No Salvation Outside the Church
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- What does the teaching of the Catholic Church, "no salvation outside the church" mean? (It is often misunderstood by many non-Catholic Christians to imply that only Catholics will be in Heaven). Can Christianity coexist with ALL world religions or is Jesus the ONLY way to salvation? In this episode, we unpack what this teaching means (especially for those outside the church) and how everyone (including Catholics) needs to remember the only way to be saved 😇✝️🙏🏻🙌🏻
MORE talks, videos, and music:
➡️ www.chrisbraymusic.com
✅ SUPPORT on www.patreon.com/ChrisBray
📱 FOLLOW on chrisbrayofficial
#Catholic #Christian #saviour #Saints #Holy #Lives #Church #Faith #Religion #catholicvideo #catholicspeaker #saintstories #holyheroes #salvation #oneway #jesus #onlyjesussaves #jesussaves #allThatCatholicStuff
ABOUT CHRIS BRAY:
-
Chris Bray is a full-time Catholic speaker & musician. Having received multiple Gospel Music Association Covenant awards and numerous #1 hit songs on Christian radio in Canada, his ministry has spanned North America from headlining the National March for Life rally on Parliament Hill for 25,000 people, the Air Canada Centre, working with great figures such as Matt Maher, Matt Fradd, Jackie Francois, Leah Darrow, Emily Wilson, Paul J. Kim, Steve Ray, Ralph Martin, Chris Padgett, Fr. Dave Pivonka, Sr. Miriam James, Teresa Tomeo, involvement in Life Teen, World Youth Day, Steubenville Toronto, National Catholic Youth Conference (NCYC), featured on EWTN, Salt & Light TV, 100 Huntley St., Shalom World TV, presenting to tens of thousands each year at hundreds of conferences, retreats, schools, and churches.
LEARN HOW TO BRING CHRIS TO YOUR EVENT (Parish Mission, School, Conference or Retreat) @ www.chrisbraymusic.com
This is a difficult teaching, the Church the deposit of grace, so well presented
the reason the Church is necessary is because without it man cannot be in harmony with one another. Notice, Protestant will trash a Catholic by saying that they pray to Mary and that they don't follow the word they follow the Church. However, the word of the Church is the voice of Jesus Christ, this is primary to our existence and our proliferation as fruitful human beings as opposed to narcissistic loons who think they can unite humanity without an institution
There is a difference between saying that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and saying that someone who knows that the Catholic Church is the true Church and rejects it has no salvation.
The second version, although true is open to misunderstanding. Since someone who makes the conscience an absolute authority in terms of one's personal actions could agree with this statement yet not hold the first version. Thus many non Catholics may agree with saying that for someone who believes that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, yet they would not agree to saying "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation".
Do you see the difference? The same can be said about any mortal sin. We do not go around saying that Contraception is a sin if someone knows its a sin and still does it. We simply say its a sin. Full stop. Even if we know that incapable ignorance may excuse someone from the guilt of the sin.
Do you see the essential difference?
I suppose the difference re: mortal sin is that though yes it’s a sin, our culpability may be diminished. For example if we do not fully understand it’s morally wrong, or the severity or if we did not commit it willingly…
@@chrisbraymusic What you have said is certainly the case, and should be known by Catholics. However, that is not the difference I am pointing out.
I will give an analogy :
If a son goes to his father and asks him if its neccesary for him to cut the grass in order to have dinner, and that is actually what the father is requiring, and the father says:
1. Yes
Or
2. If you know that I require you to cut the Grass in order to have dinner and you do not then for you in that case there will be no dinner. However if you don't really know this is the case and its not your fault for not knowing then you can still have dinner even if you do not cut the grass.
Now, similar to the teaching of any moral principle, for instance adultery or contraception, to the question is it a sin?: the answer of the Church has always been: yes. The Church over the centuries, and every normal person, would never answer, yes its a sin but only if you know its a sin.
The question of moral culpability or guilt is another questiion and should not be given as the primary answer nor said in the same breath.
There is a massive difference here and this is precisely the problem when say someone like Shapiro asked Bishop Barron whether he needs to become Catholic in order to be saved. The answer to Shapiro should have been: YES.
And without any explanation of the principal of culpability. Even though that may be true. The same thing should happen if Shapiro had to ask: Is adultery a sin? YES.
This is how the Catholic Church always used to answer prior to Vatican II.
The Dogma states:
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvatiin.
It does not state: if you know....
(I am not arguing for a Feeneyistic interpretation at all.)
Furthermore, take note that even a non-catholic or modernist who overemphasises the authority of conscience in determining what is right or wrong in a given situation may approve of saying that for someone who thinks that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation then FOR HIM, yes its neccesary. However they would never approve of saying that belonging to the Catholic Church is neccesary for salvation. But that is precisely what the dogma is.
Do you see the difference and the relevance of the difference in the message we convey? When it comes to adultery, or racism or anything similar we have no problem merely saying: YES. (Even though we know that inculpabable ignorance may diminish or remove guilt.) However when it comes to the neccesity of the Church we become all apologetic and defensive as if we need to excuse ourselves. It is for this reason that the Traditional Catholic movement is so attractive to the youth , new converts and even non-catholics who are sincerely searching for the truth. They want clear concise answers and not watered down excuses. Unfortunately Vatican II sometimes says too much for what man and even Catholics needs to hear. It should be of no surprise that missionary work directed at the salvation of souls declined after the council.
Hi Chris, youtube and its algorithm has recommended to me another of your videos. I will try to be respectful and not come across as combative. First, I would like to commend several things that you have said. There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ... absolutely! There should be no separation between our faith and the practice of our faith (you said something to that effect)... absolutely! To be honest, I would agree with the vast majority of the things that you have said. To be clear, I am a non-Catholic Christian who believes in the Bible and the church of Jesus Christ. I understand that we would have different ideas on what it means to believe in the church, but that is okay.
That said, there are some things that you say that I believe may go beyond the scope of Scriptural teachings. Again, my desire is to stay respectful and not take away from your ministry. I will say that I do believe that you teach things with a more Biblical perspective than the majority of the catholics that I have met. I respect the fact that you genuinely seem to be trying to teach a Scriptural position. I also respect that you say that there will likely be many Catholics who do not make it to Heaven because they have not truly believed upon Jesus Christ. I think that is a very important thing to say. I believe that same statement can apply to all denominations as there are many who seem to trust in a religion more than Jesus Christ Himself.
I guess the main thing that I want to state is although there is unity between Jesus and His Church, they are not the same. In the Old Testament, the Jews were the covenant people of God... even referred to as the wife of God. Yet, the new testament makes it clear that being a Jew never saved anybody in it of itself. Interestingly, in the days of Jesus, the Jewish synagogues actually expelled those who believed upon Jesus as the Messiah! (John 9:22, 9:34). I think that we would agree that although Old Testament believers should be circumcised and become jewish proselytes, the process itself is not what saved... God saved by His grace through faith. Jesus went so far as to say that the Pharisees and Scribes made their proselytes twofold more the child of hell than themselves (Matthew 23:15). In this way we see that God saves by grace through faith, but that the outward process of circumcision and becoming a proselyte did not save apart from God's inner working of grace through faith.
In the same way, you are right in that there is unity between Jesus and His church, but I would say that they are not one in the same. Jesus is the husband, the church is the espoused bride. Jesus is the Head, the church is the body. Jesus is the pastor, the church is his sheepfold. Just as an old testament believer SHOULD be obey the commandment to be circumcised and should become a proselyte, New Testament believers of Jesus should also be baptized and become disciples of Jesus and part of the church. However, just like in the old testament, these steps of obedience and being brought into the covenant community does not save in it of itself apart from the inner working of God by grace through faith. Just as it was possible for one to be circumcised and become part of the Jewish nation and not be saved, it is also possible for one to be baptized and become part of the church and not be saved. I assume that you would agree with me on this. It is only the inner working of God that can save us. There are times when the external parts of obedience are done apart from true faith in Christ and it does not result in salvation... it is only when God does His own inner working of grace that a person can be born again and be saved. If you are following me, then we would have to conclude that there is SOME distinction between the Christ and the Church. It is possible for the church to administer the sacraments to a person who professes faith in Christ... but if that person does not truly believe upon Christ, he would remain dead in his sins. Again, I don't know if you would agree, but I'm just putting that out there.
A good example might be Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8. According to Acts 8:13, he was baptized. I believe it is implicit that he professed faith in Christ. But by his works, he denied him. Look at what Peter said.
Act 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Act 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
If I am not mistaken, Catholic tradition holds that Simon the Sorcerer did not repent, but actually only got worse and became a false teacher and deceiver. Anyways, I don't want to "push it." I do hope that my comments come across as respectful. I hope that you will consider what I am saying. And, should you respond in either agreement or disagreement, I would at least consider what you have to say. I do not intend to argue. I do not think that would be profitable for either of us.
Thanks for commenting in on this video again. It seems the common thread for all these topics is what the word of God states… we agree on what Scripture says (for the most part), but not necessarily what scripture MEANS. Who has the correct interpretation? So let me ask you, is everything you believe regarding faith, found only in the Bible alone?
@@chrisbraymusic Hi Chris, I was mostly curious what you thought about what I was saying. I wasn't intending to put something out there was necessarily anti-Catholic, but more trying to put out what I believe to be Biblical and if Catholics would agree with any of it or perhaps have their own nuanced way of dealing with it.
When you ask: Who has the correct interpretation? This feels a bit like a set up for you to lead me down your logic to your position, but that's okay... that's how these things are sometimes done. As for the question, it is a question that I once asked myself. I am well aware that there are many churches out there with many different contradictory doctrines. Obviously, they are not all correct. How can we know what is truth? I would say that the Bible itself is infallible truth and that we (humans) are fallible in our interpretations. So, how can one arrive at what is the truth? Well, most simply, I would say that one must study the Bible. He must pray and seek God's help. He must be humble to allow the Scriptures to correct his own theology and not conform the Scriptures to fit what he has already believed. I do believe in the church of Jesus Christ. I believe that Christ gave us the church to teach us and that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth... in this sense the church is to preserve the truth. The Scriptures say that the faith was "once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) and also that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, throughly furnished unto all good works." Despite what some think, the word "Scripture" refers to both old and new testaments. The apostle Himself referred to Paul's writing as "Scripture." We believe that the Scriptures are complete and they are sufficient to throughly prepare the man of God. To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that this is somehow independent of the church. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the Scriptures is He that dwells in the church as His temple. So, we know the infallibility of the Bible and the fallibility of man's interpretation. We accept the importance of the church, though I wouldn't call it infallible since even the Scriptures themselves speak of doctrinal errors in the first churches... even the apostle Peter himself was corrected by Paul in Galatians 2. So, as believers, I believe that we have a responsibility to seek truth. The Scriptures are the measure by which one must judge the doctrine of a church. Some churches have biblical doctrine and some churches simply do not. Now, I will say that it is important to humbly hear out why a church believes what it does... One should not easily dismiss the interpretation of a church... But one must seek a church whose teaching lines up the best with the Bible.
Your second question is whether everything that I believe regarding faith is found in the Bible alone? As I mentioned, these questions seem like a set up and I am assuming that you intend for me to say yes and then later point out some flaw in my thinking. Please forgive me if I am incorrect in this assumption... but we will roll with it. I would say that we consider the Bible to the only authority for faith and practice. What this means is that it is our desire to conform our beliefs to what the Bible teaches. There are some things that we believe, such as the Trinity, which may not have a specific Bible verse that clearly teaches it concisely in one verse (well maybe 1 John 5:7). But the doctrine is a product of theology based on the whole counsel of God's Word. But for the sake of argument, I will say that our desire is to have the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice. Whatever belief or practice must be compared with the Bible. If it contradicts the Bible, it should be rejected. Some things in the Bible are descriptive and tell us what happened, but aren't necessarily prescriptive. It is important to make that distinction. Anways, please forgive me if I have come across as contentious. That is not my intention. My desire was simply to engage in conversation on these topics. I actually do enjoy learning about why churches believe what they do.
Yea no worries. What about things the Bible is silent on?
To be clear, I understand that speaking with me about these topics is a lot different than speaking with Catholics. I would assume that you are well familiar with the ways in which the Catholic Church has formulated it's teachings and interpretations. I do see value in reading such materials. For example, I see value in reading confessions of the faith as they are well thought out, systematic presentations of doctrine. In the same way, I have read various portions of Catholic teachings on various topics. But I do not believe any of these confessions (Catholic or Protestant) to have a greater authority than the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the measure by which such creeds and confessions are to be judged. If the Confession is Biblical, it should hold up and be consistent with the Scriptures without glaring contradictions. The reason why I say this is because I have read where you have spoken with others about the finer points of Catholic doctrine. I can respect that. But for me, it's not so much about understanding what the catechism says as it is about understanding what the Bible says. I hope that makes sense to you. I do have respect for people like you who are willing to engage non-Catholic christians on these issues and even correct some common errors that some Catholics seem to believe (for example, some might say, "I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic!"). To be fair, many things you say could be a correction not only to Catholics with incorrect beliefs but also to non-catholic christians as well. I do actually agree with a lot of what you say... just not all of it. Anyways, I think you have good intentions and I respect what you do.
@@chrisbraymusic Okay, I have an idea where you are headed... But let's fast forward a bit... Are there some specific things that you are thinking about? Some might say, "the Bible doesn't talk about abortion." To such people I would say, "yes, it does - Thou shalt not kill." But I don't think that is what you had in mind since I believe that the official teaching of the Catholic church on abortion is pretty solid (to my knowledge). Was there something specific you had in mind?
I think you need to study more. The teaching that there is no salvation outside the church means exactly that everyone in heaven is and will be a Catholic.
CCC paragraph 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.”
@@chrisbraymusic I just posted more sources, but that is a gross misreading of it.
It is impossible to be in heaven and not be a Catholic. Those who are in heaven are by necessity Catholic, because they belong to the Church Triumphant, which is the Catholic Church in heaven.
@@chrisbraymusic to better explain, this is from the catechism of Pope St. Pius X,
170. (29) But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, *but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation*
I bolded the emphasis.
Is your claim that CCC paragraph 847 is heretical?
@@chrisbraymusic My claim is that it is over generalized and ignores important distinctions that must be made, which the other sources I laid out lay out clearly.
One must be Catholic to go to heaven is a dogma, reiterated from Florence to now, and therefore must be accepted by faith.
However, there are two aspects of the Catholic Church (most clearly laid out in the Catechism explained: the visible and the invisible). As the sources I listed explain, even yours, for those that are not visible members of the church, true and invincible ignorance must be had. It cannot be negligent ignorance, willful ignorance, etc. The person must also be following the truth truth and desire it. Those people, when faced with Catholicism, would convert (hence it is baptism by desire). That means that, due to their situation, despite not being visible members (as it is impossible for them to be), they are invisible members. *Those* people *can* be saved. That does not mean they *will* be, but they can be.
Notice the qualifiers in all of them. And notice the important distinctions. They are Catholic by heart, and are therefore Catholic.