Extra, extra! read all about it

In several posts a little while back (here and here and here), the members of the Cornell Society for a Good Time were concerned to understand something of the intricacies of the dogmatic formula: extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I am pleased to say, to the utter abasement of my pride, that Clara seems to have had the better sense for the dogma all along. Further, Clara will be delighted to know, I'm sure, that it is Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma which appears to vindicate her position.

Of course, I am eager to hear your thoughts about the passages which I present below, all excerpted from the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Those things having been said, I think that the issue remains complicated, if only because we need to distinguish between speculative and dogmatic theology, and pastoral or missionary theology in this regard. As with most things about orthodoxy, there is a delicate balancing act which one must maintain between the appropriate evangelical fervor to win souls for Christ and the awareness that membership in the one Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the Body of Christ (cf. Pius XII's Mystici Corporis), membership in actu, that is, is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

But allow me to present the material before I say more.

(This is, however, a good occasion to say that if you don't have a copy of Denzinger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma, you're simply out the game. Much of the material which is cited by Ott is given in terms of a Denzinger reference number, though I omitted them when I typed it in below. Besides containing every important text for the purposes of dogmatic theology, the other great thing about the currently available edition was that the original Latin version was prepared by Karl Rahner, S.J. and published in 1954. You see, he must have really known Catholic theology before he decided to repudiate it all.) I begin to quote:

Among the members of the Church are not to be counted:

a) The unbaptized. . . . The so-called Baptism by blood and Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Sacramental Baptism in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but do not effect incorporation into the Church, as they do not bestow the sacramental character by which a person becomes attached formally to the Church.

b) Open apostates and heretics. Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. However, this does not prevent them from belonging spiritually to the Church by their desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae) and through this, achieving justification and salvation.

c) Schismatics, as well as those who, in good faith, fundamentally reject the Church authority, or who dissociate themselves from the commonwealth of the faithful subject to her. Schismatics in good faith (material) like heretics in good faith, can, by a desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae), belong spiritually to the Church, and through this achieve justification and salvation. . . .


The Necessity for Membership of the Church

"Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation." (DE FIDE)

In the Caput Firmiter, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: 'The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved' (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). This was the teaching also of the Union Council of Florence and of Popes Innocent III and Boniface VIII in the Bull 'Unam sanctam', Clement VI, Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XII in the Encyclical 'Mystici Corporis'. As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: 'By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord'. The last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact (actu) do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation.

The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti), but also a necessity of means (necessitas medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly (explicite) present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfil the will of God (votum implicitum). In this manner also those who are in fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.

Christ ordained affiliation to the Church by founding the Church as an institution unto salvation for all men. He endowed the Apostles with His authority, gave them a universal mandate to teach and baptize and made eternal salvation dependent on the acceptance of His teaching and the reception of Baptism. That those who, in innocent ignorance, do not know the true Church of Christ, but who are nevertheless ready to bow to the demands of the Divine Will, will not be cast out, springs from Divine Justice, and from the doctrine of God's general will of salvation, which is clearly proved in the Scriptures. The Apostles teach the necessity of the Church for salvation by promulgating Faith in Christ and His Gospel as a condition for salvation. Peter confesses before the High Council: 'Neither is there salvation in another other'.

It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well. St. Irenaeus teaches that: 'in the efficacy of the spirit all those have no part, who do not hasten to the Church; rather they, by their evil teaching and their evil deeds, rob themselves of life. For where the Church is, there is also the spirit of God, and where the spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace'. Origen formally declares: 'Outside the Church nobody will be saved' (extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur); similarly St. Cyprian: 'Outside the Church there is no salvation' (salus extra ecclesiam non est). The Fathers, for example, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, regard, as types of the necessity of the Church for salvation, the saving Ark of Noah and the House of Rahab. In the Primitive Church the conviction of her necessity for salvation found practical expression in her missionary zeal, in the readiness of her children to suffer martyrdom and in her battle against heresy.

In view of the stress laid upon the necessity of membership of the Church for salvation it is understandable that the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church is mentioned only hesitantly. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine admit that catechumens who depart this life before the reception of Baptism can win salvation on the ground of their faith, their desire for Baptism, and their internal conversion. On the other hand, Gennadius of Marseilles denies them this possibility, except in the case of martyrdom. St. Augustine distinguishes also, not indeed using the terminology, between material and formal heretics. Thus he does not regard material heretics as heretics properly so-called. He seems to estimate their possibility of salvation otherwise than he does that of heretics proper.

St. Thomas, agreeing with Tradition, teaches the general necessity of the Church for salvation. On the other hand, he concedes that a person may be saved extrasacramentally by baptism of desire and therefore the possibility of salvation without actual membership of the Church by reason of a desire to be a member of the Church.


There ends my quotations from Dr. Ott's book. Whew.

Well, what to make of all that? There seems to be a certain tension in the view: we have the image of the Ark, on the one hand, and, on the other, a loophole which seems to allow anybody and everybody to come scampering aboard. Granted, in this situation, we do not make the judgement, God does, but the whole view would tend to induce a sort of laxity, at least as regards missionary labors: if we ourselves don't go to enlighten the nations-- well, they won't be blamed because they never heard our preaching. Since we have a command to go, we might yet be blamed for not going, but out of charity, you would think that we would hesitate to go, lest lifting a veil of ignorance, we suddenly make the lives of the gentiles more difficult than they were previously. Now they have to go to Confession, hear Mass, avoid sins which they now know to be mortal, etc.

So I think that we should distinguish between the theological possibilities and the moral imperative, as it were, with regard to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I think that we must behave as though there were no exceptions to that law, simply understood. Indeed, despite the absolute possibility that there may be exceptions, we are guaranteed none; Ott only assures us that it is a possibility. We could imagine cases, but in life, in actuality, we could never safely presume.

And for this reason, I think that Blessed Pius IX's Allocution "Singulari Quadem" is the best and surest guide. Therein, he acknolwedges the absolute possibilities attendant upon invincible ignorance, even as he cautions that we cannot be so arrogant as to say where the boundary of ignorance is fixed. As for our course of action:



"as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, 'for the hand of the Lord is not shortened' and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light. Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls."

Again, one may well wonder the import of the fact that so many Fathers and, indeed, the de fide formulation of the statement, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, do not contain escape hatches, like: "...except for in certain very special cases", or, "excepting the cases of invincible ignorance." Why is the matter put so bluntly if there yet remains this important caveat?

And, further, might we not conclude that these "special cases" are few in number, few in the way that few were to be found swimming outside the Ark of Noah? For if these cases were many, why insist upon belonging to the Church? Why, indeed, were so many eager to die rather than admit an heresy in their midst or abandon the "smallest" point of dogmatic doctrine?



These are enough questions for the time being. I await the thoughts of my fellows in the Society.

go to main page