“Roman but Not Catholic” Can Former Catholics be Saved?

Hell: Is this the fate for former Roman Catholics? 

The work “Roman but Not Catholic” by Ken Collins and Jerry Walls is an incredibly thorough and yet well-ordered and concise treatment of issues that have spanned 2000 years.

The Roman Catholic Church, in its all-encompassing arms, must deal with different organizations and also different categories of individuals, and it seems to do its best to draw its fuzzy lines:

When the Roman Catholic Church looks in the direction of the broader church, beyond its Vatican walls, so to speak, it does so from the vantage point of the same three standards identified earlier as championed by both Bellarmine during the Reformation and its aftermath and by Pope John Paul II more recently in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995): right faith, valid sacraments, and proper governance under the authority of the pope. In this specific context, with these standards well in mind, Rome engages in yet another round of wordplay by distinguishing the church (the [Roman] Catholic Church) from churches (plural) and then again the church (the [Roman] Catholic Church) from what are called ecclesiastical communities (p.113).

I’ve been asked to comment on an issue that is a particularly difficult one, especially for those among us who may have grown up or converted to the Roman Catholic Church, and then left that institution. The phrase is summed up in the following brief sentence, which seems nevertheless to have changed its meaning over time:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

The website “Catholicism.org” (an online journal edited by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Saint Benedict Center, NH), has helpfully collected a compendium of “popes through the centuries” who have “defended the doctrine ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’”.

Now, when a pope and councils speak together on an issue, it is said to be a definition from “the Solemn Magisterium of the Church”. Here is what one pope-and-council (just prior to the Reformation) said in order to clarify on the topic of “outside the Church there is no salvation”:

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Despite the solemnity and really, the clarity of the condemnations in this document, it seems that fortunately for some, that statement has been “reformulated positively”, and some loopholes have been found, provided in the 1992 “Catechism of the Catholic Church”:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

The formatting is important to note here. The text of CCC 846 seems to respond directly to the subhead above it. And the inset paragraph below is written in a subscript text type, indicating that it provides a kind of “further detail” to the paragraph above it.

The “fine print” is a citation from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, Paragraph 14, which reads as follows:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. 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.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged (emphasis added).

The Catechism (following Vatican II) makes exceptions for all groups of people – Muslims, Jews, others “who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church …” any of these “may be saved” through some mere vaguely defined existence of “the Church” or even “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”. All of these “may achieve salvation”.

The only group, it seems, who “could not be saved”, are those who begin “among the Catholic faithful”. Those who “would refuse … to remain in it”, “could not be saved”.

An allowance is made specifically for Protestants. Not those who begin a schismatic movement. Nor even those individuals who simply leave. But those who are baptized as Christians.

In the wake of Vatican II, many Protestant leaders as well as Roman Catholics assumed that the Roman Catholic Church had taken on a genuinely ecumenical stance in its recognition of “the separated brethren” (116-117).

And here is where the term “separated brethren” comes into play. Rome distinguishes between those such as Martin Luther who brought on “much more serious dissentions” and “large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church” (CCC 817) and “the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter”, “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized” and “are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church”.

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church ccc 818).

Collins rightly points out that this “formulation” has undergone some evolution. He cites a post-Vatican II document on “Ecumenism” that points out further distinctions:

The Decree on Ecumenism makes clear that the brethren born and baptized outside the visible communion of the [Roman] Catholic Church should be carefully distinguished from those who, though baptized in the [Roman] Catholic Church, have knowingly and publicly abjured her faith. According to the decree (n. 3) “one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ.” Hence, in the absence of such blame, if they freely wish to embrace the [Roman] Catholic faith, they have no need to be absolved from excommunication, but after making profession of their faith according to the regulations set down by the ordinary of the place they should be admitted to the full communion of the [Roman] Catholic Church. What Canon 2314 prescribes is only applicable to those who, after culpably giving up the Catholic faith or communion, repent and ask to be reconciled with mother Church (p. 118).

.

What is the fate of those who leave the Roman Catholic Church?

Several people have told me, “you were not catechized properly in the 60’s and 70’s, so you don’t really know the Catholic Church as you should have known it”, the implication being that “you still can be saved”. They are trying to move me out of the first category and into the second.

The citation from Lumen Gentium 14, above, tells the story. These individuals

remain indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Here is the breakdown, in the context of “Faith” (presumably of one who is still a believer), of the different ways that one may “fail … to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed” and in the end, “not be saved” and “more severely judged”:

Faith (according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith" as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations. Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

In Canon Law, each of the individuals defined in paragraph 2089 (“an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic”) incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. That is, it is an excommunication “sentence already passed” based on the force of the law itself.

Collins points out the disjunction again:

So then, in light of these judgments, and bearing in mind the distinction noted earlier in terms of Protestants who are born into the Protestant church and those who leave Roman Catholicism to enter a Reformation church, the situation looks something like this: since Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin both left the Roman Catholic Church, whereas John Wesley did not, having been born into the Church of England and baptized as an infant, Zwingli and Calvin are both schismatics and therefore likely lost (bearing in mind Rome’s earlier language of “Hence they could not be saved . . .”), though Wesley may yet be in heaven since he is by no means personally chargeable with the sin of schism! (p. 119).

What is the status, then, for people like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Collins, and me? Those of us who started as Roman Catholic and then leave, it seems, are the only ones who “could not be saved”. Some Roman Catholics will point this out to us. And yet, other people have told me, “you were not catechized properly in the 60’s and 70’s, so you don’t really know the Catholic Church as you should have known it”, the implication being that “you still can be saved”. They are trying to move me out of the first category and into the second.

It seems to me it is all just a shell game. Whatever the Magisterium of the Day wants to say – that is the “official ancient teaching of the Church”. And it is yet one more step that erodes the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church.