Did Vatican II Change the Doctrine “No Salvation Outside the Church”?

As I say, I accept with interior and exterior assent all that Vatican II defined. Since it explicitly refused to define anything, I think I'm safe.

From Catholic Stand

By Rory Fox

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.”