One of the greatest proofs that there is no salvation in the Catholic Church is just how radically it has changed its tune on its famous phrase "no salvation outside the Church". Ever since its inception, the Catholic Church has insisted that it is the one and only Church set up by Christ. Later, the claim was added that Peter and his successors serve as His visible head, and therefore, but for the Catholic Church, no one can be saved. This attitude persisted up to 1950, when Pope Pious XII declared "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (1).
This statement follows a long string of declarations that not only Pagans, but also Jews, and "heretics" (which, of course, includes "Protestants", such as myself) are all doomed to eternal Hellfire if they end their lives outside of the Catholic Church. Historically speaking, the Catholic Church did not deny, nor conceal, nor even attempt to dress up the fact that they believe one must be a member of their denomination in order to receive eternal life from Christ.
In more recent years, however, it seems the Catholic Church has opened its mind to salvation outside of the Catholic Church, not only for "Protestants", but for Jews, for Muslims, for isolated tribes untouched by the Gospel, and, in some cases, even for atheists who were simply "good" people. Catholics at every level, from the the simple layman to the Pope himself, not only teach that non-Catholics can receive salvation, but that Catholics, no matter how faithful, could potentially lose theirs. And it seems both are equally easy.
A history of "no Salvation outside the Church"
In order to establish that a contradiction has occurred, we must first establish the historical teaching of the Catholic Church regarding salvation outside of their Church. While there are a large number of honest Catholics, for whom I have great respect for being so honest, who admit that "no salvation outside the Church" has always meant one is required to be a faithful, practicing member of the Catholic Church to be saved, many modern Catholic apologists claim that it was never quite so simple. Catholic sources, however, show that this has always meant what it very strongly implies: Without the Catholic Church, you cannot receive, or a more accurate term would be achieve, salvation.
To begin with, consider the importance of the Pope in the Catholic faith. Suffice to say, he isn't just some smart guy who occasionally says good things that Catholics might take or leave as wisdom. He is, quite literally, the head of the Catholic Church. This is to the extent that you literally cannot be saved, according to "infallible" declarations of the historical Catholic Church, without submitting to the Pope, in particular.
First, let us consider the words of Pope Pelagius II in 585 A.D.: "Although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone, and wished that the others be confirmed by him (Lk. 22:32); and to Peter as well was committed the care of "feeding the sheep" (Jn. 21:15); and also to him did the Lord hand over the "keys to the kingdom of Heaven" (Mt. 16:19). If, however, anyone believes contrary to this, let him know he is condemned and anathematized. Consider, therefore, that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. Those not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God cannot abide with God. For the Church of God is established among those known to preside over the Apostolic Sees, and whoever separates himself from these Sees is manifestly in schism." (2).
This is very early in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and it clearly shows that one must be united not only to the "Church of God", of course meaning the Roman Catholic Church, but even to the specific interpretation that Peter is the head thereof. Separate yourself from the "Apostolic Sees", you are "manifestly in schism", and if you are not in the "peace and unity of the Church", you "cannot have the Lord". This does not fit very well with the modern idea of "separated brethren", i.e. baptised members of other, non-Catholic traditions (which is interesting, as not even all Christians have been baptised, so I'm not even sure what the Catholic Church would say about them). But we're getting ahead of ourselves there. For the moment, all we need to see is that as early as the 6th century, the Roman Catholic Church firmly asserted that without being united to them, one cannot possibly be united to Christ.
Many years later, in 1302, Pope Boniface VIII made similar assertions. In Unam Sanctum, we read "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..." (3). With Unam Sanctum being only a short text, I could devote this whole article to dissecting it, and at a later date, I may indeed do so. Suffice to say for now, this is only the beginning, both literally and figuratively. It goes on to specifically target the Greek Christians, saying "Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ...", and ultimately concluding "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
The Scripture-twisting used to justify the conclusions drawn by Unam Sanctam are positively mind-blowing, but for now I simply want to focus on the conclusion itself. It leaves nothing to the imagination, nor does it leave much room for any but the sneakiest of reinterpretation: If you are not Roman Catholic, according to Unam Sanctam, you are not saved. Your sins are not remitted, you do not have salvation, you even have to flat out "confess" to not being the sheep of Christ. Now again, this does not fit well with "separated brethren".
Pope Eugene IV followed this tradition in 1441, when he issued a Papal Bull by the name of Cantate Domino. Here, he made no concessions for the idea that anyone but a devout and faithful Catholic would see the Kingdom of Heaven, stating that "The sacred Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior (...) 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." (4).
Once again we see the complete ineffectiveness of simply believing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13). According to the now condemned Pope Eugene IV, one must not only be united to the Catholic Church for salvation, but must even work so hard following your conversion, right the way until the day of your death, to achieve it. Everyone else is condemned, even if they suffer martyrdom for Christ's name.
Time would fail me to mention many more examples, though frankly, one should be enough. Alas, a problem with heretics is that one is never enough, even if that one happens to be the word of God Himself. When God speaks contrary to the Catholic Church, this is when Catholics fall back on the magic word: "interpretation". "It is just your interpretation...", they say, "that the word of God says this. But the Catholic Church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture, and therefore the true interpretation is this". If they do this with the word of God, they will obviously do this with the word of their predecessors. Thus, I will play their own game. A modern Catholic may look back at these sources and say yes, it does seem, at least looking at the words, that these Popes affirmed the necessity of unity with the Catholic Church. However, as the modern Catholic Church does not teach the same, this interpretation must be flawed. Thus, I will cite one more source before moving on. An official, "infallible", Roman Catholic interpretation of all of these things:
"Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ’s faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution." (5).
These are the words of the Fifth Lateran Council in 1516, which was the last ecumenical council prior to the Reformation. Note how it begins with the simple assertion "...subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ’s faithful...". This is simply taken for granted, being preceded by the word "since". As in this is a conclusion that is actually being used as foundational for the next statement. This, it justifies with the aforementioned Unam Sanctam. The conclusion that it is necessary to submit to the Pope to be saved is, following this logic, the official interpretation of Unam Sanctam, provided by the Fifth Lateran Council. Thus, any Catholic who interprets it, and other statements like it, as supportive of any other conclusion, is directly opposed to the official historical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (thereby, ironically, anathematising themselves).
Their actions proved they meant it
Now as I said, I am utterly spoiled for more choice citations. History is replete with Catholic sources in which submission to the Roman Catholic Church is absolutely essential for salvation. I could go backwards, right to the origins of the original phrase, and I could come forwards, showing how this attitude persisted during, and even for a while after the Reformation. But why batter my keyboard so brutally? The conclusion is irrefutably established. According to the historical Catholic Church, "no salvation outside the Church" meant that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.
Since this is what they meant, it may benefit us to see how they would treat people, not only outside of their Church, but even those within, both in dealing with their doubts, and in preventing those doubts from occurring in the first place.
To begin with, Libertarian concepts such as the religious liberty many of us enjoy today are completely alien to the Roman Catholic Church. Whereas Catholics today are generally quite docile, being some of the bravest defenders of religious liberty, their forerunners in the Catholic faith would look at them as complete and utter jellyfish. To illustrate this, as late as 1864, Pope Pius IX published an encyclical letter entitled "Quanta Cura: Condemning Current Errors", in which he declared "From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”" (6).
From this, we see that, citing his predecessor, Pius IX believed religious liberty is insanity. After all, religious liberty is, in his eyes, "liberty of perdition", and there will never be a shortage of men who seek that kind of liberty, resisting the truth of Christ. Thus, it is wise to avoid the "most injurious babbling" of religious liberty.
Pius IX didn't stop there, either. In his Syllabus of Errors, he listed a number of statements made by the world at his time that he believed to be erroneous. Some of these are very good errors to expose. I think we can all agree with error number 7: "The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth." (7).
But let us skip the tangent of analysing how good or bad this document is and simply focus on what it claims is an error. 5, in particular, stand out:
15. “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”
17. "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ."
55. “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”
77. “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”
78. “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.”
Taken together, especially with his previously expressed views in Quanta Cura, we see it both reinforced that all outside the Catholic Church are condemned, and that, linking to this, wherever the Catholic Church has political power, it should exercise it to the max. It is an error, he claims, to so much as entertain the hope that those outside the Catholic Church may have eternal salvation (error 15). Thus, man may not embrace or profess whatever religion they consider true, no matter what light of reason lead them to this (which, I will add, would include a diligent study of the word of God). The Catholic Church should not be separated from the state, or vice versa (which, of course, implies that the state is Catholic, because why would the Catholic Church want a foreign state interfering in its affairs?) It is expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the state, excluding all other forms of worship - of course including "Protestant" worship. And laws which, in some Catholic countries, allow the public exercise of their own peculiar worship, are not as wise as they were claimed.
It's worth noting that even the very term "Protestant" does not originate from an attempt to overthrow the Catholic Church, nor to expose its heresies. Instead, its origins refer to a struggle for religious liberty. While Luther had been officially declared a heretic at the Diet of Worms (1521), support for him and his views continued to spread. This lead to the Diet of Speyer (1526), the conclusion of which was "...every State shall so live, rule, and believe as it may hope and trust to answer before God and his imperial Majesty". This, sadly, was not to last, as 3 years later, the Diet of Speyer (1529) overruled this decision, demanding that Catholicism be enforced throughout the Holy Roman Empire. (8).
All of the above answers a very common Catholic defence. In an effort to distance themselves from the historical violence committed by their Church, they attempt to shift the blame onto the various states. But if, as Pius IX said, it is an error to say that Church and state should be separate, then how does one separate the actions of the Catholic state from the doctrines of the Catholic Church?
Time, again, would fail me to list out the most violent crimes of the Catholic Church. The Spanish Inquisition alone is estimated to have killed, at the low end, 30,000 people. Luther himself was a marked man, and the Edict of Worms (1521) not only banned his writings and required his arrest, but even freed anyone who murdered him from legal consequence.
So, we have established that the Catholic Church, historically, did not believe you could be saved without being a devout member of their Church, did not believe in religious liberty, and had absolutely no qualms about violently expressing these viewpoints. To really hammer home just how much faith they had in themselves as the sole dispensers of salvation, consider also how they treated the very word of God, and those who simply desired to study it for themselves.
To the modern Catholic apologists, this claim is a tired one. Again trying to foist this grievous crime against Heaven off on the secular world, and in particular the British one, it is erroneously claimed that the Catholic Church had no part in the historical suppression of the Bible. That's not to say that the Catholic Church never, at any point, did anything good for the Bible, or that translations into the vulgar tongue did not exist until 1611 (which would never have been my contention anyway). Nor is it to say that the modern Catholic Church maintains this particular position. However, there was undeniably a dark spot in Catholic history in which Roman Catholic officials, up to and including the Popes, utterly forbade the transmission or translation of the Holy Bible for the layman.
Time, again, would fail me to provide examples, and as I have written on this topic in the past, I do not feel the need to do so again. However, I can show that in direct response to the Reformation, the Catholic Church actually doubled down on its position that, to quote Pope Gregory VII, if the Bible was made available to all, it would be "...so misunderstood by people of limited intelligence as to lead them into error."
The Council of Trent (1545-63) is quite literally the Roman Catholic Church's answer to the Reformation. This council, with full authority of the Pope, commanded "Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them." (9).
You see, then, that the Catholic Church was historically so sure of itself that you literally needed written permission to read the Bible. Even then, that Bible must have been translated by a Catholic author. Can't have those evil Protestants getting their greasy paws all over it, what with their principles of religious liberty and their suggestions that the word of God holds more authority than the men who interpret it.
What changed?
We see, then, that when the Catholic Church taught "no salvation outside the Church", it not only meant it, but violently enforced it. Not only was there supposedly no salvation outside the Church, but it seems there was also no salvation from the Church. If the Catholic Church had any say in the matter, you could not even read the word of God in your own language.
But of course, we no longer see such aggressive persecution from the Catholic Church. These days, many Catholics even own Bibles, in their own language, and they read them regularly. On top of this, where once the Catholic Church spoke threats against both the mortal and eternal lives of Christians outside of their spiritual gates, they now refer to us as "separated brethren".
This deceptively appealing term originated at the end of 1964, in which Second Vatican Council produced the "Decree on Ecumenism". This document opens with the following introductory statement "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.
But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.
The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call." (10).
Thus began the infamous Ecumenical Movement, a phenomenon which many prominent figures and denominations were only too happy to endorse. And understandably so, for does it not sound sweet to the ears? Rather than excluding us from the Kingdom and damning us to the fiery pits of Hell, Catholics are now free, even encouraged, to link arms with baptised members of non-Catholic traditions, acknowledging us as Christians. And amazingly, especially owing to the fact many modern Catholics have absolutely no clue what their religion officially teaches, or has historically taught, many of them may even be Christians as well!
But this plea for unity has opened a can of worms that would consume Martin Luther himself. In 1992, Pope John Paul promulgated the famous Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter referred to as CCC). In its own words, "This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries". This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful." (CCC 11-12).
You see, then, that CCC is no joke. It is an authoritative Catholic source, promulgated as an authoritative source, by the authority of the Pope, appealing to the authority of Second Vatican Council, the whole Church's tradition, the Scriptures, the Church "Fathers", the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium, in order to guide authorities within the Church in their guidance of those within the Church. Oh, and it's also supposed to be useful reading for all other Christian faithful, which, in light of Second Vatican Council, should include "separated brethren".
Being such a weighty book, it is safe to assume that whatever CCC says about salvation - how to obtain it, and who may obtain it - is more than likely an accurate reflection of the Church's "infallible" position. But CCC opens this up to far more than just "Protestants"! According to CCC 841, the plan of salvation is open to Muslims. And, reading on a little further, CCC 847 even declares that those who, through no fault of their own, know neither Christ nor His Church, yet do His will by the dictates of their conscience, may also be saved!
The incident with the little boy
This reached its culmination in April of 2018, when Pope Francis betrayed not only Christ, but the entire Catholic Church. He hosted a Q&A session for some children at St. Paul of the Cross Parish in Rome, Italy. A young boy named Emanuele approached the microphone, but his nerves got the better of him. So the Pope called the young child to him, and had him whisper his question.
The question, at least from an emotional standpoint, was a difficult one, and I certainly do not envy Francis for being in the position of having to answer it. Nor, however, do I envy the fact that one day, Francis will have to answer for it. See, the question the boy asked is will his father, who was not a believer in Christ, be in Heaven? Francis' answer, in short, was yes. Yes, this little boy's father would be in Heaven, simply because he, being an unbeliever, had nevertheless baptised his children. But the worst part was when Francis actually encouraged the child to pray to his father, who apparently not only made it to Heaven, but skipped Purgatory.
The tragic contrast
In stark contrast to both the Scriptures, and to the historical teachings of the Catholic Church, the path to salvation in the modern Catholic Church seems far too easy. It seems almost anyone can be saved in Catholicism. This is firmly opposed to Christ's words in Matthew 7:13-14: "“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
But this is where Catholics get the raw end of the deal. Whereas it seems anyone and everyone outside of the Catholic Church can apparently receive salvation just by doing their best to achieve it, Catholics are still bound to the never ending story of trying, trying, trying oh so hard to earn salvation, yet never knowing, until the day of their death, how successful their efforts are. Indeed, to say "I know I am going to Heaven" is, itself, a mortal sin - the "sin of presumption". This sin is defined as "...the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God‘s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them." (11). The Pope is so sure that an atheist, based on that one action of baptising his children, skipped the mythical realm of Purgatory, yet a faithful Catholic, having devoted his or her entire life to the Catholic faith, may die and find out it was all for nothing?
No salvation in the Catholic Church
What we see, then, is that the modern Roman Catholic Church contradicts both the true Gospel of Scripture, and the false Gospel of the Roman Catholic Church from at least 585 A.D., all the way up to October 1964 A.D. The Church of Rome preaches a different Gospel than that which the Church of Christ accepted in the first century, delivered by His Apostles. They, themselves, admitted they were only stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1), without authority to change, nor even contradict it, and in his epistle to the Galatians, Paul even said that neither the Apostles, nor even an angel, should ever preach another Gospel. Those who do? Let them be anathema. Let us therefore follow a simple syllogism:
Premise 1: Through His Apostle, Paul, God taught that if you preach a different Gospel, you are anathema.
Premise 2: The Catholic Church preaches a different Gospel.
Conclusion: The Catholic Church is anathema.
Now tell me, what sense is there in a Church, anathematised by Scripture penned by the very hands of the men to whom it appeals, who were moved by the very God it claims to worship, claiming "there is no salvation outside of me"? What could it even possibly mean that there is "no salvation outside the Church" if basically anyone, not even having to know, much less submit to the Lord and His Church, can in fact receive salvation? The conclusion is obvious: There is no salvation in the Catholic Church at all.
But there is one sense in which that last sentence is incorrect. For as much as the Catholic Church itself is a counterfeit Church of Jesus Christ, the fact remains that it is a counterfeit Church of Jesus Christ. Observe the words of Paul in Philippians 1:15-18: "Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."
The Church has always had its parasites. From Judas Iscariot, following Christ only so he could pinch from the penny pot, all the way up to Pope Francis and his ilk, the tares have been present and prominent among the wheat. And Paul says some will preach Christ from envy, strife, selfish ambition, even to add affliction to him in his chains. And what does he say? Take away their religious liberty? Fine them for publishing heretical books? Burn them at the stake for opposing Holy Mother Church? No, rejoice, he says! Rejoice, for Christ is preached! And my brethren, there is salvation outside of every denomination, for the true Church is in every denomination. It is Christ outside of whom there is no salvation, and when you are united to Him, through faith, and faith alone, you are united to His Church.
Thus, salvation can be found, in one sense, in the Catholic Church, for as many errors as they promote, as many heresies as they proclaim, as many outright blasphemies as they commit, still they preach Christ. And His sheep know His voice. Where is His voice? In His word. And so when we pick up His word, as Catholics are now allowed to do even in their own religion, it takes next to nothing to see the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. And thus, as Catholics search the Scriptures daily, they soon see that their Church cannot stand its tests. The result? Come out of her, my brethren, and serve our God with us. Amen.
References
1. Pope Pious XII - Humani Generis, 1950 (link)
2. Pope Pelagius II - Dilectionis vestrae, 585
3. Pope Boniface VIII - Unam Sanctam, 1302 (link)
4. Pope Eugene IV - "Cantate Domino", 1441 (link)
5. Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 1516 (link)
6. Pope Pius IX - Quanta Cura, Condemning Current Errors, 1864 (link)
7. Pope Piuz IX - The Syllabus Of Errors, 1864 (link)
8. Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Speyer." Encyclopedia Britannica, December 10, 2014. (link)
9. Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS, 1564 (link)
10. DECREE ON ECUMENISM, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 1964 (link).
11. Delany, J.(1911).Presumption. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. (link)