Catholic Answers : No Salvation Outside the Church by Fr. Ray Ryland

This article by Fr. Ray Ryland writing for "This Rock" magazine has been brought to my attention. Since Catholic Answers organization is held in high esteem by many Catholics , I will attempt a rebuttal.( His article will be in blue and my response in black)

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

No Salvation Outside the Church

By Fr. Ray Ryland

Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is "no salvation outside the Church"? Doesn’t this contradict Scripture? God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).

No, it doesn't contradict scripture.

This quote in scripture is often used against those who hold the traditional understanding of "No Salvation outside the Church."

Bishop Hay [1729-1811]"To understand this we must observe that the Word of God declares that God wills, "all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." [1 Tim. 2: 4] In consequence of this sincere desire God never fails to give to all such outward helps and inward graces as He sees sufficient to bring them to the knowledge of the truth, if they co-operate with them; but if they shut their eyes against His light-----if, from the corruption of their heart, they pay no regard to His graces-----then they remain in their ignorance; but their ignorance is voluntary in its cause, and a just punishment of their own fault."(Excerpts From THE SINCERE CHRISTIAN) http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2011/05/whether-salvation-can-be-had-without.html

 

Mystici Corporis — to the Protocol — to Vatican II

Mystici Corporis — to the Protocol — to Vatican II

(excerpt from Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation by Br. Robert Mary MICM)

Mr. Drummey’s Reply : Quoting from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis, the letter [Protocol #122/49] said that people can be saved "by an unconscious desire and longing" that gives them "a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer (n. 103).

Correction Please! — First, let us look at Mystici Corporis to see if the Protocol Letter presents accurately what the Pope said.



Near the end of this encyclical, the Holy Father requests the prayers of the whole Church for the return to the Mystical Body of Christ of non-Catholics, "both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the gospel, are still without the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from us. . . " Here is the usual, but faulty, translation of the key sentences:

We ask each and every one of them to be quick and ready to follow the interior movements of grace, and to look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though unsuspectingly they are related in desire and resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can enjoy only in the Catholic Church. May they then enter into Catholic unity, and united with us in the organic oneness of the Body of Jesus Christ may they hasten to the one Head in the society of glorious love. . . . We wait for them with open arms to return, not to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their Father’s house. (emphasis ours)

Consider the first sentence. We think it very strange for the Holy Father to say that non-Catholics should "look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation," as the translation would have us believe. The Pope appears to imply two things that are just not so: first, that non-Catholics have an outside chance of gaining salvation where they are; and second, that Catholics can be sure of their salvation. Neither of these implications has ever been a teaching of the Church. In fact, the proposition that Catholics can be sure even of their justification was condemned by the Council of Trent. (Decree on Justification, Chapter IX)

But this is a weak, misleading translation. The original Latin reads: ". . . ab eo statu se eripere studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt;" Translated correctly, the Pope asks that non-Catholics be. . .

Bishop Hay & NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH An Inquiry, Whether Salvation Can Be Had Without True Faith

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
An Inquiry, Whether Salvation Can Be Had Without True Faith,
and out of the Communion of the Church of Christ

by Bishop George Hay of Scotland [1729-1811],
Excerpts From THE SINCERE CHRISTIAN


Bishop George Hay was one of the greatest Catholic teachers and apologists of the early 19th Century. His three famous books are The Sincere Christian, The Devout Christian, and The Pious Christian which are out of print. Bishop Hay was a formidable opponent of liberalism, and his works have received high praise from numerous Catholic bishops of the 19th Century. Paul Cardinal Cullen said, "the learned Bishop's writings display a great power of reasoning, and great critical acumen, while they supply an inexhaustible mine of erudition and Scriptural knowledge".


This eleven-part presentation is taken from the concluding chapters The Sincere Christian. It is here that Dr. Hay demonstrates from Scripture that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. The bishop's presentation is scrupulously methodical. He thoroughly explains one point, then employs it as a foundation for the next. This exhaustive treatise is desperately needed, especially in our age when the doctrinal truth on the one true Church of Christ is denied by a great multitude of Catholic laity, clergy and prelates.


PART 1

Introduction and State of the Question

There is nothing in which the great Apostle of the Gentiles seems more to glory than in his ardent zeal for the salvation of souls, and in
the sincerity of his heart in delivering to the world the sacred truths of eternity pure and uncorrupted. He was not ashamed of these Divine truths; he rejoiced when he was called to suffer for them; he had no worldly interest in view in preaching them; he sought not the esteem and favor of men in delivering them; his only view was to promote the honor of his blessed Master, and to gain souls to Him, and therefore he had no idea of using flattering words, or of accommodating the doctrine of the Gospel to the humors of men.

He knew that the truths revealed by Jesus Christ are unalterable; that "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall never pass away;" and that, therefore, to corrupt these sacred words, though but in one single article, would be ". . . perverting the Gospel of Christ," [Gal. 1: 7], -----a sin so grievous that the Holy Ghost, by His mouth, pronounces a curse upon anyone, though an angel from Heaven who shall dare to be guilty of it.

Hence he describes his own conduct in preaching the Gospel as follows: ". . . You know from the first day that I came into Asia, in what manner I have been with you for all the time. . . . How I have kept back nothing that was profitable to you, but have preached it to you, and taught you publicly, and from house to house," [Acts 20: 18-20]" . . . we had confidence in our God, to speak unto you the Gospel of God in much carefulness. . . . not as pleasing men, but God, Who proveth our hearts. For neither have we used at any time the speech of flattery, as you know, nor taken occasion of covetousness; [God is witness]. Nor sought we glory of men, neither of you, nor of others." [1 Thess. 2: 2,4-6] "For we are not as many, adulterating the Word of God; but with sincerity, but as from God, before God, in Christ we speak," [2 Cor. 2: 17]. "But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the Word of God, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God. . . . For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord . . ." [2 Cor. 4: 2,5]. ". . . so I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be a servant of Christ." [Gal. 1: 10] Now, ". . . Christ sent me to preach the Gospel, not in wisdom of speech lest the Cross of Christ should be made void; for the word of the Cross to them indeed that perish is foolishness; but to
them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God. . . . it pleased God by the foolishness of our preaching to save them that believe. . . . For the foolishness of God is wiser than men . . . the foolish things of the world God hath chosen, that He may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound the strong, . . . That no flesh should glory in His sight." [1 Cor. 1: 17-18, 21, 25, 27, 29] "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth . . ." [Rom. 1: 16]. And therefore, " . . . I brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of Christ. . . . and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in showing of the Spirit and power. That your Faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." [1 Cor. 2: 1, 4, 5]

Is Laisneyism Catholic?= SSPX

By Bro. Thomas Mary Sennott

Fr. François Laisney, a member of the Society of St. Pius X, the disciples of Archbishop Lefebvre, has written a book entitled Is Feeneyism Catholic? 1 I don't know what the exact canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X is at the moment, but I presume they still think that Vatican II is heretical, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. That someone would think that an ecumenical Council whose decrees have been approved by the Holy Father, no matter how badly phrased, is heretical, and that the Novus Ordo Mass which was established by Pope Paul VI with such a high authority, despite its ugliness, could be invalid, should tell us a priori that such a person could not do good theology. He has cut himself off from the necessary grace, so he is on the outside looking in. Ordinarily I would never respond to a book such as this, but I am doing so at the urging of two of my friends.


The thesis of the book is that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. Father Laisney writes ( Laisney's words will be in Brown):


"This teaching being part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church, it is part of the deposit of Faith, which each Catholic ought to hold fast faithfully! One is NOT entitled to reject a unanimous teaching of the Magisterium under the mere pretext that it has not been defined." (2)


He concludes:

"Can Father Feeney and His Followers Be Called 'Heretics'"

Reply to a Liberal

Reply to a Liberal
by Raymond Karam
- Introduction

We have been asked many times to explain what we mean by the term “liberal Catholic.” Articles in each issue of From the Housetops have referred to these “liberals,” accusing them of religious indifferentism, or lack of concern for the Faith, of absence of loyalty to the Church, to the Pope, to the officially appointed teachers of Catholic doctrine, and, at times, of open heresy. We have been warning Catholics against the dangers of liberalism, letting them infer, from our statement of the erroneous doctrines, who these liberals are. This policy does not, however, serve to make the issue clear and definite enough, and so it becomes necessary at this point to name our opponents, or at least some of them, and to refute their heretical teachings openly.

This task has been made easier for us than we could have anticipated. In answer to one of the articles which appeared in the December 1948 issue of From the Housetops, Father Philip J. Donnelly, S. J., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Jesuit Seminary at Weston, has, for the benefit of Boston College, issued a paper under the heading Some Observations on the Question of Salvation Outside the Church. A weaker defense of a theological opinion could not be found, nor a more perfect expression of liberalism.

Those who read my article in the last issue must have noticed the long line of authorities quoted in support of the often-defined dogma that no person can attain eternal salvation unless, before he dies, he becomes a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The priest who attempts to refute my article never refers to the authorities I quoted. He ignores them. Although he is himself a professor of Dogmatic Theology, and therefore one who should know better, all he offers in support of his own liberalism is the theory of a French liberal called Caperan and the statement of an Italian Jesuit called Lombardi, both of whom have no more authority on dogmatic questions than Father Donnelly himself.

He gives us three allocutions composed by Pope Pius XI, one in 1927, one in 1930, and one delivered in 1938 to a group of scientists, all of which are quoted from the L’ Osservatore Romano . And, to give final touch to this comedy, there is appended to Father Donnelly’s note an additional note by his editor, who quotes one sentence from a speech delivered by Pope Pius XII, as it was reported in the New York Times!

Is this the way a Catholic is expected to know the revealed and defined truths of his Faith? Since when does a teacher of Dogmatic Theology have to depend on the good pleasure and honesty of newspapers in order to know what is the Catholic Faith and what he is supposed to teach? And what about the generations of Catholics who lived before the September 6th, 1948 issue of the New York Times? Was it impossible for them to have known the unadulterated Catholic truth? Does Father Donnelly prepare his course in Dogmatic Theology dependently on how a newspaper quotes or misquotes some radio address of the Pope? Or is it that the techniques of our advanced and progressive century require the introduction of a course on Journalism as an indispensable part even of the theological training of our priests? We writers in From the Housetops, who are full of a “spirit of smug Protestant righteousness,” according to Father Donnelly, may be greatly misinformed, but no news from Rome has reached us as yet announcing a papal definition of the infallibility of newspapers!

Apart from these “authorities,” Father Donnelly makes use of the two main documents used by liberals: an allocution by Pope Pius IX in 1854, and an encyclical by the same Pope in 1863. And, as liberals always do, he at times misquotes the Holy Father, misrepresents his intention, and invariably makes the Pope’s statements serve his own preconceptions. All this I have shown in my article on Liberal Theology and Salvation, which appeared in the December 1948 issue of From the Housetops .

The one and only infallible pronouncement used by Father Donnelly in his paper is taken from the decree on Justification, Chapter 4, of the Council of Trent. However, this decree is erroneously explained, and, as I shall show later on in this article, is made to mean the very opposite of what was intended.

Perhaps, before taking up in detail every point of Father Donnelly’s paper, it would be well to quote it in full, so that no reader will be misled, and so that no point will be left confused in his mind, from not having read the original document. The article runs as follows:

Department of Theology
Boston College

The Dogma of Faith Defended Against Right-Wing Liberals

The Dogma of Salvation Under Attack

The doctrinal crusade of Saint Benedict Center dates back to the early 1940’s when we began to attack, albeit in their incipient form, the very evils that conservative Catholics are so concerned about now. It was not long before we realized, however, that those troubles afflicting the Church were but symptoms of a much more fundamental one, a deadly heresy responsible for them all. Very few people saw the warning signals at that early stage, for the heresy itself had not taken full form and its fruits had not yet appeared.


It became more and more evident what this underlying evil was. It was the denial of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation. The whole collapse in the Church today can be traced to the silencing or weakening of this one doctrine. Most so-called conservatives are not aware of this fact. We are convinced that they will never win one single victory until they are.

Not until this fundamental truth is preached again from every Catholic pulpit shall we see again the triumph of Catholic values and Christian morals. It is only then that we shall see a resurgence of Catholic life — preaching, education, vocations, missions. Only then shall we see the restoration of orthodoxy and tradition, pre-eminently in the restoration of the traditional Mass.

From the start we proclaimed the dogma of faith: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” We vowed to defend it. It is our duty not to stop our fight until we have succeeded in rousing the sleeping giant — the Church Militant! Others might observe the effects of the present-day apostasy; it is our vocation to proclaim the cause. There can be no Christian civilization without this most fundamental of all Catholic truths, the belief of innumerable multitudes who have gone before us: Outside the Church there is no salvation.

In waging our crusade, even our most determined opponents admit that we have fought courageously and that we have paid the usual price in terms of humiliations and sufferings. Even the most extreme Liberals have been willing to grant us the dubious honor of being sincere. We have never sought, we hope, any compensation for our labor on this earth; but we should be able to expect from conservative fellow Catholics, who at the present share most of our worries, the decent consideration due to pioneers in the conservative campaign. We ourselves extend that courtesy to anyone fighting, let it be confusedly, for Faith and Tradition.

Professional Wailers

Orestes Brownson on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

(Editor’s Introduction: Orestes A. Brownson (1803-1876) will always be remembered as one of the most prolific American converts to the Catholic Church. Brownson had already achieved notoriety as an essayist and lecturer when his incessant quest for truth led him beyond the shifting sands of Protestantism, Transcendentalism and Socialism to the Catholic Faith, the rock of truth and salvation.

In the following article Brownson masterfully defends what is today the most universally denied Catholic doctrine, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus , Outside the Church there is no Salvation.)



From Brownson’s Quarterly Review for April, 1874

by Orestes Brownson

Our Holy Father Pius IX, gloriously reigning, though despoiled by liberal Catholics and a prisoner in the Vatican, has told France and other countries that their calamities are due to so-called liberal Catholics. We are not wholly free from their influence in this country, either in politics, or in theology. We have Catholics, or men that call themselves Catholics, who, without knowing it, defend in politics, pure secularism, only another name for political atheism, and - not always the same individuals indeed - who defend in theology what, to our understanding, is a most destructive latitudinarianism.

It is seldom we meet a Catholic, man or woman, priest or layman, who will permit us to say that “out of the Church no one can be saved,” without requiring us to qualify the assertion, or so to explain it as to make it meaningless to plain people who are ignorant of the subtilties, nice distinctions, and refinements of theologians.

How many of our Catholics, though holding Protestantism to be an error against Faith and antagonistic to the Church, hold that the mass of Protestants are out of the way of salvation, and can never see God in the beatific vision, unless before they die they become Catholics, united to Christ in the Church, which is His Body?

If we assert the contrary, are we not met with theological distinction, logical refinements, subtle explanations and qualification, which place us altogether in the wrong?