“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?
The Internet Monk Archives 
From John Spong’s book “The Sins of Scripture”. This is the last two paragraphs from Chapter 27 titled Since I have the truth, “No one comes to the Father but by me”.
There is a difference between my experience of God and who God is. There is a difference between affirming that I walk into the mystery of God through the doorway called Jesus and that in my experience this is the only doorway that works in my journey, and asserting that there is no doorway through which anyone can walk except mine. Imagine the idolatry present in the suggestion that God must be bound by my knowledge and experience! Yet that claim has been made and is still being made by imperialistic Christians today. The text written by persecuted minority members of the early Christian community to justify their claim to be part of the larger people of God becomes a text that is interpreted in such a way as to become a claim that issues in religious imperialism. Is it not interesting how little attention is paid to another text that proclaims an open and inclusive faith? It is found in the words attributed to Peter in Acts 10:34ff.: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
We live in a religiously pluralistic world, but there is only one God. This God is not a Christian, nor is this God an adherent of any religious system. All religious systems are human creations by which people in different times and different places seek to journey into that which is ultimately holy and wholly other. Until that simple lesson is heard, human beings will continue to destroy each other in the name of the “one true God.”
LikeLike
If universalism is now official Catholic doctrine, we’re doing a darn good job hiding it, no?
Millions of people around the world, clergy and lay, devote their lives to helping others learn the faith and do what is necessary to gain salvation. Obviously they are wasting their time if everyone is saved anyway. You’d think JP2 and BXVI would have the courtesy to let them know.
Joe, salvation is no small matter. If the Church changes its view on who is saved and how, I think it will be obvious. You won’t have to glean this fact by reading a few sentences in one or two encyclicals while ignoring entire libraries of authoritative teaching that says otherwise.
LikeLike
Michael, delete that one too – I forgot to actually change the text.
I have quit the field in this discussion, but I think some who have participated might find interesting reading in St. Ambrose’s “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith†Book II, Chapters XXV through XXIX, particularly the last five paragraphs of chapter XXIX (which requires reading back a few chapters to understand).
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Josh,
Just a word of thanks for mentioning the Carolingian program of Latinization. I happened across a synopsis of this history, and would of passed it over. Because of your reference to it, I actually took time to read a few paragraphs. Quite interesting really. Doesn’t really connect to your point, but I’m done arguing 🙂
For any who aren’t familiar, look it up.
Pax et Bonum
Paul
LikeLike
Joe,
I assume you mean Spe Salve, or Saved by Hope by Pope Benedict? Just checking.
Paul
LikeLike
Joe,
I’ve read the encyclical. Exactly what passage do you read to equate to universal salvation?
Paul
LikeLike
“Hope, you may recall, is mentioned in Scripture along with Faith and Love as a good thing. This is why you see Popes expressing it. I don’t get how this is a problem.”
Try reading his encyclical in context and you will have a different interpretation. JPII and Benedict are essentially universalists.
LikeLike
I hope all the people with cancer are cured tomorrow. I hope there are no more brush fires in California. I hope that Jews and Muslims will learn to live in harmony. I hope for world peace. I hope everyone I know wins the lottery.
I hope for all these things. Do I expect them? No. Similarly, I hope that all people will be saved. It does not follow that I think all people will be saved, or even most people. I hope because in many cases it is all I can do. I am well aware that my hopes will often not be fulfilled.
Hope, you may recall, is mentioned in Scripture along with Faith and Love as a good thing. This is why you see Popes expressing it. I don’t get how this is a problem.
LikeLike
PatrickW:
I can’t say I am convinced that the Catholic position is *some* non-believers are saved. In his latest encyclical, for instance, the Pope writes that we can hope that most everyone is finally saved, except for the extremely bad people. And all the references in the CCC that hint at universal salvation corroborate the idea. It really seems that post Vatican II theology has made the universal salvific will of God the determinitive doctrine. I think von Balthasar caught it from Barth and passed it on to all the latest Popes.
LikeLike
ROMANS 2:14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
ACTS 17:24-28 The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 that they should seek God, if happily they might reach out to him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:
28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. God gives all people life, breath, and all things. From one man He made every nation that dwells on the whole earth. He determined the times and places people would live. God did this so that men would seek Him, reach out to Him, and find Him; though He is not far from each of us.
JESUS
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. And what ye would not that men should do unto you, do ye not so unto them; for this is the Law and the prophets.”
CONFUCIUS
“When one cultivates to the utmost the principles of his nature, and exercises them on the principle of reciprocity, he is not far from the path.(( What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others ))”
“He who lives in Tao (GOD), and Tao (GOD) in him, is a good man: He keeps in good terms with men, takes things easy, loves the world as he does his own person; he is simple like an infant, cautious, modest, yielding. He is humble, and thus he remains entire. He is subtle, penetrating and profound; avoids excess, extravagance, and indulgence. He makes the self of the people his self”… he acts to the good or to the bad with goodness, and to the faithful or the faithless with faith. He returns love for great hatred”…
LikeLike
There hasn’t been much response to the point I raised in this thread on July 11. Unless you believe that there is at least some mysterious mechanism for people to have a chance at heaven without church or Gospel teaching… then you must believe that God creates people and sends them to hell with no chance at salvation. Pre-Columbian native Americans who worshiped pagan idols, for instance.
If that’s what you believe, fine. I would like to see more people admit it. Face up to the implications of what you are saying.
If, on the other hand, you think a few of the Indians might have made it to heaven but you don’t fully understand how God did it… then you agree with the Catholic position on this point.
LikeLike
Dear Imonk,
I always thought that this verse in Romans was justification for believing that non-Christians could access salvation. That by their actions, gentiles are demonstrating a kind of faith ascribed to Abraham in the book of James. That is, a faith demonstrated by one’s actions. It seems hopeful to me that our God, who is love, will judge the “secret thoughts” of all.
[Rom 2:11] For God shows no partiality…
[Rom 2:13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
LikeLike
BTW, you need to get the wordpress plugin that allows you to subscribe to comments. http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/
LikeLike
“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 agree Michael. But more to the point of the post, I think most of catholic church history (Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) alike would be on your side (to say nothing of Scripture). While there was some uncertainty about particular “special circumstances,” worshiping another God—and doing it well(!)—was not one of these.
While I respect the Catholic Church, they have painted themselves into quite a corner here and it is (forgive me) entertaining to see them change (without really changing). Ahh shucks, to be fair, we Protestants are the best at worming our way out of things…just look at how we handle some of the Bible discrepancies! It is an awesome site to behold!
LikeLike
In Imperial-era liturgies (4th C, 5th C, etc), this congregational response was an affirmation of the priest’s status as standing in the person of Christ as bearer of the Gospel; however, this meaning was lost in the ensuing centuries until it came to mean little more than a spiritual version of “Right back at ya,†which is why Vatican II changed it to “And also with you.â€
Vatican II, of course, made no such change. The normative Latin rendering of the phrase remains as always: et cum spritu tuo. Most jurisdictions have translated the Latin fairly literally, so I understand; but in English-speaking countries, via the work of ICEL, the phrase was translated by the silly “And also with you.” In the forthcoming new translation of the Roman rite, the ICEL phrase will be replaced by the more literal translation “And with your spirit.”
LikeLike
Paul, I think that your division of the Catholic Church into “rites” is anachronistic, judging by the Carolingian program of Latinization and certain canons in Gratian’s Decretum regarding the normative nature of the liturgy at Rome for the entire Church. But I could be wrong. But that, of course, is immaterial. What you are certainly wrong about is that when Protestants say “Roman Catholic Church,” they are referring to the entire papal communion, not merely the collection of congregations that currently follow Novus Ordo or the Tridentine Mass.
Furthermore, liturgical use of a term does not freeze its meaning in time. One of the most obvious examples is the response, “And with your spirit.” In Imperial-era liturgies (4th C, 5th C, etc), this congregational response was an affirmation of the priest’s status as standing in the person of Christ as bearer of the Gospel; however, this meaning was lost in the ensuing centuries until it came to mean little more than a spiritual version of “Right back at ya,” which is why Vatican II changed it to “And also with you.” Of course, if one goes even earlier than the 4th C, Paul closes a couple of his epistles that way, so it’s not certain which is the “real” meaning. I’d also refer you to the varying liturgical use of “sacrifice” from the 4th century to the development of propitiatory oblation theory, but some people are very sloppy with that.
Regarding Trent’s “let him be anathema,” the origin is the Vulgate translation of Galatians 1:8-9. Of course, asking what the conciliarists meant by that phrase by studying Jerome or Paul is, well, like asking what they meant by “iustificare.” Words may change meaning over time. I’m not actually saying they don’t mean the same thing as your favorite 8th century prayer, I’m simply pointing out that it’s fallacious logic to try and determine what some person or group of people meant by a certain word by doing your etymology 600 years earlier. Of course, I find your whole distinction to be misdirected. No one that I know thinks that Trent’s “anathema” means, “You shall be damned for eternity, no exceptions.” It appears very transparently to mean, and your 1908 encyclopedia appears to affirm this, “You shall be damned for eternity unless you change your belief.”
LikeLike
God doesn’t owe us salvation or anything else. But he does owe it to himself to be faithful to his character as self-revealed in Jesus Christ. Love brings its own wondrous and incomprehensible necessities.
But I agree with you, Jeff, that we are not told that everyone will hear and respond in faith and love to God’s offer of salvation. Yet with Hans Urs von Balthasar, I think we may hope.
LikeLike
Someone mentioned 1 Timothy 2:4 earlier and I think we should be careful here. The verse in 1 Timothy states that yes, God desires all men to be saved(The KJV translation of that verse uses “will” but it is better understood as “desire”.), but it in no way obligates Him to action. When we start saying that God “must” do anything, we are treading on dangerous ground. God doesn’t owe any of us anything. He doesn’t owe us a shot at salvation. He doesn’t owe us eternal life. If you know of a place in Scripture that says otherwise please point it out to me. Praise be to God that He graciously offers eternal life and salvation to any who will believe, but I don’t find any promise in Scripture that everyone will hear or that everyone will respond when they do.
LikeLike
Joe M,
I feel your pain. I’ve been lurking around the internet since 1989 or so, on listserv, and alt.religion.catholic ETC.. I remember when I first started, and I was critical of the Hunthausan debacle – critical of John Paul II. The whole infallibility issue and what was infallible and what wasn’t, and what was discipline and what was doctrine and on and on. Certain people always seemed to be shifting the ground under our feet.
It seemed like the Church held all the cards, and got to make up all the rules – which it does, but God is the House, the dealer, the banker and the Judge to boot.
Overtime, and some ‘casual’ study, it got better. I found a set of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia in the library of my secular college. I moved to a town that had a (heterodox tending) Catholic bookstore and bought copies of Humanae Vitae, the Vatican II documents and some basic books. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was finally released in English. The internet brought easier access to Church documents, writings of the early fathers and loads of stuff. EWTN and Catholic Answers and books by convert apologists gave me a leg up along the way.
I think you are quite right about the “average sheep” in the flock and what they have been, and are being taught. Pre-Vatican II, many if not most Catholics probably believed that absolutely, no one who wasn’t Catholic was going to Heaven – due to the emphasis of the time and inadequate catechism in this area. Post Vatican II many if not most Catholics probably believe that it doesn’t matter what religion you are, as long as you are a good person due to the emphasis and just plain p*** poor catechism. (in both eras, too many Priests and even Bishops have held and taught both errors).
Pope Benedict talks regularly about the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” on the part of both the “progressives” and the radical conservatives who want to revoke VII. I hope and pray that Pope Benedict lives long and is able to fully establish a reform within the “hermeneutic of continuity”.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
I need to stop trying new editors!
LikeLike
Josh,
Thanks for the laugh! and Thanks for a new idea!
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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:
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
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I’d love to know if the guys quoting EWTN and/or Catholic Answers are converts from Protestantism or cradle Catholics.
LikeLike
My God, EWTN, Catholic Answers? How ’bout authentic Catholic teaching?
LikeLike
For infallible statements, please reference the Code of Canon Law, canon 749, Pastor Aeternus, and Lumen Gentium.
LikeLike
Charley: So can we find a RC who will say JPII is anything other than completely right?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
C.S. Lewis has some great quotes on this whole subject don’t ya know. This ain’t just a catholic issue of course.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
“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)?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.”
LikeLike
Paul: Do you believe that Pope Eugene would have ever said that Muslims following Islam only would be in heaven?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
I’d also suggest going to this page:
http://www.wittenbergtrail.com/page5/RomanCatholicTheology.html
and listening to “interview # 4”
Stunning.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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)
LikeLike
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″.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?â€
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
LikeLike
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.
😛 Whatever. It’s disagreement.
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Peter Phan may not be the best representative of the Church’s teachings.
LikeLike
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:<blockquote#
In light of what has been said above, one may question the usefulness of words such as ‘unique,’ ‘absolute,’ and even ‘universal’ to describe the role of Jesus as savior. Words are unavoidably embedded in socio-political and cultural contexts, and the contexts in which these words were used were steeped in colonialist conquest, economic exploitation, political domination, and religious marginalization. No matter how they are theologically qualified, words such as uniqueness, absoluteness, and universality are not the most effective means to convey Christ’s message of humble service and compassionate love, especially to victims of political, economic, and religious persecution. In particular, in the post-Holocaust era, they should be jettisoned and replaced by other equivalents. Christ’s uniqueness, however it is understood, is not exclusive or absolute but, to use Jacques Dupuis’s expressions, “constitutive†and “relational.â€[16] That is to say, because the Christ event belongs to and is the climax of God’s plan of salvation, Christ is constitutive of salvation in a very special manner. In him God has brought about salvation for all humanity in a most effective and intense manner. Moreover, because Judaism and other non-Christian religions themselves are a part of God’s plan of salvation of which Christ is the culminating point, Christ is related to these religions, especially Judaism, and vice versa. Furthermore, because non-Christian religions possess an autonomous function in the history of salvation, different from that of Christianity, they and Christianity, though mutually related, cannot be reduced to each other. Autonomy and relatedness are not mutually contradictory.Of course, in 2005, Peter Phan- the author above- was in hot water with the Vatican on this subject. Now I’m really confused.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?!?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
OK. But there were Muslims, Jews and Atheists.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Oh, and sorry about any confusion. I’m not iMonk. Webmonk does not equal iMonk.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.)
LikeLike
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??
LikeLike