The Ark of Christ and the Fullness of the Faith
The Ark of Christ and the Fullness of the Faith
On the salvation of "other" Christians outside the One True Church. Finding harmony between solus Christus and extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
“And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”
– Ephesians 1:22-23
Simone de Myle, “Noah's ark on the Mount Ararat” (c.1570). Oil on panel.
Who is the One True Church of Jesus Christ? Catholicism? Orthodoxy? Or the many parts of Protestantism? There is a tremendous amount of ecclesiological tension and congregational trepidation surrounding this question. The Latin phrase “Salus extra ecclesiam non est” was first used in a letter by Cyprian of Carthage (AD ?–258), which translates, “There is no salvation outside the Church”. In principle, this doctrine extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is not only Catholic, and Orthodox by descent, it is also—believe it or not—Protestant. If the Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head, then to not be of the body is to not be of Christ (Colossians 1:18). It’s that simple. The body cannot work properly without the head, and each body part cannot work properly without each other. When each part is working properly, the body is healthy and grows.
“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” (Ephesians 4:15-16)
The new approach, however, by Catholic and Orthodox apologists is to claim rightful possession over “the fullness of the faith”, which is an extension of the One True Church dogma without airtight borders. A doctrine, if I’m being honest, that sounds all-too Protestant: institutional, sacramental, confessional, and canonical boundary lines do not save you, Christ alone saves you—solus Christus. At first glance, claiming to possess the fullness of the faith seems to restate the obvious. But that is not how the phrase is being thrown around. It is, specifically, an apologetic to address concern of whether “other” Christians who do not partake in the sacraments and teachings and life of the One True Church will be saved. (I.e., if Eastern Orthodoxy is the One True Church, will Protestants and Roman Catholics be saved?) Since Vatican II, globalization, and YouTube syncretism, every apologist and their dog seems to have embraced their tradition as the fullness of the faith, favouring salvation as an invisible mystery reserved for God alone until the great day of judgment, and that those “other” Christians outside their Church can, indeed, be saved in spite of their beliefs and heretical participation outside of the institutional, sacramental, confessional, and canonical boundary lines of their tradition. Historical typology, however, paints a very different picture.
Noah’s Ark typology
Jesus Christ was first to draw a typological parallel between Noah’s Ark and the Church, as an eschatological reference for Judgment Day, in his famous Olivet Discourse, “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:38-39). The apostle Peter was second to draw a parallel between the two but as a sacramental antitype, that through baptism a person is saved and, in the words of Paul, is buried with Christ in baptism, and therefore enters the life of Christ and His Church as though drawn out of the Flood waters (1 Peter 3:18-21; Romans 6:3-11). Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and many theologians after them only bolstered the Noah’s Ark typology: The Church is the Ark, and there is no salvation outside the Ark, only wrath and judgment to be swept away by the coming flood of fire. There is a very clear and visible line of salvation confined to a visible criteria, say, ‘I receive the sacraments at a Roman Catholic Church’ or ‘I verbally affirm dogmas a, b, and c and verbally reject doctrines x, y, and z’. It was a black-and-white claim. You are in or you are out. Valid sacraments are a means of grace, insofar that baptism confers salvation, by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, so that one who has a valid baptism enters the Church and communion with Christ. Cyprian of Carthage, against the notion that a heretic’s baptism outside the Church is profitable for salvation, “although he has confessed Christ”, advocates sacramental purity is restricted to the One True Church:
“But if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation out of the Church, how much less shall it be of advantage to him, if in a hiding-place and a cave of robbers, stained with the contagion of adulterous water, he has not only not put off his old sins, but rather heaped up still newer and greater ones! Wherefore baptism cannot be common to us and to heretics, to whom neither God the Father, nor Christ the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the faith, nor the Church itself, is common. And therefore it behooves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”” (Epistle 72, chapter 21)
Cyprian elaborates on this doctrine in his treatise On the Unity of the Church:
“Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters.” [Matthew 12:30] He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” [John 10:30] and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” [1 John 5:7] And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.” (On the Unity of the Church, 6)
Cyprian is very clear. There is a well-defined visible, sacramental, dogmatic, and eternal line between the One True Church and its heretical and schismatic off-shoots.
While I admire the new apologetic and its preservation of divine mystery above our epistemic comfort, and believe in our mutual upbuilding until we all attain to the ‘fullness of the faith’, it may cause quite a bit of confusion for traditional Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who have been taught their whole life that there is no salvation outside their own tradition, and even anxiety when a plethora of other Christians sects also claim to be the One True Church at the exclusion of others. Whence the Church?
History of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
Questioning the rightful claim of the One True Church did not rise out of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, it is much older than that. Seven hundred years earlier, a fiery dogmatic feud was brewing between East and West over the course of two centuries. When the Filioque clause (“and the Son”) was inserted into the Nicene creed by Rome, it broke the camels back and spurred what we now call the Great Schism of 1054. To the East, the Romans were doomed by heretical legalism and papal supremacy. To the West, the Greeks had forsaken the infallible Holy See founded by the apostle Peter. That is to say, the East and West accused and condemned each other as heretical schismatics for rejecting the one and only Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. Both of whom still claim to be the original church—the Ark.
In the medieval West, a little more than a century after the Great Schism on November 18, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declared in his Unam Sanctam (“Only Holy Church”):
“We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Corinthians 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed…. Furthermore, 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: One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority)
In the East, in a reply to the papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on matters of reunion, the Eastern Orthodox Church declared:
“But, as has been said before, the Western Church, from the tenth century downwards, has privily brought into herself through the papacy various and strange and heretical doctrines and innovations, and so she has been torn away and removed far from the true and orthodox Church of Christ. How necessary, then, it is for you to come back and return to the ancient and unadulterated doctrines of the Church in order to attain the salvation in Christ after which you press, you can easily understand if you intelligently consider the command of the heaven-ascended Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, saying: ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle’; [30] and also what the same divine apostle writes to the Galatians saying: ‘I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.’ [31] But avoid such perverters of the evangelical truth, ‘For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple;[32] and come back for the future into the bosom of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, which consists of all the particular holy Churches of God, which being divinely planted, like luxuriant vines throughout the orthodox world, are inseparably united to each other in the unity of the one saving faith in Christ, and in the bond of peace and of the Spirit, that you may obtain the highly-to-be-praised and most glorious name of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the world, may be glorified among you also.” (The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, XXIV)
The tension prevails till this day. Orthodox vehemently reject that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”, which nullifies any hope of their salvation in the eyes of Roman Catholicism, and the Romans require such submission for salvation.
Whence the Church?
Ark Without Borders
While many staunch traditionalists reject salvation outside of their Ark, there seem to be more today who reject that this strict Cyprianic take on extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ever existed, and liken it to the heresy of, say, Feeneyism, even though the implications of the Cyprianic view have inevitably led to other prevalent beliefs, such as the Orthodox’s austere view of the corrupted West or the disdain of the Protestant doctrine of the visible and invisible church. To capture the sentiment, famous Russian Orthodox theologian and protopresbyter, Michael Pomazansky (1888-1988), adamantly rejected the Protestant understanding of a decentralized visible church through which the invisible church, select peoples saved among all Christian confessions, exists.
“Western Protestantism, broken into a hundred sects and denominations, naturally had to come to the question: Where is the true church in the midst of all these divisions? And it has found no other way than to come to a teaching of an “invisible church” that mysteriously exists in the midst of all the differences and mistakes and sins of men—a church that is holy, whose membership is known only to God, and that consists only of those who are worthy of being in it…. The Apostles founded outwardly “visible” communities with a definite membership, one in soul even though outwardly separated, and all these communities were the single Church of Christ. Such will the Church remain forever. Its aim is to call and prepare men for eternal life in Christ. Therefore, the Orthodox Apostolic Church, for its part, replies: Such an invisible Church which, in the midst of many confessional divisions or above them, would single out the worthy people from among them and would unit them all—does not exist.”[1]
A rigid view of the One True Church led to the rejection of Protestantism’s visible and invisible church doctrine, insofar that Protestants espousing such a view teach heresy—there is zero distinction between the visible and invisible church. Such opposition has now proven unwarranted, however. Contemporary Orthodox theologian and bishop, Kallistos Ware, affirms the traditional Orthodox position, yet affirms the Orthodox as the fullness of the faith, which entails, at least in part, the Protestant understanding of the invisible church:
“Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: ‘How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!’ (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a ‘visible’ and an ‘invisible Church’, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.” [2]
A bit confusing, no? If there is no salvation outside the Ark, no distinction of visible and invisible, how can there be invisible members of the Church at all? Married to Christ by a longing faith, perhaps? Saved by Christ alone, it would seem? So the argument goes—there is One True Visible Ark, but many theologians have thrown invisible life rafts over the edge for those clinging to its pitch. How else can indissoluble visible borders reconcile with wishy-washy what-ifs? On the surface, then, this ‘fullness of the faith’ apologetic contradicts how the term was historically employed by both the Greeks and the Romans.
Well, sort of. And that’s the issue.
It boils down to one’s definition of Church, understanding of patristics, and the historical context for which the phrases were used. Depth can resolve a multitude of contradictions. That is, I actually think these two doctrines are compatible. I believe the One True Church, the Ark that leads to salvation, is the fullness of the faith. I do not believe these doctrines contradict each other necessarily, nor do I think these doctrines conflict with the teachings passed down by the early Church fathers and Scripture per se, though admittedly, under certain conditions.
But after such a storm, it requires us to let the dust settle a bit to see through the waters clearly.
Matlock Bobechko | February 27, 2024 – 9:00 AM EST
[1] Michael Pomazansky, “Is There An Invisible Church?” Orthodox Christian Information Centre.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/pomaz_invisible.aspx
[2] Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Church. Penguin (1993).
• Michael Pomazansky, “Is There An Invisible Church?” Orthodox Christian Information Centre.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/pomaz_invisible.aspx
• Patrick Barnes, “The Church is Visible and One: A Critique of Protestant Ecclesiology”. Orthodox Christian Information Centre.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf
• “Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848. A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns””. Orthodox Christian Information Centre. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
• The Articles of the Apostles’ Creed.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/expositor/series5/08-136.pdf
• John Sanidopoulos, “Outside the Church There is No Salvation” Clarified in Light of the Fathers. Published June 22, 2016.
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/06/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html
• Ray Ryland, “No Salvation Outside the Church”. Catholic Answers. Published on 12/1/2005.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/no-salvation-outside-the-church
• Charles Grondin, “Q&A. Are Only Catholics Saved?” Catholic Answers.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-only-catholics-saved
• Charles Grondin, “Q&A. What Did Vatican II Say About Salvation Outside the Church?” Catholic Answers.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-did-vatican-ii-say-about-salvation-outside-the-church
• John J. Moran, “Is the Church Visible or Invisible?” Catholic Answers.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-church-visible-or-invisible
• Arthur J. Serratelli, “The Church as Noah’s Ark: God’s Instrument of Salvation.” Published on June 13, 2019.
https://bishopserratelli.org/news/the-church-as-noahs-ark-gods-instrument-of-salvation