For Discussion: Has the Roman Catholic Church Changed Its View on the Salvation of Atheists and Other Religions?
July 10, 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?
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 devotedly is not sufficient for salvation.
If an individual responds to the Grace of the Holy Spirit and interiorly desires to know God and seeks to know the Truth there is the possibility of salvation. Now, such a person would also demonstrate that interior disposition is an outward expression. As a Muslim, that outward expression of the inward disposition would often be expressed in the context of the Muslim religious practice. However, it is clearly not the practice of following of Muslim religious law that is salvific.
Just as clearly there are many ways that elements of Christian morality and behavior can be expressed within the Muslim faith. Charity, love, fidelity … and worship of God.
Sincerity of practice as a Muslim is no the criteria. Just as one may be a “sincere” Christian with a hard and cold heart, who doesn’t forgive and doesn’t practice charity and who’s faith is truly dead and hollow, one can sincerely practice the Muslim faith without any response to grace and without any interior acceptance of God’s grace.
However, all we claim is that there is the possibility that some Muslim might interiorly be responding to God’s grace. At the same time you would expect such a person to make a sincere effort to practice their faith. This might be a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition for salvation.
An incorrect summary. Although someone may have been ‘told’ about Jesus, because of the way the message was carried, or the circumstances of the person God, whose judgment is perfect, may not hold them accountable for having heard the Gospel.
There remains a possibility (not a certainty) that they may respond sufficiently the grace of God.
No. No one has the right to enter Heaven!
As you quoted Scott:
Pretty much sums it up correctly. It is out of context from his original post, but understood properly I think it works.
God Bless
Paul
Paul: Do you believe that Pope Eugene would have ever said that Muslims following Islam only would be in heaven?
“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 seems to me that Paul was fairly clear about Gentiles outside of Christ as being without hope:
“…remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”
I have been trying to follow the thread and look for more statements to shed light on the discussion. I was looking through the Council of Trent since it was the first Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation. It appears from their statements that they felt quite comfortable restricting salvation.
These statements sound very exclusive. The last one explicitly mentions loss of salvation for anyone who deviates from Catholic teaching. How can these more modern and inclusive statements of the Catholic Church be reconciled with these views.
“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.”
Only God knows our hearts and there are no excuses before God. Besides, as a Christian I am obligated to bear witness to Christ. My baptismal vocation and yours is nothing less than to be Christ for those we meet. The most authentic proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is joy-filled living that shows God’s love and mercy. Thanks to Michael’s inspired writing, I understand better than ever that, like Paul, God’s love and mercy is shown more through my weaknesses than through my strengths. Hence, the paradox, when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor. 12:10). Along with Craig Gross, I can say “Jesus loves porn stars!” and other assorted sinners. After all, He loves me. I try not to think about why too hard.
Here’s a question for you, based on Romans 10:14-17, how else do people come to faith if not by an authentic proclamation of the Gospel? Is faith in Jesus Christ something that can be arrived on the basis of unaided natural reason, like belief in a divine Creator? Or, even worse, on the basis of the street corner pseudo-evangelist who tells you that you are going to burn if you don’t read the sinner’s prayer out of the comic book he offers you?
I remember years ago being confronted by just a well-meaning person leaving a club in San Antonio, TX with a friend and two gorgeous women. I never wanted to be “saved” less than at that moment, not because I was drunk, or I had evil intentions toward either of my female companions, but because of the silly nature and obnoxiousness of his approach. If this is a person’s only chance, I’ll take a chance on God’s mercy.
Here is another question; can one really say Jesus is Lord apart from the Holy Spirit? Faith is a gift from God, a so-called theological virtue, along with love and hope (1 Cor. 13:13). Obviously, the Spirit was not present in the parking lot of the San Antonio club that Sunday morning at 2:00 AM, at least not to the extent that He revealed anything to me.
Finally, I am quite certain that there will be people who will not go to heaven. I am equally certain that a good number of those will be Christians. After all, I have it on good authority that not everyone who says “‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). As to whom they might be, I have no idea and am glad that judgment is reserved to God alone. God is Love. God is mercy. God is not eager to condemn people to hell for eternity. After all, is it not His express will that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4)?
Michael,
I have a number of thoughts on that question to think through and I hope to have time to write something up later tonight.
Peace
Paul
The steps required for infallibility from Vatican I (via EWTN’s website):
“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”
I’ve heard that Papal infallibility only applies to those doctrines that the Pope defines as “articles of faith” (i.e. “a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”). Thus, the Pope can teach on faith and morals, but none of his teachings are “infallible” until he sets them in stone as doctrines that must be believed by the entire Church.
So by that standard, the Pope Eugene quote would be infallible, and the Pope JPII quote would not.
C.S. Lewis has some great quotes on this whole subject don’t ya know. This ain’t just a catholic issue of course.
Patrick,
You’re right this probably is something of a tangent…however I do want to reply to what you said, and I don’t really want to go to a full fledged debate about sola scriptura over at that other blog.
First, what you said hinges on what is meant by “important.” You’d have to give a pretty narrow meaning to the term to argue that protestants who hold sola scriptura think that all of the “important” stuff is revealed in scripture. Lots of things are important. The formulations of sola scriptura I’ve heard tend to assert that everything necessary to salvation (a smaller category) is revealed in scripture. I think I agree with this, though I don’t make as big deal out of it as some hardcore Protestants might.
Secondly, the question of whether something is “revealed in scripture” is epistemologically a very complex one. Scripture doesn’t exist in a vacuum; our understanding of it is obviously mediated by things that aren’t themselves identical to scripture. I think it would be pretty nonsensical to say that any belief was arrived at from “scripture alone”–as if the bare text somehow caused me to believe it. When I come to my conclusion that there is a possibility for the salvation of those who haven’t heard, I’d say that scripture is, as with any question in Christianity, a deeply shaping influence on how I came to believe what I did. Scripture tells me about God, shapes what I think he is like–obviously the Holy Spirit himself is involved in this process as he guides me (I hope) as I interact with the text that he inspired. And other Christians are also involved as I consider what they think and how they have wrestled with the issue, now or historically.
I come to this conclusion taking all of this into account, with the acknowledgment that I might be wrong; thus I don’t think God has revealed something definitively on this matter. I’m just decided what I think is most likely true based on what I do know about God. I do think the question is important, but also is something that Christians can reasonably disagree on, and thus I don’t think there is any requirement that we agree one way or another.
Charley: So can we find a RC who will say JPII is anything other than completely right?
For infallible statements, please reference the Code of Canon Law, canon 749, Pastor Aeternus, and Lumen Gentium.
My God, EWTN, Catholic Answers? How ’bout authentic Catholic teaching?
I’d love to know if the guys quoting EWTN and/or Catholic Answers are converts from Protestantism or cradle Catholics.
This whole discussion makes me think of all the accusations of postmodernism that get tossed around in evangelicalism.
Here you have two statements that, if typed on paper without reference to the sources, would be judged by anyone as taking two opposite positions. Any debate coach on the planet, any lawyer, any judge, would say the same of these statements.
But in Catholicism there is a place to stand where they say the same thing. If that’s not a postmodern approach to propositions, I don’t know what is.
Here you have two statements that, if typed on paper without reference to the sources, would be judged by anyone as taking two opposite positions. Any debate coach on the planet, any lawyer, any judge, would say the same of these statements.
You are absolutely correct. If we take the two cited statements of Eugene IV and John Paul II and lay them side-by-side, with no reference to sources, authorial intention, and historical and theological context, one might reasonably conclude that the two statements contradict each other. I am happy to concede this.
But the point is, this kind of “plain” reading represents a gross mis-reading of magisterial documents. It is analogous to the way that fundamentalists construe Holy Scripture.
But in Catholicism there is a place to stand where they say the same thing. If that’s not a postmodern approach to propositions, I don’t know what is.
This is not a fair statement. One does not need to be post-modern to recognize that the proper interpretation and application of magisterial dogmatic assertions is no easy matter, just as the proper interpretation and application of biblical assertions is no easy matter. In both cases, hermeneutical sophistication, historical and theological knowledge, godly imagination, and spiritual maturity are necessary.
I am going to assume that all the Protestant contributors to this thread have read a fair amount of Protestant reflection on the hermeneutics of bibical interpretation. If you have, then you know how complex and difficult these matters are. How does one read a collection of diverse texts, composed over a period of a thousand years, as one book whose ultimate author is God? Is this an easy and obvious task? You know it is not. If it were an easy task, the Reformers would not have had to lay down the hermeneutical principle, which they learned from the Church Fathers, that we should not “so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” Each of you know, I am sure, that frustration one feels when one is confronted with a hostile nonbeliever who loves to throw “contradictory” biblical texts at us. It is so difficult to explain to them that they are not reading the Bible according to proper hermeneutical principles; indeed, they are not really interested in learning and understanding these hermeneutical principles. To them, the meaning of the Bible is obvious and plain–and contradictory–and that is that.
Consider the citation from Eugene IV. But no attempt has been made to provide any kind of literary, historical, or theological context–and without such context, this citation is meaningless. Has anyone noticed that this statement is part of a wider summary of Catholic belief? As far as I know, it did not address any specific theological questions then serious debated at the time. The citation does not appear to be a dogmatic definition and therefore does not, in and of itself, qualify as an irreformable dogmatic assertion.
This is crucial, because it opens up the possibiity for subsequent qualification, nuance, and even correction.
So I guess what I am suggesting that if are going to wade into a discussion of Catholic dogma, it might be wise to acquaint yourself not only with this dogma itself, but also with the complex subject of the hermeneutics of dogma.
Jesus said: “The Father is greater than I am” (John 14:28)
The Westminster Confession says: “The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father…”
Here you have two statements that, if typed on paper without reference to the sources, would be judged by anyone as taking two opposite positions. Any debate coach on the planet, any lawyer, any judge, would say the same of these statements.
But in [Christianity], there is a place to stand where they say the same thing. If that’s not a postmodern approach to propositions, I don’t know what is.
Michael,
I’d like to propose two example for you to consider: In evangelical and in your own theology what are the prospects for salvation. You can answer here just keep it to yourself, but I’d be curious.
My life brings me into frequent contact with people in recovery from various addictions. I am blessed to follow some of their live for almost 20 years.
(The names have been changed to protect the innocent)
Pat is a renegade lapsed Catholic. Baptized and the rest of the sacraments in a very rough Irish Catholic family. Abusive alcoholic father, alanon Mother, almost all of the 9 siblings alcoholic. Pat’s been through it all – alcohol, drugs, prison, marriages and divorces. He has now been sober in AA for 7 years. He still wants nothing to do with organized religion. He mocks religion (especially Catholicism). He mocks Jesus on occasion. He also mocks himself. He believes in “a higher power,” who he somewhat reluctantly calls God. Yet, in the past years he has grown immensely. He has made amends for all kinds of harm to others. He has stopped womanizing, married and settled down. He participates in the lives of his children and grandchildren. He is a changed man, and he continues to change. He devotes much of his time to helping other alcoholics recover. He relies absolutely on the strength of his Higher Power and AA. On the other hand, it seems very unlikely he will ever profess faith in Jesus Christ, darken the door of a Church (except for AA meetings) or get ’saved.’
Mo (short for Mohammad) is a Muslim (from a middle eastern country). He was a bad and abusive drunk. He’s been sober over 20 years in AA. He’s still a Muslim. He has lived the 12 steps of AA and has become a teacher and mentor for many Christian alcoholics. In fact many AAs credit Mo for helping them find Jesus. He has become, through AA, an remarkably kind and generous man who gives of himself constantly.
I won’t predict the outcome of anyone’s salvation. I will say, that I see both of these men responding to the Grace of the One True God in their lives even though neither is a “Christian.” I see them living a “Christian” life. They won’t be “saved by AA” or “saved by good works” or “saved by Faith in Jesus.” I hold out that it is at least possible that God who is merciful and the true judge will have mercy on them. Fortunately, the Catholic Church agrees that is at least possible for them to be saved (as outlined in this thread).
Michael
I don’t think he would have ever made a statement similar to Pope John Paul II. I do think he would have affirmed that it was in some way possible for a Muslim to be saved through the mercy of God and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I think he would be a bit alarmed by Pope John Paul II’s statements however.
In any case, it is irrelevant what Pope Eugene IV might have said or thought. The only thing that matters is what does (and did) the Church teach. I believe that ” ..unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;” is there deliberately for exactly this reason. And as Jeff M quoted from the Council of Trent:
the “without the desire thereof” is there for the same reason. And, it is not an oversight or a coincidence that the Church has never declared that a particular human person is damned. God is the Judge – not man.
God Bless
Paul
Well, at imonk’s request, I’m going to take a stab at these questions and explain what I can.
1. This depends on what you say it means for the Catholic Church to “teach” something. The modern RCC has defined this narrowly and technically enough that it’s a very slippery idea, slippery enough that virtually any seemingly clear and universal teaching of the past can get struck from the legal record or redefined as “not official Church teaching.” And once one is left with official teaching, the mechanism of authority means that it can get interpreted virtually however one wants. So one can also compare it to the US Constitution–the way our country works, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. So in other words, Rome has simply redefined the words “change” and “teach” in order to prove that it has not changed its teaching. However, if one defines Church teaching by the preaching and practice of the higher-ranking clergy, especially the popes, then it has in fact changed its teaching. In my estimation, a definition of church teaching that can exclude current, nearly universal, papally sanctioned doctrine is useless, because it destroys any guarantee that you can look to the Magisterium as a reliable deliverer of the truth. It’s the Catch-22: If Catholics of the 19th C were wrong in thinking the Church taught what Pope Pius IX said it taught, how do Catholics of the 21st C know it really teaches what Benedict XIV says it teaches? In other words, how do you know your current Catholic beliefs won’t be some day discovered to mean the precise opposite of what you currently think they mean?
2. The 15th-C Magisterium would not have recognized Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, or Dignitatis Humanae to be Catholic.
3. That statement’s true enough. Catholic apologists will protest that what Lumen Gentium means is that heathen good intentions and good works are means by which the grace of God comes to them, so it’s really grace that saves them, but that’s a pedantic haggling over definitions. To sidestep such haggling, it might be more useful to say the Catholic Church teaches that natural law is a means of grace.
4. I’m not sure it matters what the Catholic view is. Since Vatican II, most Catholic theologians have adopted a higher-critical view of the Bible. This allows them to play the “culture-bound” and “undeveloped” card on the Bible just as often as they do with their own historic dogmas and papal bulls.
5. No. Some Catholics have been very helpful in explaining to me that technically, we’re almost all “ignorant.” See, most Protestants don’t really understand Church teaching well enough to really be considered to knowingly reject it. Think about it–after all this chaos, do you really know what the RCC teaches? Do Catholics? There’s also a version of invincible ignorance that says you don’t really “know” something until you know it’s true…so you’re technically ignorant until you realize that Jesus really did institute the RCC in the way the RCC says he did.
Let me show all my cards here.
I’m a card carrying member of the “Wider Hope” heresy. I believe God is saving a lot more people than any of us think, and I think scripture is on my side.
I believe the heart of Jesus is in Spurgeon’s prayer: “God save the elect, then elect some more.”
If Socrates and whole pagan nations are there, it’s more reason for rejoicing.
BUT BUT BUT when scripture discusses the process of salvation, it doesn’t start with the outcome. It starts with the Gospel framework: God, Creation, Sin, The story of Redemption, Christ, The Church, the Eschaton.
In that framework Muslims aren’t saved by doing good things for Allah. In fact, I’d disagree- as would many, many others- that it is precise to say the three monotheisms worship the same God. More accurate to say that there is a point of historical convergence in the historical evolution of those religions in Abraham. But to stand up John Macarthur and Shabir Ali and say they worship the same God NOW is simply nonsense.
Abraham was a pagan and he was saved. The true God REVEALED himself (not a word about Abraham seeking him) and Abraham responded in faith.
Rahab heard of the Israelites and THEIR GOD, and responded in faith/obedience.
Cornelius worshiped all of the true God that he knew and God revealed the entire Gospel to him.
Over and over this is the Biblical pattern of real-time salvation. There are those in every place and every faith who seek the TRUE God. They respond to whatever light they have.
But if their light is the REJECTION of the truth of the Gospel, I see absolutely nothing in scripture that says one can pursue the true God by following an idolatrous faith in an idolatrous “god.”
I work with many internationals of every faith. I pray that God will save them. I preach the Gospel to them. When they come to faith it is always the work of the Holy Spirit, and if that faith is true, it rests on what that person understands of the Gospel, even if that is just a grain of sand, so to speak.
Great discussion. I’ve only had to edit ONE post. Isn’t that cool?
Paul,
One quick question. You said that the Church has never declared that a particular human person is damned. What does the statement, “let him be anathema” in those decrees mean. I took it as a judgment statement. Am I reading it wrong?
Shalom,
Jeff
Declaring “let him be anathema”, as I understand it, is along the lines of what Paul talks about in I Corinthians 5 about handing the sinning believer over to the Devil. It is a statement of condemnation and shunning, but also an invitation to repent, as seen in the follow-up in II Corinthians. It’s a disciplinary action more than anything. The Church never makes definitive statements about anyone being in Hell, only whether there is sufficient reason to believe someone is a Saint in Heaven.
Michael, I agree with what you are saying about the Gospel, and think you are misunderstanding what JPII said. He didn’t say someone could reject the Gospel and still be saved, or that works can achieve salvation by their own merit. The statement you quoted was not about those who have received the Gospel and rejected it, but about those who have not received the Gospel. He was not saying that following the Five Pillars of Islam while overtly rejecting the teachings of Christ is hunky-dory and a ticket to Heaven. He was saying that people who have never heard of Christ still have a hope. Nothing more, nothing less.
And as Paul says, the clause in Eugene IV “…unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock” allows the two statements to be harmonized perfectly and without post-modern twisting. JPII is saying that it is possible for the Grace of God to allow those who have not heard the Gospel to be added to the flock before the end of life. There is scriptural support for this, in the Sheep-Goat passage, not exactly a postmodernist text. This is not any more of a problem than the atheist who points to the contradiction of the Pentateuch and Peter in Acts vis a vis shellfish as proof that Christianity is a sham.
I thought of this before, because I just finished reading the second Sullivan book I mentioned way above there somewhere. It goes hand in hand with what Fr. Alvin up there said most recently, about hermeneutics and fundamentalism. I mentioned something very briefly similar in another comment.
One of the big problems in a conversation like this is the understanding gap. As was mentioned before, quick quotes from old documents and others from maybe EWTN or something like that – they don’t take into account properly all the fairly complicated nuances there are (and yes there are) in being able to interpret these kinds of statements.
Anyway, I thought I’d quote from Francis Sullivan in Creative Fidelity – fairly relevant…
“The science of hermeneutics is especially concerned with the interpretation of texts which come from a time and culture that are distant from that of the contemporary reader. Fundamentalism is the practice of reading sacred scripture or other ancient documents, without paying attention to the consequences of the fact that they come from another time and culture than that of the reader. Fundamentalists presume that the ‘plain meaning’ that the text has for them must be the meaning intended by the original author. They fail to see how the literary genre of a text will affect its meaning. They ignore the difference between the context in which the document was written, and the context in which they are reading it. They overlook the fact that a statement has meaning in its context, and that in a different context what is apparently the same statement may have quite a different meaning. In contrast to a fundamentalist reading, a hermeneutical reading pays attention to all the factors that make up the context in which the text was written, and in which it has its original meaning.”
–Francis A. Sullivan, SJ; Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium
I agree, this stuff is probably too complicated. Old things get that way. It takes a little work to get down under its skin and see how it works. It’s not the easiest thing for me either, or for many Catholics I’d say. That’s why I read this book.
I have no problem at all with an inclusivist view of salvation, which the Catholic Church espouses. As has also been said before, that’s about God’s character of Mercy to me. That’s not what seems to really be the heart of this discussion though.
Can two Popes say seemingly different, or actually different things, and the Catholic view of an infallible magisterial teaching authority remain logically and integrally intact? That would seem to be the question. Many Protestants can’t make those two ends of string meet. I don’t think a lot of Catholics make them meet either. There are as many Catholics as Protestants who opt for a kind of fundamentalist reading of things I’d guess. The answer we seem to be consistently getting from the Catholics involved here is – Yes, two Popes can disagree. One can even correct another if the circumstances of what they said are understood properly. Not everything a Pope says or even teaches or “declares” is irrevocably and infallibly defined. It just isn’t. It may still bear some level of authority while not being irrevocably dogmatic. It’s just a matter of how one receives such an answer how it goes from there.
Oh, and I still haven’t been fishing yet – ridiculous, I know.
I’d love to know if the guys quoting EWTN and/or Catholic Answers are converts from Protestantism or cradle Catholics.
As far I can see, the only one quoting Catholic Answers here is iMonk, in the original post. The only one quoting EWTN is Charley, who sounds like a Protestant of some kind. Am I missing something?
I’m Protestant. Does that clear it up for you?
You can just forget the question, or you can morph it into “Does EWTN and CAs present Convert-Catholicism?” and give an answer.
Either is fine. Just remember the thread isn’t about me please.
Is there something wrong with EWTN? When a friend of mine tried to convert me to Catholicism so I could work with her church’s youth group, most of the stuff she gave me was from there.
On a second note, thank you for the explanation of anathema. But on top of the anathemas in that one quote I mentioned is this phrase:
I guess I have misunderstood something for all these years. I thought part of the “keys to the kingdom” that were given to Peter were the power to forgive or not forgive sins. If the church can indeed chose to not forgive sins, wouldn’t that signal condemnation and judgment of that person? If that isn’t the correct understanding, can someone point me to something with a good explanation?
Jeff,
It looks like Sam Urfer answered the question about Anathema. The only thing that I would add, is that anathema is a type of excommunication. The Church used to have three levels of excommunication. Anathema is the highest level. This partly explains you confusion also. Anathema has connotations in the Bible of being cursed or being a poison – not a connotation of ‘putting a curse on’ but that the person or idea is ‘of the devil’ or some variation.
As for EWTN, I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with it. Its a decent place to use for general information and as far as I have ever found is reliable for representing Catholic teaching. However, I wouldn’t generally use EWTN as a scholarly resource – it would be sort of like citing ‘Good Housekeeping’ as a source. It’s not my opinion that EWTN is a problem, or that its shows aren’t good, its just TV and Radio and mass communications – not really a good medium for in-depth study. (Neither is blogging!) I do use the EWTN library as a handy place to find full texts of many articles and documents, it is an under appreciated resource. The main problem, and possible the reason why people don’t seem to realize how much EWTN has, is that they have a crappy search engine. It takes a little creativity to locate the good stuff.
I’ll address your next question in a separate comment.
Good to chat with you again, God Bless
Paul
Michael,
As a Catholic, I have asked your same question many times, and heard and read multiple answers. To me many of the responses are like the “emperor’s new clothes.” Let’s be honest here, the “stated degree” of exclusivity of the RC has clearly changed, just as its public teaching on religious liberty – just compare the “Syllabus of Errors” in the mid 19th Century to the teachings for Vatican II. Of course the outward teaching of the RC has changed on these issues (as much as it has for most of Christendom, as pointed out above). It’s so complex that if there is infallibility in the RC it is found in the relatively arcane writings of theologians and magisterium and it is separate from what the average sheep in the flock is being taught – but that, brothers, is where the rubber meets the road.
But… I still cling to this idea that the truth remains despite its being poorly communicated. After all does anybody really think the early church flipflopped it teaching in the time between Paul saying Abraham was saved by his faith and not works and James teaching that Abraham was saved by his works and that faith without works is dead? Imagine the blogging going on then!
I appreciate any correction or clarification from the other Catholics on this.
Jeff asked:
Jeff also asked about anathema, which Sam Urfer and I both answered above, but that plays here also.
As far as I understand, the Church has always understood that the power of the keys does not extend to Judgment. The power of Judgment is God’s alone – Thankfully!!!
I think you may provide an avenue for insight with the question of ‘not forgiving’ sins. Along with excommunication or declaring someone to be ‘anathema’ what is the Church’s intent? And of interest to this discussion, can we see that understanding in the early Church?
I suspect that we can, and am interested in what those more educated that I can provide.
My (post VII cradle catholic) understanding is that the Church deplores the devil and deplores Hell. The Church doesn’t want any souls to be lost. The Church absolutely desires that every soul on earth be saved, at the same time knowing and teaching that not all are saved. I can’t imagine that anyone would argue that this wasn’t just as true in the early church??
That said, I feel on firmer ground in asserting (although I admit due to incompetence and laziness I can’t prove the last part) that the Catholic Church doesn’t ever give up hope of the salvation of any human person and that has been a constant teaching of the Church since 31 A.D.
A citation from the online Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908on anathema excommunication (should be reliable enough on this topic for this discussion) My emphasis:
Note: This prayer (from the article) was composed in during the pontificate of Zachary 741-752
The declaring of anathema excommunication is primarily aimed at the salvation of the sinner. The intent is not to send his soul to hell, it is to “mortify his body that he will repent. I think it would be interesting to read the text of the other solemn prayers that would been part of this rite of excommunication. I am betting there will some insight into the Church’s understanding being separated from the Church (and from Christ) and the hope for the soul if the person should die in a state of excommunication.
So, the point of all this: The Church doesn’t and has never claimed the power to judge anyone’s ultimate salvation. In fact, that is a direct contradiction of the mission of the Church – to save souls. The Church does and always has desired the salvation of every soul. I think that strengthens the argument that Vatican II and CCC declarations cited at the beginning of this thread are actually fully consistent with the Faith and with the teaching of the Church in every age.
More later?
Paul
Michael
As if I haven’t caused enough mess for the week with the post above… I’ll forge onward.
Right! No one is saved by doing good works, and certainly no one is saved by following the Muslim practices.
I agree that there is an unacceptable vagueness to saying we worship the same God. I think it is open to misinterpretation. On the other hand, there is either only One God, or there isn’t. I’d say the three monotheisms have very different comceptions of the same God.
Right, pursing a false religion, or a false concept of God will inhibit learning the Truth or encountering the True God. However, there may be (are?) elements (fragments? crumbs?) of the Truth and that can provide some light towards the True God.
Again, I totally agree!
So I guess we need to find something to argue about?
I think your biggest issue seems to be with this quote which I agree (subject to reading it in context) is ambiguous at best and just plain wrong if one doesn’t already have the correct sense of what they are trying to say:
If I understand correctly, you are attributing this quote to JPII?? It seems clear that it is not anything he personally said or wrote, although it is appears correct that it is from an official statement by one of the congregations – Congregation for the Evangelizations of Peoples. But it comes from one of the sub-councils within that organization- The Council for Interreligous Dialogue so I would hazard a $10 bet that it wouldn’t have ever crossed JPII’s desk before publication.
The way it is quoted here (Normally “….) it appeared to be a direct quote from Ad Gentes the VII Statement of Mission Activity… But it is not. The full text of the document.
The quote in context:
This thread has been most interesting. Yesterday I thought I would do a Google search and attempt to track down some of the quotations of JPII that have been cited in this article and thread. I came across this webpage that helpfully provides various quotations from JPII and other Catholic sources–all demonstrating that the Catholic Church is the voice of the antichrist.
I know that no one on this thread wishes to engage in the kind of ignorant prooftexting that we find on this webpage. It is all too easy to quote people without attempting to understand what they are saying. Now I am not a student of JPII’s writings, but I have read several, perhaps most, of his encyclicals, as well as many of his catechetical lectures. On the topic at hand, I would suggest that folks begin with his encyclical Redemptoris missio. The Holy Father presents a theologically sophisticated and nuanced argument. At the heart of argument is the dual conviction that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is the one and only savior of the world and that the Holy Spirit is actively at work in the depths of every human heart to effect the salvation of the paschal mystery.
I have to think that if evangelicals were to carefully read and study this encyclical, they would be considerably less apprehensive about John Paul’s statements on the salvation of non-Christians. Indeed, they might even see him as friend and ally.
Here is the money quote for our discussion:
“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.
For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that ‘this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.’”
Note here that the decisive significance of God’s universal salvific will for JPII: because salvation is offered to all, it *must* be made concretely available to all. Hence the necessity to consider the possibility that God works to achieve his salvation apart from the ordinary means of word and sacrament.
JPII is not advocating some form of religious relativism, and he is certainly not arguing that evangelism and missionary work are unnecessary. The encyclical is clear on both points.
I’m glad that within Catholicism the material you are quoting is seen as orthodox and Biblical. I’m sure I’m not informing you of anything you don’t know when I tell you that for most evangelicals, the mysterious connection between the true church and other religions where Jesus is not named is a denial of what evangelicals believe scripture teaches. Further, it explains in large measure the differing approach to missions, evangelism and church planting that we see between evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism.
It’s been a very good discussion, and I think we’ve explored these issues in detail. It’s a significant differnce which, once again, leads us directly to the idea of papal infallibility and authority, the one unresolvable issue.
Thanks to all who have commented.
And let me be very clear that no one has claimed that the Pope or the RCC or Protestants, etc are the antiChrist or anything remotely similar.
Note here that the decisive significance of God’s universal salvific will for JPII: because salvation is offered to all, it *must* be made concretely available to all.
So in other words, since God desires all to be saved, there must be some kind of Sacrament-above-the-sacraments, an “ursacrament” if you will, that is present everywhere in the world. From what I have gleaned from Lumen Gentium, what the medievals called “natural law” is this ursacrament. So Rome has eventually come around to agree with Clement of Alexandria–the Greeks were justified by philosophy. While this isn’t religious relativism in the Enlightenment sense, it does indeed exhibit enough characteristics that calling it “relativism” is not entirely inaccurate, although “pluralism” is perhaps a better word–all roads lead to the same place, but the Catholic road is better marked. But since even a relativist will admit that some things are more true than others (they tend to think “love your neighbor” is a bit more closer to the truth than “sacrifice your children to the angry blood-demon”), it’s ultimately not that far off.
Paul, 8th century prayers do not necessarily tell us a great deal about the use of words in 16th century religious-political councils.
Josh,
Thanks for the laugh! and Thanks for a new idea!