For many centuries the Church taught that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” On the surface this seems to be a straightforward claim that people cannot be saved unless they are members of the Catholic Church.
Vatican II (1962–65) expressed positivity about non-Catholics. But how can the Church be positive about those condemned to miss out on salvation? It raises the question of whether the Church has changed its teachings, or its interpretation of the claim that “there is no salvation outside the Church.”
1. Church Teaching
The claim that “there is no salvation outside the Church” has been reiterated for centuries by Councils and Popes.
In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council stated:
There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved. (Lateran IV, 1)
In 1302 Pope Boniface VIII said:
We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam).
When membership of the Church involves accepting Papal Supremacy (see Vatican I, 1870; Pastor Aeternus, Chap. 3), Boniface VIII’s comments are just another way of saying “no salvation outside the Church.”
In 1442 the Council of Florence (1442) stated:
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, …, cannot share in eternal life… unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. (Cum Cantate)
As a result of its authoritative repetition, the Church has traditionally considered the claim that “there is no salvation outside the Church” to be an (infallible) dogma.
2. Scripture
To some extent, the dogma comes straight out of a Scriptural text. The Great Commission states:
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
Scripture seems to say that salvation is only possible for those with faith + baptism. As faith + baptism is an entry requirement for the Church, this leads to the seemingly obvious “exclusivist” conclusion that only those in the Church can be saved.
However, there are other Scriptural texts which seem to offer a more optimistic and “inclusivist” view, that salvation is available to everyone. St Paul’s first letter to Timothy states:
[God] wills everyone to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)
These differing Scriptural texts indicate that salvation is a complicated concept. It cannot be reduced to a purely exclusivist or a purely inclusivist vision. This means that interpretations of the claim that there is “no salvation outside the Church” cannot be understood in a simplistic way.
3. Early Christianity
The Early Church’s reflections on salvation showed the complexities involved in the doctrine.
Exclusivist sounding ideas can be seen in writers like St. Cyprian (d. 258), who explicitly stated that there is “no salvation outside the Church” (Epistle 72, #21). But he was referring to a context involving heretics.
Can we really generalize from heretics who have rejected faith, to those who have never had the chance to hear about faith? St. Irenaeus (d. 202), seemed to think not. He seemed to think that salvation might be available to everyone who has practiced justice (Adversus Haereses, Book 4, Chap. 22, #2).
Furthermore, if salvation is only available to those with faith + baptism, what about babies who have baptism, but not faith? And what about catechumens who die with faith but not baptism? And what about Old Testament figures like King David, who seemed to have had neither faith nor baptism?
Examples like this raise scenarios where many theologians thought that salvation must be possible. But they also seemed to clash with the idea that there is “no salvation outside the Church,” when that is understood as requiring faith + baptism.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas
One of the most obvious problems with the claim that there is “no salvation outside the Church,” is that it seems unjust. In the case of those who have never heard about Christianity, how can their salvation depend upon faith + baptism? Denying them salvation seems to be punishing them for something that is beyond their control. Yet Jesus seemed to say that punishment should be proportionate to what people are actually responsible for (e.g., Luke 12:47-48)?
Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) addressed this issue by asking us to consider the case of a person who has been raised by wolves, without contact with other humans. He states:
It pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation… Thus, if someone… brought up [amongst wolves] followed the direction of natural reason… we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him… what had to be believed, or would send some preacher. (De Veritate Q.14, a.11, ad.1)
Aquinas is absolutely clear that no one can be excluded from God’s offer of salvation; even if he is less clear about how exactly God would bring that about.
Wolfman is effectively “invincibly ignorant” of Christianity, as his ignorance is beyond his control. Aquinas seems to think that his invincible ignorance triggers God’s (extraordinary) intervention, to ensure that he still has a possibility of salvation.
What this means is that just because a person is outside of the visible Church, it does not mean that God cannot yet act (somehow), so that the person has the opportunity to count as “in the Church,” and thus be saved.
5. Psychological Barriers
Aquinas considered the case of someone who was “objectively” unable to encounter Christianity. But what of someone who encounters Christianity but experiences “subjective” (psychological) barriers?
This scenario arose during the conquest of South America. Conquistadors robbed and murdered their way across the Americas. Sometimes they tried to justify their actions by insisting that they were spreading Christianity in the face of resistance. When indigenous peoples rejected the conquistadors violent “evangelization,” it raised the question of whether they were rejecting salvation.
Theologians such as Francisco de Vitoria (d. 1546) and Bartolomé de Las Casas (d. 1566) dismissed such an idea. They insisted that victims of the crimes of the conquistadors were psychologically unable to hear the gospel. Their circumstances amounted to a type of subjective invincible ignorance (see “Invincible Ignorance and the Americas”).
The concept of Psychological Invincible Ignorance has also been cited in modern cases of clerical abuse. When the wounds of abuse drive people out of the Church, they create such serious psychological barriers that victims become invincibly ignorant of the role of the Church in salvation.
If the idea of Psychological Invincible Ignorance makes sense, then it has implications for the interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church.” It means that just because a person may seem to reject the Church, it doesn’t mean that the person automatically rejects salvation.
6. Pius IX
A formal recognition of invincible ignorance occurs in the papal teaching of Pius IX. In 1863 he wrote:
It is again necessary to mention… a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation, although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity… There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance… Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts… they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7)
Pius IX believed that there is no salvation outside the Church. But non-Catholics with invincible ignorance can still be saved. The non-Catholics cannot be saved by practicing their non-Catholic faiths. They can be saved despite their non-Catholic faiths, because of their invincible ignorance.
One of the consequences of accepting the idea of invincible ignorance is that it can lead to extremist views. Thus, some said that everyone who is not Catholic is invincibly ignorant, and so everyone is automatically saved. Pius IX wanted to avoid that excessively optimistic conclusion, and so he condemned the claim that:
Good hope… is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not… in the true Church of Christ. (Syllabus of Errors, 17)
One of the implications of Pius IX’s teaching is that it cannot be the case that people can only be saved if they have been physically baptized. So, when Leonard Feeney asserted precisely that view, he was excommunicated in 1953 (see Feeneyism).
7. Vatican II
Vatican II said:
This Sacred Council… teaches that the Church… is necessary for salvation… Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. (Lumen Gentium, 14)
This is essentially the teaching of Pius IX, albeit with an avoidance of the negative sounding phrase, “invincible ignorance.”
Those who think that Vatican II has changed Church teaching, seem to view the Council as asserting that anyone can be saved by practicing any religion. As a result, missionary activity is now pointless. This seems to have been Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s interpretation, when he imagined a missionary asking:
“What am I doing here if it is possible for people to be saved in all the religions, provided that they be good?” (Against the Heresies, 1997, Chap. 8).
But that is not what Vatican II actually said. To the extent that it followed Pius IX’s teachings, there is no reason why missionary activity should be any less necessary in 1965 than it was in 1865. The Council even explicitly said that missionary activity was still necessary (Ad Gentes, 7).
Part of its rationale for why missionary activity is still necessary even seems to echo Pius IX’s warnings about excessive optimism. Yes non-Catholics can be saved by invincible ignorance, but how are we to know who is genuinely invincibly ignorant, as opposed to those who are just “deceived by the evil one” (Lumen Gentium, 16).
8. Post-Vatican II
In the years following Vatican II the Church has continued to insist that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” The 1992 Catechism repeats that claim (CCC 846–848), and it also insists that missionary activity continues to be essential (CCC 849–856). In 2000, the dogma was reiterated by Pope John Paul II in Dominus Iesus.
But contemporary theologians also seem to be interpreting the dogma in a far looser way than occurred within the older framework of Pius IX’s “invincible ignorance.” Bishop Barron, for example, seemed to tell Ben Shapiro that membership of the Church is just a “privileged route” to salvation. (See Ben Shapiro Show, Sunday Special Ep. 31, especially from the 16th minute).
However, if Christianity is merely a “privileged route” to salvation, doesn’t that mean that people could freely and knowingly choose to reject Christianity, and instead choose to take a more “scenic” route to salvation by remaining in their own religion? If Christianity is merely privileged, doesn’t that end up meaning that it is no longer necessary, and so missionary activity also becomes unnecessary? (See also: “Is the Church Necessary for Salvation?”)
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI reflected on these issues in 2016. He noted that contemporary theologizing about “no salvation outside the Church” was leading to:
“a deep double crisis”: a loss of motivation for missionary work, and a loss of motivation for the faith itself. (Catholic News Agency, 17 March 2016)
9. Conclusion
The dogma of “no salvation outside the Church” raises many unanswered theological questions, and so it prompts much theological speculation. How are non-Catholics saved? Is it just because of an (excusable) invincible ignorance, or are there other factors too? And when they are saved, is it due to an implicit faith, an explicit faith, a desire of faith, or an eschatological vision (etc.)?
Speculation about those kinds of questions means that the dogma receives a lot of attention in contemporary theology. Some of the speculation is consistent with the traditional meaning of the dogma, some of it isn’t. This is why Benedict XVI worried that some of it was leading to a “deep double crisis” in the Church’s understanding of itself, and of its mission to the world. To use a marketing analogy, if the product of salvation can be obtained from other vendors, then why pay the price of membership of the Church?
These kinds of questions cut to the heart of the point and purpose of Christianity. Arguably, they arise because of the styles and expressions of contemporary theologizing, rather than because of anything that Vatican II said, or didn’t say.
On the contrary, Vatican II explicitly reaffirmed the dogma of “no salvation outside the Church.” It explained its understanding of the dogma in terms which broadly followed the contours of Pope Pius IX’s teachings, from a hundred years earlier. So, whatever else Vatican II might have changed, it’s hard to see how it could have changed the teaching or the interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church.”
47 thoughts on “Did Vatican II Change the Doctrine “No Salvation Outside the Church”?”
Rory Fox: You write that “the Church has been careful to try and insist that its teachings on ‘no salvation outside the Church’ should not be understood as ‘only Catholics can be saved.’”
What? What else can one conclude from that absurd statement?
I am dumbfounded at the pomposity of a “pope” (a mere man!) arrogantly declaring that I’m destined for hell because I’m not a member of the Roman Catholic Church!
Over the centuries, many Catholics and Protestants have subscribed to a version of ‘no salvation outside the Church.’ But they defined what it meant to be a member of the Church in different ways. Underlying the issues (at times) has also been a model of faith which makes people morally responsible for their beliefs.
I believe that the Chatechism is saying that since Jesus founded only the one Church, whatever He taught is the way to live -for Catholics and non-Catholics both.
For the record, for many centuries the Church did teach, believe, and practice “no salvation outside the Church” in a very strict and literal sense, as the quotations cited at the beginning of the article document.
To reiterate, the Council of Florence defined:
“[The Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Session 11 — Feb. 4, 1442).”
And by bosom and unity of the Church, the council fathers understood a literal membership in the Catholic Church. Hence, Jews, pagans, schismatics and heretics were specifically mentioned as examples of people not being “joined to the Catholic Church,” who needed to join it before they die in order to be saved.
Note that Aquinas (a contemporary of Florence) says the wolfman needs a preacher, or God himself, to preach to him in order to be saved.
So, Florence was not entertaining the idea of a large all encompassing notion of church membership. For Florence, no one is a member of the Church “without knowing it.” And frankly, if anyone proposed such a notion, they certainly would have been anathematized, and maybe even sentenced to a cruel death at the time to prevent them from spreading their pernicious errors.
Likewise, unbaptized babies, laden with original sin, also sank to hell, but not as deep as actual sinners. This is what the Church believed, taught, and practiced for centuries, denying such babies burial in the hallowed ground of her cemeteries, since they were damned.
Florence again:
“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”
Those “in original sin alone” are the unbaptized babies, for those keeping score at home. “Straightaway to hell” is the infallible teaching of the ecumenical council.
Now, the Church grew to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of salvation after centuries of reflection under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and today would actually brand as heretical anyone who preached such a narrow doctrine as the Council of Florence taught. Exhibit: Fr. Feeney. He was a true Florentine. He was basically the last person to believe in the Council of Florence in the way that the council fathers themselves had believed it. He had a mediaeval mindset, and unlike the rest of the Church, he was sticking to it.
To the impartial observer, there is a 180 degree difference between the statements of Florence and current Church teaching. (As Catholics we know that they are really saying the same thing, even though at face value they appear to be saying completely different things.)
Now, the question is: if the Church can grow to (what appears to be) a 180 degree different understanding of the doctrine of salvation, then what other doctrines might she come to understand in a 180 degree different sense as time goes by?
If the “primary” doctrine is that God wills the salvation of all, then what other “salvation limiting” secondary doctrines might fall by the way?
If she can so radically reinterpret her centuries long teaching on who is saved, what else might she one day radically reinterpret?
Anyone who feels secure in the doctrine of the Church, know for certain, our 21st century understanding may be quite deficient. Indeed, the Church’s 21st century teaching may be quite deficient. It is for this reason that the Church grows in understanding under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: because her previous understanding was imperfect. Sometimes very imperfect.
If we could see what the Church will teach 800 years from now, we would be amazed, and some might even be horrified. The Florentines are.
Thank you for the additional quotes and references. Vatican II noted that there can be a deepening of understanding over time, which constitutes a doctrinal development. That leads to the very pertinent question, especially on the issues of salvation, about whether, and to what extent, specific later formulations are a ‘development’ rather than ‘a change. ‘
A very great article. No doctrinal errors, ambiguities, controversial assertions or points left with loose ends. Concise, easily readable, thorough, pertinent examples for the issues addressed, and easily cited sources with visible links. The Church doctrine has not changed, nor can it, for she has the Holy Spirit of truth as Christ will be with us always, until the end of the age.
Pingback: Good Friday Prayers for the Jews: Why the Controversy? - Catholic Stand
Pingback: Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 4/1/23 – excatholic4christ
You complicate an issue that is much simpler than you identify. The important issues that you have not clearly identified and presented how they affect future generations are:
1) That the Church is the body of Christ! See: Eph 1: 22-23 and also especially 1 Cor 12: 27-30 out of the whole passage. Thus, the full absolute truth of the statement that “outside the Church there is no salvation” identified the fact that “outside the body of Christ there is not salvation.” I trust no informed person would deny that truth.
2) Christ’s statement in Mark 16: 16 explicitly applies to those who would hear the apostles carrying out this command of Christ. It implicitly applies to anyone hearing the truth of Christ preached with sufficient clarity that they recognize that Jesus has called them to enter and remain in the Catholic Church, precisely because it is the body of Christ here on earth.
Catholic doctrine has explicitly and clearly affirmed that the doctrine does not mean that those in invincible ignorance are doomed to hell. Without any change in meaning, The Second Vatican Council’s statement just as clearly clarifies and supplements the earlier statements true affirmation in the same way that the addition of the words, “and the Son” added a vital truth to the Nicene Creed that had been omitted from that Creed as it was issued by the Council of Nicea. DO NOTE that the creed defined by the Council of Nicea did not contain any error in what it explicitly affirmed, but it did fail to affirm an important truth.
Thus, this statement by the Vatican II corrects the misunderstanding of fallible members of the Catholic Church who did not understand that the defined statement refers to actual membership in the body of Christ/Church which is provided by God in His mercy, rather than requiring explicitly acknowledged membership, which is impossible for those who had never even heard of the Catholic Church
I leave it to the readers to fill in additional details. For additional information, I recommend that the interested reader see my article: “How God Protects His Revelation – Part II that was published by CS on 5 July 2022.
Thank you. That’s certainly one way of explaining matters.
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Perhaps a simple syllogism might help:
* There are necessary means of salvation
(things one must do to be equipped for the
Beatific Vision.)
* These means are only available in the Catholic
Church.
* Therefore, there is no salvation outside the
Catholic Church.
One priest, a defender of Fr. Feeney, identified 7 necessary means:
1. Divine and Catholic faith 2. Supernatural grace. 3. Baptismal character. 4. Physical union with Christ (Eucharist in this life) 5. Liturgical and personal prayer. 6.Spiritual and corporeal works of mercy. 7. Union with Peter
Catholics should be sharing the Good News that there IS salvation in the only Church Christ founded. Invincible ignorance merely lessens culpability. It is never salvific.
Even if invincible ignorance ‘merely lessens culpability’ and ‘is never salvific,’ Pius IX’s position would seem to imply that some people in invincible ignorance find salvation, even though they might not be in a position to avail themselves of sacraments and other visible physical manifestations of the Church. One of the theological challenges posed by the doctrine of ‘no salvation outside the Church’ is how to explain how that occurs.
Rory, thanks for responding to my post. As regards atheism, I think that sufficiently crosses the line as to exclude a person from salvation, as there’s no possible desire for God in one who denies Him (cf. Heb 11:6). Some subscribe to Salvation Universalism (for readers unfamiliar with the term: the belief that all or virtually all will ultimately be saved), a dangerous heresy. The best treatment I’ve seen on that topic is Ralph Martin’s 2012 work, “Will Many Be Saved?” He fairly & charitably represents some big name Universalists’ cases–and proceeds to pulverize them.
When you put the institution’s interest before seeking to know God, then the Church loses its mission. The need to is teach people to seek to know God, and to instruct them on how to know that God is present (omni-present). The Holy Spirit’s presence is revealed through signs. If a person were to seek to draw closer to God, and request that God’s presence be revealed, then that person should listen and watch for that revelation. Something highly unusual might happen.
This seeking to know God is connected to the cup of wine of the New Covenant (Lk. 22.20), and thus to the inauguration of the New Covenant at Jer. 31.31-34. (See especially verse 34.) To place seeking to know God second to promoting the institution of the Church is to water-down the import of the Gospel.
Yes there is always the potential for institutions to become self-centred and acting in their own interests, rather than in the interests of those they are meant to serve. This is a problem that Pope Francis has spoken about several times, especially in his warnings about the dangers of an inward facing clericalism, which ends up distracting from the Church’s outward mission.
But you are without complete understanding. Christ and the Catholic Church are one body, one flesh. They are inseparable. His Church was established while he was still here in earth. Therefore to truly and fully know Christ, is to know His Church, and to fully know His Church, is to fully know Him. You can’t say you know Christ and not know his Church. Yes, the gospels and all the prophets tell us this too.
Per Catholic Church teaching as articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), given the “range” of those who MAY be saved, from formally practicing Catholics to those of religions quite far from Catholic teaching & practice (CCC # 837-843), as well Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium # 16, quoted in CCC # 847 “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” I think we may safely conclude that membership in the Church may be defective, i.e., not formal, but sufficient for salvation in the invincibly ignorant. We’re not talking Karl Rahner’s “Anonymous Christian” here; the minimum requirements would be 1) A sincere desire for God–Jesus Christ being God and His body being the Church (cf. 1 Cor 12:27), therefore an implicit, if ignorant desire for Church membership 2) A following of one’s conscience (cf. Rom 2:14).
Thank you, that’s a helpful way of viewing how salvation could apply in the case of a non-formal membership of the Church. It also raises further questions about how explicit a desire or orientation towards God would have to be, especially if invincible ignorance were to be applied to advocates of atheism. Rahner’s Anonymous Christians represents a model at one extreme. One of the questions for contemporary theologising is how a less extreme model might be articulated.
This is a fascinating article, and definitely a keeper, but it does raise questions, questions which perhaps the Catholic Church herself has not answered. So can I ask how this works in respect to the Eastern Orthodox Churches? The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges their communion as efficacious and having the true Presence. Given the split, are they outside the Church or not? How can you have a valid Eucharist and still not be saved? Are Orthodox Christians saved or not?
Yes, an excellent question. What it means to be ‘in’ the Church is a critically important aspect of this topic… which there are differing views about. Before Vatican II, there was a simple and clear model that the Church IS the Catholic Church. Vatican II used a different language that the Church SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church. Whether that changes the parameters of the issues as they relate to Orthodoxy is a very pertinent question. Maybe its an issue for a follow up piece, later in the year?
This is difficult for those of us who were told to continue praying for our fallen away Catholics and protestant relatives who are trying to worship, hear God’s Voice, good people to accept the Faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. We work on praying and speaking with them so that they see our example and come to agree even if it’s an aspect they honestly have never understood from especially how they were brought up. I have many family members like this and it is heartbreaking when it feels so little time. How do we know the exact criteria of acceptance of the Holy Catholic Faith when these are trying to learn and understand? What about the desire even near end of life to accept because one finally believes and they are sorry for not fully understanding but even then want to? What about purgatory if they are not obstinate against the Faith in the end and personally ask God to help their unbelief? I have prayed and tried to communicate that they need to be open..there is a connection for some reason where they do not want to stop communicating with me. …a cracked door where I try to get them to be open and all of us plead and trust in our Lord like the Good Thief. Purgatory keeps coming to my mind in all of this. I pray that I will always do what I can and pray for myself and them that God will help them see what I cannot or at least very clearly as I am not God but once again, it is heartbreaking and very hard to be taught to live and hope..this is distressing and seems barely hopeful and causes some of us to feel like failures in spreading the Faith.
Praying for others is never a failure… it just might not result in what we expect, when we expect. The example of St Monica shows us a mother praying for her wayward son (St Augustine) for more than a decade before she saw a result.
A correct understanding of the doctrine of ‘no salvation outside the Church’ is actually a source of hope. It means that no one can presume that others are ‘not-saved,’ even if they die rejecting the Church.
Perhaps St Pio of Pietrelcina’s advice is helpful: pray, hope and try not to worry.
Rory, you may want to take another look at the presumption (although it is the “official” version ) of excommunication of Fr Leonard Feeney. He was not in fact so treated by the authorities but his enemies let the story run and never clarified the facts even posthumously.
Thank you, that’s a good question. There have been cases of people condemned and later rehabilitated, so there is always a distinction to be made between a person’s genuine view, and the condemned error. Whether Feeney was really guilty of Feeneyism is a question which can indeed be asked.
Is there a conclusion of this topic. Yes or No.
The final paragraph above says that “Vatican II explicitly reaffirmed the dogma of no salvation outside the Church.” So the conclusion would seem to be a ‘no’ (ie Vatican II did not change the doctrine).
Rory Fox: When the word ‘Church’ is not clearly defined, people may assume that it applies only to the Roman Church. Assumptions may also happen for other words such as ‘faith’ and ‘love’ when they are not clearly defined.
Yes clarity in definitions is very important. However, definitions can impose, as well as describe. And the difference between can generate complexities. Eg, when do grains become a heap? Is there a sharp distinction between a hill and a mountain? (Etc). In the past, theological definitions aimed at sharpness. But in recent years some have argued that there is a degree of unavoidable fuzziness which makes (descriptive) sharpness harder to achieve and/or at risk of slipping into definitional imposition (ie stipulation).
Many believe in Christ’s Invisible Church “I believe in the holy catholic/Christian Church” which is located in the hearts and minds of believers. They believe this Church is the Bride of Christ, because it is the work of God the Holy Spirit. This Church is present everywhere the Gospel of Jesus the Christ is preached and taught. This Church includes believers within Christendom both Western and Eastern churches regardless of denominations, which forms the visible Church of Jesus the Christ. The Invisible Church is the total number of those who HAVE true faith in their hearts; the visible Church is the total number of those who PROFESS the faith. The invisible Church is hidden in the visible Church.
Thank you Thomas, that is certainly one model for describing the Church. The Reformation debates often touched upon this issue, with various models of Catholic visible Church, contrasted with non-Catholic models of non-visible Church. In more modern times one of the questions raised by Ecumenism has been whether it makes sense to talk of an invisible Church membership whilst acknowledging publicly the disunity which is what Ecumenism is trying to resolve. The issues have been debated for at least five hundred years and they are sure to continue generating further discussion.
Congratulations on a cogently argued explanation . As a Jew who studied Catholicism at London University I have gained much inspiration from the teachings of the great theologians past and present. In particular Aquinas and the late Pope Benedict are among my favourites.
As you are fully aware my people have an everlasting contract with G-d. which has finally been acknowledged by the Church. On December 10 , 2015 the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issued the following declaration.
” The Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed at Jews .”
It went on to state ,” The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelization to Jews ,who believe in the one God ,in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views .”
This statement was made by Cardinal Kurt Koch in the Vatican..
The Vatican started reevaluating its relations with Jewish people and Israel with Popes John and John Paul II.
In 1959 ,Pope John XXIII ,zichrono livracha, ( Hebrew for may his name be a blessing ) removed the word perfidis from the prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy Then in 1993 the Vatican established diplomatic relations with Israel.And on 26 March 2000 His Holiness Pope John Paul II placed a note in our holiest sight ,the Western Wall.It read as follows
God of our fathers,you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer,and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”
Jerusalem 26 March 2000.
I therefore conclude with great respect that my people are assured of G-d’s grace and will have a place in the world to come.
Thank you Jock. Vatican II’s resetting of Catholic-Jewish relationships is certainly one of its greatest achievements. The re-set has had many positive social and interactional implications, but I think the doctrinal implications are still generating unresolved complexities. I’ll be looking at some of the issues in relation to the Good Friday prayers next month, and I think May’s essay is scheduled to explore the issues of missionary activity and conversion. So, this piece is just a foray in a larger set of considerations (which opened with a couple of pieces on Supersessessionism in January).
No where in Jewish/Hebrew Scripture, nor in New Testament/Covenant Scripture, does the Lord guarantee everlasting life to anyone simply for being Jewish.
Ancestry and bloodlines are not what brings a person to saving faith, a life dedicated and surrendered to the Lord out of filial love is. Given that, please don’t allow the unscriptural musings of any church leader or leaders to allow you or anyone else to be deceived into believing that faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is not absolutely essential for salvation. Being “the chosen people” or the “elect” simply means being tasked with bringing knowledge and awareness of the one, true, living God to others. It does not guarantee salvation, and both Testaments/Covenants attest to that.
To put an even finer pint on that reality, don’t make an idol out of men who are not being faithful to what the Lord has clearly revealed and made available to us all in Scripture!
In Christ,
Andrew
What the CC needs to understand is that ‘invincible reason’ led to the precipitous decline in attendance, vocations and the existential reality that 30 K other Christian entities are now shepherding former sheep. It is tenaciously tangled in the obstinate councils from 15 centuries ago (the theologians who gave us Limbo) clinging to and jealously guarding a stance flowing with pride and supremacy – not unlike the Pharisee who praised himself in the temple – “Do not forbid them,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” Luke 9:50 “ Whoever gives a cup of water in my name will not lose their reward.” Mark 9:41 Very few are buying the notion that only a certain elect will be saved – in the end, even if you don’t believe in gravity but obey its laws, you will never die by falling.
Yes I think that there is an arguable case that the history of Christianity does not always reflect well on Christians. Part of that may well be due to how theologians have expressed themselves about ideas like ‘invincible ignorance.’ If we look beneath the language, the concept is an attempt to find a balance between extremes. The view is rejected that no one is saved unless they are a visible member of the Church. And the opposite extreme is also rejected, viz that Church membership doesn’t matter. How to find the balance between those extremes is effectively the history of trying to explain what it means to say ‘no salvation outside the Church.’
As always, a well written and well researched post by Rory. As always, he argues that Church teaching has not changed.
Scholars can approach Vatican II with what Pope Benedict XVI referred to as a hermeneutic of continuity, or with a hermeneutic of rupture. Arguably, focusing on continuity enables a clearer understanding of where the council innovated, and what the significance of the innovation was. So, perhaps ‘what hasn’t changed’ is setting a scene for what has changed…
Thanks for your response.
I’m sure someone like you is aware of the massive book by “Xavier Rynne” on Vatican II. The picture portrayed is of continuity with a loud minority of bishops saying it was rupture. It could have gone on past 1965 but was getting too expensive for the Vatican’s coffers (at least that was Paul’s contention).
There is also the curious fact that the First Vatican Council is still technically open.
Yes, Rynne’s book offers a very thoughtful analysis. From a different perspective there is also a Psychological argument that ‘continuity’ should normally be the main hermeneutic. Although revolutionary ideas do happen in communities, there is nevertheless a considerable conservatism within humans and their interactions. This is why biases like confirmation bias can be observed. Max Planck’s quip about science advancing ‘one funeral at a time’ also hints at this idea. Whether it be religion or science, interpreting radical ruptures, risks ignoring deep seated features of how the minds of human beings’ actually work.
Hello Rory,
I read your article today with interest. You certainly picked a thorny subject. You never mentioned paradise in your article, but I think paradise could be the key to understand some of the issues brought up by your article.
Paradise was mentioned by no other than Jesus Christ when He told the good thief “This very day, you will be with me in paradise.” What does that mean? I surfed The Internet to find out, and because of the rivalry between Protestantism and Catholicism, I got contradictory answers.
This words Christ spoke to the man dying on the cross suggests that paradise is not an earthly place but an abode of the dead. I think it could be the place for the righteous if sin had never entered the world. Because sin did enter the world and Adam and Eve did choose sin, their reward and our reward, if we do reject sin, is heaven.
Now that you brought the subject up, please tell me what the Church teaches about paradise and how it is different from heaven.
Thank you.
Maurice A. Williams
Thank you Maurice, a good question (!). In the background of this subject there are a lot of complex concepts. For example, people ask about the differences between redemption, atonement and salvation, as well as the differences between paradise and heaven. And there are some fascinating medieval discussions on the issues. For example, Pope John XXII (d.1364) got himself into theological difficulties with his views about the beatific vision. You might find that dispute an interesting place to start reading around the topic (?).
Perhaps the issues would be worth exploring in a longer article later in the year.
Mr. Williams,
I think it’s important to realize that the “Paradise” Christ promises to the good thief is not synonymous with Dante’s Limbo where the souls of “virtuous pagans” like Virgil are consigned to an eternal existence of neither pain nor pleasure. I have no idea if Jesus means something different from heaven when He mentions “paradise”. I think the gist of the exchange between Jesus and the “good thief’ means that this repentant man’s ultimate destination will be heaven. Paradise could possibly mean the place where the righteous who physically died before the time of the Savior are awaiting His coming to free them. I hesitate to call this place “the abode of the dead” because Jesus says ” And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mt. 22:31-32).
Brilliantly written. A very clear exposition of Catholic teaching
Christ said that no one can come to the Father except through Him. This is not the same as saying that no one can come to the Father except through the Roman Church. There are validly baptized Protestants. If the Church views them as validly baptized, how can the Church say that they are not saved? Does Protestant baptism impart the Holy Spirit as well as Catholic baptism? If it does, Christ is within them also, and they have access to the Father. If it doesn’t, then Catholics may not even be saved. Expanding the definition of the word ‘Church’ to include anyone who is validly baptized whether they have allegiance to the pope or not is probably the best way to resolve this; although, the household of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized (cf. Acts 10:44-48).
Peter, why do you think the Tree of Life is mentioned in the beginning of the Bible? Perhaps it is important, since God stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword to guard it.
Yes, the kinds of issues you raise are in the background to why the Church has been careful to try and insist that its teachings on ‘no salvation outside the Church’ should not be understood as ‘only Catholics can be saved.’ As with many doctrines, what the Church actually means, is not necessarily the same as what it is popularly (mis)understood to be claiming.