www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology No salvation outside the church

Hi,

My name is Jason Brim. I just want to take a moment to introduce myself. If I don't, then Pani Rose will get on my case.

I'm a fairly recent convert to the Catholic Church (2001). As my conversion was rather sudden I did not, as I usually do with something that drastic, thoroughly research Catholicism before joining. Much to my consternation that is now catching up with me and I am bombarding myself with questions about doctrine, history, et al.

I graduated from Cranmer Theological House back when I was an Anglican (1998). Started out as a Baptist though. Became a staunch Calvinist (praise God im out of THAT mess)and finally an Anglican and then on to the Catholic Church. Im sure some of you, or maybe most of you, have been down similar roads so you know what its like.

I'm currently in a Roman rite parish but am not terribly happy with it. We have 3 priests all of whom are good men. Thats something to be thankful for. However, I have always been drawn to Eastern worship. Almost went into Orthodoxy a number of years ago. My best friend did go into Orthodoxy and is now a monk. LOL I can't argue with him because no matter what the topic, Orthodoxy is simply right (so he says). I sent him a copy of the post in East and West on "things the west can do right a way" and he nit picked the whole thing apart. *sigh*

From what I have seen so far on this forum theres a lot of nit picking but hey, thats what forums are for. But, this forum at least is interested in ecuminism between east and west and I think that is great.

Ok, enough about me. On to my topic.

I hope im not beating a dead horse with this on. I searched the forum and found a few places where it was brought up but didnt see anything dedicated to it.

Ok, "No salvation outside the Church" is one of those topices that is now coming to haunt me. In the past 2 months I have been happy, sad, depressed, crying, angry and bitter over what I have read or heard this topic means. Whether we like it or not, this is a largely emotional topic. Our opinion of what it means doesnt change the out come of history in the least.

So, what think ye on this topic?

Jason

Hello Roman Redneck,

I'm an Armenian Redneck, (part Armenian part Southener) not a Byzantine, but I'll give you my opinion which you can take or leave.

No Salvation outside of the Church is no big deal. All it means is if someone knows that the Church is true and rejects it, they're doomed. Everyone else still has a possibility of salvation based on what they do with the truth which has been given to them. Only God knows to what degree each of us have been shown the truth and how faithful we've been to this truth.

There's only one true Church. Catholics and Orthodox are true Churches having true Mysteries or Sacraments. I recommend to you to join that part of the Church where you believe God is calling you. If you do this, you will have no regrets. If the Orthodox were not (according to Catholic Church teaching) also true Churches, then the Pope of Rome would be self-condemned. This is because he asked an Orthodox Church which sought to restore Communion with Rome, to hold-off until all of Orthodoxy is ready to reunite with Elder Rome. But he is not self-condemened because he knows that the Orthodox are truly part of God's Church. Therefore he stands as a beacon of ecumenism in modern times.

Hope this helps,
Ghazar

May God rest the soul of Father Leonard Feeney, but the axiom "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is better expressed in English by the sentence "there is no salvation apart from the Church". That is a true statement; salvation means incorporation into Christ. The problem is in itself false; what could it mean to "go to heaven" and refuse incorporation into Christ?
We are called to extend the invitation to all men (in the inclusive sense of that expression). That leaves the question of what happens when someone dies having no connection with the Church - and that question is not really our responsiblity; we confide the person to the mercy of God and we rightly avoid probing too closely into matters which are none of our business. If you wish to pray for someone who was dear to you, and who died in such a circumstance, I suggest offering the Lord's Prayer and at the phrase "Thy will be done", crossing yourself and asking that God's Holy Will be done in the specific matter of that particular person. If you want more, there is a tradition that one should pray the Canon to Saint Varus for such an intention. [I learned that from the Old Ritualists, who have no reputation for doctrinal liberalism!]
Otherwise, again, do not probe too deeply into this matter.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Hello, RomanRedneck!

I think the best way to understand this is to go back to the Catechism of the Catholic Church's paragraphs 838, 846-848. This is the official teaching on the subject and Catholics, to the best of my understanding, should use this explanation and exclude alternatives (I am no ecclesiological expert, though).

This can be found online at www.usccb.org. [usccb.org.]

To my understanding this teaching is bascially the same as what Ghazar said. The issue caused me quite a bit of grief for a while, and I don't remember what text finally reconciled me to the CCC's interpretation (maybe it was Father John Hardon's Catholic Catechism?). If you think one of the priests is a good man, why don't you get on his schedule and try to talk to him about it?

Anyway, I agree with incognitus. I wouldn't get worked up on the issue, and I would avoid running through mental gymnastics like "who is in the Church? what would happen to a South Sea islander who never saw a missionary in his life?".

I would certainly stay far away from polemics, especially those devoted to denegrating or coverting by fear those of other faiths, stating that such and such a person or group will be damned.

Thanks guys for your responses.

I want to throw some ideas out and see what you think. For all i know these are heretical but im just playing around with em.

Scripture tell us that we in the church are a kingdom of priests, a royal priesthood. To whom is the church a priest? Isn't the answer the nations?

IF that is true, does that not imply a rather optimistic perspective concerning those who are not in the church? What I am thinking is that the Church as the body of Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation but it is not necessary to be in the church to be saved. And in fact historically speaking, the church has always been and may remain only a certain percentage of the worlds population. The catechism says that those who are outside the church are in some way 'related' to the church. Can that relationship be described as one of sinner to priest (aka intercessor)?

A passage of scripture that illustrates what I mean is in Job. At the end of the books God tells Jobs three lousy friends to take animals to Job and he would sacrifice them on their behalf and pray for them. Well, Job represents the church and the three lousy friends represent the world. We see that Job regularly offered sacrifices but as far as I know he is not called a priest in the whole book. He certainly was not Hebrew. And that harkens back to Melchizidek who was a priest 'among the nations' of God Most High. Again we see someone who, this time is called a priest, offers sacrifices to God on behalf of the nations. I surmize that we know this because he called God "God Most High" which is the term used by the nations to refer to the Creator, whereas Abraham referred to God as "the LORD" YHWH, a more intimate term.

So before or very near the time of the establishment of the "church" with Abraham, there were other priests of God. It would be interesting to speculate on how they became priests in the first place, I suppose they did so by revelation and not on their own whim. But the point about the Melchizadek story is that we see a movement from Melchizadek to Abraham as the more intimate place where God dwells. God, in some sense removed himself from the nations, an I think this is carried out by these non hebrew priests disappearing. WHy did they disappear? I suggest becasue now, Abraham and his line are the chosen priests of God. Notice I did not say chosen people but priests. Certainly they were Gods people, im not denying that. But the purpose they played in salvation history is that of a priesthood to the nations. There was an internal priesthood, Levitical, yet the entire body of the people constituted a priesthood. Again, if they are all priests then to whom are they priests? I think it must have been the nations. Look at what happened to Israel. On the one hand they were punished by God and dispersed among the nations. Both good and evil people alike. Well, if God is just then he could not punish the righteous along with the wicked so if there were righteous people among the exiles they must have been SENT to new lands for some purpose other than punishment. I suggest it was to carry the knowledge of the LORD to the world. They were scattered all over the place. Synagogs were erected in every city etc. From one perspective, they were to evangelize and bring people into the true religion. On the other hand, regardless of whether people came into the church, they remained priests to the nations.

So if that is true under the old Covenant, why can it not be true now but in reality and not just prototype?

Is religious coversion to the church necessary for the nations? Or are they brough along to salvation through the intercessions of the church? Granted people come and go out of the church all the time. But the vast majority of people in the world will never set foot in a church during their whole lives. These people are not going to convert to Catholicism or ORthodoxy or even Protestantism. It just seems to me that if the church is a kingdom of priests she cannot be priest to herself, she must be priest to those outside of her.

In the NT I point at the closing chapter of the book of Revelation v 17: "And the Spirit and the *bride* say come. and let him who hears say come. and let him who thirsts come and whoever desires, let him take of the water of life freely."

This verse does not *prove* my point but I think it is interesting that there is no implication of anyone calling for people to join the church. Instead we hear the bride, the church, saying Come. Come where? To drink of the water of Life. Well, we all know that this is talking about communion with God. We don't have any water drinking rites (at least as far as I know). Jesus spoke of this water to the woman at the well and in numerous other places. And while it is clear that this communion cannot take place without Jesus, i think it does not appear that there need be any conscious apprehension of him to have it. Certainly all religions are not the same or of equal value. Catholicism, Christianity, is the truth and all other religions in and of themselves are false. And we are to issue the call to one and all to repent and believe the gospel and so come into the church. But there still remains the vast majority of manking to deal with. Can they be saved? Yes they can. How? Through the priestly intercession of the church and the sacrifice of the mass.

I don't know what you guys think, but my perspective on history is very long term. Christ may return tomorrow or he may return a billion years from now. That said we need to take the future seriously. Eventually we are going to colonize the solar system and possibly beyond. Now, just for fun, imagine a world like Star Trek with millions of worlds inhabited by at least *some* humans. Can you imagine the difficulty of mission work in a universe like that?

It would be well nigh impossible. Can you imagine ecclesiastical affairs? Whoah! Something like that is in our future. And there will be Trillions of people in it who never hear the gospel. How will the Church answer the call in that nearly impossible situation? I suggest she does whatever kind of mission work she CAN do and then interceed on behalf of the nations and leave the rest to God.

jason

Hello Jason...

First, having read Ghazar advise - it is excellent.

Second, may I address �No salvation outside the church� from a Catholic perspective. But before I do, let me echo Glazar�s advise to bind yourself to which every particular church that you think you are called to� be it Latin related (associated with Roman Catholic) or Orthodox related.

�No salvation outside the church� is a phrase taken from the documents of early church Councils - and must be understood within the context of those councils and the events those councils were addressing.

It is true that many Catholics have used that phrase out of context - and it is true that many others also think that they understand how Catholic understand it to mean - and they too are off base.

First off, Glazar explains it very well, and what I say is only in addition to his own explanation.

In its original intent the phrase was applied to members of the Church who were excommunicated as heretics. And it held the meaning of - those heretics who fully knew well the truth regarding some aspect of Church theology (revealed items of faith such as God being a Trinity) and willingly reject it and teach otherwise - causing scandal to the church - are not to have the sacrements.

It has never held the meaning that anyone who wishes to be saved must be a member of the Church.

The Church teaches that daily Providence - is the primary means of salvation. And Providence comes to all men� no matter a man be Catholic, Jewish, Buddist, etc� sanctification depends upon Providence and how well we attend to conscience. The sacraments of the Church have the one purpose to assist us as we live daily Providence. Salvation is therefore available to anyone who lives according to a good conscience.

For example - let us imagine for a minute that you lived within the early centuries of the formation of the church - and you became a member of the church - and you learned well and fully understood some items of revealed faith. Revealed faith are those few items which one MUST believe to be a member of the church and are not obtainable by human reason alone. For example - let us take the human nature of Jesus. Let us imagine that you were explained about the divine and human nature of Jesus - and you understood that well. And, for some reason which would bring benefit to yourself - you began to teach (in the name of the church) that Jesus did not have a human nature but was really only a figment of imagination (a phantasm). And, your teaching was causing great harm to the church. You KNEW the truth - and you fully understood it - but for whatever reasons of personal benefit - you decided to willingly teach a falsehood instead. What you have done is that you have rejected what you knew to be true - in favor of teaching a lie or falsehood. Sonce God is bound to truth and reality - then you have clearly and knowingly and willingly - rejected what you knew to be the truth and what is real - and your public teaching (in the name of the church) is causing great confusion to church members who do not know any better.

In rejecting the Truth (Jesus was fully human) that you full well knew and understood - and by teaching otherwise (as if it were the true teaching of the church) you have - yourself - rejected truth and reality and you have rejected - the church - and any means of salvation the church could extend to you. You have willingly and knowingly placed your self outside of the church - for reasons to your own personal benefit.

Once the church determines that you have not done so our of error, misunderstanding, or inability to understand properly - the church can ask you in an official way - to cease teaching the falsehood. If the church determines that you have misunderstood the doctrine - it is required that the church offer to re-catechism you. If you still refuse - then the church can declare that you are excommunicated (not in community with the Church) and you are not to be given the sacraments (the means to salvation that the church is entrusted with).

Excommunication is an official statement and declaration by the church - that you are a member of the church - but not in community with the church. Excommunication does not mean that anyone who is excommunicated is automatically condemned to hell - the church has no powers by which to do that or determine someone�s damnation. And any of the churches determinations do not extend beyond its own membership.

The statements itself �No salvation outside the church� does not mean that non-members of the church can not obtain heaven or sanctification - it means that members of the church who fall away from community with the church and willingly try to do harm to the church by knowing teaching what they know to be false doctrine in the name of the church - are not to be allowed the sacraments.

It was essentially a �membership� rule for the operation and membership of the church - and does not apply to non-members of the church.

At times, members of the church have taken this to the extreme. That is because the church can have a theological definition of �anyone gaining heaven automatically becomes a member of the church�. The thought here is that anyone in heaven - is - a member of the universal church in as much as the church is the body of Christ. In THAT sense you can say �there is no salvation outside the church� because that assumes that that heaven and the church triumphant - are identical. This is true in as much as the church is �the group of people� and heaven is the state of being sanctification after death. But the same thing can not be applied to the church - militant (still alive down here).

So I have given you its original use and meaning - and how it is came to be confused. You should not assign any infallibility to it and should see it as a response in context to the many heresies at the time of these councils - and see it as simple reasonable rules by which to organize and operate the human organization of the church.

At the time of these councils the word we translate here to say �salvation� was used simply to mean - the sacraments entrusted to the church. Eucharist, confession, marriage, ordination etc.. They were considered the �means of salvation� given to the church that it may dispense to its members. Think of it to say and mean that - the sacraments of the church are not to be given to non-members and not to be given to members who defy the church. It is that simple.

Incognitos also mentions what may be a better translation with: "there is no salvation apart from the Church" and it should be understood that the word and context means both �outside� and �apart� and it should be noted that to be �apart� is to have once been united to but now separated from - something. For example to be �apart� from your family or apart from your wife assumes your membership of unity with family or wife. It is a separation from original unity.

And those who were never members of the church can not be apart from what they were not members from in the first place. So you see - the quote in question does specifically apply to those who have severed community by defying the tenants which the community hold.

It also holds the meaning that any sacrements severed from the church - are not valid. And so clergy who have been dalcared as heretics and still preform sacrements - these are not valid. There is no scremental presence. Sacrements must be united to apostlic authority - to be valid. If apostilic authoriy severes itself from priests who are preforming sacrements those 'sacrements' are no longer valid.

The Othodox, and the Byzantines and other churhes united to the Catholic church - all have valid sacrements.


-ray

Ghazar,incognitus,LatinVisitor, and Ray,

Thanks for your replies guys. Usually i don't get so worked up over a topic like this. I'm pretty good about being sufficently emotionally removed to be able to think objectivly. However on this topic I have had a friend, who I now recognise as a Feeneyite, muddying the water. Since I come from a protestant background he was telling me that all my family was damned unless they became catholics. I only fell for that one night in which I bawled my eyes out thinking my grandmother was in hell. But reason returned with the morning. Thank God. I wrote my friend and told him if that was the God of Catholicism I would rather die and go to hell with the Orthodox and the Protestants than to worship such a god. Anyway that ended my one night stand with Fr. Feeney. But it did raise all the questions in my mind about all the many historic quotes on the subject and how some seemed to "prove" the rigorist position. This has bothered me so I did as much research as I could on the net and finally ran across several essays by Fr Most. Pun inteded, they were Most helpful. Also I believe it was here in this forum somewhere that I found a refrence to a book called Salvation outside the Church? I cant recall the authors name because the book is outside on the swing. Anyway whoever recommended this book I salute you and I will grovel at your feet. You said you saw it at amazon for about 70 bucks or so but I found it at ABEbooks for 22.00. So I bought it and it has been a godsend. Traces the development of the doctrine from the second century to Vat II. It very much cleared whatever mud there was left in the water. So again I thank you.

As for the posts you guys have left, I appreciate your insight and experience. I have never really considered that I might justifiably become Orthodox and not have to worry about it. I will definately have to consider that option.

To answer one of your questions as to why not contact one of my priests and chat with him, I havent becasue I alredy know what he thinks. He's completely in line with Vatican II. But I didn't feel that he would be able to give me an objective perspective. I know its a sad thing when you have to say that about your priest, but i have to say it. He's a good man but he's not terribly shall we say, gifted. His answers to questions tend to be too practical and steer far from the intellectual way of looking at things. At any rate, now that I am settled on the issue I just might have a chat with him. We are due for a lunch date anyway.

So, once again, thanks for your replies.

Jason B.

I do not think it's fair to insinuate or say directly to RomanRedneck that one's salvation is not jeopardized by leaving the Catholic Church (i.e., the Catholic Church that is the Communion of 22/23 sui iuris Churches in full communion with the Roman Pope).

Logos Teen

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RomanRedneck:
[QB] Ok, "No salvation outside the Church" is one of those topices that is now coming to haunt me. In the past 2 months I have been happy, sad, depressed, crying, angry and bitter over what I have read or heard this topic means. Whether we like it or not, this is a largely emotional topic. Our opinion of what it means doesnt change the out come of history in the least.

So, what think ye on this topic?

Hello, Jason--

The topic just seems to be controversial and too emotional one, but actually there is nothing like this in it. The main problem in various discussions on it is caused by mistaking the concept of the Church for that of a denomination. The latter is absolutely different from the former. The Church as such consists of God-Man Jesus Christ and all the people who have willingly joined Him in His death and, therefore, resurrection. Thus, the phrase �there is no salvation out of the Church� just implies that a person cannot get the everlasting (that is divine) life without his/her unity with the Creator, the only source of every kind of life. And since we have no instance of connection between the divine and physical natures, except the Embodied Lord Jesus from Nazareth, there is nothing to do but let Him in ourselves at the Eucharist, the common divine and human feast. In short, this newly created God-men unity is the very Church (or Ecclesia in Greek), without which any individual salvation is impossible. So the topic is acceptable enough to discuss and there is no background for people, belonging to different Christian denominations, to feel insulted. The only term of anybody�s Christianity is belonging to a congregation really connected with the Creator through the God-Man Jesus, the only way ensuring to convert the mortal mankind into divine one.

Valerius

I don't believe that this is correct - it is too close to religious indifference and minimizes, even eliminates, the necessity of the sacraments. We know salvation is available to a member of the Church who receives the sacraments with a good conscience. We hope that those who do not receive the sacraments (i.e. non-Catholics and non-Orthodox) can obtain salvation, but in all honesty, we don't know. If they are saved, it is through the Church, the means of salvation, that they are saved. It is dangerous to put one's conscience as the means of salvation; please show me where the Church teaches that "Daily Providence" alone saves someone.

Whereas I believe that the Orthodox receive the saving grace of the Sacraments, and I don't think it is necessary for them to convert to Catholicism for salvation, I don't think I would agree that you do "not have to worry" about becoming Orthodox. A Catholic who leaves the Church in union with Rome could be considered as rejecting the Catholic Church, which is necessary for salvation. This is different from someone born Orthodox, or converting to Orthodoxy from a non-Catholic religion - these people have not consciously rejected union with Rome as a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy would - they have accepted the Truth of Orthodoxy. As a Catholic, we believe that one cannot consciously and with full knowledge reject union with Rome and be saved.

Then I guess I'm in trouble according to your understanding, Francis. I don't agree with you on this. I think for the right reasons one could transfer from an Eastern Catholic Church to an Orthodox one and be quite justified. Of course Rome won't officially say this, because she'd loose half the Eastern Catholics and tick off the other half. Yet I think this is exactly what Balamand points to.

Trusting In Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Dear Francis and Ghazar,

This is a touchy subject, to be sure.

But I've actually heard Eastern Catholics, including one theological professor, say that Eastern Catholics always have the prerogative to return to their Mother Orthodox Church.

I don't know under what circumstances this would apply.

The interesting thing I find is that it is a general principle that Rome does not question Orthodoxy's canonizations and there are RC reps present at such who obtain copies of the icons of the saints being glorified etc.

This occurred also in the year of our Lord 2000 when the New Martyrs of the Bolshevik Yoke were glorified as saints.

Among their number were, as we know, several who were former EAstern Catholics and had become Orthodox - later dying for Christ as Orthodox Christians.

Such was also the case with Saint Arsenius Matsievich, Metropolitan of Rostov, also glorified at that same time as a New Hieromartyr.

He was an Eastern Catholic who became Orthodox after attending a Jesuit seminary in Poland . . .

The famous "Monk of the Eastern Church" Fr. Lev Gillet was associated with Met. Andrew Sheptytsky when he became Orthodox in London, I believe.

Yet, I've met a Studite EC monk who told me he met with Fr. Lev long ago and asked him at what point he became Orthodox.

And to this, the monk said, Fr. Lev replied that he "never repudiated Catholicism" and considered himself to be in communion with Rome!

I'm still unclear as to what Fr. Lev's status with respect to Orthodoxy really was.

Alex

Jason,

I was searching for this Scripture as it came to mind while I was reading the post.

"O Lord, our God Jesus Christ! Through Thine own pure lips Thou hast said that if two shall agree on earth concerning any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them ' by My Heavenly Father, For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:18-19).

In my search I found this story, I think it was told by Solzhenitsyn from one of the footnotes. But, it really illustrates this Scripture reference and the fact that according to Psalm 22:3 God ihabits the praises of his people. �Where two or three are gathered in My name�� A chapter from the Russian samizdat manuscript, "Hieromonk Arseny" http://www.roca.org/OA/75/75h.htm I think you can find your answer. The Fathers of the Church wrote a lot about this statement made by a theologian wrote "When we truly worship the Lord, we absorb His person. We drink in His attributes. When we do, He realigns our reality. He rearranges our perspective." So if we have become Christ like, then my instinct is we are his, for we could not become like his son for any other reason. Anyone who is like Him would be hard pressed to be outside the "church" being the Body of Christ.

Pani Rose

I'm trying not to present "my understanding" as dogma, nor am I trying to judge certain individuals, but am trying to present Catholic Church teachings on this matter.

The reality is that the Catholic Church believes that it is a seriously grave matter (i.e. one effecting salvation) to not be in union with Rome. However, the Church has always said that one must give "full consent of the will" in order to have a grave matter be considered mortal and therefore risk one's salvation. I would say that most "cradle" Orthodox could very easily be seen as not giving "full consent of the will" to reject Rome, as they are simply following Christ in their "home" church. However, someone who explicitly leaves Union with Rome, either for Orthodox or other non-Catholic groups, could seem to be giving the consent of their will to reject Rome.

Of course, God is always the ultimate Judge of any person's actions, intentions, and consent, and therefore their salvation. I have no idea of the heart of someone who leaves the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church, and their reasons, intentions, etc. But if they truly believe all the Catholic Church teaches, they should at least give serious pause before making that move.

This was exactly what I was pointing to when I referred to the Macedonian Orthodox. They expressed "full consent of the will" to retore unity with Rome and were asked to desist on this path by elder Rome herself. If what you have presented as Catholic doctrine is true, both the Macedonian Orthodox and the Pope must be guilty of mortal sin. None of this fits with the obvious facts and none of it fits with the current ecumenical relationship between Rome and the Orthodox Churches, let alone the Balamand Agreement. Believe me, I used to hold the same position, but when you read the joint statements and agreements and look at the actions of the Church, this just doesn't fit. It is much more understandable when applied to Protestants, not Orthodox.

I left Armenian Catholicism for Armenian Orthodoxy. What my intentions in this might "seem" to some people might be very different from the truth (which is known to God). This is why it is better to leave the judgement to God (as you mentioned) rather than saying that such a person has rejected the Catholic Church and therefore can have no salvation. And only a fool would make any ecclesial change without "giving pause" before doing it. I gave it about a ten year pause. On the other hand, others never get out of the pause, they spend the rest of their lives "paused" out of fear of being damned (for following God's call in their hearts). I wouldn't want to see Roman Redneck or anyone do this, and this is why I wrote what I did in my first post. As I said before, he is free to take or leave my advice.

Trusting in Christ's Resurrection,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]