a few facts

Believe it or not, the Church does allow the use of birth control. Did you know that? It is true. It is allowed when the motive is not to prevent birth, but for another medical reason. I forget ther term. I think it is madicinal, or therapudic, or somthing. Humana Vitea discusses this “exception” to the rule.

It is also be true to say that, due to invincible ignorance, not every person who uses birth control is guilty of a mortal sin. If they honestly don’t know the truth, and if their ignorance is truly invincible (due to no fault of their own), then they would not be guilty of a mortal sin. And it may even be true that a whole lot of Catholics today who use birth control are not guilty of a mortal sin. In fact, they are probably not even guilty of any subjective sin.

Therefore, realizing these two facts (both of which are true), what if Catholics were continously told that birth control is not always forbidden by the Church, and even when it is forbidden it is not always sinful. And what would the result be if this was all that Catholic heard for 40 years?

I will tell you what the result would be: It would result in Catholics thinking that the Church has changed its teaching on the use of birth control, and that is is no longer fobidden. That would be the result. They would eventually claim that birth control is allowed by the Church, which is a statement that has some truth to it, but is very misleading.

And that is exactly what has happened with the dogma in question. It has been so watered down that now just about everyone is considered “invincibly ignorant” - even those who have explicitly rejected the Catholic Church.

The final result is that many Catholics today reject the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation - a dogma that they are required to believe to remain in the state of grace.

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held **by faith **that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Most Catholics today have fallen into the following error addressed by Pope Pius XII in 1950

Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis): “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

Interesting. But in your example it is the liberal priests and all who confuse the laity by diluting the Church’s teaching about birth control.

In contrast, as to the the OP and your response, it seems to me it is the very Church Magisterium itself that has emphasized the exception over the rule, at least in more recent times. After all, wasn’t Dominus Iesus written by the current Pope when he was a Cardinal? It’s not like Benedict is known for his liberalism.

Those who prefer to emphasize the exception do not neccessarily believe that many will be saved due to the exception. But since we know that God does not wish any to persish, we pray that this may be so but trust in Him even if there are few who are saved through the exception.

Saying the glass is half full does not change the fact that one has half a glass of water. Nor does one need to stress that it is half empty in order to be truthful.

God Bless,
Maria

I do not see that as an exception. Contraceptive intercourse is always evil. Taking meds that have a secondary effect that is unintended is no exception to the rule.

it is also be true to say that, due to invincible ignorance, not every person who uses birth control is guilty of a mortal sin. If they honestly don’t know the truth, and if their ignorance is truly invincible (due to no fault of their own), then they would not be guilty of a mortal sin. And it may even be true that a whole lot of Catholics today who use birth control are not guilty of a mortal sin. In fact, they are probably not even guilty of any subjective sin.

That is a debatable position to take. We each have a serious obligation to correctly form our consciences. I doubt in this advanced culture many of us will have a legitimate excuse for not seeking to learn the very basics of our faith. I can’t judge anyone’s soul.

Therefore, realizing these two facts (both of which are true), what if Catholics were continously told that birth control is not always forbidden by the Church, and even when it is forbidden it is not always sinful. And what would the result be if this was all that Catholic heard for 40 years?

OK, but that does not absolve completely. How much effort we each put forth is critical.

And that is exactly what has happened with the dogma in question. It has been so watered down that now just about everyone is considered “invincibly ignorant” - even those who have explicitly rejected the Catholic Church.

You raise a legitimate concern. As I said we each have a serious obligation to learn our faith. Can we really claim that we never knew when we used our time and talents to watch sports and Oprah instead of praying more and studying the faith?

I agree the doctrine is often misunderstood and the blame can be spread to both sides of the equation.

[quote="USMC]Believe it or not, the Church does allow the use of birth control. Did you know that? It is true. It is allowed when the motive is not to prevent birth, but for another medical reason. I forget ther term. I think it is madicinal, or therapudic, or somthing. Humana Vitea discusses this “exception” to the rule.
[/quote]

It is an exception to the general rule that women are not allowed to use birth control pills.

[quote=USMC]it is also be true to say that, due to invincible ignorance, not every person who uses birth control is guilty of a mortal sin. If they honestly don’t know the truth, and if their ignorance is truly invincible (due to no fault of their own), then they would not be guilty of a mortal sin. And it may even be true that a whole lot of Catholics today who use birth control are not guilty of a mortal sin. In fact, they are probably not even guilty of any subjective sin.
[/quote]

[quote=]That is a debatable position to take. We each have a serious obligation to correctly form our consciences. I doubt in this advanced culture many of us will have a legitimate excuse for not seeking to learn the very basics of our faith. I can’t judge anyone’s soul.
[/quote]

I agree. And I also think that, in our advanced culture, not many will have an excuse for being ignorant of the Catholic faith.

[quote=USMC]Therefore, realizing these two facts (both of which are true), what if Catholics were continously told that birth control is not always forbidden by the Church, and even when it is forbidden it is not always sinful. And what would the result be if this was all that Catholic heard for 40 years?
[/quote]

[quote=]OK, but that does not absolve completely. How much effort we each put forth is critical.
[/quote]

I agree. I am not arguing for the exception here. I am just trying to make the point. I also don’t think there are many exceptions to the rule that “outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation”.

That is my point. People have watered down the rule to the point of nullifying it.

I’m not sure if we are disagreeing here. The point of my post was to show how the rule is watered down by an over emphasis on the exception.

I had a discussion with a modernist “theologian” one day, which lated about an hour. We discussed all kinds of issues. One of them was abortion, which, of course, he was in favor of. How did he seek to justify abortion? You guess it. By pointing out an exception.

He said, the Church allows a women to put an end to a tubal pregnancy. That kills the fetus, just like abortion.

BTW, this modernist heretic is the “spiritual director” to the local Archbishop. I just typed his name, his loction, and the name of the Archbishop, but decided to delete it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.