For Discussion: Has the Roman Catholic Church Changed Its View on the Salvation of Atheists and Other Religions?
July 10th, 2008 by iMonk
“It [the 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.” Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino
Catechism of the Catholic Church 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who 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 - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
My wife and I have an agreement to not discuss Catholic/Evangelical differences, but if we were talking about those differences, I’d want to immediately talk about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches must be believed regarding the salvation of other religions and non-believers.
Religious Tolerance.org has a page summarizing this issue, which I’m sure many RC friends will find less than acceptable, but it does get to the heart of the issue and it quotes several papal documents and church councils. Please read that page before continuing.
James White (I know, I know) played a clip from Catholic Answers today (episode 20080708, last 8-10 minutes) and Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin answers a phone question on purgatory with a clear affirmation that those who are atheists “through no fault of their own” do not have a “broken friendship” with God.
A Catholic Answers page on the subject ends with this statement:
As was stated recently in Dominus Iesus, those outside the Church have a salvific link to the Church, through which all salvation comes. What that link is exactly hasn’t been revealed to us. But we do know that it exists: Scripture and Tradition attest to its existence.
A dialog at the same site says much the same thing: salvation through the church is available outside the church through means we don’t understand.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has several things to say on this, reprinted here at Beliefnet.
Several statements by Pope John Paul II seem to starkly proclaim a Roman Catholic view that non-Christians can be saved by following their own religions:
Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).
And here.
“…We are to accept the kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world and should be a source of serenity and confidence to our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God’s kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom. In the Lord’s prayer we say ‘Thy kingdom come’. May this be the hope that sustains us and inspires our Christian life and world.” (”Thy Kingdom is Grace,” Papal statement Wednesday, December 6th 2000.)
And the current Pope echoes these same sentiments.
We want to commend to St. Augustine a further meditation on our psalm. In it, the Father of the Church introduces a surprising element of great timeliness: He knows that also among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire. They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption.And he says that among the persecutors, among the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live. With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ. (Commentary on Psalm 136, 2005, as reported by Zenit.)
I am as interested in a “wider hope” as anyone, and I have a real interest in the relation of Christianity and non-Christian religions. I’m not a typical fundamentalist on this issue, and I deal with atheists, Muslims and Buddhists constantly in my ministry.
Nonetheless, it appears to me that there is an issue here. So I have some questions that I’ll invite anyone to comment on (respectfully and without personal attack.)
1. Given the earlier statements of the church cited in the Religious Tolerance article and elsewhere, has the RCC changed its position or its articulation on the relationship of non-Christians to the church and the possibility of salvation? Is this confusing to anyone else?
2. Would the previous popes or the Council of Florence find the statements of Vatican II and John Paul II to express their own views? Or is this an example of “developing doctrine?”
3. Does the RCC teach that non-Christians can be saved by good intentions and good works without explicit faith in Christ?
4. What is the RCC’s view of Romans 1 and Romans 5, specifically the universal pronouncement of judgement and condemnation? I’m especially interested in Romans 5, which makes it clear that the federal headship of Adam brings about universal condemnation. How is this removed in Roman Catholic theology if someone is unbaptized and ignorant of the Gospel?
5. Does the teaching of the Vatican II on this subject mean that those who are ignorant of the Gospel are closer to salvation than Protestants who reject the Roman Catholic Church as the means of salvation?
Speaking as a semi-learned Roman Catholic…
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has always been the teaching of the Church; we just don’t know what the boundaries of “the Church” are, as I understand it.
Non-Christians, I think, can be saved neither by good intentions nor good works, but by God’s grace in spite of themselves. Invincible ignorance and all that.
And as far as Protestants vs. Catholics — how can one be “closer to salvation”? What does that phrase even mean??
I think it would be worth exploring this issue from all religions, IMonk, not just Catholicism.
I’m sure you can find very condemnatory statements about non-Christians from the historical teachings of Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and so on.
Most of them don’t believe that an atheist is automatically condemned to hell anymore, either.
It’s broader than the RC Church. IT’s a shift in Christian thinking.
Or is it?
I just think question is broader than you pose.
And I don’t know if it is right (anticipating an objection)to say, “Well, this is an issue because the Catholic Church posits its unchanging Magisterium” so it makes sense to play Gotcha.
Those in the Reformation churches used to say that the Bible, the unchanging, self-evident Word of God, teaches that unbelievers burn. How many - even those who stand on the Bible as that same unchanging Word of God - believe that now? Some do, sure, but do all? Has not there been a shift from, I don’t know, Jonathon Edwards to the present?
I am sure knowledgeable Catholics will answer your specific questions, but I just want to throw in my two cents that this is not just a Catholic question - as is the case with many of your issues (closed communion, and so on.)
Mack:
Let’s compare me to Joe Pagan in the Jungle.
I was born into ignorance, but I am no longer ignorant. I blatantly reject some of the claims of the RCC.
Joe Pagan in the Jungle knows nothing of the church, Jesus, etc.
Isn’t Joe Pagan closer to heaven than I am?
Larry,
As I said, I’m interested in the subject of the wider hope, and of course it’s an issue for others.
But in all fairness, other groups aren’t making the claims for their teaching authority and continuity of doctrine that the RCC does.
“Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has always been the teaching of the Church; we just don’t know what the boundaries of “the Church” are, as I understand it.”
I’m not sure that really holds water as a useful statement. That’s sort of like saying “those who are saved are those who will wind up in heaven”. It’s a true statement, but doesn’t do much of anything. As far as winding up in heaven goes, the principle of “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” doesn’t put up any sort of standard people can use if no one knows where the boundaries of the “Church” are.
Most everything I’ve heard from RCC individuals, and everything I’ve read from early RCC statements, indicates that the standard of what “the Church” is, is defined pretty much by submission/membership/baptism to the RCC. If that is a boundary to “the Church”, then it’s a useful statement which we can consider. If there is no boundary to “the Church” then there’s nothing to discuss as no one can know who is or isn’t in the church - anyone could be in the Church and there’s no way to form even a slight opinion this side of heaven.
I agree that “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is the position of the RCC, but I don’t think that the RCC also believes that no one knows the boundaries of the Church. As far as I can tell, they’ve typically (until relatively recently) defined the Church as the RCC.
Oh, and sorry about any confusion. I’m not iMonk. Webmonk does not equal iMonk.
Two points:
1) The statements by Eugene IV and several others at the link you provide were long before the Reformation. There were no Protestants at the time. Yes, there had been various schisms but other than 1054 they were mostly small. I don’t think those statements were intended to address the kind of breakup that followed with Luther, et al. No one foresaw such a thing at the time.
2) To my understanding, the terms “heretic” and “schismatic” apply only to those who actually make a conscious decision to break communion with the Pope. Their children and succeeding generations that were brought up apart from the RCC are not blamed for their separation. Modern day Protestants are regarded as uninformed but still, in some sense, Catholic. Hence they can receive grace through the RCC via some mechanism we do not yet understand.
OK. But there were Muslims, Jews and Atheists.
I refer my right honorable friend to the book I recommended to him not long ago.
A very capable and respected Catholic scholar/theologian wrote a very approachable book (not too long either) on this very subject, and he really gets at everything you bring up in this question.
I’m not evading anything by recommending this read - I’m admitting to not having the time, energy or fullness of knowledge enough to answer it in a setting like this. I’m saying if you really want a good answer that’s not too boiled down, I’d order that book and read it. It’s no work of apologetics in the least. It’s very helpful, I promise.
Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response. by Francis A. Sullivan, SJ.
Here’s another really helpful one which deals with how to interpret these Magisterial documents that get statements pulled out of them here and there. I’m reading this one now - about 3/4 done - pretty helpful. Same author…
Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium.
If I had to boil, though, I’d say yeah, development, contextual understanding, articulation, all that. Anyway, I hope those books are helpful. Peace.
PatrickW, there were many groups of non-RCC people and the statements were very clearly stating that they were completely ineligible for salvation/heaven. Not even some unknown mechanism could bring them to salvation.
“pagans … cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock….”
Today, however, those same pagans, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc, (or at least their descendants) are stated as having an open avenue to heaven through some unknown mechanism as you put it.
““it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour”
The first excludes pagans, Jews, and Muslims from any possible hope of heaven unless they submit to the Church. The second says those same groups can gain access to heaven by sincerely following their own traditions and consciences.
Those are compatible exactly how?!?
Michael, the two statements which you have quoted here speak clearly for themselves– and they are irreconcilable. Either “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” cannot be saved, apart from faith in Jesus Christ, or they can be saved, without said faith. The first statement that you quoted asserts the former; the second asserts the latter. The two statements are simply contradictory. Therein lies one of the reasons that I can never return to the Catholic faith.
iMonk:
I’ve still no clue what “closer to Heaven” means — I mean, I certainly wouldn’t say that I, as a Catholic, am “closer to Heaven” than you, as a non-Catholic, or even “closer” than your Joe Pagan. We’re all still living, we each have plenty of years left on this earth where we can turn away from God’s love and reject Him if we so choose.
WebMonk:
“‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ doesn’t put up any sort of standard people can use if no one knows where the boundaries of the ‘Church’ are.”
Let’s say you’re right. So what? What’s the hangup with needing to be told whether non-Christians are going to Hell? If we know they are, ought we cease to evangelize them, to pray & hope for their salvation?
Alan:
Good to hear from you. Books….ugh….I’ve acquired so many over sabbatical its obscene. I gave away two bags full yesterday, but I have much to repent of.
BTW….get off the computer and go fishing. I’m worried about you.
One of the reasons I’m not a Calvinist is that when someone mentioned something like “Limited” Atonement or “No such thing as free will” I’d wind up recommending several reformed books that would clear everything up
I mean, Jesus dealt with people outside of Judaism didn’t he? I’m quite open to some of the ideas in the wider hope. I don’t think Cornelius would have gone to hell if he’d choked on an M&M before Peter arrived. But Cornelius wasn’t worshiping the Gods of Rome either. He was placing all the faith he knew he had in the true God of Israel as he understood him.
I don’t see the New Testament getting anywhere near that JPII statement. I mean, that’s salvation by good works AS A Muslim. Bring home the missionaries.
I know there is a lot of context here, but the JPII statement really makes me squirrelly. Sounds worse than some PCUSA liberal. Seriously.
Love you brother. Hang in there.
I haven’t read the article, but this Boston College professor deals with the relevant question and apparently likes the presentation by Sullivan that Alan recommended.
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/partners/ccjr/phan03.htm
Here’s a Key Quote:
Of course, in 2005, Peter Phan- the author above- was in hot water with the Vatican on this subject. Now I’m really confused.
Peter Phan may not be the best representative of the Church’s teachings.
Oh, Michael, you beat me to the punch.
Confused? See Dominus Iesus: “those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith”. “Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute.” Read the whole thing.
Let me exercise some of my perogatives as a Protestant:
The first JPII quote above is simply not what Christianity teaches, nor CAN it teach it. A great man of great faith, but that statement is wrong.
Phan is running around using scholarly lingo to justify exactly what JPII was talking about.
And he’s in trouble.
This sounds so familiar. I almost feel at home
Yes, go fishing - yes, I need to do that. In the mean time, that quote from Phan, as Mack said there, isn’t quite it. And it’s not quite the same conclusions that Sullivan came to in the book I mentioned. I believe Sullivan, too, is now at Boston College. He taught at the Gregorian University in Rome for a long time.
Catholic theology, in general, now seems to see that very explicit statements like the older one there, were made from a certain viewpoint and in a certain context and that, even though we still believe in the unique Salvific effectiveness of Jesus, through the Church, we understand how it works in a wider way. Salvation is now generally understood as an inclusivist rather than an exclusivist… deal. These statements clarify and are developmental of each other, in their progressive order. Would the staters of the older recognize the younger as legitimate? Probably not but they would be understanding them as they could, in the context in which they made them.
If one doesn’t look at these things in a fundamentalistic fashion, they are a little easier to understand and aren’t nearly as liable to get in one’s “craw” or “crawl” or whatever that word is. Again, I’m here, usually, to give you some ground that a lot of this stuff is a bit confusing and hard to wade through sometimes. I’m just saying, if you do a little wading through some mucky water, you’ll get to another clear ripple section. But then, here we are back to fishing - what the hell?
Right, off the computer. Man, one of these days we’re going to have to meet face to face and break bread, chicken, beer or something - seriously. Peace.
That’s because Phan misunderstood what the Holy Father was saying. He wasn’t saying that good works would somehow elevate people to salvation. What he was saying that anybody who honestly seeks the truth can receive the Grace of God, through the mediation of Jesus Christ, whether they are aware of the source or not. This is related to ancient theorizing about the status of pre-Christian pagans, such as Socrates or Confucius, who seemed to draw close to the nature of God in their searchings. This avenue of theological thought eventually lead to the obvious question about those who lived after Christ, but didn’t hear the Gospel preached, and to those Christians who through no fault of their own found themselves separated from the Church (Protestants, Orthodox).
What the Holy Fathers are teaching is not universal salvation, but the universal availability of the Grace of Christ. This does not contradict any of the ancient teachings of the Church, as there is ultimately no salvation outside of the Church, whether anyone knows they are part of the Church or not.
Now, you might ask, “what point is there to being part of the Catholic Church if I can be saved outside of it’s visible bonds?” This is like asking what benefit there is to having the sense of sight, when it is possible to live life without it, or what benefit legs are because it is possible to crawl on the ground. The Catholic Church provides a clear, direct link to the Grace of God found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ his only begotten son, and as such provides the surest way to salvation and the abundant life. I know this because of my personal experience with the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church, and the historical experience evident in the lives of the Saints.
As for you and Joe Pagan: There is no matter of who is closer. You both have the same access to God’s Grace, it is merely a matter of what the two of you do with what you are given.
Mack, sorry, I was making a different point. Let me try again.
By making the term “Church” an undefined nebulous concept, then everyone is “in the Church” in some way, and the term comes to mean “everyone” and becomes a largely useless concept.
You can define the Church as:
everyone in the RCC,
everyone who trusts in Christ,
everyone who claims to be a Christian,
everyone who tries to follow their own conscience,
etc.
Those statements all have meaning and impact. However, when the definition gets to just plain “everyone”, it changes. That’s what happens when everyone can go to heaven through some “mechanism we do not yet understand”.
Defining those who are in the Church as anyone who is trying to “follow the dictates of their own conscience” essentially says everyone is part of the Church. At that point you can substitute the word “everyone” for “Church”, and the term has lost all usefulness.
WebMonk, I suggest you focus on the phrase unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock…. What flock was he talking about, and how do you get added?
In one sense, the Church regards every human as part of its flock. It has to, because God wills all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). The Church implores all to join with it, but understands that many do not have the full knowledge and ability to do so. These people are not cut off from salvation. They are responsible for what they know (John 15:22) and we trust in God to give them some other way to join the flock that is congruent with the knowledge and ability they possess.
Free will remains, though. People can still reject the route that God gives them. That is who the earlier papal statements are talking about. Those who honestly seek to answer God’s call, however crude their understanding of it, are in some mystical way uniting with the Catholic Church.
So this is how both the older papal statements and the more recent ones can be true. There is no salvation outside the Church. But a person can be joined to the Church - the flock - and not be fully aware that this is what he is doing.
Keep in mind that Catholics often use absolute statements, but then create exceptions for God’s mercy. For example, Catholics believe that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Just like the “no salvation outside the church” quotes, you could find several stating that unbaptized persons go right to hell.
Since Catholic doctrine cannot change, salvation without baptism has been described in baptismal terms, like “baptism by desire,” which is when a person really wants to be baptized, but dies before the baptism takes place. This allows Catholic theologians to reconcile the statements regarding baptism’s absolute necessity, with the idea of a merciful God.
Similarly, in stating that limbo did not exist, the Pope said that babies who die without baptism are entrusted to the mercy of God. Thus, even though baptism is required for salvation, God in his mercy can adjust the rules for innocent people who died without a chance for salvation.
The salvation of persons from other religions (or other denominations) is handled the similar fashion. There are absolutes: “no salvation outside the church, even for those who do good works,” but with exceptions for God’s mercy. But, Catholics will say that these exceptions are few and far between so the surest way to salvation is through the Catholic Church.
Personally, I don’t see how this jives with Romans, where Paul says that everyone, jews and non-jews, are condemned by sin and require faith in Christ for salvation. But I hope for salvation for all.
One of the reasons we’re having this thread and this excellent discussion today is to make the point on how differently (or maybe not) the two sides deal with contradictory statements.
Time, context, etc etc etc and yes, some professor somewhere can explain that “The ____________ can’t be saved if they are outside of the church” and “The _______________ can be saved because somehow- in a way we can’t understand- they are related to the church” are actually saying the same thing.
But the asusumption that there IS no disageeement and there CAN BE no disagreement between legitimate Popes is the essence of the Catholic way of seeing this or any other issue.
And to those of us on the outside, it’s as plain as could be that Eugene and JPII are making statements that can only be reconciled by a kind of expanding/deconstructing the meanings of words/phrases to a point that what any authority says is almost irrelevant. What matters is that you submit to the “rightness” of the authority and not even the logical coherence of the statement.
But religious people do this all the time, and as I said, you can find the same “Take three major theologians and call me in the morning” approach among Calvinists, etc.
It’s no wonder to me guys that the average Catholic or Evangelical/Protestant layperson has such little interet in theology. When a logical question shows up, the theologians start playing games that the ordinary person understands quite well and they just say “let them do what they do.”
peace
MS
Good day all! It is wonderful to debate these important issues in a scholarly, indepth way. I’ve obviously stumbled upon a jewel of a blog! Thanks everyone.
I am Catholic, and I truly hope I can offer some help in discussing the orthodox position on the avenue of salvation.
To begin, the Church preaches that there is no salvation outside of Christ. Only through Christ can man be saved, for He alone is God, and He alone died for mankind’s sin. “Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” -Romans 5: 2 Anything that sounds contrary to this is false. Peter Phan is distorting the Church’s teaching, and for this reason is under investigation by the Magisterium.
With this premise, the question of how salvation in Christ then relates to the primacy of the Catholic Church revolves around the professed relationship between Christ and His Church.
As Catholics, we believe that the Kingdom of God that Christ spoke of so joyfully (especially in Matthew 6: 33 and Matthew 22 and elsewhere) is Christ and His Church. So the Church is, in a sense, the Kingdom of God on earth that serves as a metaphorical outpost awaiting the final days (just as the Resurrection of Christ is the example of the resurrection of all).
Christ spoke of the Advocate John 14: 22-26:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me. I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.”
Now, this Advocate is understood as the Holy Spirit. If the Advocate is the third person of the Trinity, equal with the Father and Christ, then the Advocate holds the same authoritative weight as the workings of the Father and the Son. In Catholicism, the workings of the Holy Spirit are, objectively, the workings of the Church. Hence the many comments by Jesus like this one from John 20: 23, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
From these premises, the Church’s position can then be understood. Because there is no salvation outside of Christ, who is God, and because Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Church as it’s guide, there is no salvation outside of the Church, either. The Church represents all that Christ is and was, and awaits His coming in the manner that He wished. For this reason, “those not living within the Catholic Church…cannot become participants in eternal life” (from opening Papal quote).
Now the question that beseiges us is the one that may be the most complex, but maybe not. And this is, as many have stated, the boundaries of the Church. I assume all know about the teachings on Invincible Ignorance (that if you do not know of Christ because, per se, a missionary missed your island, then you are not to be held accountable for what you did not recieve), and that could be debated at another time. But in reference, specifically, to the overarching issue, it must be understood that someone can participate in the Church without explicitly becoming a member of the Church (Baptism, Eucharist, etc.) This is commonly referred to as the Baptism by Desire (that one is such a Truthseeker that he/she lives for Christ without ever being given the Revelation about Christ, but rather operates from the God-designed gift of their souls and the natural attraction to that which is good). Pagans can do this to, as can other Christians. Correctly pointed out somewhere above, the only problem really seems to be if they explicitly reject Christ. And, incidentally, for all those who have never heard of Christ, this would mean that they reject the good despite their attraction to it.
This all said, salvation is very much a mystery and should be handled that way, just as most lofty notions in Christianity are! Compile this mystery with the fact that we can never judge another’s soul and inward direction, it is hard to ever get a concrete handle on this (and rightly so, thank God!) But what must be defended is not only the primacy of the Church, but also the undeniably unending store of God’s mercy and grace. One of the reasons JPII sounds so “liberal” above, is simply because one could say God is totally tolerant, but totally just at the same time. At this point, JPII must be focusing on God’s incredible tolerance, along with the possibilities of God’s love. As long as these comments by both Popes are in line with all of Scripture and Tradition and do not contradict any, then we cannot limit God’s grace in our speculation any more than we can stray from His Revelation.
Only God can know how wide His Church is. It seems to be our job to get everyone we can to know the fullness of the Truth. The goal is that everyone knows the Truth as much as they can within their station of life. And it must always be possible that, in the case of those who only find a small/ medium/ large percent of the Truth, the other half can be provided by God.
From Catholic Answers: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp
That which opens the salvation of Christ to them is their conscious effort, under grace, to serve God as well as they can on the basis of the best information they have about him.
The Church speaks of “implicit desire” or “longing” that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with “a sincere heart.” In that seeking they are “related” to Christ and to his body the Church (address to the CDF).
On the other hand, the Church has long made it clear that if a person rejects the Church with full knowledge and consent, he puts his soul in danger:
They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).
The Catholic Church is “the single and exclusive channel by which the truth and grace of Christ enter our world of space and time” (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, “though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat.” And when they eat of it, “without knowing it or willing it” they are “incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church.”
Just a gentle reminder to everyone to stay on the topic of the post.
There are 5 questions in the post that deserve to be answered specifically.
Boy, I feel terrible for that poor Philippian jailer. (see Acts 16:22-34) The dude thought he simply had to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” to be saved. Bummer!
Big V, please. Let’s stay on topic like our host asked. I could just as easily quote Peter in Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized to have your sins forgiven.” Neither is responsive to Michael’s questions, which I will now try to answer.
1. Has the RCC changed its position or its articulation…
Position, no. Articulation, maybe. God’s truth is what it is and doesn’t change. If something did change, it must be our understanding of it or our ability to express it with limited human vocabulary. The earlier statements are perhaps incomplete because now we have been thinking about the matter for several hundred additional years. As I explained above, when properly understood they are not inconsistent with each other.
2. Would the previous Popes have problems with later statements?
They would, I think, need some time to study over them, but after coming up to speed on what we have learned in the interim I think they would understand. Is this “development of doctrine?” Possibly, depending how you define the term. I don’t see it as a problem. Today’s physicists know a lot of things Isaac Newton didn’t. If he came back, he would be eager to see what answers have emerged to the things he wondered about.
3. Does the RCC teach that non-Christians can be saved by good intentions and good works without explicit faith in Christ?
No, the RCC teaches that salvation comes only through the grace of God. No man can save himself. However, to my understanding we believe that faith in Christ can be implicit rather than explicit. The name of Christ can save you even if you have never heard it, in other words. To say otherwise means that millions of pre-Columbian Americans went to hell with no chance of salvation. Since that does not seem like something a just and merciful God would do, there must be another way.
4. What is the RCC’s view of Romans 1 and 5?
I will defer this one until I can study those passages further.
5. Does the teaching of the Vatican II on this subject mean that those who are ignorant of the Gospel are closer to salvation than Protestants who reject the Roman Catholic Church as the means of salvation?
No, they are farther away. They have the hope of salvation if they sincerely desire it, but like everyone else their best chance is to come through the fullness of the Church. We have an express elevator; they must take the stairs. This is why we must aggressively fulfill the Great Commission, teaching and baptizing everywhere.
Thanks for the very interesting discussion.
I see the discussion moving toward the question of “what about those who’ve never heard of Jesus?” But that’s not really an issue for the statements made. While the statements certainly include those groups which do not know of Christ, the statements also include those who have heard of Christ, but are still looking on their own religion and conscience.
I see the trails which manage to make the two statements agree, but sheesh! There is lots of this style of re/deconstructive reasoning all over the theology, not just RCC theology. There are not two statements, no matter how opposite they seem, that cannot be shown to in some way be equivalent. That’s a tribute to the skills of those adjusting the meanings, not a tribute to the truth.
“The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God’s kingdom.”
Was he speaking of just those people who have never heard of Christ? No. He is speaking of even those who have heard of Christ, but haven’t accepted. Even the document which he references as support for his statement (Lumen Gentium, Nov 21, 1964) clearly speaks of people who have heard of Christ. It goes even further to claim that Mohamedans are saved.
“the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour”
Ditto with this quote - it is not limited to just those who haven’t yet heard about Jesus. Darned near everyone gets in as long as they are following their own conscience or religion, even if they’ve heard of Christ and have dismissed him.
“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;”
Here is the older statement which speak the opposite. Pagans included the Muslims at that time as those who cannot enter heaven, and yet Muslims are now stated to be heaven-bound even though they reject Christ. Jews were not allowed into heaven, but multiple modern pronouncements have stated the opposite. Schismatics couldn’t (they were going through a schism at the time, and so yes they did know exactly of what a schism could involve), but now all styles of Protestants have been assured that they are going to heaven.
These aren’t statements just talking about people who haven’t heard of Jesus.
I realize that there are ways by which people can say they really didn’t mean it, or that there was some sort of context that doesn’t show up, or, or, or.
As Alan said the older Popes would not have understood and would have disagreed. He said it is just because they don’t understand the context. No. JP2 isn’t just talking about those who haven’t heard of Christ. There is not realistic way to equate JP2’s acceptance into heaven of people who have heard of Christ but follow their own religion, with E4’s statements (and others).
That’s not to say that theologians and defenders won’t try. I’ve seen quite a bit more violence than this done to the meaning of statements when hard core Calvinists really sink their teeth into something. It’s not an RCC thing, it’s a people thing.
I am taking a cut at all five, any informed Catholics please correct my errors
1. Given the earlier statements of the church cited in the Religious Tolerance article and elsewhere, has the RCC changed
its position or its articulation on the relationship of non-Christians to the church and the possibility of salvation? Is
this confusing to anyone else?
If you want to prove that the Catholic Church has ever changed a dogma, this is the best candidate I am aware of. I believe
this is one of the major issues with the (almost) schism of the Saint Pius the Tenth traditionalist Catholics. So, clearly within Catholic circles there is a fair amount of argument on this one. I mentioned one other time on this blog that I can generally get a heated argument going in any group of 4 or more Catholics by bringing this up. Michael is right, us ordinary lay people have a hard time making sense of this, and we do leave it to the theologians to sort out.
I am not qualified to give an answer, but I am going to attempt a ‘lay person’ level response. The way I chose to try to understand this dilemma is one of those “both and” situations. In Catholic theology sometimes the answer is not “either ___ or ____” sometimes it is “both ____ and ____.” The way this helps is if we move away from focusing just on the fact that the means of salvific grace are mediated through the Church (Christ’s body visible on earth today) and look at the nature of God. God is merciful, God is just, God is Love, … that is enough for what I need. Yes, God is just. There will be a judgment. Some people will be going to hell. The only means of salvation is through Jesus Christ. The ordinary means of that salvation is the sacraments. However, God is also merciful, and God is love. One of the better points raised by militant atheists is: “If God sends people to Hell - he can’t be a loving God and I want no part of Him wheter he exists or not.” So who are we to put limits on God’s mercy? Now the Church has the power to bind and lose, to teach, etc.. But obviously the Church has not finished its mission - we haven’t succeeded - YET! So, what about God’s mercy for all those who are i”ecclesial communities” not in communion with the Church, without some or most of the sacraments? What of all those who have yet to have the opportunity to hear the gospel? What of all those who have been indoctrinated into an athiestic world view by their society and governement and are unable to really ‘hear’ the gospel? Are they all to be damned with no hope what-so-ever?
In the middle ages, the most people believed the gospel had reached the world. Pagans and Muslims were tearing at the shreds of the collapsing Holy Roman Empire. The focused on God’s judgement. The got it right that the only means of Salvation is Christ. They got it right that the Church is the ordinary means of grace. They got it right that there is no salvation outside the Church. When those statements were formulated, there was no perceived need to consider God’s mercy or God’s Love. But yet, they seem to have left just enough room for us who have the benefit of another 1000 years of history.
1000 years later, after the reformation, the discovery of the new world, and the rediscovery of China and India, and southern Africa, after Calvin and “double pre-destination” the Church restated the same truth with a perspective that had changed over time. I do not have the knowledge to split the hairs of whether this is “doctrinal development” or something else. I don’t believe it was a reversal. It was an acknowledgment that God is both Just and Merciful. In the circumstances of the modern age, after the experiences of history, the Church ‘adjusted’ the expression of this truth.
I know, that is strained, but I would have a harder time accepting that all outside the Church are eternally damned, than accepting that there is theological room for the Church to teach as it currently does.
2. Would the previous popes or the Council of Florence find the statements of Vatican II and John Paul II to express their own views? Or is this an example of “developing doctrine?”
How would anyone know? I might imagine all sorts of things. Probably there would be some good arguments. In prayer, guided by the spirit, and after catching up on 1,000 years of history I can at least imagine that they would accept the modern formulation as orthodox.
3. Does the RCC teach that non-Christians can be saved by good intentions and good works without explicit faith in Christ?
Firt, we are talking here only about the theoretical (theological) possibility of salvation, not the actaul accomplishment.
They can not be saved by good intentions or good works. They can be saved only by Jesus Christ by responding to the gifts of grace given to them by the Holy Spirit. They may be saved without explicit faith in Christ - but it not through good works or even intentions, it is through a genuine response to grace, of seeking God, of wanting to know Truth. This is not an intention or an action, it is an interior disposition of responding to grace. Now, that internal disposition and response to grace should be manifested in ‘good intentions’ and hopefully behavior, but the behavior itself is not salvific.
One Point The Church does not make any claim of how likely this is, or how rare. None, ZIPPO. It is possible to believe that almost no-one is saved in this manner. Some claim that many, many are saved in this manner. Some, like mentioned in other posts go too far, and fall into something close to relativism by claiming that nearly all are ultimately saved through God’s mercy.
Also, the Church does not state dogmatically that any particualr individual is confined to Hell, not even Judas, or the Centurion’s who mocked and executed Jesus. We are free to speculate.
4. What is the RCC’s view of Romans 1 and Romans 5, specifically the universal pronouncement of judgement and
condemnation? I’m especially interested in Romans 5, which makes it clear that the federal headship of Adam brings about universal condemnation. How is this removed in Roman Catholic theology if someone is unbaptized and ignorant of the Gospel?
The sacrament are the ordinary means of salvific grace. However, God in His infinite mercy is not confined to operate only through the ordinary means.
5. Does the teaching of the Vatican II on this subject mean that those who are ignorant of the Gospel are closer to salvation than Protestants who reject the Roman Catholic Church as the means of salvation?
This is a question that is unanswerable in that form! Grace is freely available to all. The sacraments of the Church Universal are the guaranteed means of grace, but even a devoted Catholic is not guaranteed salvation. We “must work out our salvation in fear and trembling” and pray for perseverance to “finish the race.”
The Scariest verse in the Bible: Luke 12:48 “…Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”
God Bless
Paul
Quick example of the direct conflict.
E4 said Jews can’t get to heaven. They certainly knew of Christ, but they still weren’t getting in unless they joined the flock/church. Jews were very sincere in their faithful practice of their religion, but he still said they weren’t in unless they joined. Jews who were very sincerely practicing their faith were killed and driven out unless they made an explicit statement to become a Christian.
Today? The CCC 839 and numerous, numerous other statements declare Jews as heaven-bound as they are right now. The Jews aren’t different today than they were during the days of E4.
Direct conflict. I don’t doubt that someone will come up with a way that manages to get both to be in agreement, but somehow I really doubt that most people will buy it.
On one hand there was killing of Jews unless they explicitly joined the Church, and on the other hand Jews are going to heaven. Like I said, I have no doubt there is some way to try to make the two agree, but … oh never mind.
While I appreciate any attempt at sincere dialogue, I can’t help but think these questions are posed to put Roman Catholics on the defensive. Plus, given the depth of the questions, a blog comment thread isn’t likely to produce a lot of theological fruit. So, with those observations, I’ll bite:
Doctrine does legitmately develop because our understanding of the great mystery of our salavation deepens over time. Plus, we must articulate what is believed to each age. in a way that it can be understood. Obviously, we have a lot of work to do. Put simply, our language, not to mention our understanding, always falls short of that which we cannot entirely apprehend, let alone comprehend. Newman has a very accessible essay on the development of Christian doctrine.
So, what governs legitimate doctrinal development? Let’s turn to Vincent of Lérins’ two rules:
1) Any ecclesial doctrine can only “validated by the criteriological norm of what has been attested semper, ubique, et ab omnibus (the warrants of antiquity, ubiquity, and universality)” (Guarino, Thomas. “Tradition and Doctrinal Development: Can Vincent of Lérins Still Teach the Church.” Theological Studies, March 2006: 35). Put simply, the articulation of doctrine must be what has been believed in the church always, everywhere, and by all.
Nonetheless, we can arrive at better and deeper understandings of what is contained in the so-called depositum fidei. Hence, rule two
2)Any advancement in our understanding of the faith “must be an advance [profectus] in the proper sense of the word and not an alteration [permutatio] in faith” (Guarino 36).
The church does in fact teach that there is salvation outside the church. Nonetheless, the church is the ordinary way to salvation and has a missionary mandate to make Christ known to the nations. All who are saved but not through the church are saved by Christ in an extraordinary manner. Otherwise, what about the anecdotal non-Christian who never hears of Christ, but heeds what is good? Is she damned because she did not come to a conscious faith in Christ? What about those who have been abused, hurt, pushed away by the church, and are kept away because of the bad example of Christians? Are they, too, damned?
I would suggest reading Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate, which is a statement by an ecumenical council about the church’s relationship to non-Christian religions. It is available on the web and quite short. I would also recommend reading Jacques DuPuis’ Christianity and the Religions: From Confrontation to Dialogue. As a friend and admirer of Pater Tom (Merton) you’ll appreciate both.
Scott,
The day I stand up in front of my classes and say “I cannot be wrong in what I teach in this class. My teaching is infallible,” most of the students will say “whatever.” The smart ones will not accept my assertion and will ask me plenty of questions to defend such an unusual position.
I find it amazing that some RC always acts as if these dialogs are “biased” towards the RCC being “defensive.” You folks have plenty to defend- far more than anyone else in the Christian family.
So I really appreciate your answer. Many Catholics simply won’t answer questions at all, and I am frequently portrayed as some kind of anti-Catholic for encouraging these discussions.
Thanks
MS
At the end of the day, simply stating that you are infallible is a piss poor argument and one that the Church does not fall back on, even in 1950 with the promulgation of the Assumption, an argument was made. Now, whether it was a good argument is another question.
Incidentally, I am currently researching Vatican I’s definition of infallibility, seeing how it stacks up against Vincent’s two rules. I have no problem agreeing with Kung, Pottmeyer, Sullivan, and even JPII that in order for we Catholics to sincerely engage in ecumenism both infallibility and universal jurisdiction dogmas as set forth in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, need to be deepened and clarified. Such a clarification has been on-going since Vatican II. I am certainly not resting any arguments I make on either the church’s infallibility and certainly not my own, as I claim to have none. I try it from time-to-time with my kids, it doesn’t work.
I have no problem defending my faith, as my willingness to engage in the dialogue (hopefully) indicates. I could state that the Reformation has a lot to answer for, too, but such tit-for-tat does not constitute dialogue. I think you know me well enough by now to know that I do not perceive you as being anti-Catholic nor I do not question your intentions. So, I’ll end by being specific. I find questions 2 and 5 problematic. 2 is simply irrelevant and 5 seems polemical to me. Of course, that leaves 1,4, & 5 to discuss.
I would also add that Paul addresses the question of coming to faith
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:14-17)
Does God condemn those who do not call Him because they did not hear? This seems to me a good argument for the possibility of people being saved without coming to conscious faith in Christ, thus outside the church. The Roman Catholic Church also recognizes the imperfect communion that exists among all the baptized. I have not problem accepting that there will be many Protestants in heaven, even ones who do not become Roman Catholics.
Scott,
The web site spends plenty of ink criticizing the fruit of the reformation and an equal amount promoting a more catholic version of evangelicalism.
Polemical? Huh? Let me assure you that as a Protestant married to a Catholic and reading over and over again the sentence that those who REJECT various things are in a totally different situation than those who are ignorant of them, it’s not polemical. It’s the real deal.
You can answer whatever questions you wish and if you think some of them are expressions of hostility then by all means skip them.
If we wanted polemical we could all go to James White or Catholic Answers/EWTN, right?
I appreciate that you believe infallibility is a reasonable case. I consider it a pure assertion and a presupposition on which the majority of RC discussion proceeds. Certainly the main issue separating us.
Peace
MS
Michael:
Indeed, let’s keep typing. Maybe we’ll have a beer or two one day and really hash things out. I cannot tell you how much reading your blog has helped me.
I did not state that I thought infallibility is reasonable. I am really grappling with it right now. I can say, without rejecting it, that the defintion as it presently exists needs further explanation and clarification. I am happy that this is occurring. For this a look at the tradition is in order. I agree that it is the main issue dividing Christians, not just Western Christians, but Catholics from Orthodox, too. JPII acknowledged as much in Ut Unum Sint, particularly #95.
Without being too presumputous, I invite you to read a post on my blog from awhile back. It is entitled <a href=”http://scottdodge.blogspot.com/2006/10/you-will-know-them-by-their-fruits.html“You will know them by their fruits” Matthew 7,20″.
PatrickW -
Acts 2:38 - Super verse! Sorry, Bro., I thought I was on topic. Point being, trusting Christ is the way of salvation. No church required, no ordained reverend, no Pope, no good works, walking up the aisle, saying the sinner’s prayer, etc. It’s ALL about Jesus! Look, I’m no scholar, certainly no intellectual; just a poor, screwed-up sinner trying to follow my Savior. I’ve got to think most of us have better things to do than argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin or whatever. I’m asking myself - WWJB (what would Jesus blog) on this subject?
Michael -
I guess you got some folks stirred-up. Was that your purpose? Please let me know if any of these thoughtful and passionate disputations convinces even one blogger to change his or her mind. Doubtful. I guess I’ll stick to “Jesus Shaped Spirituality,” since it’s all about Him anyway.
God Bless (and I really mean it)
Big V:
I don’t think anyone is stirred up at all. It’s been a great thread. Very civil. Maybe you’re picking up the wrong vibe.
Never the goal to change anyone’s mind, but to understand the other person better.
peace
MS
I feel that so much of this is out of my league, but anyways this is how the Spirit moves me:
1) Is all of that statement (and all its baggage) by Eugene IV infallible? Or is the principle of no salvation outside the church infallible? Not every statement by a pope is infallible. Infallible statements have some fine print rules. Is there a learned answer here?
2) Contradictions? Imagine that! We Christians have never seen that before have we? Disputes over baptism, sola fide, sola scriptura persist because of contradictory passages and yet biblically based opinions on either side thrive. Example:
[Mat 6:15] but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
I guess we are all outside the church.
I can’t help but notice that many of the protestant commentators repeatedly mis-state that “Jew are saved,” or “pagans are saved.” Please go back and read the quotes in context. The correct summary is “there is the possibility of salvation for Jews or for Pagans.” This is only stating that some (few, very few, many?), just some of them might be saved by virtue of responding to the grace of the Holy Spirit, even if they never actually come to the point of conversion. If you follow Catholic theology you will notice several theologians (as one mentioned above) have been called before the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith to defend their teaching because they expand this too far and claim that all or nearly all will be saved.
We can spend the rest of the year dragging out every relevant statement and hashing it out. We won’t solve anything. As far as I have found, every authoritative statement has some clause like unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock that allows, that in some way they may be saved.
Paul
The thread here reminded me of that Larry King show a few years back where he tried to get Father Michael Manning to say that Jesus is the only way. I found one of his statements from a transcript of that show that I am still trying to parse and it fits with this discussion.
Also, I wanted to include a post-reformation Pope in the mix to show that the Catholic idea of exclusivity didn’t just exist before the reformation as someone had earlier suggested.
I am in the camp that the infallibility of the Catholic Church is far from proven and have asked many questions about it at my own blog. It is issues and statements like the one that started this discussion that make it hard to defend and/or accept.
Good post. Personally, while I can see how the Catholic church attempts to overcome this “problem” it is certainly one that, at face value, looks insurmountable from an outsider’s perspective. I am an outsider, but have studied this issue long enough, and with enough true consideration, to believe that it is too difficult to truly give a answer to that really make sense.
Those of us who are Evangelicals have been exposed to to much “authorial intent” hermeneutics to not see earlier statements about “outside the church…” in a way that harmonizes with the statements of VII.
As one person said earlier, it all comes down to how you define “church” and how that has expanded over the years. I don’t really think you can force current Catholic theology and their definition of Church on the earlier leaders and remain viable in your pursuit of unbiased truth.
In the end, the deck is stacked, isn’t it? If you are a Catholic, you must harmonize such statements. You have no choice. At least a Catholic should be able to understand that Protestants have a very difficult time following them in this.
“One might ask at this point whether there has been any shift in Catholic theology on the matter. The answer appears to be Yes, although the shift is not as dramatic as some imagine. The earlier pessimism was based on the unwarranted assumption that explicit Christian faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This assumption has been corrected, particularly at Vatican II. There has also been a healthy reaction against the type of preaching that revels in depicting the sufferings of the damned in the most lurid possible light.”
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=488
I’d also suggest going to this page:
http://www.wittenbergtrail.com/page5/RomanCatholicTheology.html
and listening to “interview # 4″
Stunning.
Here’s where this entire debate arrives for me,
Let’s take the JPII statement and let me add a specific religion.
“Normally it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in Islam and by following the dictates of their own Muslim consciences that Muslims respond positively to the Trinity’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they confess that Jesus is only a Prophet and the Trinity is a blasphemous lie.”
Now if I, or anyone else, puts that statement out there, we will be told by 905 of our fellow Protestants that we are denying central tenets of the Christian faith. And no amount of adding context or deconstructing language is going to get us off the hook. If that statement is true, the entire Christian gospel shifts on its foundation. And be sure you understand what I’m saying: the problem is that th statement is about relating to Allah and the Koran, through which the the God of Christianity works. It’s the classic “all roads lead to the mountain top” argument of religious relativism. It sounds like Oprah.
But it’s a statement by JPII. And not in an official teaching role, btw. So it can’t be wrong.
Our Catholic brothers have to, must, are compelled to defend that statement and cannot allow themselves to consider that JPII was simply wrong.
Which is amazing, given that in Galatians 2, Paul told Peter he was wrong. But we have a much larger structure now, and if anyone says this statement is wrong, they’ve pulled out one of the bricks that hold up the REAL doctrine that must be defended at all costs: Infallibility.
So as I’ve said before: take your pick- one infallible pope or 20,000 fallible ones. The implications are the great dividing line between Protestant and Catholic.
peace
MS
It is a thorny problem. Here’s the other angle, which I briefly touched on earlier. Historians estimate that when Columbus arrived there were about 15 million people living in North America. That means that in the previous couple of thousand years, many more millions were born, lived, and died in the New World. None of them knew about Jesus.
Now if one takes the strict position that no one can be saved unless they explicitly call on the name of Jesus, then it follows that ALL of those millions of people are now in hell and will stay there for eternity. They never had a chance. They never heard the Gospel. They had no teacher. They had no choice.
Leaving aside infallibility, Popes, and all the other stuff: does this sound like something a just and merciful God would do? Is such a God consistent with everything else we know and believe? To create people and then condemn them to everlasting torment without ever giving them a chance at salvation?
I suppose a strict Calvinist would say yes. 1 Timothy 2:4 tells the rest of us that God wills all men to know the truth and be saved. How, then, did it work in the case of early Native Americans?
The only logical answer is that there must be a opportunity (but not a guarantee) for people to receive salvation that does not require explicit knowledge of Christ and/or inclusion in the visible bounds of His Church. We don’t understand the exact parameters of this opportunity, but reason and the other things we know about God tell us it must exist.
That’s the Catholic position. If you can’t accept this or some variant of it - then yes, as Michael says, you are seeing a dramatically different Gospel. I don’t see any other options.
It is important to note that the Second Vatican Council was a watershed for the Catholic Church. Among the many things that occurred at the Council two are notable for this discussion:
1) Religious freedom, which JPII saw as the most fundamental of all human rights, after the right to life. Dignitatus Humane: On the Right of the Person and of Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious. This declaration was due largely to the work of American Jesuit, John Courtney Murray. It represents a tremendous move forward for the church.
2) Building on that, the church discusses quite openly its relationship with non-Christian religions Nostra Aetate
Nonetheless, the church has a missionary mandate as Ad Gentes, the council’s decree on the missionary activity of the church, indicates. The imperative here, rooted in the Great Commission, is to take Christ to the entire world. It is not undertaken so that nobody will have an excuse, that of ignorance, at the Final Judgment, but that all might know the joy of friendship with Jesus Christ, becoming in baptism daughters and sons of God. Furthermore, it was JPII who reiterated this in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio: On the permanent validity of the Church’s missionary mandate
I certainly can disagree with papal statements, especially statements of the ordinary magisterium. “[t]he Church proposes; she imposes nothing” (JP II Redemptoris Missio # 39). However, as a Catholic and one who is ordained, I owe papal more than just the benefit of the doubt, but religious obedience. Theology is all about a critical examination of what is proposed for belief. In the words of Nicholas Lash, “a theologian is one who watches her language in the presence of God.” In all circumstances granting the benefit of the doubt is the Christian way of engaging in dialogue. The alternative is pointless and hurtful polemic.
I agree with the statement of JPII with which Michael takes issue. It has to be seen in the larger context of both Catholic soteriology and the entire magisterium of JPII. Certainly one needs to appeal to more than one chapter of one letter of St. Paul in order to arrive at a comprehensive Pauline soteriology. For example, there is plenty in Romans about those who do not know the law, but live it anyway, in whose hearts the law is written.
I think it exceeds the bounds of civility or of good theological praxis to accuse JPII of blasphemy. The Catholic clearly teaches that there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” than the name above all names, even Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). We just do not seek to limit the Holy Spirit, who blows where he wishes (Jn 3:8). Michael introduced a really crucial distinction last night, that between ignorance and rejection. So, let’s take the far more complicated case of a person who in good conscience cannot bring herself to believe in Christ’s bodily resurrection, or the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which is a singularly Roman dogma. She doesn’t reject it; she can’t bring herself to believe it in good conscience. Is she damned? I’d say no as long as she is really striving in good conscience. Additionally, she orders her life after the pattern of Jesus. This has nothing to do with works; it is about faith and conscience.
Besides, faith itself does not preclude doubt, it is not blind. Our intellects are God-given. Being a person of faith does not require checking your mind at the door of the sanctuary.
I find it ironic that in this exchange Catholics are both exclusive and at the same time ham-fisted universalists. Dear brothers, neither is the case. Let us not forget that “God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything” (1 Jn 3:20).
Let us not forget Paul’s admonition to the church at Phillipi:
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil. 4:8).
I apologize for the jumble of thoughts, but I wanted to get them all on the table.
Scott:
1) Are you stating that Romans says that a Muslim can be saved by being a good Muslim?
2) The law written on the heart is used to teach universal condemnation, not the possibility of salvation of people sincerely worshiping Zeus.
3) Like I said, in most evangelicalism this is relativism, even if its said by a saintly person. Therefore, my explanations are a lot shorter than yours.
peace
MS
Michael:
“But it’s a statement by JPII. And not in an official teaching role, btw. So it can’t be wrong.”
The ordinary universal magisterium of the pope is not infallible. Hence, it can be wrong. It just so happens that he is not wrong in this particular instance. Somebody made reference to Fr. Francis Sullivan SJ earlier. He is the living expert on the church’s teaching authority. His bool Magisterium is invaluable as it pertains to these matters. However, let’s look again to Vatican II, specifically to Lumen Gentium, number 25:
“religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
“. Of course, ex cathedra means infallibly.
1) If said Muslim has not rejected faith in Jesus Christ, put simply, Yes.
2) It is a two-edged sword. It goes back to the point I made last night when quoting Romans 10. After all, adhering to the law in one’s heart, even as per Romans one, wherein Paul says that creation leads one to belief in God by natural reason alone, does not automatically lead to conscious faith in Christ. Believing on the name of the Lord Jesus is not a belief one can arrive at by the use of unaided natural reason. “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 cor 12:3). So, those who acknowledge God and seek to follow Him to best of their ability and who have not rejected Jesus because they have never been taught Jesus, will in no wise be condemned. Their salvation still comes through Christ and is even mediated by the church. As Catholics, as per Nostra Aetate, we believe that Jews, Christians, and Muslims, worship the one, true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However, the same could be said for an observant Hindu. Again, the church’s missionary mandate is valid and people have an obligation to seek the truth. In other words, Christianity is not just one option among many. In other words, this is not a relativistic mode of thinking about salvation.
3) I think the caveat that rejecting Christ puts one in danger of damnation covers the relativism. After all God desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4).
4) I am no saint. If I am coming across as a pompous ass, I will retire from the discussion.
Clarification:
I did not mean to imply that Hindus worship the one, true God, as do Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but that the Hindu would be saved under the same circumstances as your hypothetical Muslim. Although most Hindus have no difficulty seeing Jesus as an avatar, one of many manifestations of the divine. Of course, as Christians, we believe Jesus is the sole Incarnation of God, in whom all that God has to reveal is revealed, which nothing less than God’s very self, the Word, the Logos.
Clarification II:
So, those who acknowledge God and seek to follow Him to best of their ability and who have not rejected Jesus either because they have never been taught Jesus, or have not been taught Jesus in a manner consistent with an authentic proclamation of the Gospel, will in no wise be condemned.
PatrickW, you’re focusing on a side issue. The statements made aren’t just about those who haven’t heard of Christ. They are statements saying that even those who have heard of Christ, but are following other religions are still entering heaven.
There’s lots of debate within Prot churches about the fate of those who have never heard of Christ (the pre-Columbian Americans as you’ve mentioned). Many agree with you, many disagree, but that’s not the issue here.
JP2 has stated clearly that Muslims, Jews, other religions, and everyone who is following their own conscience is covered by Christ’s work and will come to eternal life in heaven, EVEN IF they have heard of Christ and don’t accept Him. It’s not an issue of Invincible Ignorance.
This is contrasted with E4’s (and others) statements that very clearly say Jews and Muslims will not enter heaven unless they reject their previous religion and explicitly join the RCC. It’s possible to debate which pope is correct, but trying to say there is agreement between the popes is an exercise in completely changing the meaning of one or the other to the point that words become pointless.
By the same type of efforts, it is possible to make any contradictory statements be in harmony, because with a twisted enough rationale anything can mean anything else. Yes can be shown to be the same as no, and so the words lose meaning and are worthless.
Scott - then there’s no one who won’t go to heaven. Everyone has an excuse because they have not been taught Jesus in a manner consistent with an authentic proclamation of the Gospel.
People can be in the RCC from birth, but then reject the Church and Christ because they find out a priest has been fondling their child. They haven’t been taught Jesus in a manner consistent with an authentic proclamation of the Gospel.
Someone who had abusive but ‘religious’ parents rejects everything to do with Jesus, and has an excuse even though he heard the Gospel every week in Mass or church. Why? The most influential people in his life were not giving an authentic proclamation.
I hate bringing Hitler into discussions, but he’s a great extreme example. He’ll be in heaven because he was abused and apparently never had much of any sort of direct teaching about Jesus. He’s actually got a pretty good excuse since as far as historians can tell, there wasn’t really any sort of religious influence on his life. He had never been taught Jesus in a manner consistent with an authentic proclamation of the Gospel. Ergo, Hitler gets into heaven.
I don’t have anything against Hitler being saved per se, it’s the twisted reasoning that is being used to essentially say that EVERYONE gets into heaven. Heck, I disagree with universalism (everyone into heaven) but don’t really have any problem with people who hold it.
What frustrates me is this style reasoning that manages to get from “those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life” to statements that say just about everyone gets eternal life, and say that the two are in agreement.
WebMonk, JP2 said no such thing. Yes, the language is murky and no doubt became more so when it went from the mind of a Polish speaker into Latin and then to English. Regardless, no one who has given it a thorough examination thinks JP2 was expressing any kind of universal salvation. Paul explained this quite clearly in his 1:13am comment above.
If I follow your thinking, this whole conversation is pointless since words ultimately can be twisted into anything and have no real meaning. How you can think this and still find it useful to read blogs, I do not know. It makes reasoned conversation exceedingly difficult.
BTW, I would like to know more about these Protestants who think that early Native Americans had a chance to get to heaven. On what Scriptures do they base this belief? Surely they are not relying on reason or tradition.
It’s not a side issue. It is the heart of Michael’s question in this post.
Webmonk,
First, you continue to mis-state (or perhaps misunderstand) the Catholic position. The Catholic teaching is only that is possible for a non-Christian to be saved, not that they are saved. Catholics don’t even believe that all Catholics will ultimately be spared eternal damnation.
Second:
There is more to invincible ignorance than just not having ever heard of Jesus, or never having met a Christian.
God Bless
Paul
Webmonk,
It is not a matter of “having an excuse.” It is a matter of God’s mercy. Again, remember, the Church does not claim that most, all, or even many of these people are actually saved.
You brought up Hitler. No the Church does not and will not, and the majority of Catholics know enough, not to claim that absolutely Hitler is in hell. So yes, it is (remotely) possible (however unlikely) that in his final moments Hitler may have repented. However, it is clear that Hitler had a great deal to repent for it would be a huge stretch to argue that there was any possibility of Hitler being saved without repenting. So, that really isn’t what this discussion is about.
The discussion is about virtuous people who respond to God’s grace and follow the law written in there hearts in a context that is non-Christian, and whether there is any hope for their salvation.
Paul
I have skimmed through the comments and am impressed with their quality and substance. The Catholic commentators have, I believe, accurately stated the mainstream Catholic understanding both of dogma and of the question at hand, i.e., salvation outside the visible Church.
I remember as a kid worrying to death about the salvation of the Hindus. At that time I had a pretty standard evangelical understanding of salvation and the necessity of explicit belief in Christ. As a young adult, after my atheism phase, I discovered C. S. Lewis and began to relax somewhat about the issue. If Aslan can save the Calormene Emeth, then Christ can save the Hindus.
In reflecting on this issue, it’s important to remember that we are heirs of a theological tradiiton, beginning with Augustine, in which God’s universal salvific will has not always been clear. The older Augustine does verge very close at times to double predestination. Within the Augustinian scheme, it is difficult to affirm outright that God genuinely and really desires the salvation of every human being. The result has been the creation of an uncertainty about the true extent of God’s love and grace. I think it is accurate to say that it has only been since the Jansenist crisis that the Catholic Church has become absolutely clear on the universal salvific will of God. The achievement of this clarity represents a significant correction of the Augustinian tradition.
Once the universality of God’s salvific will is apprehended, then different answers to the question of the salvation of non-Christians are possible. We see these possibilities realized in the documents of Vatican II. Does the position asserted by Vatican II represent a development of doctrine. Of course. Is it continuous with the previous infallible teaching of the Church? We can and should debate the question, but Catholics will always give the Magisterium the benefit of the doubt in these situations. I refer folks to the lucid analysis of Michael Liccione.
I personally find the teaching of Vatican II and John Paul II on this subject to be reasonable, generous, and faithful. I find the restriction of salvation to those who have made an explicit decision for Christ to be incompatible with the revelation of God’s unlimited mercy and love. If God truly is as revealed in Jesus Christ, if God has truly united himself to human nature in the Incarnation, if God truly has borne and borne away the sins of humanity, then we must assume that he is active in every human being to bring about their salvation–and that includes Moslems and Hindus and atheists. The Catholic teaching on obedience to the dictates of conscience is misunderstood if it is construed as asserting that non-Christians are saved by their good works. If an individual turns to the Good–and that Good is nothing less than God himself–it is only because of grace and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.
This approach does not deny the normative necessity of explicit faith in Christ, but it does put it in its proper perspective. Faith in Christ is not a work we need to perform to “get saved,” as if God has arbitrarily decided that only those who jump through the hoop of explicit faith get the gold ring. We proclaim Christ because Christ is the Good perfectly revealed and embodied in history. To turn to Christ is to move to the Good; it is to live in the Good and thus to live in God. This is salvation–eternal life in that Supreme Good who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I have found J. A. Dinoia’s book The Diversity of Religions to be quite helpful on this subject.
iMonk
Scott:
1) Are you stating that Romans says that a Muslim can be saved by being a good Muslim?
2) The law written on the heart is used to teach universal condemnation, not the possibility of salvation of people sincerely worshiping Zeus.
Rahab the harlot made the “Faith” list. How much did she understand about redemption? This principle can be found throughout the bible ofcourse. Did this type of possibility end after Christ came and grace “increased”?
Oh, but this was supposed to be about infallibility.
All be gentlemen and be patient with comments. I have to be gone for a few hours so they will not appear in moderation till later this afternoon.
Thanks.
MS
Yes, both Pope Eugene IV and JPII quotes state that there is no salvation outside the Church. But that’s not the issue. The real disagreement between them is whether good people, honestly following what they believe to be true, are outside the Church or not.
Pope JPII states that good people, who honestly seek out God and believe their religion is true have an implicit faith, are mystically untied with the Church, and thus can be saved if the conditions are just right.
Pope Eugene IV states that good people, who honestly seek out God and believe their religion or nonCatholic view is true, “cannot become participants in eternal life” because they are separated from the Church.
Therefore, the difference between the Popes is not whether there is salvation outside the Church or not. The difference is over the definition of the word “Church” and whether it is possible for it to include schismatic groups, jews, Muslims, etc.
In other words, Pope Eugene IV was not saying that those in other religions “who” are outside the Church” cannot be saved. He said those in other religions “are” outside the church so they cannot be saved.
Pope Eugene says “no salvation” + Pope JPII says “possible salvation” = No Papal infallibility on this issue.
I realize that there is no statement saying that everyone will be saved. Instead the statements don’t put any practical limit on what brings salvation. If one Joe-Muslim follows his religion with all his heart, but rejects Christ as God, there’s nothing to say that all Muslims aren’t going to come to salvation.
By opening the door to say that a particular sincere Muslim can enter heaven even while rejecting Christ (he wasn’t just talking about ignorance of Christ) then there’s no reason to not assume all Muslims do so as long as they are sincere in their practice.
I think Scott’s comment summed up the point of the statements fairly well - “So, those who acknowledge God and seek to follow Him to best of their ability and who have not rejected Jesus either because they have never been taught Jesus, or have not been taught Jesus in a manner consistent with an authentic proclamation of the Gospel, will in no wise be condemned.”
I would say that JP2’s statements have gone further by saying even atheists have the possibility of salvation if they are sincere in following their consciences. But, let’s set that aside.
Basically Scott said, anyone can come to salvation even though they reject Jesus as long they have not been taught Jesus in a manner consistent with authentic proclamation of the Gospel. Because they weren’t told about Jesus in the right way, they will still be accepted into heaven even though they rejected Jesus.
This gives darned near everyone the right to enter heaven because there are precious few people (relatively) who have had a fully authentic proclamation made to them. Their pastor may have been a hypocritical liar and adulterer. Their parents were abusive while still taking them to church. The culture around them has only a social version of Christianity, and no one actually talks about Jesus or presents Him.
About the Prots and reasons for the unknowing being saved:
The arguments mentioned above about Rahab, general grace, Ethiopian eunuch, and seeking God even though people haven’t heard of Christ are the same arguments that non-RCCs use too when talking of people who have never heard of Christ attaining salvation. Minor variations, but pretty much the same arguments are made by Prots.
That’s not really what the statements in the post seem to say - they say that even those who have heard of Christ but still follow their own religions or consciences will be saved. Those are pretty distinct items.
Words should not be made to mean everything, but when a person can say that the JP statements and the E4 statements are in agreement, that’s pretty much what is happening. While the words can be twisted, they ought not.
Patrick,
“BTW, I would like to know more about these Protestants who think that early Native Americans had a chance to get to heaven. On what Scriptures do they base this belief? Surely they are not relying on reason or tradition.
It’s not a side issue. It is the heart of Michael’s question in this post.”
Why would Protestants have to base such a belief on a particular scripture or set of scriptures?
And what would you like to know about us? I hold to such a possibility, for reasons similar to those outlined by some of the Catholics in the post. Can you tell me more specifically what you’d like to know?
Well, most Protestants argue that all the important things we need to know are found in Scripture. Salvation being an important subject, it seems like a Protestant who believes in “universal salvific will” (as Fr Kimel called it) would have a scriptural basis for thinking so.
If you came to this belief from outside of scripture, it tells us two things. First, you agree with the RCC on this subject. Second, you believe it is possible for God to reveal important doctrinal information by extra-scriptural means. That has pretty big implications.
I don’t mean to turn this thread into a sola scriptura debate; maybe I should not have asked the question. A couple of days ago iMonk linked to another blog where such a debate is ongoing. That might be a better place to continue this line of discussion.
Webmonk
In the sense that we don’t, and can’t, know the exact limits of God’s mercy…Yes there is not clear and simplistic limit on who can be saved.
Clearly we know what brings salvation, the mercy of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and nothing else.
This doesn’t correctly summarize the Catholic position. Following the Muslim religion