Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Council of Trent on desire for Baptism

2010-05-30T01:52:00.005-06:00

A reader recently left a comment on my previous post concerning The council of Trent and St. Thomas on whether or not the council of Trent admits the possibility of Baptism by desire. I decided to make a particular post on this, both because it seems to be something that is misunderstood by some people, even intelligent ones, (I had a Theology professor once who held a similar position) and because blogger would not allow me to post my response in the comment box because it was too long. :)

Here is the comment left by an "anonymous" reader:

You can't get around the FACT that baptism of desire is NEVER once mentioned at Trent when discussing Baptism, which is where any logical person would expect it( just like a perfect act of contrition is clearly explained in the section on Penance). The Holy Ghost has never put His seal on your theory. You can argue ceaselessly, but the FACT remains that baptism of desire has no dogmatic infallible status, while the need for water baptism does (at Trent).

For one to believe your "take" on Trent, one would have to believe that from before the beginning of the world, that he was going to save people by baptism of desire (people who God's grace could not penetrate, or who God put out of His reach), and save some by baptism of water in his Church, and save others by no desire whatsoever (implicit faith), and save others by bringing them back from the dead. In your disbelief in EENS you have created for yourself one bumbling God.

In response to this, I would like to point out that the council of Trent quite clearly mentions baptism of desire; the comment by our reader seems to imply that he is aware of this as well, since he says, "Baptism of desire is never once mentioned at Trent when discussing Baptism, which is where any logical person would expect it."(emphasis added)

Despite this fact, I will go over the places where baptism by desire is clearly referred to. There are several places. The first is from the decree on Justification:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

What possible reason could the council of Trent have for saying that justification cannot take place without "the laver of regeneration", i.e., baptism by water, or the desire thereof, if not to say that in fact in some cases the desire itself for baptism is sufficient for justification? There does not seem to be another reasonable interpretation.

This is how St. Alphonsus Liguori interprets this text. I quoted this text earlier in discussing his position:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means washing or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of spirit, and of blood. ... But Baptism of spirit is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of spirit' because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of spirit, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire.

This text, however, is not the only place where the council of Trent speaks concerning the desire for baptism. In the decree on the sacraments, which is introduced as being necessary "to complete the saving doctrine on justification," the fourth general canon on the sacraments says the following:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

The council of Trent is clearly saying two things: that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, and that the grace of justification is given only through the sacrament or the desire thereof. The clearest example of this given in the council is that of the sacrament of penance, where it is explicitly stated that one may receive the grace of justification before actually receiving the sacrament itself, through the desire for the sacrament.

Our "anonymous" commenter seems to want to make a distinction between the necessity for Baptism, and the necessity for Penance in the council of Trent, such that it is possible to be justified by a perfect act of contrition before receiving the sacrament of penance, but not possible to be justified before receiving baptism by water. This however must be denied. The council says in considering the differences between the sacrament of penance and baptism that:

For, by baptism putting on Christ, we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins: unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

The council of Trent says here that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated. However, as the commenter himself admitted, it is very clear that Trent admits that a man can receive the effect of the sacrament of penance by desire, before actually receiving the sacrament itself.

Thus, if one wishes to hold that baptism by water is necessary in such a way that the effect of baptism cannot be received before the sacrament itself, one must also hold that the same thing is true of penance, since otherwise it would not be true that the sacrament of penance is necessary after sinning just as the sacrament of baptism before being baptized.

However, this position is clearly contradictory to the decree on penance, which clearly asserts that one can receive the effect of the sacrament of penance, without actually receiving the sacrament itself. Hence we must conclude that Baptism and Penance are similar in that one can receive their effects through desire for the sacrament without actually receiving the sacrament itself.

It is further clear that this is the position of the council of Trent by examining the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was published shortly after the conclusion of the council. St. Charles Borremeo, who had a profound influence on the Council of Trent, edited the text of the first publication of the Catechism, and would certainly have caught anything that was blatantly contradictory to the council's intention. Nor should it be supposed that the Church would have allowed a Catechism, ordered by the council and purporting to present the teaching of the Council, to foment error among the faithful.

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, we read:

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death . . . On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

This is all very clear, and needs no explanation. This confirms our interpretation of the council of Trent's teaching on Baptism.

One last point that might be mentioned as well is the fact that the teaching of St. Thomas had a very strong influence on the Council of Trent; the Summa was the only other work besides the Bible that was placed upon the altar at the Council of Trent. St. Thomas quite clearly holds that baptism of desire is sufficient to justify an adult; it is again reasonable to bear in mind the background of St. Thomas, and to interpret the council of Trent in the light of his teaching.

St. Alphonsus Liguori on implicit desire for Baptism

2010-03-11T23:57:00.003-07:00

From the sixth book of St. Alphonsus's Moral Theology:

"Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means washing or
immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of spirit, and
of blood. ... But Baptism of spirit is perfect conversion to God by
contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or
implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to
the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the character or as
to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of spirit' because
it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Now it is de fide that men
are also saved by Baptism of spirit, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de
presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4
where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration
or the desire."

We see here that St. Alphonsus agrees with St. Thomas that baptism of desire need not come about through an explicit desire for baptism, but an implicit desire is also sufficient for this.

St. Alphonsus also asks the question whether one needs explicit faith in the incarnation in order to be saved, but does not come firmly down on a given side. He holds that the opinion which says that explicit faith is required is more probable, but that the other position which holds that one may believe implicitly is also quite probable.

Cardinal Charles Journet on EENS

2009-12-18T11:59:00.002-07:00

Cardinal Journet has a section on the dogma "no salvation outside the Church" in his work, "Church of the Word Incarnate" This can be found on EWTN: http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin1.htm#02

I reproduce the relevant section here:

3. The Meaning Of The Maxim "Outside The Church No Salvation"

It is at the precise point at which God, by the two-fold power of the apostolic hierarchy, makes contact with men that we must look for the created soul of the Church, and then go on to study the body it animates. For the created soul and the body of the Church are, of themselves, coextensive—in other words, the created soul does not extend beyond its body, nor the body beyond its soul. "The faithful" wrote St. Augustine," must become the Body of Christ if they would live by the Spirit of Christ. Understand, my brothers, what I have said. You are a man, you have a spirit and you have a body. A spirit, I say, called the soul, by which it appears that you are man, because composed of soul and body. You have then an invisible spirit and a visible body. Tell me now, which of these two lives by the other—is it your spirit that lives by your body, or your body by your spirit? Every living man will know how to reply, and if anyone cannot reply I know not whether he lives. And what does every living man reply? That it is the body, of course, that lives by the spirit. Would you then, for your part, live by the Spirit of Christ? Then be in the Body of Christ. Does my body live by your spirit? Mine lives by my spirit, and yours by yours. The Body of Christ cannot live at all, if not by the Spirit of Christ." He adds a little further on: "It is the Spirit that quickens, for it is the spirit that makes the members live. It gives life to those members only whom it finds in the body it quickens. The spirit that is in you, O man, and by which you are a man—does it then quicken any member that has been separated from your flesh? Your spirit is what I call your soul, and your soul quickens only those members that are in your body; if you cut off any one of them it soon ceases to be quickened by your soul, since it has no longer any share in the unity of your body. I say these things that you should learn to love unity and fear separation. The Christian should fear nothing so much as separation from the Body of Christ. Once he is separated he is no longer a member of Christ; and if he is not a member of Christ he is no longer quickened by the Spirit of Christ. For, says the Apostle, he who has not the Spirit of Christ, is not of Christ."[80] The fundamental law of the coextension of the created soul and body of the Church is not contradicted by the fact that sanctifying grace may be found among the unbaptized or the non-Catholic baptized. There are two reasons for this. First of all, grace has to be sacramental and duly orientated before it contributes to the constitution of the perfect soul of the Church; and secondly, although the soul of the Church is only prefigured where the sacramental character, or sacramental grace, or orientated grace are lacking, yet the body of the Church begins to be prefigured there too. Nor is the fundamental law of the co-extension of the created soul and body of the Church contradicted by the fact that many sinners lacking grace continue to be members of the Church; for it can be said that to the extent to which they still adhere to the Church these sinners receive spiritual influences which emanate from the entire soul of the Church, which in this sense is in them by its efficiency and, as it were, dynamically.

The preachers and apologists of the nineteenth century rather lost sight of St. Augustine's great doctrine. How were they to reconcile the axiom "Outside the Church, no salvation"[81] with the doctrine, everywhere received, that those who remain ignorant of the Church in good faith may nevertheless be in a state of grace and in the way to save their souls? Protestantism, prompt to dissociate invisible realities from visible, answered that there exists an "invisible Church" to which the just of all times belong, and a "visible Church" (or many visible Churches) which nobody is bound to enter. A certain number of Catholic writers, without wishing to dislocate the Church in this manner, imagined that her soul, i. e. sanctifying grace as they said, extended far beyond the limits of her body. They added that the just who in good faith remain ignorant of the Church, belong to the soul of the Church, and are therefore not outside her.

In the first place, however, such a mode of distinguishing the soul and body of the Church is without foundation in the authentic documents of the magisterium.[82] It would seem to have been influenced by the Protestant conception of a "spiritual Church", distinct from the "visible Church"[83], and its use appears to be dangerous.[84] On the other hand we can easily see that the soul of the Church is not sanctifying grace pure and simple, as found in those who remain ignorant of the Church in good faith, but sanctifying grace as transmitted by the sacramental power and ruled by the jurisdictional power.

To reconcile the axiom "Outside the Church, no salvation", with the doctrine of the possible salvation of those who remain ignorant of the Church in all good faith, there is no need to manufacture any new theory. All we have to do is to apply to the Church the traditional distinction made in connection with the necessity of Baptism, the door by which the Church is entered. To the question: Can anybody be saved without Baptism? St. Thomas, who here draws on the thought of St. Ambrose, replies that those who lack Baptism re et voto, that is to say who neither are nor want to be baptized, cannot come to salvation, "since they are neither sacramentally nor mentally incorporated into Christ, by whom alone is salvation". But those who lack Baptism re, sed non voto, that is to say "who desire Baptism, but are accidentally overtaken by death before receiving it, can be saved without actual Baptism, in virtue of their desire for Baptism, coming from a faith that works by charity, by which God, whose power is not circumscribed by visible sacraments, sanctifies man interiorly".[85] Conformably with this distinction we shall say that the axiom "No salvation outside the Church" is true of those who do not belong to the Church, which in herself is visible, either visibly (corporaliter) or even invisibly, either by the sacraments (sacramentaliter) or even in spirit (mentaliter); either fully (re) or even by desire (voto); either in accomplished act or even in virtual act.[86] The axiom does not concern the just who, without yet belonging to the Church visibly, in accomplished act (re), do so invisibly, in virtual act, in spirit, by desire (mentaliter, voto), that is to say in virtue of the supernatural righteousness of their lives, even while, through insurmountable ignorance, they know nothing of the sanctity, or even of the existence, of the Church.[87]

4. The Just "Without" Belong To The Church By Desire, Not In Accomplished Act

I do not say that there is no supernatural life at all outside the Church, but simply that there is none that does not look towards her.[88] As preliminary to a deeper study of the soul of the Church, let us examine more closely the position of the just "outside".

They are to be found either in those groups which lack the sacraments of the New Law (paganism, Islam, Judaism, and Protestant sects such as the Quakers), or in those groups which, while separating themselves from the Church, have kept, among other good things, various genuine sacraments. (We may call them dissidents: Graeco-Russians, and traditionalist Protestants.) [89]

1. The just of the first category enjoy supernatural life—i. e. sanctifying grace issuing in the infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The whole tendency of this life is to grow towards completion, to enrich itself with those modalities which grace possesses in the sacred humanity of Christ, to open out, in a word, into that sacramental grace which, as we have seen, is a primary and fundamental element of the soul of the Church. It thus creates in those who have it a kind of living aspiration to that soul, a real and ontological desire for the Church. Men of this sort are of the Church, say the theologians, not yet re but already voto, mentaliter, by desire. Membership re and membership voto are here opposed, not as real membership to unreal, but as actual, consummated ontological membership to virtual, prefigured ontological membership, as membership in achieved act to membership in virtual act. Membership re, visible, corporeal, terminal, achieved, may be compared with membership voto, invisible, spiritual, prefigured, of desire; as the plant in flower is compared with the plant in bud; or, to take Bellarmine's comparison, as the man with the child still hidden in his mother's womb.[90]

However reduced may be the activities of grace in such souls, they will still be in need of speculative and practical directives. They must know, for example—if they are to believe in them supernaturally—of the existence and providence of God, of the principles of morality and so on. Data of this sort are doubtless woven into the religious and cultural web within which they live, but are bound to be vitiated by endless errors. Each will have to do what he can on his own account, under the inner influence of the Holy Spirit who fails no one—though we may all too easily mistake our own voice for His—to sift the true from the false, the good from the bad. There will be omissions and inaccuracies, more or less serious according to the religious group concerned—Judaism for example or Islam being more helpful than paganism, itself a thing of many degrees. In so far as these religions shut out the truth they are instruments of darkness; but by such truths as they have retained (or perhaps regained), they may, however accidentally and imperfectly, be sources of light for millions of souls inwardly sustained by the Holy Spirit.

2. The just of the second category, the dissident groups, are in a better position. Like the rest, they belong to the Church not completely—not re—but in a way that is initial, virtual, beginning, voto. Note however that membership by desire is realized in an analogous or proportional manner; more feebly in the first category, and to a greater degree of perfection in the second, where certain genuine sacraments of the New Law have been retained, along with numerous traditional data in the speculative and practical orders.

The Graeco-Russian dissidents have kept the power of order with its three degrees: bishops, priests, and deacons. It has been perpetuated among them in virtue of the validly transmitted consecration of those who first made the schism. Thanks to the power of order the redemptive sacrifice is offered and the sacraments preserved: Baptism undoubtedly, and Confirmation, enabling the laity to partake to a certain extent of the sacerdotal power of Christ; the Eucharist too, the end of all the other sacraments, which of itself, whenever it is received with the right dispositions, tends to bestow spiritual life—not, like Baptism, in an inchoate state, but in a consummated state [91]—and to form the Church, the Body of Christ, the "sacrament of piety, the sign of unity, the bond of charity."[92] The just who belong to these Graeco-Russian groups truly possess, besides the triple sacramental character that enables them validly to continue the celebration of the Christian rite, that sacramental grace which though not, in isolation, the soul of the Church, is nevertheless a primary and fundamental constituent of the soul of the Church.

Those dissident groups of the Reformed in which Baptism is still validly administered—whose marriages are therefore held by the Roman Church to be authentically sacramental [93]—can still participate, but in an attenuated way, in the sacramental benefits: the sacerdotal power of Christ is imparted to them only in Baptism, sacramental grace only in Baptism and the sacrament of Matrimony.

As to the supernatural directives needed to give sacramental grace its collective orientation and the final perfection which will make it the soul of the Church, an immanent form uniting, ruling, and vivifying the whole Mystical Body of Christ, they exist outside the Catholic Church as doctrinal patterns—much more important and closely organized in Graeco-Russian Christianity, where the process of separation has not gone so far, than in the Protestant variety, and much more important in Protestantism, where the two Testaments are respected, than in the religions of the non-baptized. That the number of the sacraments should diminish with the value of these doctrinal patterns is easy to understand. When the Protestants of England ceased to believe in the Eucharist their ordinations ceased to be valid, and the power of order lost its divine significance.[94] Today, the Protestant modernists, who do not believe in original sin, no longer attach any great importance to the reception of Baptism. The denial of any divine power of jurisdiction, and the consequent denial of any infallible truth in dogmatic pronouncements, tends of itself to the suppression of the sacramental power.

3. In the unbaptized just, and in those of the Protestant and Graeco-Russian groups, the soul of the Church is, as it were, in formation, yet can nowhere come to fulfilment. For even where sacramental grace attains the fullness of its being and of its modalities, as among the Graeco-Russians, it lacks light, encountering directives which are not always sufficient and not always certain, neither infallibly guaranteed as a whole nor protected from the corrosive influence of modern errors; and it cannot possibly achieve that plenitude which would issue in the created soul of the Church, the immanent ruling form of the Mystical Body of Christ.

It is important to note here that when we say that the Church is in formation outside the Church, we are looking at things in a way which, from an ecclesiological standpoint, is accidental and secondary. We mean that those who broke with the Church took with them certain good things which by their very nature belong to her. In themselves, in virtue of their own internal exigencies, these scattered fragments demand to be reintegrated in the Church, and we know that the universal saving virtue of the God of mercy works mysteriously and incessantly for their reintegration. But clearly this reintegrating movement works in precisely the opposite direction to the original movement by which the dissident Churches cut themselves off from the true Church, and it can gain ground only by sapping the specific principle by which these Churches willed, and still will, to differ from the true Church. Outside the Church the Church is in formation, but this comes about accidentally, by violence done to the course things have taken. Outside the Church, the Church, of itself, is in decomposition. Any fragments of life broken off from her are no sooner detached from their native whole and subjected to the influence of the principle of dissidence, than they begin to disintegrate and decay.

Thus it is entirely right to hold that the struggle of light against darkness is the struggle of the Church against the world; but we must add that even in this world the Church has One who works for her in secret, the hidden God who mysteriously enlightens every man, whose wisdom reaches from end to end of the universe, and who does not reap where He has not sown.

Other things being equal—that is to say, supposing an equal intensity of charity everywhere—membership of the Church by desire possesses a greater and greater degree of perfection as we pass from the non-baptized just to those of the traditionalist Protestant Churches, and then to those of the Graeco-Russian Churches. But by a very disconcerting paradox, the movement of conversion to the Church is not necessarily in direct, but rather in inverse, ratio to the religious perfection of these various groups. It may be that there is some mystery here like that of the Gentiles, whose conversion en masse is to precede the entry of Israel into the Church.

5. The Different A Attitudes That May Co-Exist With Membership By Desire

Turning now from groups of believers to individual persons, we note that membership by desire—that is to say the authentic movement of charity which effectively unites a soul to the Church—may co-exist with very diverse attitudes of mind, some of which may strike the faithful as rather strange. But it is not for the faithful, or for the theologians or even for the jurisdictional authority, to be the final judge of the salvation of each particular soul. That is for God alone. There are three typical attitudes, around which we may easily group the others.

First there is that of the catechumens. They have expressly asked for Baptism and the gates of the Church, which they know to be the Body of Christ, stand open before them. Their desire for her is fully conscious and explicit.

The second attitude is that of the unbaptized child who awakes at one and the same time to the life of reason and to the life of faith, and turns to his last end with a profound aspiration which will count as Baptism by desire and will bring him to the heart of the Kingdom of God.[95] One grown to manhood in the forests, away from the company of men, and suddenly illumined by an inner inspiration showing him what to believe, would be in a similar position.[96] In these two cases, and others like them, the desire that saves these men, though it springs from a faith vitalized by charity, is not always accompanied by explicit knowledge of Baptism or of the Church, nor even perhaps of the Incarnation and the Trinity: the explicit content of faith then amounting to two points which, in the supereminent mystery of their riches, contain all the articles of the creed: namely that "God is, and rewards those who seek after Him" (Heb. xi. 6).

The third attitude is that of men who are aware of the existence and activity of the Church, but who, far from seeming to move towards her, show themselves ill-disposed, perhaps oppose her with all their conscious powers, even persecute her; and yet do this because of insurmountable errors for which God does not hold them responsible, sincerely convinced as they are that they work for justice and truth. Their hostility to the Church can coexist with an authentic movement of faith working by charity, which attaches them closely to the very Church that they detest, but whose sons they already are. Newman had long given up "choosing his way" and was content to be led by the divine light; yet still the Church of Rome seemed to him to be allied with Antichrist. There are more things in a man's heart than are dreamt of in his philosophy; or even, often enough, in his theology.

Albert the Great on Implicit Faith

2009-11-30T01:29:00.002-07:00

Article 4
Whether an article [of faith] binds one to believe explicitly or implicitly?

To the fourth is sought, when it is said that an article binds one to believe, whether it binds one to believe explicitly or implicitly?

Now it seems that it binds one to believe implicitly.

1. By authorities: for man is not bound to believe those things said which in no way are made clear to the understanding, from which proceeds everything believable, as was established above. But what even the angels do not know, in no way are clear to man. “Who is this who comes from Edom?”(Isaiah 63:1) A gloss of Jerome says on this: “It is declared openly, that certain angels did not fully know the mystery of the incarnation, until it was accomplished.”

2. The same [is shown] from the letter to the Ephesians: “That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the princes and powers in the heavens, etc.” (Ephesians 3:10) Therefore it seems that neither is man bound to know this explicitly.

3. The same [is shown] from Chrysostom in his third homily upon John: “We are greatly honored, because the angels learned together with us by the voice of John.”

4. The same [is shown] by the verse “Collect the fragments which abound lest they be wasted,” (John 6:12) the Gloss says: “The fragments are the sacred mysteries, which the common people cannot grasp.” Therefore it seems that one is not bound to believe the articles [of faith] explicitly.

5. The same [is shown] from the letter to the Ephesians “What is the dispensation of the mystery hidden from eternity in God,” (Ephesians 3:9) the Gloss says “I.e, kept secret from every age of creatures, and existing only in the knowledge of God.”

6. The same [is shown] by reason thus: In the demonstration of knowable things, something happens to be known implicitly in the universal, which nevertheless can be doubted in the particular; just as we know universally that every triangle has three angles equal to two rights, and nevertheless I am able to doubt of this wooden triangle whether it has three angles equal to two rights. Therefore much more can this happen in faith, which is wholly above reason.

7. The same [is shown thus]: if it should be said that the articles [of faith] bind to explicit belief, already many would have been damned, and would be damned even today, who do not know the distinction of the articles [of faith].

8. Furthermore, according to this even other things than the articles [of faith] would bind to belief: because it is said “By faith we understand the world to have been framed by the word of God, that from invisible things visible should be made.”

9. The same [is shown thus]: By faith Moses, having been born was hidden for three months, etc. Also by faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with the unbelievers, and there are many of these sort of thing which do not belong to the articles [of faith], and nevertheless they are received under faith as following faith. Therefore it seems that someone is not bound to believe explicitly.

10. Furthermore, this is said in the letter in the second part of the distinction.

Sed Contra:

1. Boethius says that evil is not avoided unless known: but one is bound to avoid infidelity against any article [of faith]. Therefore one is bound to know something explicitly.

2. The same [is shown from the verse] “But I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to perform the whole law.” Therefore likewise, to the one receiving faith it is necessary to believe all the articles [of faith] explicitly.

3. The same [is shown thus]: if it sufficed one to believe implicitly omnipotence and redemption in any manner one wishes, then all the philosophers and many heretics had implicit faith: but this is false. Therefore explicit faith is required.

4. The same [is shown from Leviticus]. it is said of the cleansing of the leper, “He shall offer for his own cleansing a sextarium of oil” and the Gloss says, that the sextarium of oil is the measure of faith, which if it is more, overflows, but if less, it is deficient. Therefore one is bound to offer the whole measure of the articles [of faith].

5. The same [is shown from Deuteronomy]. Moses is commanded that clearly and openly he should write upon the rocks, and the Gloss says that the rocks are the common people. Therefore one is bound to believe the articles [of faith] clearly and distinctly.

6. Likewise, faith is from hearing, but hearing through the word of Christ, as it is said in Romans X, 17. But hearing explains all things, and similarly the word of God proposes nothing implicitly: therefore it seems that the faithful also ought to believe something explicitly.

7. Likewise, we see that common people are held and examined about the most hidden articles of Faith: and if they are found to fall away and to be ignorant, they are considered as heretics: therefore it seems that they are bound to know and believe explicitly.

8. Likewise, let us suppose that a certain simple old and pious person, who has reverence for his pastor, of whom he knows no evil, hears heresy from his own pastor and believes it, because he thinks whatever he says ought to be believed. Surely we would not say that he is damned if he dies in such a state? Or if it becomes known, surely he would not be burned as a heretic? It seems not, because ignorance excuses from the whole. But if you should say that he should be burned, it follows that he will be bound to know the articles [of faith] explicitly, even if not taught by another: because if he should be taught, it will be necessary for him to be taught by his own pastor.

9. Likewise, Charity concerns loving God and neighbor, and it is necessary to know both distinctly. Therefore since Faith is related in a similar way to the articles [of Faith], it seems that faith ought to know distinctly the articles [of Faith].

Solution. Without precedent, I say that neither before the coming [of Christ], nor after, is one bound to explicitly know the articles [of Faith] without divine revelation and teaching, but implicitly; but with this supposition [held] most certainly without doubt: that revelation belongs to the Church, and is always made by the Church. And whoever are greater, are called such because by them others are instructed: And this is done in one way now, in another way formerly. For formerly revelation was made for the manifestion of the articles[of Faith], but now it is made for their exposition, because everything has been declared which is necessary to be believed. Therefore simple people before and after the coming, are not bound to believe explicitly, but implicitly only, except inasmuch they are taught by greater people, and are able through teaching to perceive with understanding. Those who preceded [the coming] were less bound on account of the teaching which was then in shadow, but those who came after are more bound on account of the open teaching of the truth.

It should be said therefore to the first against what is objected, that Boethius speaks the truth. But there is a twofold knowledge, namely, explicit and implicit. For it is not necessary for me to know every evil in particular, but only under the counsel of the wise, so that if something should happen which is uncertain whether it is evil, I may go to the wise, and I will avoid [making] this judgment. Likewise, if a new doctrine is proposed in the Faith, I may go to a priest, and I may believe his judgment, or not.

To the next it should be said that he is a debtor to the whole of Faith implicitly, so that he may disbelieve nothing of the whole.

To the next it should be said that philosophers and heretics do not believe implicitly, because they disbelieve. But the man who believes implicitly does not disbelieve any article, although he does not know them explicitly.

To the next it should be said that the measure is filled by not disbelieving anything, as was said.

To the next it should be said that this is a caution to explain often and clearly to the laity. But this can be done now in the time of grace, and nevertheless because they have a dull sense, they are not bound to understand explicitly just as it is explained to them. For they receive the explanation according to the power of their own understanding, and not according to the will of the one explaining. But before the coming this could not happen except as the time then permitted, namely in shadows and types. And these were bound less than those.

To the next it should be said that although faith is received distinctly in hearing, nevertheless by the simple that which is heard is not understood, except under a covering, and not distinctly, just as was said before.

To the next it should be said that the laity should not be considered heretics because they do not know to distinguish some articles. But they should be considered heretics when they pertinaciously contradict them when they are explained to them. For they cannot be considered heretics unless they have already received something from heretics contrary to the articles of faith; for if they should be burned because they do not know to distinguish or explicate the articles, the inquisitors themselves ought to be burned, since neither do they know many things well.

To the next it should be said that, in this case the Doctors answer in doubt; but nevertheless all are in agreement that it is a mortal sin to disbelieve an article pertinaciously. But if someone doubts an article while being prepared to change, they say that it is a human temptation. Whence certain persons said that if such a one should persevere in pius works, insofar as he is able, God would illumine her to not believe the priest in such a teaching. But if she does not do whatever she can, then it would be imputed to her own blindness. But this response is uncertain, and cannot be supported by any reason. Therefore others said differently, that if it is about a clear articles which is solemnized in the Church, then she ought to speak to other people, to see whether it is commonly said. For faith is not of an individual, but held in common. And thus she could be instructed. However, if it concerns some more hidden teaching, as for example that fornication is not a sin, or that the body of Christ is not on the altar, but is signified, she ought not to receive this because it is above her own powers, [to understand whether or not it is true] except under the condition that the universal church believes this. And thus she would remain in implicit faith, especially in the case concerning the body of Christ, since in the case of fornication, even the very baseness of its act shows that it is a mortal sin. Nevertheless, this latter case happens often in confession, on account of the lust of the priest who tries to persuade women of this.

To the last it should be said that the case is not similar with charity. For charity is not concerned with the account [of God and neighbor], but only with the object, and it does not distinguish [between God and neighbor], since it loves neighbor only materially; but faith is mixed with a certain knowledge and understanding, and not all are capable of this understanding.

Upcoming text from Albert the Great

2009-08-05T13:38:00.003-06:00

I am currently in the process of translating a passage from St. Albert the Great, on whether or not implicit faith is sufficient for salvation. It should be done in the next couple days.

Cardinal Newman on Salvation Outside the Church, Part III

2009-08-01T16:48:00.002-06:00

I am speaking of the mass of the population; and, at first sight, it is a very serious question, whether the population can be said to be simply gifted with divine faith, any more than our own Protestant people; yet I would as little dare to deny or to limit exceptions to this remark, as I would deny them or limit them among ourselves. Let there be as many exceptions, as there can be found tokens of their being; and the more they are, to God the greater praise! [As Pius IX says, "Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors?"] In this point of view it is, that we are able to take comfort even from the contemplation of a country which is given up whether to heresy or schism. Such a country is far from being in the miserable state of a heathen population: it has {353} portions of the truth remaining in it, it has some supernatural channels of grace; and the results are such as can never be known till we have all passed out of this visible scene of things, and the accounts of the world are finally made up for the last tremendous day.[Cardinal Newman's language here is very close to that of Lumen Gentium] While, then, I think it plain that the existence of large Anti-Catholic bodies professing Christianity are as inevitable, from the nature of the case, as infidel races or states, except under some extraordinary dispensation of divine grace, while there must ever be in the world false prophets and Antichrists, standing over against the Catholic Church, yet it is consolatory to reflect how the schism or heresy, which the self-will of a monarch or of a generation has caused, does not suffice altogether to destroy the work for which in some distant age Evangelists have left their homes, and Martyrs have shed their blood. Thus, the blessing is inestimable to England, so far as among us the Sacrament of Baptism is validly administered to any portion of the population. In Greece, where a far greater attention is paid to ritual exactness, the whole population may be considered regenerate; half the children born into the world pass through baptism from a schismatical Church to heaven, and in many of the rest the same Sacrament may be the foundation of a supernatural life, which is gifted with perseverance in the hour of death. There may be many too, who, being in invincible ignorance on those particular points of religion on which their {354} Communion is wrong, may still have the divine and unclouded illumination of faith on those numerous points on which it is right. And further, if we consider that there is a true priesthood in certain countries, and a true sacrifice, the benefits of Mass to those who never had the means of knowing better, may be almost the same as they are in the Catholic Church. Humble souls who come in faith and love to the heavenly rite, under whatever disadvantages they lie, from the faulty discipline of their Communion, may obtain, as well as we, remission of such sins as the Sacrifice directly effects, and that supernatural charity which wipes out greater ones. Moreover, when the Blessed Sacrament is lifted up, they adore, as well as we, the true Immaculate Lamb of God; and when they communicate, it is the True Bread of Life, and nothing short of it, which they receive for the eternal health of their souls.

And in like manner, I suppose, as regards this country, as well as Greece and Russia, we may entertain most reasonable hopes, that vast multitudes are in a state of invincible ignorance; so that those among them who are living a life really religious and conscientious, may be looked upon with interest and even pleasure, though a mournful pleasure, in the midst of the pain which a Catholic feels at their ignorant prejudices against what he knows to be true. Amongst the most bitter railers against the Church in this country, may be found those who are influenced by divine grace, and {355} are at present travelling towards heaven, whatever be their ultimate destiny.[Cardinal Newman here states that even those who openly oppose the Church may nevertheless be influenced by Divine Grace, and be travelling towards heaven.] Among the most irritable disputants against the Sacrifice of the Mass or Transubstantiation, or the most impatient listeners to the glories of Mary, there may be those for whom she is saying to her Son, what He said on the cross to His Father, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." Nay, while such persons think as at present, they are bound to act accordingly, and only so far to connect themselves with us as their conscience allows. [As I mentioned in my posts contra Fr. Harrison, someone can indeed be bound to do something that is in itself immoral, if their conscience binds them to do it, and they are not guilty for the formation of their conscience.] "When persons who have been brought up in heresy," says a Catholic theologian, "are persuaded from their childhood that we are the enemies of God's word, are idolaters, pestilent deceivers, and therefore, as pests, to be avoided, they cannot, while this persuasion lasts, hear us with a safe conscience, and they labour under invincible ignorance, inasmuch as they doubt not that they are in a good way."

Nor does it suffice, in order to throw them out of this irresponsible state, and to make them guilty of their ignorance, that there are means actually in their power of getting rid of it. For instance, say they have no conscientious feeling against frequenting Catholic chapels, conversing with Catholics, or reading their books; and say they are thrown into the neighbourhood of the one or the company of the other, and do not avail themselves of their opportunities; still these {356} persons do not become responsible for their present ignorance till such time as they actually feel it, till a doubt crosses them upon the subject, and the thought comes upon them, that inquiry is a duty. And thus Protestants may be living in the midst of Catholic light, and labouring under the densest and most stupid prejudices; and yet we may be able to view them with hope, though with anxiety—with the hope that the question has never occurred to them, strange as it may seem, whether we are not right and they wrong. [Many people find this hard to grasp. It seems to them that since a Protestant has all the means available for him to find the truth, then if he does not seek the truth it is because of some fault on his part. As Cardinal Newman says, this is false. A Protestant child growing up in the faith of his parents, in a world with so many different religions, may very well not even think of the possibility of one religion having more validity than another, and perhaps in his circumstances this is quite reasonable.] Nay, I will say something further still; they may be so circumstanced that it is quite certain that, in course of time, this ignorance will be removed, and doubt will be suggested to them, and the necessity of inquiry consequently imposed; and according to our best judgment, fallible of course as it is, we may be quite certain too, that, when that time comes, they will refuse to inquire, and will quench the doubt; yet should it so happen that they are cut off by death before that time has arrived (I am putting an hypothetical case), we may have as much hope of their salvation as if we had had no such foreboding about them on our mind; for there is nothing to show that they were not taken away on purpose, in order that their ignorance might be their excuse.

Cardinal Newman on Salvation Outside the Church, Part II

2009-07-30T17:36:00.002-06:00

From Cardinal Newman's sermon notes:

January 31
[Faith]
1. I have now explained what is meant by the word of God, by revelation, and by faith, and why they are necessary.
2. There is great correspondence between things of the body and of the soul. We cannot see without light; and even with light we need eyes, and in the dark we grope our way. Now by nature our souls are in darkness, ignorance, etc. Thus you see how it is there is need of God's word, revelation, and faith.
3. And here you see the reason of a solemn declaration, 'Without which there is no one can be saved.' We are going a journey, etc.
4. Our Lord's words, John iii. 18 [Note 39].
5. And still more if they refuse light, John iii. 19 [Note 40].
6. This is one great reason why the light of faith is necessary, because we are so ignorant. {317}
7. Now you will say, 'Is ignorance the fault of men in general? if so, how? if not, why are they punished with the loss of salvation?'
8. No one is punished except for his own fault. No one is punished except for rejecting light. God gives light all over the earth—enough to make men advance forward.
9. Explain: from one grace to another, from one step to another—prayer.
10. And thus those who are in a great deal of ignorance may be saved if they are doing their best, and their ignorance invincible.
11. Heathen, heretics (material), may have divine faith.[Cardinal Newman repeats the doctrine of Augustine here. One may be a material heretic who is mistaken even on something as fundamental as the incarnation, and yet still have divine faith. Likewise he says that heathen may have divine faith.]
12. Who these are is secret. All we know is about ourselves. Application to ourselves.

Cardinal Newman on Salvation Outside the Church

2009-07-28T12:55:00.002-06:00

I have collected various texts from Cardinal Newman concerning the teaching "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," which I plan to reproduce over the next few posts. My comments are in blue.

"As to the condemnation of propositions all she tells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blasphemous, or impious, or whatever like epithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow ourselves to be warned against the thesis, or the work containing it. Theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success; but that determination is not de fide; all that is of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error, or other like peccant matter, as the case may be, such, that the censure is a peremptory command to theologians, preachers, students, and all other whom it concerns, to keep clear of it. But so light is this obligation, that instances frequently occur, when it is successfully maintained by some new writer, that the Pope's act does not imply what it has seemed to imply, and questions which seemed to be closed, are after a course of years re-opened. In discussions such as these, there is a real exercise of private judgment and an allowable one; the act of faith, which cannot be superseded or trifled with, being, I repeat, the unreserved acceptance that the thesis in question is heretical, or the like, as the Pope or the Church has spoken of it. [This is clear. When the Church issues a condemnation, or in fact any kind of decree, she has a certain intention in doing so. In order for her proclamation to accomplish what the Church intends, it must be understood in light of her intention, which can only be grasped either by her explanation, or the circumstances and context of the decree.]

In these cases which in a true sense may be called the Pope's negative enunciations, the opportunity of a legitimate minimizing lies in the intensely concrete character of the matters condemned; in his affirmative enunciations a like opportunity is afforded by their being more or less abstract. Indeed, excepting such as relate to persons, that is, to the Trinity in Unity, the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, and the like, all the dogmas of Pope or of Council are but general, and so far, in consequence, admit of exceptions in their actual application,—these exceptions being determined either by other authoritative utterances, or by the scrutinizing vigilance, acuteness, and subtlety of the Schola Theologorum.

One of the most remarkable instances of what I am insisting on is found in a dogma, which no Catholic can ever think of disputing, viz., that "Out of the Church, and out of the faith, is no salvation." Not to go to Scripture, it is the doctrine of St. Ignatius, St. Irenæus, St. Cyprian in the first three centuries, as of St. Augustine and his contemporaries in the fourth and fifth. It can never be other than an elementary truth of Christianity; and the present Pope has proclaimed it as all Popes, doctors, and bishops before him. But that truth has two aspects, according as the force of the negative falls upon the "Church" or upon the "salvation." The main sense is, that there is no other communion or so called Church, but the Catholic, in which are stored the promises, the sacraments, and other means of salvation; the other and derived sense is, that no one can be saved who is not in that one and only Church. But it does not follow, because there is no Church but one, which has the Evangelical gifts and privileges to bestow, that therefore no one can be saved without the intervention of that one Church.[By "intervention" Cardinal Newman means external intervention, while leaving open the possibility of some spiritual intervention, as will become clearer in the next paragraph.]

Anglicans quite understand this distinction; for, on the one hand, their Article says, "They are to be had accursed (anathematizandi) that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by (in) the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature;" while on the other hand they speak of and hold the doctrine of the "uncovenanted mercies of God." The latter doctrine in its Catholic form is the doctrine of invincible ignorance—or, that it is possible to belong to the soul of the Church without belonging to the body;[Newman here repeats the same phrase used by St. Robert Bellarmine; the Catechism of Pius X makes this same distinction. It is clear from this that Newman recognizes that some sort of spiritual union with the Church is always necessary for salvation.] and, at the end of 1800 years, it has been formally and authoritatively put forward by the present Pope (the first Pope, I suppose, who has done so), on the very same occasion on which he has repeated the fundamental principle of exclusive salvation itself. It is to the purpose here to quote his words; they occur in the course of his Encyclical, addressed to the Bishops of Italy, under date of August 10, 1863.

"We and you know, that those who lie under invincible ignorance as regards our most Holy Religion, and who, diligently observing the natural law and its precepts, which are engraven by God on the hearts of all, and prepared to obey God, lead a good and upright life, are able, by the operation of the power of divine light and grace, to obtain eternal life."

Who would at first sight gather from the wording of so forcible a universal, that an exception to its operation, such as this, so distinct, and, for what we know, so very wide, was consistent with holding it?"

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich on No Salvation Outside the Church

2009-07-26T13:14:00.005-06:00

The following text is taken from the first volume of the "Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich", chapter 41. I have added my own comments in blue.

"On the first Sunday of Advent, 1819, a poor old Jewess came begging an alms of Sister Emmerich for her sick husband; she was kindly received and to a few silver pieces Sister Emmerich added words that both touched and consoled her. It was not the first time the poor woman had sought the couch of suffering for relief in her own sorrows, and she had never come in vain. On this occasion, the invalid was seized with such compassion for the poor Jews that she turned to God with ardent prayers for their salvation. She was most wonderfully heard. Shortly after, she related the following vision in which her task was assigned for the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, prayer not only for the poor Jewess, but also for her whole race.
“It seemed to me that the old Jewess Meyr, to whom I had often given alms, died and went to purgatory, and that her soul came back to thank me as it was through me that she was led to believe in Jesus Christ.[It is clear from this statement that she came to a belief in Jesus Christ; the manner of this faith becomes clearer further on.] She had reflected that I had so often given her alms, although no one gives to the poor Jews; and she had thereby felt a desire spring up in her heart to die for Jesus, if faith in Jesus were the true faith. It was as if her conversion had already taken place or would take place, for I felt impelled to give thanks and to pray for her.[So she was open to Christ in the sense that if faith in Christ were the true faith, then she would give herself whole heartedly to him. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich describes this desire of hers being "as if her conversion had already taken place." The mere openness and seeking of the true faith thus is a certain kind of faith. This echoes what we already heard from St. Augustine all the way back in the fifth century:

“The Apostle Paul has said: 'A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself.' But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it such men are not to be counted as heretics.”]

Old Mrs. Meyr was not dead. But her soul had been disengaged from the body in sleep that she might inform me that, if she died in her present sentiments, she would go to purgatory. Her mother, she said, had also received an impression of the truth of Christianity, and she certainly was not lost. I saw the soul of her mother in a dark, gloomy place, abandoned by all. She was as if walled up, unable to help herself or even to stir, and all around her, above and below, were countless souls in the same condition. I had the happy assurance that no soul was lost whom ignorance alone hindered from knowing Jesus, who had a vague desire to know Him, and who had not lived in a state of grievous sin.

[Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich says that she had the assurance that no soul was lost who ignorance alone hindered from knowing Jesus, provided that it has a "vague" desire to know him, and has not lived in the state of grievous sin. A couple of points can be drawn out from this:

1) As the Holy Office states in the letter to the Archbishop of Boston, God has willed that the effects of those means necessary for salvation may be attained by a desire for those means, when the means themselves cannot be had actually. Bl. Emmerich makes this same point, since she says that the desire to know Jesus can save a soul who does not actually know Jesus.

2) It is also clear that this desire to know Jesus does not have to be absolute, since it was said earlier that the Jewish woman desired to die for Jesus, on the condition that faith in Him was the true faith. Thus one honestly seeking the truth can desire to know Jesus on the condition that knowing Him is the true faith.

An implication from the second point is that if there were a person honestly seeking the truth, and was willing to die for that truth, that would be sufficient for their salvation, even if they did not yet know that Christ was the one who is the truth.]

Padre Pio on Salvation Outside the Church

2009-07-24T14:55:00.003-06:00

Here is an interesting article on Padre Pio's position on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Good evidence is presented that Padre Pio did not hold to the strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that some people attribute to him. In one case Padre Pio actually said that a unbaptized Jew who had died had been saved!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Padre Pio on Salvation Outside the Church
by Frank M. Rega, S.F.O.

Originally published in Christian Order, December 2006 issue.

It is quite unfortunate that alleged quotations or viewpoints attributed to Padre Pio have frequently been used to justify the stances, rumors, or agendas of various individuals or groups. Often it is difficult to find reliable documentation to verify his involvement in such scenarios as the "three days of darkness,"1 his alleged opposition to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 2 or his purported support of Garabandal.3 Another area of speculation focuses on what he would think of the current state of the Church – where would this Tridentine rite Catholic, known for his lifelong obedience and loyalty to the hierarchy, place his support along the Novus Ordo – Traditionalist – reactionary spectrum?

It is not surprising, then, to find some who contend that St. Padre Pio held their own strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside of the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved. The most notable proponents of this presumed stance of Padre Pio are to be found among the Sedevacantists (the See of Peter is vacant, since it has been occupied by invalidly elected and/or heretical popes since Vatican II). In particular, "Brother" Michael Dimond, a Sedevacantist from the non-canonical Most Holy Family Monastery in Fillmore, New York, has recently written and published an 86-page illustrated booklet on the life of Padre Pio. Regrettably, he promotes this booklet as containing evidence that Padre Pio would support the central tenet of the Most Holy Family Monastery, that absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. Along with adherence to the true Faith, and being in a state of grace at the moment of death, Dimond and his followers insist that a strict requirement for entering the kingdom of heaven is water baptism, and water baptism alone. "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism of Blood" are rejected as not being true Catholic dogmas. Neither can those invincibly ignorant of the Faith be saved.4

Another member of the Most Holy Family Monastery, "Brother" Peter Dimond, has written a tome which examines the historical documents and pronouncements of the Church on the issue of salvation: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.5 This extensively researched and detailed book attempts to present its case by explaining away all references, regardless of their level of authority, to any other means of salvation other than water baptism for Catholics. Thus, only Roman Catholics who die faithful to the Church, loyal to the Holy Father, and sealed by validly administered water baptism, can enter heaven. Peter Dimond concludes his book with this uncompromising and explicit statement: "In this document I have shown that it is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church – and therefore the true teaching of Jesus Christ – that only those who die as baptized Catholics can be saved. Anyone who refuses to accept this teaching is not a Catholic."

The full title of the Monastery’s Padre Pio booklet, written by "Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B." is Padre Pio: A Catholic Priest who worked miracles and bore the wounds of Jesus Christ on his body.6 On page 62 Michael Dimond writes: "The letters from Padre Pio clearly prove that he didn’t respect false religions and that he held firmly to the dogma that it is necessary for salvation to be a Catholic." On the next page he then quotes from a meditation composed by Padre Pio in which he states: "He [Jesus] sees the sacrileges with which priests and faithful defile themselves, not caring about those sacraments instituted for our salvation as necessary means for it; now, instead, made an occasion of sin and damnation of souls." From this it can be seen that Padre Pio viewed the sacraments as the "necessary means" of salvation. However, in studying the course of his life and ministry as a Catholic priest, evidence can be found that he understood the sacraments as necessary for all in general, but not for all in particular. Thus, while he believed that the sacraments of the Church are necessary as the normative means of salvation, Padre Pio was willing to admit of exceptions on an individual basis. But these exceptions did not compromise his conviction that the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church.

Lest anyone be deceived into joining the Sedevacantist camp under the assumption that Padre Pio would support their views if he were alive today, the following documented cases are presented as evidence that Padre Pio believed that non-Catholics could be saved.

Adelaide McAlpin Pyle, a Baptized Protestant

"She will be saved because she has faith."

(Most of the information for this first account comes from the English version of the book Mary Pyle, by Bonaventura Massa.7 This work was diligently compiled from written documents and taped oral testimonies, kept on file in the Archives of Padre Pio’s friary in anticipation of the process for Miss Pyle’s Cause for Beatification.)

The wealthy Presbyterian, Adelaide McAlpin Pyle, was the mother of Mary Pyle, a well-known convert to Catholicism who renounced her family fortune in order to spend her life near Padre Pio. The Pyle family was related by marriage to the Rockefellers, and made their fortune in the soap and hotel business. After Adelaide found out that her daughter Mary had chosen to move to southern Italy to learn about God from a saint, curiosity impelled her to travel from her plush New York townhouse to medieval San Giovanni Rotondo, in order to meet this holy man.

In spite of an unpleasant initial encounter, Adelaide eventually became quite friendly with Padre Pio. She made numerous journeys from America, beginning in the mid-1920s, to visit her daughter Mary, and to meet with the Padre. Mary often tried to convince her mother to convert to Catholicism as she herself had done, but Adelaide reportedly said in Padre Pio’s presence, "I would rather allow myself to be burned alive for my religion!" Padre Pio advised Mary not to push her mother to convert: "Let her be! Don’t upset her peace." 8 However, Mary continued to worry because her mother was not a Catholic, and Padre Pio counseled, "Let’s not confuse her. She will be saved because she has faith."9

In 1936, Adelaide, who had grown older and was nearing death, made one last trip to San Giovanni Rotondo. As she said good-bye to Padre Pio at the end of this visit, the saintly priest pointed heavenward, saying to the Protestant Adelaide, "I hope we will see each other again soon, but if we don’t see each other here, we will see each other up there."10 She passed away in the fall of 1937 at the age of seventy-seven.11 Her daughter Mary then became pre-occupied about her mother’s salvation. After dreaming that her mother was in Rome standing in front of the Vatican, she poured out her anxiety to Padre Pio. He replied, "And who told you that your mother could not be saved?" 12

Did Padre Pio receive a revelation that Adelaide Pyle had secretly ‘in pectore" converted to the Catholic Faith? If that were true, he most certainly would have told this to her daughter Mary, who was obviously distraught from worrying over her mother’s salvation. Further, it seems likely that if Adelaide had converted, she would have shared this good news with her convert daughter. It is reasonable to conclude then that Padre Pio believed that this particular person who died outside the Church could be saved. In addition, there is evidence that Padre Pio would have been willing to hear Adelaide’s confession, and grant her sacramental absolution. On one occasion, she had confided to her daughter her great desire to kneel before Padre Pio in his confessional, but she lamented that her inability to speak Italian made this impossible. When Padre Pio heard of this, (apparently it was after her death), he bemoaned, "Oh! If she had only done it! As for the language, I would have taken care of that!"13

King George V of England, a Baptized Protestant

"Let us pray for a soul . . ."

One evening in 1936 Padre Pio was conversing with some dear friends in his cell. Among those present were Dr. Guglielmo Sanguinetti and Angelo Lupi, who would respectively become the medical director and the builder of Padre Pio’s hospital years later. In the middle of their conversation, Padre Pio suddenly interrupted the discourse with the words, "Let us pray for a soul soon to appear before the tribunal of God." With that he bowed his head, and his guests, although astonished, kneeled and joined him in prayer. When they had finished, Padre Pio announced that they had been praying for the king of England. The next morning, the news blared forth on the friary radio of the unexpected death of King George V of England the previous evening.14 Two of the sources for this story 15, 16 report that Padre Aurelio was also present in the room, while another source states that Padre Pio went to the friary cell of Padre Aurelio at midnight that evening and asked him to join him in prayers for the king of England who "at that moment" was to appear before God.17

An Anglican and the son of the future King Edward VII, George was baptized on July 7, 1865 in the private chapel of Windsor Castle. Upon accession to the throne in 1910, the new king swore the following required oath: "I, N., do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power."18

In all likelihood, the king was in his final agony or had already died when Padre Pio requested prayers for him, since he was "at that moment" to appear before God. If he believed that the soul of this Protestant were doomed to the everlasting fire, why would he pray for him, and also ask others including another priest to do likewise, other than to ask for his conversion. However, it is not recorded or implied that he asked his confreres to pray for the deathbed conversion of the king – an important intention that Padre Pio in all likelihood would have explicitly stated, if such were his purpose. Although he mentioned the king to his priest colleague, he did not tell the friends in his room that they were praying for a non-Catholic until they had finished their prayers. One cannot therefore say that it is to be assumed that as Catholics they were praying for the king’s conversion.

Since as far as is known they were not specifically asked to pray for his deathbed conversion, there are two alternatives. The first is that they were simply praying for the salvation of a Protestant whom Padre Pio did not consider doomed because of his non-Catholic religion; but this would not be acceptable to one who holds that Padre Pio subscribed to a literal extra ecclesiam nulla salus position. Those who hold that position are left with the unlikely alternative that they were praying for a Catholic, and that Padre Pio had requested the prayers because he was given a private revelation that King George V of England was secretly a Roman Catholic, loyal to the Pope!

Julius Fine, an Unbaptized Devout Jew

"Julius Fine is saved . . ."

Fr. Alessio Parente, O.F.M. Cap., lived and worked alongside Padre Pio for many years in Our Lady of Grace Friary at San Giovanni Rotondo. He wrote numerous books about his confrere, and his works provide reliable source material for the saint. The following information is from Fr. Alessio’s book The Holy Souls, 19 and was related by a "very good friend" of his, Mrs. Florence Fine Ehrman, the daughter of the person in question.

In 1965 her father, Julius Fine, who had practiced the Jewish faith all his life and believed firmly in God, was stricken with what is commonly called "Lou Gehrig’s disease." Mrs. Ehrman wrote to Padre Pio beseeching a cure for her father from this fatal illness. A short time later she received the reply that Padre Pio would pray for her father and would take him under his protection.

When her father passed away in February of the next year, she was able to accept his death peacefully. However after some time, she began to worry about whether or not he was saved, even though he had been a very loving and kind husband and father. "This fear came about because I began to hear many people, Protestants and Catholics alike, say that unless person had been baptized they could not be saved."

On a visit to the friary at San Giovanni Rotondo in the fall of 1967, she was told by a personal friend (quite possibly Fr. Alessio himself) to write down whatever she wished to ask Padre Pio, and this friend would present the letter to him. She of course wrote down her concerns about the eternal state of her father’s soul – this good and gentle Jewish man who had never been baptized. The reply from Padre Pio, which she received in writing, was this: "Julius Fine is saved, but it is necessary to pray much for him." Her mind was put at ease by such a "sure and definite" statement," since she understood that her father was in Purgatory, his salvation guaranteed.

Whether Padre Pio was enlightened by his Guardian Angel, the Holy Spirit, interior locution, or some other means is not known. What is known, however, is his ability to make such determinations after intense prayer, nourished by his mystical union with Christ during his Mass and Holy Communion, and by the offering up of his sufferings, especially the painful bloody wounds of his stigmata. In this instance, Padre Pio committed himself to assuring a grieving daughter that her father, who was not baptized, and was not a Roman Catholic, was saved. As in the case of King George V, someone who wishes to force Padre Pio into the strict "absolutely no salvation outside the Church" camp, is only left with this improbable scenario: it was revealed to Padre Pio that the devout Jew, Julius Fine, was secretly a baptized Roman Catholic!

Padre Pio Not a Catholic?

From the above examples it appears that Padre Pio did not blindly adhere to the proposition that only Catholics can be saved. Yet, it would be difficult to find someone more committed to the Catholic Church throughout his life than was Padre Pio. His obedience to the hierarchy was legendary, and he humbly submitted to Vatican-authorized suppression and even persecution without resistance. The spirituality of his epistles astonished even Carmelites, and his writings and teachings, born of the school of suffering, are the basis of an effort to make him a Doctor of the Church. 20

"Brother" Peter Dimond concludes his book on salvation with this dogmatic quote: " . . . only those who die as baptized Catholics can be saved. Anyone who refuses to accept this teaching is not a Catholic." The bizarre conclusion forced by this statement is that Padre Pio was not a Catholic, at least according to the Sedevacantist followers of the Most Holy Family Monastery. And yet they publish a booklet about him that appears designed to mislead others into thinking that Padre Pio would support their reactionary interpretation of the teachings of the Catholic Church!

Padre Pio lived by the Spirit of God, not by the letter of the law, except when his superiors in religion routinely commanded obedience of him. His ingenuous openness to the plenitude of God’s mercy anticipated the explicit declarations of the Church during and after the Second Vatican Council on the possibility that non-Catholic churches can be a "means of salvation,"21 and on the reception by non-Catholics of the sacraments in certain cases.22 Padre Pio actually believed that the gospel of Jesus Christ was Good News!

References

1. http://www.spiritdaily.org/New-world-order/threedays.htm
2. http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/padre_pio_and_archbishop.htm
3. http://www.garabandal.us/padre_pio.html
4. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
5. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Outside_the_Catholic
_Church_There_is_Absolutely_No_Salvation.html
6. Dimond, Michael, Padre Pio: A Catholic Priest who worked miracles and bore the wounds of Jesus Christ on his body, Fillmore, N.Y., Most Holy Family Monastery, 2006.
7. Massa, Bonaventura, Mary Pyle, She Lived Doing Good to All, San Giovanni Rotondo, Our Lady of Grace Capuchin Friary, 1986.
8. Ibid., p. 101.
9. Ibid., p. 116.
10. Ibid., p. 108.
11. Ruffin, C. Bernard, Padre Pio: the True Story (Revised and Expanded), Huntington, IN, Our Sunday Visitor, 1991, p. 240.
12. Massa, Mary Pyle, p. 108.
13. Ibid., p. 101.
14. Parente, Fr. Alessio, The Holy Souls: "Viva Padre Pio," San Giovanni Rotondo, Our Lady of Grace Capuchin Friary, 1990, pp. 151-152.
15. Capobianco, Padre Costantino, Detti e Anedotti di Padre Pio, San Giovanni Rotondo, Convento S. Maria delle Grazie, 1996, p. 49.
16. Parente, The Holy Souls, p. 151.
17. Ruffin, Padre Pio, p. 241, (Ruffin correctly identifies the King who died in 1936 as George V, while the other two sources incorrectly call him Edward VI).
18. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13213a.htm
19. Parente, The Holy Souls, pp. 104-106.
20. Rega, Frank M., Padre Pio and America, Rockford, IL, TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 2005, pp. 280-281.
21. Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 3, (www.vatican.va) "It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
22. On commitment to Ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint, n. 46, (www.vatican.va). "In this context, it is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments."

Salvation in the Old Testament

2009-07-23T15:00:00.001-06:00

Let us review in summary the positions on the different ways in which men can be justified and saved in the Old Testament that we looked at in our last post.

Post fall, Pre-Circumcision: Adults could be saved by faith in God, infants could be saved by the faith of their parents.

Post fall, Post-Circumcision: Adults could be saved by faith in God with circumcision, and also without it in some cases. (I.e., some of the Gentiles) Infants could be saved by circumcision, and also by the faith of their parents if they died before being able to receive circumcision.

Now, the question is, what about after the institution of baptism? Can infants still be saved by the faith of their parents, even if they die before receiving baptism by water?

We must answer these questions in the affirmative. For, the coming of Christ did not restrict the means of salvation, but rather broadened them. "I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly." (John 10:10) However, if the coming of Christ has caused the means of salvation for infants to be limited to baptism by water, and excludes salvation by the faith of the parents, then at least concretely there are many infants who would have been saved had they lived before Christ came, but were not saved because they lived after Christ came. This would be very unfitting. Hence we conclude that if God formerly sanctified infants in virtue of the faith of their parents, this dispensation for salvation has not been removed by Christ's coming.

Aquinas on Infant Salvation in the Old Testament

2009-07-22T14:09:00.004-06:00

An “anonymous” commenter recently commented on my post regarding the possibility of salvation for unborn children. I would like to look at his comment (which is nearly unintelligible) because it gives me an opportunity to explain St. Thomas's position on children in the Old Testament. Our commenter writes:

"You wrote: "Before the coming of Christ, children of devout Jews were able to be saved through the faith of their parents, as St. Thomas says."

See what Fr. Mueller wrote:
St. Thomas asks the question: Did Jesus Christ, when he descended into Limbo, deliver the souls of children who died in original sin? To understand this, we must remember a certain principle and doctrine, namely: There is no salvation possible for any one without being united to Jesus Christ crucified. Hence the great Apostle St. Paul says: "It is Jesus Christ whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." (Rom. iii. 25.) Now, those children were not united to Christ by their own faith because they had not the use of reason, which is the foundation of faith; nor were they united to Christ by the faith of their parents, because the faith of their parents was not sufficient for the salvation of their children; nor were those children united to Christ by means of a sacrament, because there was no sacrament under the Old Law which had of itself the virtue of conferring either grace or justification.
Besides, life eternal is granted only to those who are in the state of sanctifying grace. "The grace of God is life everlasting in Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom, vi. 23.) All those, therefore, who died at any age without perfect charity and faith in the Redeemer to come, as well as those who die without the sacrament of spiritual generation after the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, are not purified from the mortal stain of original sin, and are, consequently, excluded from the kingdom of eternal glory." (De Incarn., Q. lii., art. vii.)

Unfortunately, our “anonymous” commenter does not say what his point is, leaving me to guess at it. The only clue is his reference to what I wrote, and the emphasized portions of Fr. Mueller's text.

In the context of the passage cited, Fr. Mueller is arguing the necessity for salvation of dying with the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and with sanctifying grace. He quotes St. Thomas in regard to whether Christ freed those infants from hell who died in original sin only. His answer is no, because these children were not united to Christ by their own faith, or the faith of their parents, or by a sacrament.

Now, even though this is the principal thing addressed in this passage, it does not seem reasonable that our commenter could have been laboring under the impression that this was in disagreement with something that I had said. It is a dogma of the Church that those souls which die in original sin descend immediately into hell. I am perfect agreement with this. Likewise all those who die without charity are excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Granted. The question I was addressing in my post was whether or not there is reason to hope that God offers to children who die without baptism a way of being cleansed of their original sin without baptism; but sometime before their death, not after. I concluded in the positive.

Thus, the commenter must have had in mind some point which was not directly relevant to the point of the passage quoted. Based on his quotation from my post, he seems to be taking issue with the statement that St. Thomas believed that children could be saved by the faith of their parents before the coming of Christ.

Assuming that this is what he finds objectionable, let use examine St. Thomas's position. First let us look at the text of St. Thomas which is referenced.

"I answer that, As stated above (A6), Christ's descent into hell had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence. And furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Rm. 6:23: "The grace of God is life everlasting." Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no grace, they were not delivered from hell."(ST. TP. Q.52 A. 7 C.)

St. Thomas is merely saying that those infants who die in original sin cannot be saved because, as a simple statement of fact, they were not cleansed by the faith of their parents, not because, as Fr. Mueller's text seems to imply, the faith of their parents was unable to save them. Rather, their parents did not have the faith they needed to save their child. Let us look at a similar text from St. Thomas:

“Although Christ wholly overcame death, yet not so completely did He destroy hell, but, as it were, He bit it. He did not free all from hell, but those only who were without mortal sin. He likewise liberated those without original sin, from which they, as individuals, were freed by circumcision; or before [the institution of] circumcision, they who had been saved through their parents' faith (which refers to those who died before having the use of reason); or by the sacrifices, and by their faith in the future coming of Christ (which refers to adults)." (In Symbolum Apostolum, A.5)

St. Thomas makes it very clear here that Christ only freed those from hell who were without mortal and original sin. The three classes of individuals are 1) adults who were freed from original sin by circumcision, 2) infants before the institution of circumcision who were saved by the faith of their parents, and 3) adults before the institution of circumcision who were saved by faith in the future coming of Christ.

For more references, the following texts should suffice:

“From the beginning of the human race the remedy against original sin could not be applied except in virtue of the mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. Therefore the faith of the ancients with some protestation of faith profited children unto salvation, not inasmuch as it was a meritorious act on the part of the believers -- hence it was not required that it be an act of formed [i.e. living] faith --, but on the part of that which they had faith in or relied on, i.e. the mediator Himself: for in this way also the sacraments that were afterwards instituted have their efficacy inasmuch as they are certain protestations of faith. Hence it does not follow that the unbelief of the parents would harm their children, except incidentally (per accidens), as removing the remedy of sin.(De Malo Q. 4 A. 8 Ad. 13)

“As soon, however, as it begins to have the use of its free-will, it begins to belong to itself, and is able to look after itself, in matters concerning the Divine or the natural law, and then it should be induced, not by compulsion but by persuasion, to embrace the faith: it can then consent to the faith, and be baptized, even against its parents' wish; but not before it comes to the use of reason. Hence it is said of the children of the fathers of old that they were saved in the faith of their parents; whereby we are given to understand that it is the parents' duty to look after the salvation of their children, especially before they come to the use of reason.”(SS. Q.10 A.12 Ad.1)

OBJ 2: Further, before the institution of circumcision faith alone sufficed for justification; hence Gregory says (Moral. iv): "Faith alone did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water of Baptism avails with us." But faith has lost nothing of its strength through the commandment of circumcision. Therefore faith alone justified little ones, and not circumcision.

Reply OBJ 2: Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a "seal of faith"; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves.(ST. TP. Q. 70 A. 4)

A note on Aquinas's position: while he primarily considers the faith of the parents to be efficacious for the salvation of infants before the institution of circumcision, nevertheless, even after the circumcision, he holds that if a child were to die before the eighth day it could be saved by the faith of the parents. Likewise, even after the institution of circumcision, all the female children were saved in virtue of the faith of their parents.

“It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert, for it is written (Ps. 104:37): "There was not among their tribes one that was feeble": and that those alone died in the desert, who had been circumcised in Egypt. If, however, some of the uncircumcised did die there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the institution of circumcision. And this applies also to those children who, at the time of the Law, died before the eighth day.” (ST. TP. Q.70 A.4 Ad.4)

Thus, it is clear that even after the institution of circumcision, children who died without receiving it could be saved by the faith of their parents. The principle that St. Thomas gives here applies even to children who die in the womb.

The way in which God offered the possibility of salvation to men in the Old Testament also has significant implications for the new. We will look at some of these implications shortly.

I'm back

2009-07-21T20:09:00.002-06:00

Blogging will begin tomorrow.

Blogging break

2009-07-16T07:11:00.001-06:00

I will be away without internet access for the next few days; so, I will not be making any new posts until Sunday or Monday.

The Council of Trent and Fr. Feeney

2009-07-14T19:00:00.002-06:00

We find a number of statements in the Council of Trent relevant to baptism of desire.

" By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."(Decree on Justification)

"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."(Decree on the Sacraments)

It is very clear from the decree on justification that the effect of baptism can be received through desire for the sacrament. The decree on the sacraments makes a more general statement, because it includes the other sacraments which one can receive the effects of by desire, such as Penance.

Fr. Feeney recognized that the council of Trent was saying that one could receive the effect of Baptism through desire for it, but he distinguished between justification and salvation, and said that while desire for baptism sufficed for justification, it could not suffice unto salvation. He seems to justify this partly from the fact that the statement about desiring baptism is made in the decree on justification, and not in the treatise on baptism, and partly from the second text which says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. From this Fr. Feeney concludes that the desire of the sacrament suffices for justification, but the sacrament itself is required for salvation. The two following texts from the treatise on Baptism are commonly cited to support this opinion:

"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

"If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

Father Feeney has this to say about the first quote:
"The Council of Trent, in its second Canon on the subject of Baptism, declares, with the majestic authority of the Church: If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, "unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3:5), into some metaphor, let him be anathema. Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is "Baptism of Desire," as the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ?" (Bread of Life, The Waters of Salvation)

This is a sorry misreading of this text. First of all, the Council is primarily concerned here with anathematizing those who use something other than water in baptizing. Thus, they are not even talking about the necessity of baptism as such. The fact that they are talking about wresting the words of Christ into some metaphor shows this, i.e., Christ would be speaking metaphorically if he said "water" and used it to signify anything flowing.

Second, even if the Council was actually concerned about asserting the necessity of water baptism here, (which they are not) this does not deny baptism of desire. In the second quotation I gave above they are speaking about the necessity of baptism by water. Nevertheless, when they say this, they are including the desire of the sacrament in that statement. To make this clear, let us look at a similar statement made about the sacrament of Penance:

"So that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."(On the Sacrament of Penance)

Notice that that the Council says that the sacrament of Penance is necessary unto salvation just as baptism itself is for those who are not regenerated. Hence, if we are to follow the logic of those who say that receiving the sacrament of baptism itself is necessary for salvation, then we must say that someone who sins after baptism cannot be saved unless he receives the sacrament itself of penance.

The synod makes it clear that one can receive the effect of the Sacrament of penance without actually receiving the sacrament:

"The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein."

Thus, if we follow out Fr. Feeney's logic, not only does it follow that one must always receive baptism by water to be saved, but one must, after sinning gravely, always receive the sacrament of penance to be saved. This is something that most feeneyites, we may presume, would be unwilling to hold.

Thomas Aquinas Contra the Feeneyites

2009-07-13T14:01:00.005-06:00

St. Thomas Aquinas is very clear that the effect of baptism can be received by desire for the sacrament without it, and also that a man does not necessarily need to receive baptism by water before he dies. Aside from his teaching authority as Doctor of the whole church, his teaching on this matter is also useful to consider because the fathers of the Council of Trent drew heavily from his writings. During the council, St. Thomas's Summa Theologiae was placed on the main altar together with the Holy Bible.

Let us see what St. Thomas has to say:

"In a case of necessity anyone may baptize. And since nowise ought one to sin, if the priest be unwilling to baptize without being paid, one must act as though there were no priest available for the baptism. Hence the person who is in charge of the child can, in such a case, lawfully baptize it, or cause it to be baptized by anyone else. He could, however, lawfully buy the water from the priest, because it is merely a bodily element. But if it were an adult in danger of death that wished to be baptized, and the priest were unwilling to baptize him without being paid, he ought, if possible, to be baptized by someone else. And if he is unable to have recourse to another, he must by no means pay a price for Baptism, and should rather die without being baptized, because for him the baptism of desire would supply the lack of the sacrament."(ST. SS. Q.100 A.2 Ad.2)

Clearly St. Thomas is not talking about being "pre-justified" by desire for the sacrament, and then later receiving it.

"I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."(ST. TP. Q.68 A.2 C.)

Pretty self explanatory.

"The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)."(ST. TP. Q.68 A.2 Ad.3)

"So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire[votum] for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."(ST. TP. Q.69 A.4 Ad.2)

I should mention here that St. Thomas says here that one can have an implicit desire[votum] for the sacrament of baptism. Occasionally I run into a person who accepts baptism of desire, but wants to say that it must be explicit, and they argue that because the council of Trent uses the latin word "votum," they had in mind an explicit vow or promise to receive it. While it may be true that they were primarily considering the case of an explicit desire, the word itself is open to both possibilities, as St. Thomas uses it here.

"The Divine power is not confined to the sacraments. Hence man can receive spiritual strength to confess the Faith of Christ publicly, without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation: just as he can also receive remission of sins without Baptism. Yet, just as none receive the effect of Baptism without the desire of Baptism; so none receive the effect of Confirmation, without the desire of Confirmation. And man can have this even before receiving Baptism." (ST. TP. Q.72 A.6 Ad.2)

"And it has been said above (Q68, A2), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Q68, A2)."(ST. TP. Q.73 A.3 C.)

"As stated above (Q73, A3), the effect of the sacrament can be secured by every man if he receive it in desire, though not in reality. Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this happens in two ways. First of all, from desire of receiving the sacrament itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat spiritually, and not sacramentally, they who desire to receive these sacraments since they have been instituted." (ST. TP. Q.80 A.1 Ad.3)

"Wherefore for the remission of both actual and original sin, a sacrament of the Church is necessary, received either actually, or at least in desire, when a man fails to receive the sacrament actually, through an unavoidable obstacle, and not through contempt. Consequently those sacraments which are ordained as remedies for sin which is incompatible with salvation, are necessary for salvation: and so just as Baptism, whereby original sin is blotted out, is necessary for salvation, so also is the sacrament of Penance." (Suppl. Q.6 A.1 Ad.1)

Notice here that St. Thomas says Baptism is necessary for salvation, but he does not mean by it what the heretics do who deny baptism of desire. In fact, he says that it is necessary as penance also is. However, it is clear that the sacrament of penance does not need to be actually received, but can be received in desire only; the council of Trent makes this very clear.

"It is clear that the Holy Spirit is God, since he says, unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit (ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto). For above (1:13) he says: "who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the flesh, nor from man's willing it, but from God (ex Deo)." From this we can form the following argument: He from whom men are spiritually reborn is God; but men are spiritually reborn through the Holy Spirit, as it is stated here; therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.
445 Two questions arise here. First, if no one enters the kingdom of God unless he is born again of water, and if the fathers of old were not born again of water (for they were not baptized), then they have not entered the kingdom of God. Secondly, since baptism is of three kinds, that is, of water, of desire, and of blood, and many have been baptized in the latter two ways (who we say have entered the kingdom of God immediately, even though they were not born again of water), it does not seem to be true to say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
The answer to the first is that rebirth or regeneration from water and the Holy Spirit takes place in two ways: in truth and in symbol. Now the fathers of old, although they were not reborn with a true rebirth, were nevertheless reborn with a symbolic rebirth, because they always had a sense perceptible sign in which true rebirth was prefigured. So according to this, thus reborn, they did enter the kingdom of God, after the ransom was paid.
The answer to the second is that those who are reborn by a baptism of blood and fire, although they do not have regeneration in deed, they do have it in desire. Otherwise neither would the baptism of blood mean anything nor could there be a baptism of the Spirit. Consequently, in order that man may enter the kingdom of heaven, it is necessary that there be a baptism of water in deed, as in the case of all baptized persons, or in desire, as in the case of the martyrs and catechumens, who are prevented by death from fulfilling their desire, or in symbol, as in the case of the fathers of old." (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 3, Lecture 1)

This is an extremely instructive passage from St. Thomas's commentary on the Gospel of John, which I have included for the benefit of those who are wish to interpret the passage "unless one is born again of water, etc." in such as way as to exclude baptism of desire.

"We should say, therefore, that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for everyone, and it must be really received, because without it no one is born again into life. And so it is necessary that it be received in reality, or by desire in the case of those who are prevented from the former. For if the contempt within a person excludes a baptism by water, then neither a baptism of desire nor of blood will benefit him for eternal life. " (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 6, Lecture 7)

Notice that St. Thomas is very clear that Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it can be received in desire, and this suffices for salvation. In fact, he says that some have "entered the kingdom of God immediately," even though they did not receive baptism by water. This alone is enough to show that St. Thomas most certainly would not agree with the Feeneyite position.

Father Feeney on Justification

2009-07-12T14:43:00.005-06:00

In this post I am going to address one of the principal heresies of Father Feeney, and most Feeneyites. For an account of the circumstances and events of Fr. Feeney's life, here is a very good article: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=963&CFID=9453139&CFTOKEN=13786252

Father Feeney held a very strict "interpretation" of the dogma "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" He believed that baptism by water was absolutely necessary for salvation, and that one could not go to heaven unless he had first been baptized by water. However, he did admit that a person could be justified for a desire for baptism, but that baptism itself was necessary for a person to be saved. He was probably forced to admit justification through desire for water from the council of Trent, which explicitly says that a person can be justified by the desire for baptism.

These two positions, however, led him to an untenable conclusion. Fr. Feeney stated that it was his belief that God would give to all the souls who were justified by desire for baptism, actual baptism before their death. However, he then went on to say that he did not know if there were any souls who died justified, but without baptism by water, but that if there were, than these could not enter heaven.

This, however, is a heretical position. It has been declared many times that a soul is immediately judged upon death, and if it is justified, it either ascends immediately to heaven, or to purgatory to be cleansed, whereas if it is not in the state of justification, it descends immediately to hell.

Let us see Fr. Feeney's position from his own writings:

"Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!"(Bread of Life, Chapter VII, The Waters of Salvation)

Father Feeney wrote:
“He will then say, “Well, cannot you be justified in the New Testament without Baptism?”
The answer to this is, “Suppose you can?”
He will then say, “If you die in the state of justification, without yet being baptized, are you not saved?”
You must answer him, “No, you are not. That is your reasoning in the matter. That is not Christ’s statement.”
And if he persists in saying, “Well, where does one go who dies in the state of justification which has been achieved without Baptism?” — insist that he does not go to Heaven.
And if he goes on to yell at you angrily, “Where are you going to send him — to Hell?”, say: “No, I am not going to send him to Hell because I am not the judge of the living and the dead. I am going to say what Christ said, ‘He cannot go into Heaven unless he is baptized by water.’” (Bread of Life, Chapter VII, The Waters of Salvation)

"Q. What does "Baptism of Desire" mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can "Baptism of Desire" save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could "Baptism of Desire" save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never."(Bread of Life, Chapter VII, The Waters of Salvation)

“It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.”(Bread of Life, Chapter I, Christmas and Salvation)

"But, let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed, and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Therefore, I should be inclined to say that this man, by his perfect act of love of God, was freed from one of the effects of original sin, namely, the absence of sanctifying grace, but was not freed from the obligation to go on and secure a title to the Beatific Vision."(Bread of Life, Chapter VII, The Waters of Salvation)

In this last statement particularly, Fr. Feeney states that a man who is justified but not baptized still needs to "go on and secure a title" to the Beatific Vision, implying that something is lacking to the one who is justified to attain heaven. This is directly contradicted by the Council of Trent:

"We must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace." (Sixth Session, Chapter XVI)

"This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting."Sixth Session, Chapter VII)

In regard to Fr. Feeney's position that a justified soul does not attain heaven, this is clearly contradicted by the teaching of the Church.

"1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation."(CCC)

Hence, following Trent, it is necessary to say that the justified man is immediately judged upon death, and receives entrance into heaven, either immediately, or after a purification.

"To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. [Condemned]" (Council of Basel)

Since the justified person is united to Christ through the bond of Charity, it is clear that no other union is necessary for entrance into heaven, nor does he need "a title" to the beatific vision.

“Souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is.” (Council of Florence)

From this it should be clear that we must hold that all persons dying in a state of justification are saved, even if they have not received baptism by water. If Father Feeney had merely said that God's providence ordains it such that no one dies in the state of justification without baptism by water and left it at that, that would not be heretical. However, to assert that if a soul were to die in the state of justification without baptism by water it would not go to heaven is heretical.

What is the Use of Believing?

2009-07-11T16:58:00.003-06:00

Here is John Paul II's answer to the question that we raised in a earlier post. What is the use of believing; can't we all just be saved by living an upright life without having to bother with the rules and regulations of the Gospel? This is taken from Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

"Today, many who have been formed-or deformed-by a sort of pragmatism and a utilitarianism, seem to ask: “When all is said and done, what is the use of believing? Does faith offer something more? Isn’t it possible to live an honest upright life without bothering to take the Gospel seriously?”

To such a question one could respond very succinctly: The usefulness of faith is not comparable to any good, not even one of a moral nature. The Church, in fact, has never denied that even a nonbeliever could perform good and noble actions. Everyone can easily agree with this. The value of faith cannot be explained, even though efforts are often made to do so, by merely stressing its usefulness for human morality. Rather, one could say that the basic usefulness of faith lies precisely in the fact that a person believes and entrusts himself. By believing and entrusting ourselves, in fact, we respond to God’s word. His word does not fall into a void, but returns to Him, having borne fruit, as was said very effectively in the Book of Isaiah (cf. Is 55:11). Nevertheless, God absolutely does not want to force us to respond to His word.

In this regard, the Council’s teaching, and especially the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, is particularly important. It would be worthwhile to quote and analyze the entire Declaration. Instead, perhaps quoting a few phrases will do: “And all human beings” we read, “are bound to search for the truth, especially with regard to God and His Church, and as they come to know it they are bound to adhere to the truth and pay homage to it” (Dignitatis Humanae 1).

What the Council emphasizes here, above all, is the dignity of man. The text continues: “Motivated by their dignity, all human beings, inasmuch as they are individuals endowed with reason and free will, and thus invested with personal responsibility, are bound by both their nature and by moral duty to search for the truth, above all religious truth. And once they come to know it they are bound to adhere to it and to arrange their entire lives according to the demands of such truth” (Dignitatis Humanae 2). “The way in which the truth is sought, however, must be in keeping with man’s dignity and his social nature-that is, by searching freely, with the help of instruction or education . . . through communication and dialogue” (Dignitatis Humanae 3).

As these passages show, the Council treats human freedom very seriously and appeals to the inner imperative of the conscience in order to demonstrate that the answer, given by man to God and to His word through faith, is closely connected with his personal dignity. Man cannot be forced to accept the truth. He can be drawn toward the truth only by his own nature, that is, by his own freedom, which commits him to search sincerely for truth and, when he finds it, to adhere to it both in his convictions and in his behavior.

This has always been the teaching of the Church. But even before that, it was the teaching that Christ Himself exemplified by His actions. It is from this perspective that the second part of the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom should be reread. There, perhaps, you will find the answer to your question.

It is an answer that echoes the teaching of the Fathers and the theological tradition from Saint Thomas Aquinas to John Henry Newman. The Council merely reaffirms what has always been the Church’s conviction. The position of Saint Thomas is, in fact, well known: He is so consistent in his respect for conscience that he maintains that it is wrong for one to make an act of faith in Christ if in one’s conscience one is convinced, however absurdly, that it is wrong to carry out such an act (cf. Summa Theologiae 1-2. 19. 5). If man is admonished by his conscience-even if an erroneous conscience, but one whose voice appears to him as unquestionably true-he must always listen to it. What is not permissible is that he culpably indulge in error without trying to reach the truth. If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church. The conscience, as the Council teaches, “is man’s sanctuary and most secret core, where he finds himself alone with God, whose voice resounds within him. . . . In loyalty to conscience Christians unite with others in order to search for the truth and to resolve, according to this truth, the many moral problems which arise in the life of individuals as well as in the life of society. Therefore, the more a good conscience prevails the more people and social groups move away from blind willfulness and endeavor to conform to the objective norms of moral behavior.

Nonetheless, it often happens that conscience errs through invincible ignorance, without, for this reason, losing its dignity. But this cannot be said of the man who does very little to search for truth and good, or when through the habit of sin conscience itself becomes almost blind” (Gaudium et Spes 16).

It is difficult not to be struck by the profound internal consistency of the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom. In the light of its teaching, we can say that the essential usefulness of faith consists in the fact that, through faith, man achieves the good of his rational nature. And he achieves it by giving his response to God, as is his duty-a duty not only to God, but also to himself.

Christ did everything in order to convince us of the importance of this response. Man is called upon to give this response with inner freedom so that it will radiate that veritatis splendor so essential to human dignity. Christ committed the Church to act in the same way. This is why its history is so full of protests against all those who attempted to force faith, “making conversions by the sword.”

In this regard, it must be remembered that the Spanish theologians in Salamanca took a clear stance in opposition to violence committed against the native peoples of America, the indios, under the pretext of converting them to Christianity. Even earlier, in the same spirit the Academy of Kraków issued at the Council of Constance in 1414 a condemnation of the violence perpetrated against the Baltic peoples under a similar pretext. . . . Christ certainly desires faith. He desires it of man and he desires it for man. To people seeking miracles from Him He would respond: “Your faith has saved you” (cf. Mk 10:52). The case of the Canaanite woman is particularly touching. At first it seems as if Jesus does not want to hear her request that He help her daughter, almost as if he wanted to provoke her moving profession of faith “For even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters” (Mt 15:27). He puts the foreign woman to the test in order to be able then to say: “Great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish” (Mt 15:28).

Christ wants to awaken faith in human hearts. He wants them to respond to the word of the Father, but He wants this in full respect for human dignity. In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied. From this point of view your question finds a rather complete response in the words of the Council’s Constitution on the Church. Therefore it deserves to be read once again: “In fact, those who through no fault of their own are not aware of the Gospel of Christ and of the Church, but who nonetheless search sincerely for God, and with the help of grace attempt to carry out His will, known through the dictates of their conscience-they too can attain eternal salvation. Nor will Divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who have not yet arrived at a clear knowledge and recognition of God, and who attempt, not without divine grace, to conduct a good life” (Lumen Gentium 16).

In your question you speak of “an honest, upright life even without the Gospel.” I would respond that if a life is truly upright it is because the Gospel, not known and therefore not rejected on a conscious level, is in reality already at work in the depths of the person who searches for the truth with honest effort and who willingly accepts it as soon as it becomes known to him. Such willingness is, in fact, a manifestation of grace at work in the soul. The Spirit blows where He wills and as He wills (cf. Jn 3:8). The freedom of the Spirit meets the freedom of man and fully confirms it.

This clarification was necessary in order to avoid any danger of a Pelagian interpretation. This danger already existed in the time of Saint Augustine, and seems to be surfacing again in our time. Pelagius asserted that even without divine grace, man could lead a good and happy life. Divine grace, therefore, was not necessary for him. But the truth is that man is actually called to salvation; that a good life is the condition of salvation; and that salvation cannot be attained without the help of grace.

Ultimately, only God can save man, but He expects man to cooperate. The fact that man can cooperate with God determines his authentic greatness. The truth according to which man is called to cooperate with God in all things, with a view toward the ultimate purpose of his life-his salvation and divinization-found expression in the Eastern tradition in the doctrine of synergism. With God, man “creates” the world; with God, man “creates” his personal salvation. The divinization of man comes from God. But here, too, man must cooperate with God."

Salvation for Unbaptized Children

2009-07-10T16:07:00.003-06:00

The International Theological Commission came out relatively recently with the document, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized" where they basically conclude that there is good hope for these unfortunate children.

That document can be found here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Here is the conclusion of their study:

"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ. "

One of the texts that this document cites in support of its claim is this:

"The Church believes that “the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery”"(Gaudium et Spes 22)

This text seems to say that every child who dies before baptism in some way have the opportunity of attaining eternal salvation. The only interpretation which would exclude this is if the text was only referring to adults. However, that seems contrary to the text, and there is no indication that this is what is meant.

Pius IX wrote in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, "Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments"

It is not clear why God's mercy would require that he not permit an adult who had not commited deliberate sin to to suffer eternal punishments, but not an infant. Hence it seems more reasonable to apply God's mercy in a universal way, so that to both adults and infants He offers the possibility of eternal salvation. This is also in accordance with the text from Gaudium et Spes.

If we consider the relation between infants in the Old Testament and those in the New, it seems rather strange that we would say that after the coming of Christ it became harder for infants to be saved. Before the coming of Christ, children of devout Jews were able to be saved through the faith of their parents, as St. Thomas says. Thus, while we cannot assert that the same thing holds true in the New Covenant, it would be strange that the condition for Baptism being a means for salvation is that God should limit his graces upon those children who are so unfortunate as not to receive it.

Cardinal Ratzinger writes something that seems to imply this:

"The question of what it means to say that baptism is necessary for salvation has become ever more hotly debated in modern times. The Second Vatican Council said on this point that men who are seeking for God and who are inwardly striving toward that which constitutes baptism will also receive salvation. That is to say that a seeking after God already represents an inward participation in baptism, in the Church, in Christ.
To that extent, the question concerning the necessity of baptism for salvation seems to have been answered, but the question about children who could not be baptized because they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently.
Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo.
In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope [John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the [1995] encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament."(God and the World)

Hence, while we cannot actually assert anything about whether unbaptized infants are saved, we nevertheless have good reasons to hope for their salvation. It is not clear whether it is possible to say more than this on the matter, but at least this can be said for the time being.

Salvation by Habitual Faith II

2009-07-09T13:10:00.004-06:00

Continuing our discussion of salvation by habitual faith, the question we now need to address is this: While infants can be saved by habitual faith, is it ever possible for an adult to have this?

The answer is yes. How do we know this? Consider the following case: An infant that belongs to an atheist, is baptized secretly by a Catholic nurse at the hospital. Thus, the child is justified and possesses the habits of faith, hope, and charity. Suppose the child grows up never hearing of God and Christ and the Church. What happens to the child upon reaching the age of reason?

Since the Child has no knowledge of God, Christ, or the Church, he cannot make an act of explicit faith in them. On the supposition that explicit faith is absolutely necessary for the state of justification, there are three possibilities. Either the child can 1) continue after reaching the age of reason in the state of justification without any act of explicit or implicit faith, or 2) the child must necessarily commit a mortal sin and lose the state of grace, or 3) the child must receive a divine revelation of the truths which he must believe explicitly in order to remain justified.

It is clear that position number 2 cannot be correct, for there is no such thing as a "necessary" mortal sin. A sin that is "necessary" is not a sin. Hence opponents of position number 1 are forced to take position number 3. This third position, aside from the fact that there is no special reason for upholding it, is unreasonable.

Why? There have been many documented cases in which people have admitted to baptizing children of unbelieving parents without them knowing, sometimes even doing this over a long period of time (in the case of the hospital nurse). There are almost certainly far more cases that are not known. Hence, if the third position was correct, it would be almost certain that there would be cases of children having divine revelations when they reached the age of reason. But we do not have this evidence. Thus, the third position is wrong, and the first one must stand.

Furthermore, even in the case of someone who is not baptized, it is not unreasonable to believe that God could infuse Charity into a person who does not have a bad will, even if they have no explicit knowledge of Him. The reason for this is that mortal sin is the only thing contrary to Charity; hence, since it is not necessary for a man to commit a mortal sin, it will be possible that the man not commit a mortal sin, and not have his will directed towards mortal sin.

Someone might object, the cases are different, because the man who is baptized is already sanctified, hence since he does not have to commit a mortal sin, he can remain in the state of grace. However, since the man who is not baptized has original sin, doesn't this mean that his will is turned away from God, and so God cannot infuse charity into such a man.

This is false; the disposition that prevents the infusion of charity into a man is when the man either actually seeks after some temporal good in such a way as to prefer that good to God himself, or he has a disposition in himself such that if the opportunity arose, he would prefer that good to God. However, a man after committing a mortal sin may repent in such a way that he would no longer place another creature above God, while at the same time not placing his end in God. Hence he may be in the state of mortal sin, yet not have a disposition which prevents God from infusing Charity in him.

This can be manifested from the Sacrament of Confession. A man need not have perfect charity to receive the sacrament; if he commits a mortal sin, and then has imperfect contrition only, he will be in the state of mortal sin, and nevertheless he is able to receive the sacrament, by means of which God infuses charity into him.

This should explain why St. Thomas can say universally that a child attaining the age of reason is able to be sanctified from sin, regardless of his state of knowledge. Since the child is able to turn away from the good which is completely contrary to the good of reason (avoid committing a mortal sin), then God is able to infuse charity within him, even if he has not act of faith.

Salvation by Habitual Faith

2009-07-08T13:18:00.005-06:00

Now that I have addressed the possiblity of salvation by implicit faith, I would like to go a step further, and make the perhaps shocking claim that one can be saved without explicit or implicit faith. Faith is still necessary, but to be salvific, faith does not need to exist in act, but only in habit.

If one stops to think about this for a moment, this is not something strange or unusual. In fact, the Church has taught it quite consistently for the last 2000 years. When an infant is baptized, the habits of faith, hope, and Charity are infused within the soul of the child, even though the child itself is unable to have any actual acts of these. In virtue of these habits alone, the child can be saved. Here is an instructive selection from St. Thomas on this:

Whether children receive grace and virtue in Baptism?
OBJ 1: It seems that children do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism. For grace and virtues are not possessed without faith and charity. But faith, as Augustine says (Ep. xcviii), "depends on the will of the believer": and in like manner charity depends on the will of the lover. Now children have not the use of the will, and consequently they have neither faith nor charity. Therefore children do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism.

Reply OBJ 1: Faith and charity depend on man's will, yet so that the habits of these and other virtues require the power of the will which is in children; whereas acts of virtue require an act of the will, which is not in children. In this sense Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (Ep. xcviii): "The little child is made a believer, not as yet by that faith which depends on the will of the believer, but by the sacrament of faith itself," which causes the habit of faith. (ST. TP. Q.69 A.6 Rp. 2)

This exposes the fallacy of those who accumulate magisterial quotations on the necessity of faith in order to try and show that explicit faith is necessary for salvation. Nearly all of these kind of quotations are referring to the universal necessity of faith for salvation, and thus including both implicit faith (as many before Christ had), and habitual faith (as infants have).

Now, the most likely response to this of someone who believes that explicit faith is necessary would be to say, "Well, perhaps habitual faith can suffice for children, but for adults explicit faith is necessary." However, as we shall see in our next post, this is not true.

Bishop Fellay and the SSPX

2009-07-07T14:13:00.004-06:00

A so called "traditionalist" made a claim to me recently that the SSPX did not accept the authority of the 1949 letter of the Holy Office to Father Feeney. I responded by giving him the text from Archbishop Lefebvre that I quoted in an earlier post. He asserted that while Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the letter, nevertheless the SSPX did not. Of course he offered no evidence of this.

I would like to take this opportunity to expand on my earlier post on Archbishop Lefevbre, and show that the SSPX continues to hold his position. This should be of value for those who think this position is heretical, especially as the SSPX begins doctrinal discussions with the Church. If this position is heretical, as some people make out (the traditionalist I mentioned earlier asserted that I was a "modernist heretic" for holding this position), then presumably the SSPX will be forced to recant their position on this before being reconciled with the Church.

First, the SSPX on their website have a page treating of Father Feeney's errors: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
They make it quite clear here that they do not follow Fr. Feeney's errors. They even finish the article by quoting the 1949 letter of the Holy Office! So much for not accepting it. Bishop Fellay a few years ago made this statement:

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

This is basically identical to what Archbishop Lefevbre said in "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics." Hence, we see there is no grounds for those make assertions such as the "traditionalist" I mentioned previously. The motivation seems to be to try and gather as much support for their position as possible, especially from those they consider to be more traditional.

Whatever other errors the SSPX may have made, this was not one of them.

Blog on Magisterial Interpretation

2009-07-07T14:06:00.005-06:00

I have added a blog to the sidebar, which is devoted to laying out principles of Magisterial Interpretation. I think this is extremely relevant to the topic of EENS, because almost all misunderstandings of EENS go along with misunderstandings of how to interpret Magisterial texts.

I would like to invite my readers, to feel free to check out the blog, and post all and any comments, questions, concerns, doubts, etc.

Why be Catholic? Part II

2009-07-06T13:25:00.002-06:00

The next question that I intend to address is the inherent value of belonging to the Church, even aside from the greater probability of being saved within it. Thus, even if one assumed that all men had the exact same probability of being saved, it would still be better to belong to the Church than to be a pagan.

There is a good quote from the CDF on this:

“Although non-Christians can be saved through the grace which God bestows in “ways known to him,” the Church cannot fail to recognize that such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us. Indeed “there is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know him and to speak to others of our friendship with him.” The revelation of the fundamental truths about God, about the human person and the world, is a great good for every human person, while living in darkness without the truths about ultimate questions is an evil and is often at the root of suffering and slavery which can at times be grievous. This is why Saint Paul does not hesitate to describe conversion to the Christian faith as liberation “from the power of darkness” and entrance into “the kingdom of his beloved Son in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of our sins.” (Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization, CDF)

This makes it clear that non-Catholics, and those who do not know the face of Christ explicitly, even if they are united to him implicitly, nevertheless lack a real good. To make an analogy, one could consider a father who has a son and a servant working for him. The son works together with the father, helping him with his job; he is close friends with him. The servant works in a dusty office, and has a long and boring job; he never sees the father. Both the son and the servant are paid. Does this mean that there is no advantage for the son over the servant?

We can see this in the above quoted text from the CDF: "Such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us." What a tremendous loss, to not be able to know explicitly the God whom one is serving. In a certain sense, this puts a limit on the degree one can love God.

Someone who does not know who Jesus Christ is, that he became man out of love for men, and died a terrible death for men, will have a much harder time eliciting the same act of love that a man who does know this. It is easier for one to love Christ when one sees how much Christ loves him. Thus, because Christ's act was such a great manifestation of his love for man, one who knows this act will be able to love God more. The following quotation from the Catechism supports this point:

"The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God's love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (CCC 458)

As the CDF pointed out, St. Paul calls acceptance of the Gospel a liberation "from the power of darkness," and an entrance into "the kingdom of his beloved Son in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of our sins." This goes along with what I have been saying, and is why the Church is so strongly urging missionary activity in the Church, even now. Missionary activity is necessary to bring the light and goodness of Christ to all peoples, so that they might become friends of Christ, and be saved in Him.

It should be clear how a statement such as this is compatible with saying that there can be some among those ignorant of Christ who are seeking God with a sincere heart, and are justified by their implicit faith. This does not detract from the importance of the Gospel; the justification of such a man only comes through Christ, regardless of whether he knows it or not. Christ is what such a man is seeking, and the Church has a grave obligation to bring Christ to all peoples.

Why be Catholic?

2009-07-05T15:46:00.002-06:00

In light of our investigations into the salvific value of implicit faith, the question now arises, why explicit faith? Why be Catholic? Why should we evangelize?

Someone once said something about this topic, along these lines:

“If I am in invincible ignorance of the Gospel, then I am not responsible for following the teachings of Christ. I don't need to listen to the Church, nor am I bound by her regulations. I don't need to listen to the Bible either! Also, because I do not know that what I am doing is a sin, then I am not sinning. I am INCAPABLE of sin!

Therefore, I can only conclude that God CURSED me by bringing the Gospel to me and making me aware of what sin is.

Woe is me!”

I think we can re-state the assertion that our anonymous author made in a different way, so that the same meaning is brought out, but it is more evident what exactly is being said:

“If I am in invincible ignorance of the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then I am not responsible for following the way of Life and Truth itself. Nor do I need to listen to the Church that God established as a universal means of salvation for mankind, nor am I bound to obey her rules ordered to this end. I don't need to listen to the inspired word of God either! Also, because I do not know that what I am doing is an offense against God, then it cannot be accounted to me as sin. NOTHING can be accounted to me as sin!

Therefore, I can only conclude that God CURSED me by bringing me Life itself, and making me aware of what offense against God is.

Woe is me!”

This should put things in perspective.

It is clear from reading this that the writer falls right into the category that Ratzinger described: “We are too much like the workers taken on in the first hour whom the Lord talks about in his parable of the workers in the vineyard. When they realized that the day's wage of one denarius could be much more easily earned, they could no longer see why they had sweated all day. Yet how could they really have been certain that it was so much more comfortable to be out of work than to work?”

The important sentence is the last one. The objector is assuming that it really is much better to not have to be subject to the Church, to be spiritually out of work, than to be in it. This is false in two ways: First, there is an implicit assumption that both states are equal in regard to the possibility of attaining salvation. Second, even if the two states were equal in regard to that possibility, it is false that it would not be better to belong to the Church.

The first assumption is false. The mere fact that it is possible for members of other religions to be saved does not mean that members of other religions have the same likelihood of being saved, objectively speaking. A man who is brought up and taught that there is no God, that he should give into his passions, that fornication is acceptable, that abortion and contraceptives are acceptable; how hard for such a person it will be to try and follow the natural law within himself, and do what is right, when he is being opposed by so many external forces. This is not to deny that God could give such a person the grace to do what is right. Nevertheless, objectively speaking, such a person is in a very difficult situation with respect to salvation. This is stated clearly in Dominus Iesus:

“Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God, and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”. Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors, constitute an obstacle to salvation.” (Dominus Iesus 21)

“With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. (Dominus Iesus 22)

It is clear that it is not the intention of the Church to assert that every religion has the same value. There is one true religion, which possesses the fullness of the means of salvation. Nevertheless, God is not bound by the means he has established for salvation; he can act outside the visible Church, and even in a salvific way.

Therefore, in considering the possibility of God acting outside the visible Church, we must avoid the mistake of thinking and believing that therefore all men are completely equal regardless of what means to salvation they have at their disposal. Someone who is fully within the unity of the Catholic Church is objectively in a much better position than someone who is not.

Why Should we Investigate the Means by which God Saves non-Christians?

2009-07-04T15:51:00.007-06:00

Before moving into our discussion of why evangelization is important, I wished to expand on a point I made briefly in my last post. The question was, if the manner in which God saves non-catholics does not depend on our discussing the matter and trying to figure out how it happens, why should we discuss it? (I.e., what is the ratio for this blog's existence?)

1) First, as I said in the last post, there can be a certain sort of relationship between God's action of salvation and our thoughts about how God works. The reason is that our actions depend on our knowledge, and so we will act a certain way depending on our knowledge. If our knowledge is mistaken, it is possible that will act in a foolish or imprudent way; the fuller our knowledge is, the easier it is for us to deliberate on the best way to act.

2) Second, on a very practical level, the internet is full of people proclaiming heresy concerning the Church's teaching on "Outside the Church no Salvation.", and not so many who explain in depth the Church's true teaching. Hence the more good web sites there are that proclaim the true teaching of the Church, the less likely it is that people who are undecided and investigating the issue will decide to adhere to a false position.

3) Even apart from the practicality of the matter, knowledge of God is sought for its own sake. Thus, investigating the trinity with natural reason is not going to change anything in God, but it is certainly desirable for its own sake, even aside from actions in respect to others on account of this knowledge.

Here is a passage from Dominus Iesus which basically makes this same point:

"With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”. Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished."

I have not even so much got into the question of the way in which this grace is given to non-christians, merely that it is given. I have hinted at possible ideas, though, particularly in my posts on Scripture and Thomas Aquinas. I plan to cover this in more detail later. This should make it clear that there is a real value in investigating such an issue, and such investigations are to be encouraged.

Ratzinger on Salvation Outside the Church

2009-07-03T12:56:00.004-06:00

Here is an excerpt from a sermon that Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, gave in 1964. It contains a number of interesting points, and leads in well into our next topic. I have commented on various parts of it; my comments are in blue.

"...Everything we believe about God, and everything we know about man, prevents us from accepting that beyond the limits of the Church there is no more salvation, that up to the time of Christ all men were subject to the fate of eternal damnation. [Ratzinger references the idea, held by some extremists, that all men before the coming of Christ were damned. This position was raised as an objection against the claims of the early Christians that Christ was necessary for salvation. The majority of the fathers hold that men before Christ were able to be saved by following the natural law on their hearts.] We are no longer ready and able to think that our neighbor, who is a decent and respectable man and in many ways better than we are, should be eternally damned simply because he is not a Catholic. We are no longer ready, no longer willing, to think that eternal corruption should be inflicted on people in Asia, in Africa, or wherever it may be, merely on account of their not having "Catholic" marked in their passport. [This echoes the statement of Pius IX, that God will not allow a man to suffer eternal fire who has not committed a deliberate sin, i.e., a man will not be damned merely for not being a Catholic.]

Actually, a great deal of thought had been devoted in theology, both before and after Ignatius, to the question of how people, without even knowing it, in some way belonged to the Church and to Christ and could thus be saved nevertheless. And still today, a great deal of perspicacity is used in such reflections.

Yet if we are honest, we will have to admit that this is not our problem at all. The question we have to face is not that of whether other people can be saved and how. We are convinced that God is able to do this with or without our theories, with or without our perspicacity, and that we do not need to help him do it with our cogitations. The question that really troubles us is not in the least concerned with whether and how God manages to save others. [Ratzinger makes the point, well taken, that all our cogitating about whether God saves unbelievers, and how, is irrelevant to the action of God in saving those who do not know the Church. All our deliberating does not affect how God deals with the man who is ignorant of the Gospel. Why then do we even bother to deliberate? Because while our knowledge of the question does not affect God's action as such, nevertheless the manner in which we evangelize, and the kind of things we can say to another is determined by the truth of this question. For example, it would be wrong to tell a Protestant, "unless you join the Church before you die, you will be damned." Aside from the likelihood of turning him away from conversion by such a statement, the statement in its plain signification is false. Namely, because such a statement would be taken to mean, "unless you come to the realization that Protestantism if false and have a positive will to join the Catholic Church, you will be damned." This statement is false, and it would be an offense against truth to say it. Thus, we must choose a statement which accords with the truth of the matter, while at the same time being most suited to conversion. The greater our knowledge on the question of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", the better we can interact with others, particularly in missionary work.]

The question that torments us is, much rather, that of why it is still actually necessary for us to carry out the whole ministry of the Christian faith—why, if there are so many other ways to heaven and to salvation, should it still be demanded of us that we bear, day by day, the whole burden of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical ethics? And with that, we are once more confronted, though from a different approach, with the same question we raised yesterday in conversation with God and with which we parted: What actually is the Christian reality, the real substance of Christianity that goes beyond mere moralism? What is that special thing in Christianity that not only justifies but compels us to be and live as Christians? [Ratzinger enunciates the basic question which follows naturally upon the conclusion that people can indeed be saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Why be Catholic? Why do we have to bear the load of laws and dogma, if someone who lacks both of these can be saved? And of course, then we must ask, why must we evangelize? Why not just encourage everyone to live out their own religion well? This is the next question that I intend to take up.]

It became clear enough to us, yesterday, that there is no answer to this that will resolve every contradiction into incontrovertible, unambivalent truth with scientific clarity. Assent to the hiddenness of God is an essential part of the movement of the spirit that we call "faith." And one more preliminary consideration is requisite. If we are raising the question of the basis and meaning of our life as Christians, as it emerged for us just now, then this can easily conceal a sidelong glance at what we suppose to be the easier and more comfortable life of other people, who will "also" get to heaven. We are too much like the workers taken on in the first hour whom the Lord talks about in his parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1-6). When they realized that the day's wage of one denarius could be much more easily earned, they could no longer see why they had sweated all day. [Why do we have to struggle with all the laws and rules that go along with being a Catholic (i.e., work all day in the vineyard), when someone else can earn salvation without these? (i.e., work only the last hour)] Yet how could they really have been certain that it was so much more comfortable to be out of work than to work? [i.e., merely to consider the question under the light of: both I and he obtain eternal salvation is misleading. Perhaps there is a real benefit in the working all day, as opposed to one hour.] How And why was it that they were happy with their wages only on the condition that other people were worse off than they were? But the parable is not there on account of those workers at that time; it is there for our sake. For in our raising questions about the "why" of Christianity, we are doing just what those workers did. We are assuming that spiritual "unemployment"—a life without faith or prayer—is more pleasant than spiritual service. Yet how do we know that?

We are staring at the trials of everyday Christianity and forgetting on that account that faith is not just a burden that weighs us down; it is at the same time a light that brings us counsel, gives us a path to follow, and gives us meaning. We are seeing in the Church only the exterior order that limits our freedom and thereby overlooking the fact that she is our spiritual home, which shields us, keeps us safe in life and in death. We are seeing only our own burden and forgetting that other people also have burdens, even if we know nothing of them. [All these things will have to be expanded upon, but this is a good summary of the principles involved in the value of being Catholic] And above all, what a strange attitude that actually is, when we no longer find Christian service worthwhile if the denarius of salvation may be obtained even without it! It seems as if we want to be rewarded, not just with our own salvation, but most especially with other people's damnation—just like the workers hired in the first hour. [This should make one think: someone who wants to divide all those who are saved and not-saved into those who are visibly in the Church, and those who are not, are implicitly at the same time making God into the master of the vineyard who only gives the denarius of salvation to those who worked the full day.] That is very human, but the Lord's parable is particularly meant to make us quite aware of how profoundly un-Christian it is at the same time. Anyone who looks on the loss of salvation for others as the condition, as it were, on which he serves Christ will in the end only be able to turn away grumbling, because that kind of reward is contrary to the loving-kindness of God." [Ratzinger has raised the fundamental questions, and answered them in principle. I will expand on these points later, in the light of magisterial documents on evangelization and the need for the Church]

Cardinal Arinze on Implicit Faith

2009-07-02T13:28:00.006-06:00

Here is an excerpt of an interview with Cardinal Arinze, during a group discussion of religious leaders from around the world, held at the Thanksgiving World Assembly in Dallas, Texas, March 1999. Cardinal Arinze addresses various questions; I have quoted the relevant portion below.

"Tyson: It seems to me that one of the barriers to interreligious dialogue, at least on the Christian side, is the kind of exclusivistic claim that, in fact, if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you will not be in the right with God.

Arinze: "Nostra Aetate" (a document from the Second Vatican Council) says that God's grant of salvation includes not only Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus and people of good will. That is, a person can be saved, can attain salvation, but on the condition that the person is open to God's action.

Robert Ashley, news director at a Dallas radio station: So was Jesus wrong when He said He was the way, the truth and the life?

Arinze: He was right. He IS the way, the truth and the life. If you believe that, you will become a Christian (audience laughter). Only God knows to what extent a person is sincere, what opportunities the person has, and how the person used those opportunities. Only God can assess all that, and He never appointed any of us part of that advisory council (more laughter).

If a person were to push what you said a little further and say, if you're not a Christian, you're not going to heaven, we'd regard that person as a fundamentalist … and theologically wrong. It is quite another matter to say that one religion is as good as another. That is, it doesn't matter to what religion you belong. Religion is not put together that way: You change the rules and change the goalposts if you can't score. No, no, no. (But we do) believe that every religion has elements that are true and noble and good. How will it work out? I can't tell you. But we know that Christ, who says, "I am the way, the truth and the light," died on the Cross for everyone.

I met in Pakistan a Muslim. People would go to him. He had a wonderful concept of the Koran. We were like two twins that had known one another from birth. And I was in admiration of this man's wisdom. I think that man will go to heaven. But I am not the one who opens the door (audience laughter).

There was a Buddhist in Kyoto, in Japan. This man, a good man, was open, listening, humble. I was amazed. I listened to his words of wisdom, and I said to myself, "The grace of God is working in this man." I noticed that the more they were devoted to their religion and I to my religion, the more we met one another even though I didn't know their language. There is a language of the heart. So if you meet a person, if both of you are devoted to God, both of you will be nearer to one another than two professors of two religions who don't practice what they preach but can elucubrate from morning till evening.

Ashley: So you can still get to heaven without accepting Jesus?

Arinze: Expressly, yes. (He laughs with audience.)"

Cardinal Arinze recognizes that it is possible to find goodness in other religions, and that members of these religions can be saved even without expressly accepting Christ, even though he admits he does not know how this happens. This is consistent with Vatican II and Dominus Iesus, both of which said that non-christians could be saved, in a manner known only to God.

However, it is clear that Cardinal Arinze recognizes that the point of the documents was not to say "they can be saved, because in a manner known to God he will bring them to explicit faith in Christ," rather, in a manner known to God, even non-christians can be saved, without coming to explicit faith in Christ.

Archbishop Lefebvre on "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"

2009-07-01T12:17:00.002-06:00

Here is a clear and concise statement of the Church's teaching on "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," taken from none other than Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I particularly chose him because many of the people who hold that baptism by implicit desire is a novel concept refer to themselves as "traditionalists," and some even refer to Archbishop Lefebvre as a model of how one should act towards Vatican II.

"We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."(Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)

Fr. Brian Harrison on Implicit Faith in Christ, Part IV

2009-06-30T15:43:00.003-06:00

Continuing where we left off, Father Harrison then makes this bold assertion: “Nothing substantially different from Pius IX’s teaching on the eternal destiny of non-Christians issued from the magisterium for well over a century.” The next piece of magisterial evidence that he takes up is the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, and claims that once again it teaches nothing different.

“I have found that it is a common mistake among both followers and opponents of Fr. Feeney to suppose that the 1949 Holy Office Letter to the Archbishop of Boston comes down clearly on the liberal side of the dispute left open by Pius IX’s somewhat ambivalent statements. That is, they reason that this Letter, since it says an “implicit desire for the Church” can be sufficient for salvation, teaches definitely and positively that at least some who die as Jews, pagans and Muslims can be saved by virtue of a presumed ‘implicit faith’ in Christ. But this is a non sequitur. In reality, the Letter, while it is certainly open to this ‘implicit faith’ thesis, also remains open to the contrary ‘explicit faith’ thesis. For the expression “implicit desire for the Church” clearly does not mean the same thing as “implicit faith in Christ”. Whether or not the latter – assuming it to be a species of the genus supernatural (‘theological’) faith, which is always necessary, along with charity, for salvation – is still infused by God into any human souls after Pentecost, is a question still left unadjudicated by the 1949 Letter.”

I would like to note the manner in which Fr. Harrison has phrased this. “Whether or not the latter . . . is still infused by God into any human souls after Pentecost, is a question still left unadjudicated by the 1949 Letter.” This statement as it is phrased it absolutely true, because the Church does not make doctrinal judgments about whether some humans actually receive this kind of implicit faith; she merely teaches that is is possible. (Philosophically, it is necessarily implied by this that some actually do receive faith) However, the church does make doctrinal judgments about the possibility of some men who are ignorant of Christ receiving supernatural faith. Let us look at the important text from the letter:

“Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory. In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing . . . The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”

I have emphasized the most important parts. The letter explicitly asserts that God has allowed the effects of the helps to salvation which are directed to man's end, to be obtained by desire only, and even implicit desire. It is clear that Fr. Harrison recognizes that explicit faith is one of those things that are directed towards man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but divine decree, since he grants that men were saved by implicit faith before Christ. Hence it is clear that God in his infinite mercy can dispense with the requirement for explicit faith.

Furthermore, even aside from, it is a very strange way of reading this letter to assert that what it is saying is limited to those who have an explicit belief in Christ. The whole point of saying that the desire for the Church does not need to be explicit seems to be put in precisely for the sake of those people who do not know of Christ and His Church.

As I mentioned in my post on this also, the letter references the encyclical “Mystici Corporis,” and says that “these things are clearly taught in it.” If you look at the section in Mystici Corporis which is being referred to, Pius XII includes two groups of people, those “not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still outside the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us ” The first group is clearly those who do not have an explicit belief in Christ, since they are unenlightened by the Gospel. Hence it is clearly the intention of the letter to include this group within those who may be saved through an implicit desire.

Fr. Harrison then gives a brief paragraph, in which he brushes off the texts from Vatican II which teach this same position. He basically says that Vatican II is again “open-ended,” because it does not explicitly deny his position. Thus, when Vatican II says, “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience,” he interprets this as meaning, “those can be saved who do not know of the Gospel, because if they are ignorant, and seek what is right, God will bring them to the Gospel.”

I explained the significan of Vatican II detail in my post http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/no-salvation-outside-church-in-vatican.html so I will not re-explain it here.

Fr. Harrison then makes the assertion that the declaration “Dominus Iesus” issued by the CDF in 2000, “reaffirms the Thomistic ECNS view that the defective “belief” found in non-Christian religions is not the supernatural (theological) virtue of faith.” (Never mind the fact that he just skipped over some of the magisterial texts that are most relevant. See my post: http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/no-salvation-outside-church-after.html)

He quotes Dominus Iesus as follows:

“The proper response to God’s revelation is “the obedience of faith (Rom 16: 26; cf. Rom. 1: 5; 2 Cor 10: 5-6). . . . The obedience of faith implies acceptance of the truth of Christ’s revelation, guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. . . . Faith, therefore, as “a gift of God” and as “a supernatural virtue infused by him” (CCC #153), involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, “we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (CCC #178). For that reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which “makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently”, then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute. This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.”

After reading this text, it should be quite clear that Fr. Harrison's assertion, while true, does not bear upon the question of implicit faith in the least. Dominus Iesus is saying that the content of belief in other religions is not the matter of supernatural faith. There is no question of the truth of this. As they define it, belief is “that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute,” while supernatural faith is an assent to God who reveals himself. Not everyone in other religions give this assent to God, even while they follow their own religious belief.

But this is not to make the assertion that members of these other religions cannot have a true supernatural faith. In fact, as Dominus Iesus goes on to say,

“The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God. Thus, as noted above, the Second Vatican Council, in considering the customs, precepts, and teachings of the other religions, teaches that “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.”

“Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”. Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.”

Dominus Iesus is saying that while one must not identify adherence to other religions with supernatural faith, nevertheless these religions often reflect and contain an element of the truth “which enlightens all men.” Thus, those men who follow these religious traditions, if they adhere to that truth, are able to have supernatural faith.

Fr. Harrison also quotes very selectively, since he fails to give us the rest of the texts from the document which very clearly contradict his thesis:

“Furthermore, the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity. Speaking of the paschal mystery, in which Christ even now associates the believer to himself in a living manner in the Spirit and gives him the hope of resurrection, the Council states: 'All this holds true not only for Christians but also for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery'”

Just as Christ even now associates the believer to Himself in a living manner and “gives him the hope of resurrection,” likewise this is true not only for Christians, but all men of good will. Therefore all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active are joined to Christ in a living manner, and have the hope of resurrection. It would be absurd to say that unbelievers are joined to Christ in a living manner if they do not have faith, hope, or charity. Again, further on Dominus Iesus states:

“The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being. For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “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.”

Fr. Harrison did at least mention this passage, although he does not quote it. He says that “If it should be objected that this document also subsequently teaches that grace is not granted only to Christian believers, the response would be that, assuming DI to be internally consistent, we must understand the relevant articles (20-21) as referring not to the state of grace – that is, sanctifying grace or the grace of justification – but rather, to actual grace.” The problem with this is that this grace is one by which they obtain salvation, and not an actual grace which moves them to join the church, but rather a grace which does not formally make them part of the Church. Fr. Harrison is asserting, and has asserted several times already, that salvation is accessible to non-Christians by virtue of a grace which will bring them to the Church before death. However, this is not said. Rather, this grace enlightens them in their peculiar circumstances.

Let us conclude this consideration of Dominus Iesus with a statement by John Paul II, which almost seems as if it was addressed specifically to people arguing as Fr. Harrison does:

“With the Declaration Dominus Iesus - Jesus is Lord - approved by me in a special way at the height of the Jubilee Year, I wanted to invite all Christians to renew their fidelity to him in the joy of faith and to bear unanimous witness that the Son, both today and tomorrow, is "the way, and the truth, and the life". Our confession of Christ as the only Son, through whom we ourselves see the Father's face, is not arrogance that disdains other religions, but joyful gratitude that Christ has revealed himself to us without any merit on our part. At the same time, he has obliged us to continue giving what we have received and to communicate to others what we have been given, since the Truth that is has been given and the Love which is God belong to all people. With the Apostle Peter, we confess that "there is salvation in no one else". The Declaration Dominus Iesus, following the lead of the Second Vatican Council, shows us that this confession does not deny salvation to non-Christians, but points to its ultimate source in Christ, in whom man and God are united. God gives light to all in a way which is accomodated to their spiritual and material situation, granting them salvific grace in ways known to himself (Dominus Iesus, VI, nn. 20-21). The Document clarifies essential Christian elements, which do not hinder dialogue but show its bases, because a dialogue without foundations would be destined to degenerate into empty wordiness. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_20001001_en.html)

Fr. Harrison then goes on to talk about his theory of “last minute enlightenment” by God. I will not discuss this, since it is based off of his false interpretation of the Church's teaching. Of course, I do not deny that God could give a last minute revelation to a virtuous pagan; but to say that God must give this revelation in order to save him is unreasonable. As the letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston says, and is clear from reason as well, God is not bound to require those things that are necessary only by divine institution.

This concludes our posts on Fr. Harrison's article. In conclusion, I would like to point out again something I mentioned earlier. When one of the faithful is trying to determine what the Church teaches on some specific point, it is not sufficient merely to look at Church documents and interpret them; it is necessary to look at how the Church interprets them, how the bishops interpret them, how the saints and Fathers interpret them.

To quote Fr. Harrison, “In this talk I wish to challenge a theological opinion which is now almost universally held by Catholics, including those who would consider themselves conservative or even traditionalist in outlook. Many approved theologians have long held this opinion. Indeed, it first surfaced in the mid-sixteenth century. Since then it has gradually spread throughout the Catholic world in seminaries and theological faculties, and in recent times seems to have been held by nearly all bishops, possibly even popes in their private capacity. For the position I will criticize is even insinuated – though not clearly affirmed or rigorously implied – in the main document of Vatican Council II and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church”

If all the faithful, many theologians, nearly all the bishops, and popes themselves have interpreted the Church's teaching in this way, one cannot merely toss this aside on the basis on one's own interpretations of Church teachings. This would be to give one's own opinion an authority that is not merited.

Anyone who wants to investigate the teaching of the Church on “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” should consider this.

Fr. Brian Harrison on Implicit Faith in Christ, Part III

2009-06-29T17:46:00.003-06:00

Fr. Harrison now moves on to tackle the magisterial statements that are relevant to the matter. The first one is a response of the Holy Office to a bishop in 1703. Found in Denzinger, 1349, or 2380-81 in the Latin. (Incidentally, it is interesting to notice how those people who believe that explicit faith in Christ is absolutely necessary will often bring this response of the Holy Office as binding magisterial teaching, while at the same time they will do everything in their power to deny that the letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston has any magisterial authority. Fr. Harrison is not guilty of this, though.)

(DZ 1349)Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.

Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder'; [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.

Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.

Fr. Harrison draws this conclusion from these texts “For, underlying this Holy Office decision, is the premise that an adult who does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ lacks the theological virtue of faith – the first and most basic prerequisite for justification – and so cannot be baptized, even in grave danger of death.”

This is certainly not a necessary conclusion. There is at least one alternative, which seems more probable. For adults, the intention to receive the sacrament as a sacrament is required for the validity of the sacrament. If an adult only has implicit faith in Christ or the Trinity, it is clear that he cannot understand the precise significance of what is being done, and this at least opens the door for the possibility that he does not view the sacrament truly as a sacrament, as a sacred sign. Thus, in order to insure that the sacrament is received validly, prudence seems to dictate that some brief instruction be given.

However, the text itself seems open to the possibility that if the adult is not merely in the danger of death, but also unconscious, then he could be baptized. Otherwise there would not seem to be a reason for the statement “even a dying one, who is not entirely incapacitated.” If the Holy Office wished to say absolutely that one needed knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation to receive baptism, they could have left off the phrase “who is not entirely incapacitated,” and the text would be much stronger to that effect.

Again in the second text we have a similar qualification: “in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.” Clearly if the adult is incapacitated, he does not have the capacity to be taught the truths of the faith.

Fr. Harrison then continues on to address two statements of Pope Pius IX. The first is in the 1854 allocution Singulari Quadam:

“Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside of the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only ark of salvation, that the one who does not enter this is going to perish in the deluge. But nevertheless we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

Fr. Harrison says about this text, “Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside of the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only ark of salvation, that the one who does not enter this is going to perish in the deluge. But nevertheless we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. In fact, this statement is perfectly compatible with the ECNS position. For Augustine, Aquinas, and the mainstream pre-Jesuit tradition had never suggested that anyone invincibly ignorant of the true religion would be charged with guilt “on this account”, that is, on account of their ignorance itself. But this did not mean they could be saved if they remained in such ignorance of the Gospel right up until death.”

Fr. Harrison goes on to say that all those who are invincibly ignorant, basically interpreting this text to say that those who are invincibly ignorant, and who persevere in seeking after truth and righteousness, these will be brought to the faith before they die. Thus, the pope's statement would come down to saying that invincibly ignorant pagans cannot be saved without an explicit knowledge of the Christian religion, but if they are invincibly ignorant, God will bring them to the faith.

Fr. Harrison fails to notice that this position implicitly contradicts the pope's statement, “Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors?” Why? Because his position comes down to saying that all those who do not come to the Catholic faith before death are not invincibly ignorant. Thus we limit the bounds of this invincible ignorance to those who are united to the Catholic Church before death.

It is true that Fr. Harrison offers a kind of solution to this later, namely, that God will reveal himself perhaps secretly at the moment of death, so that none could conclude that God had not brought them to the faith. This assertion, though, has no basis in Church teaching, and would be an additional hypthesis brought in to defend his position.

The next citation is again from Pius IX, essentially saying the same thing, but more clearly:

“Here we must again mention and reprove a most serious error in which some Catholics have unhappily fallen, thinking that men living in errors and altogether apart from the the true faith and Catholic unity can attain to eternal life. [Nevertheless] it is known to us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion and who, assiduously observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life; since God . . . [will] never allow anyone who has not the guilt of wilful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings.” (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)

Fr. Harrison says, “This 1863 document, admittedly, seems to lean rather more toward Perroni’s “implicit faith” thesis than the 1853 allocution did. Nevertheless, it does not teach that thesis unequivocally. For nothing the Pope says implies that anyone who is still invincibly ignorant of Christ at the moment of death can be saved.”

Fr. Harrison is reading this essentially the same way as the 1853 allocution, namely, that God will bring all those who are invincibly ignorant and obey the natural law to an explicit faith in himself. However, again it is only possible to maintain this thesis by gratuitously asserting that God must enlighten such people at the moment of their death with a divine revelation, as we shall see.

It is quite clear that Pius IX is asserting at least this much: that, all invincibly ignorant people who have no willful sin will go to heaven. Therefore, if any one of the people who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and his Church, and follows the natural law, were to die at this moment, he would go to heaven. In order to save his position, Fr. Harrison is forced to posit that such people would receive a divine revelation of the Christian religion in their last moments. Again, no basis for this. It would seem like a more reasonable position to hold that such people are already justified and freed from sin, and thus if they die, they will go to heaven, at which point they will have explicit knowledge of Christ and His Church.

To be continued . . .

Fr. Brian Harrison on Implicit Faith in Christ, Part II

2009-06-28T15:00:00.002-06:00

Taking up where we left off in Fr. Harrison's article, “Can an implicit faith be sufficient for salvation,” Fr. Harrison continues with this gem: “Also, the very fact that such blunt affirmations as St. Peter’s are certainly not being made by most Catholic leaders today strongly suggests that the post-Vatican II Church has, at least in practice, moved away from the original apostolic approach.”

Is Fr. Harrison suggesting that the mode in which we should preach to others is independent of circumstances in which we live? Of course the Church has moved away from the “original apostolic approach,” if what is meant by this is that she has ceased to use the same kind of language which was once appropriate to the times, but is not any longer.

He goes on to say that if someone believes in the idea of implicit faith, he will never make the kind of assertion that St. Paul did when talking to his jailor “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” (Acts 16:31) Rather, he says, “you will be far more nuanced and ‘ecumenically correct’, saying something like this: “We Christians believe Jesus is the Savior of all men, and if you become convinced of that, then you should, logically, become a Christian. But if you remain sincerely unconvinced that Jesus is the Messiah, then of course your present Jewish convictions will be accepted by God as saving faith for you. But we believe it will actually be Jesus who saves you, even if you don’t have any conscious and explicit recognition of him as the Savior.”

I had to laugh at this one. The best way to show the absurdity of such a statement is to illustrate it with an example. Suppose I am talking to a pregnant woman whose doctors have told her that she has complications which have a chance of causing her death if she goes through with the pregnancy. Having 10 other children, some of them very young, she has decided that she cannot risk leaving them without anyone to care for them, and so has decided to go through with the abortion. Now, I could say to her completely truthfully the following: “We Catholics believe that abortion is always morally evil, and if you become convinced of that, then you should, logically, not have the abortion. But if you remain sincerely convinced in conscience that you must have this abortion, then of course it would be a sin for you not to have the abortion, since you would be intending to act against God's will. But your action will only be good because you are following what your conscience tells you is God's will, even if you don't realize that in itself the act is evil.”

But it would be absurd to say this, even though it is technically true. The manner in which we speak depends on the end in which we have in mind; in such a situation, I would try and form the woman's conscience, not give her technical distinctions about how her conscience binds her. Likewise, when we evangelize, we speak in the way that will be most likely to have a good effect.

This is precisely why we do not evangelize by telling people that they will go to hell if they do not join the Catholic Church. The most likely effect of that is to turn them away from Catholicism, because they would consider it unreasonable. Nor do we deny those good things and helps to salvation that they may have in their own religion; again for the same reason.

Fr. Harrison then asserts that, “If anything, the N.T. shows an even greater clarity regarding the pre-evangelized state of the gentiles – the pagans. It practically spells out that even though their ignorance of Christ is presently invincible, they will not be saved unless that ‘darkness’ is overcome!”

Let's look at the texts which he claims spell this out.

“to whom I send you, to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may obtain forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been consecrated by faith in me”

Christ is speaking to St. Paul here concerning St. Paul's mission to the gentiles. But this does not show the necessity of explicit faith. It is merely expressing the purpose for which St. Paul is being sent to the Gentiles. Merely to say that he is being sent so that the gentiles may obtain forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among the faithful is not say that there is no gentile who has not had his sins forgiven.

Furthermore, the state of those who do not know Christ is quite fittingly called a state of darkness when compared with knowing Christ, who says “I am the light of the world.” I quoted the CDF on this in my last post, but I will re-quote them, since they explicitly interpret why St. Paul phrases this the way he does.

“Although non-Christians can be saved through the grace which God bestows in “ways known to him,” the Church cannot fail to recognize that such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us. Indeed “there is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know him and to speak to others of our friendship with him.” The revelation of the fundamental truths about God, about the human person and the world, is a great good for every human person, while living in darkness without the truths about ultimate questions is an evil and is often at the root of suffering and slavery which can at times be grievous. This is why Saint Paul does not hesitate to describe conversion to the Christian faith as liberation “from the power of darkness” and entrance into “the kingdom of his beloved Son in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of our sins.” (Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization, CDF)

Fr. Harrison goes on to say, “Paul asks rhetorically, with anguish, how the pagans can be saved if they don’t receive a preacher. Clearly, his anguish – and the question itself – would really make no sense if Paul held that the existing religious convictions of these gentile peoples can already constitute a disguised or implicit faith in Christ that is sufficient for their salvation.”

He is referring to Romans 10:13-17, where St. Paul says, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” Unfortunately, he fails to mention the fact that Paul is NOT saying this as if he is anguished, rather, he is answering the objection that those who have not heard the Gospel cannot be held accountable. Upon concluding the objection he replies “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily: Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the whole world.” St. Paul's response is to quote Psalm 19 “Their sound hath gone forth . . .” This Psalm is referring to the heavens “preaching” God's glory to the whole earth. “The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands. ”(Psalm 19:1) Thus, this passage from St. Paul shows the opposite of what Fr. Harrison what make it out to mean; St. Paul is saying that everyone can “see” Christ in the heavens, and are thus inexcusable for not believing in him. This, however, for many people would have to be in an implicit way, until the gospel has been explicitly preached to them. I dealt with this same passage already here: http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/testimony-of-holy-scripture-on_15.html

Fr. Harrison then goes on to brush off the passage from Romans where St. Paul speaks of the Gentiles “who have not the law” but are justified by following the law written on their hearts. I explained this passage here: http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/testimony-of-holy-scripture-on.html

Here I will simply say this much: St. Paul is quite clearly including those gentiles before Christ who did not have the Jewish law, and were justified by following the law written on their hearts. These had an implicit faith in Christ. St. Paul says nothing in his statement which would limit what he says to those who have received the Gospel of Christ. In fact, such an interpretation would destroy the sense of the passage, since St. Paul is making the point that every man is inexcusable, precisely because all have the ability to do what is right and be justified, whether they have received the law or not. Under Fr. Harrison's interpretation, those men who have not received the gospel would be excusable, since they are unable to love God.

Fr. Harrison then goes on to address the passage from Hebrews 11:6, which he claims cannot be

taken as the requirement for supernatural faith, because the verse is, “embedded in a whole chapter of Hebrews that speaks exclusively of holy men who lived and died in pre-Christian, and in many cases (vv. 4-22) pre-Mosaic, times. Therefore, especially in view of the rest of the N.T. witness, v. 6 can by no means be taken as serious biblical evidence that this very limited knowledge of God can still be sufficient to constitute the supernatural (theological) virtue of faith, now that Christ has finally come in the flesh”

Incidentally, according to Fr. Harrison's mode of arguing, that “Scripture insinuates or suggests by what it omits, not only by what it says” he should say that since Scripture does not explicitly say that something more is required now that Christ has come, it is insinuated that faith consists in the knowledge of God and that he is a rewarder of the just.

In any case, there are a number of responses to this. First, Hebrews is talking about what faith is, and looking to the ancients for examples. Fr. Harrison's claim is essentially that what the Fathers had DOES NOT COUNT AS FAITH under the new dispensation. If this is true, then why are we looking to them as examples, without distinguishing between what was required, and what is required. Why does Hebrews go back and forth between our faith and theirs as if they are the same? “Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. For by this the ancients obtained a testimony. By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God: that from invisible things visible things might be made. By faith Abel offered to God a sacrifice . . .”

Furthermore, if, as Fr. Harrison asserts, after Pentecost supernatural faith must include explicit faith in Christ, what happens to those just gentiles living through Pentecost, who have faith in God? Does their supernatural faith get “downgraded” to natural faith at the moment of Pentecost? Of course, this could not happen without them losing Charity, and thus committing a mortal sin. The other possibility is that all these just gentiles receive an explicit revelation from God at the very moment of Pentecost. This, however, is refuted by the example of Cornelius, who did not immediately receive a revelation.

In the end, Fr. Harrison brings no compelling witness from Scripture. No language in Scripture denies the possibility of salvation by implicit faith, nor does it even imply it, as Fr. Harrison claims. I want to re-iterate the point I made at the beginning. Since Fr. Harrison accepts implicit faith as a valid means of salvation in the Old Testament, if he wishes to claim that a statement about salvation that is made in the New Testament carries a requirement of explicit faith, he must make clear that this statement is not intended to hold true for the Old Testament. Statements like “there is no salvation in any other name,” simply do not meet the requirement, since they apply to the Old Testament as well as to the New.

In the next part of Father Harrison's article, he deals with the tradition from the time of the apostles until the 16^th century. Fr. Harrison makes the claim that none of the Fathers held that one could be saved by implicit faith. This is simply speaking false; there are many clear places in the Fathers where they say this. I have already shown a number of places:

http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/search/label/Fathers

The one quote that Fr. Harrison looks at (although he relegates it to a footnote) is that of St. Justin Martyr, which he says is “an ambiguous statement.” Here is the text:

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the reason in which all mankind partakes [John 1:9] . Those, therefore, who lived according to reason were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians.” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology)

What is Father Harrison's response to this text? “These last words could be taken to mean that some “who live now” may still be living “according to reason” without yet knowing Christ; but they are also entirely compatible with Justin’s holding, like all the subsequent Fathers, that after Christ’s coming only those who know and accept his Gospel are given the grace to live “according to reason”, that is, righteously in God’s sight.”

So, Fr. Harrison explains this interpreting St. Justin as saying that unless you explicitly believe in Christ, you cannot live according to reason. In other words, he is calling all those people who inculpably do not know of Christ “wicked men,” “enemies of Christ,” and “murderers of those who did live according to reason.” The absurdity of this is evident.

I will pass over the rest of Fr. Harrison's comments about the Fathers, since I do not have the time to refute every one of his misinterpretations. He then makes this claim about those after the Fathers:

“. . . the medieval theologians, led by St. Thomas Aquinas, were all unanimously insistent that an explicit faith in Christ has been universally necessary for salvation ever since the New Law of grace was revealed in the first century A.D.”

This is quite misleading. As I proved here: http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/st-thomas-aquinas-on-salvation-by.html

St. Thomas holds that one can be justified by implicit faith in Christ. It is true that he also holds that God will grant to such people explicit faith before they die, but since they are already justified, this is not an essential necessity, but would be an ordination of God's providence. St. Alphonsus and others hold a similar position. I intend to do more posts on the medieval theologians at some point, but for now the example of St. Thomas will suffice.

Fr. Harrison notes that, beginning in the 15^th century, a number of theologians took up the position that implicit faith could suffice for justification, but that before death such people would receive an explicit knowledge of the Christian faith. However, as I noted in the last paragraph, this was not really a new position, and St. Thomas himself had held it.

Fr. Harrison then has this interesting passage criticizing the view of Fr. Rahner:

“S.J. Rahner requires absolutely no particular explicit belief-content at all, since he claims that not only pantheists, polytheists and agnostics, but even outright atheists, can have ‘implicit faith’ in Jesus Christ. According to Rahner, the sincere atheist fulfils the Gospel’s faith requirement for salvation provided only that he “accepts a moral demand from his conscience as absolutely valid for him and embraces it as such in a free act of affirmation” Never mind what one’s conscience tells one to do, it seems. Are we to suppose that the Aztec priest ripping out human hearts on the altar of the serpent God, the Hindu insisting on burning alive his friend’s widow, and the suicide bomber screaming praises to Allah as he rams a jet plane into a skyscraper – that all these ever-so-sincere chaps are really just expressing the divine gift of Christian faith – each in his own . . . highly creative way? That “straight and narrow” path which our Lord says leads to salvation – adding that “few there be that find it” – now seems to have been wondrously transmuted into a broad and smooth highway that just about everyone will find. ”

This passage seems to exhibit a bad misunderstanding, both of the binding force of conscience, and what exactly Rahner means.

In regard to conscience, surely Fr. Harrison would not say that one must act against one's conscience; to do this is a sin by definition, since it means that one is intentionally doing something that one believes to be evil. It is a position generally accepted by moral theologians that one's conscience is always binding, even where the person is culpable for the bad formation of his own conscience. This is the opinion of St. Thomas, and most Catholic theologians follow him.

That said, this is not to say that people can do whatever they want, and get away with it. We are obliged to form our conscience, and to neglect this is a sin. Furthermore, in the case where someone culpably neglects to form his conscience, even when his conscience tells him to do evil, since he knows that he neglected to form his conscience, if he considered the matter, he would be able to go and seek the truth on the matter before following his conscience.

Rahner, of course, is referring to those people who are invincibly ignorant, and who are not culpable for having a badly formed conscience. Fr. Harrison tries to make this look ridiculous with his examples, by choosing examples in which it is very unlikely that someone could be inculpable. The reason for this is that, since God implanted the natural law in our hearts, actions that go directly against this law tend to also go against our conscience, and to give us more reason for suspecting that we need to form our conscience.

Fr. Harrison then goes on to criticize at some length the idea that someone could be externally a devout Muslim or Jew, but really be “an implicit Christian.” This does not seem to really be relevant to the discussion; no absurdities arise from this concept. Given that earlier Fr. Harrison granted, along with St. Justin Martyr, that pagans or Jews before Christ could be “implicit Christians,” while being explicitly Jews or pagans, I fail to see what the problem is.

To be continued . . .

Fr. Brian Harrison on Implicit Faith in Christ, Part I

2009-06-27T08:41:00.004-06:00

As I mentioned in the comment box on a previous post, I planned to write a post against a certain article that has been circulating the web for awhile, and is held up by various groups, such as the feeneyites, as strong support for their position. This is the first one of my posts on his article.

For those are are unfamiliar with Fr. Harrison, you can read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Harrison_(theologian)

Fr. Harrison is a strong opponent of the idea that an implicit faith in Christ can suffice for salvation, and he wrote a 33 page presentation against this idea. This can be found here: http://catholicism.org/downloads/FrHarrison_Implicit-Faith.pdf

Fr. Harrison introduces his presentation by admitting that the theological opinion of salvation by implicit faith is a nearly universally held opinion today, and that, “in recent times seems to have been held by nearly all bishops, possibly even popes in their private capacity.” He then goes on to claim that this opinion is “false, and even proximate to heresy.”

Alarm bells should be ringing in any sensible readers mind at this point. May I ask what gives Fr. Harrison the right to proclaim his own opinion on Church teaching over “nearly all bishops,” and to assert that they are holding a position “proximate to heresy”? Perhaps he would answer, the infallible teaching authority of the Church from the very beginning. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that he trusts his own interpretation of those teachings over that of nearly all the bishops. Surely he does not think that they are simply ignoring former Church teaching; if they are not ignoring it, do they then think that the Church has changed her teaching? Or is it not rather that they have read these texts, and interpreted them in light of current Church teaching as being fully consistent?

To make the assertion that nearly all the bishops can be wrong on a teaching of faith and morals is a grave one indeed. If one says that all the bishops held something which necessarily leads to heresy, this would itself be heretical; it is the mission of the bishops to teach the truth in such matters to the faithful, and such a position implies that the Church itself has failed in her mission.

(Christus Dominus N.2) “Christ gave the Apostles and their successors the command and the power to teach all nations, to hallow men in the truth, and to feed them. Bishops, therefore, have been made true and authentic teachers of the faith, pontiffs, and pastors through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to them.”

(Lumen Gentium N.24) “Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfillment of the commandments.”

(Dei Verbum N. 7) “But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place.” Let us ask again about what one must be saying to affirm that explicit faith is necessary for salvation. Either, 1) One must say that nearly the entire body of bishops is simply wrong on this matter, and on their interpretations of the earlier Church teaching, 2) they are ignoring earlier Church teachings, and proposing what they believe the Church is teaching, or 3) they understand early church teaching in a way that is perfectly consistent with the statement that someone can be saved by implicit faith. Which of these is most reasonable?

Fr. Harrison goes on to quote this decree from the council of Florence: “The Most Holy Roman Church, founded by the word of our Lord and Savior,. . . firmly believes, professes and preaches that no persons living outside the Catholic Church – not only pagans but also Jews, heretics and schismatics – can come to share in eternal life, but will go into the eternal fire . . . unless they are aggregated to her before the end of their life.”

According to Father Harrison, this decree “makes crystal clear” who is should be understood as being outside the Catholic Church. Strangely enough, he then goes on to say he intends to limit himself to a discussion of the first two classes of persons listed, because “the question as to who, precisely, was understood by the Florentine Fathers to be counted as a heretic or schismatic involves some complexities which I shall not attempt to discuss today.”

Looks like it is not so “crystal clear” after all. Rather, it seems that qualifications have to made as to who should be understood as falling under these terms. Fr. Harrison seems to assume that all those who externally appear as pagans and Jews must be considered as falling under this condemnation. Yet if this is so, why should it not be true of heretics and schismatics as well? In fact, as I showed in this post, http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/testimony-of-fathers-on-justification_21.html Augustine holds that even someone who explicitly holds heretical positions knowing that they are against the Church's positions, if he has been brought up this way by his parents, and is sincerely seeking the truth, is not to be counted a heretic. Thus, someone who appears externally to be a heretic, and who may recognize that he believes something other than the Church's teaching, can still not fall under this condemnation.

Fr. Harrison then says he is going to sum up his position by modifying the traditional statement, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” to “extra Christianismum nulla salus”, meaning that “nobody dying as a non-Christian – that is, as a pagan, Jew, Muslim, atheist or agnostic – can reach eternal life.” By Christianity, he means to include an explicit profession of faith in Christ. (If one reads the council of Florence strictly, I'm not sure why one should include Christians, but I will let that pass)

Fr. Harrison then goes on to see what conclusions he can draw about “extra Christianismum nulla salus” (ECNS) from Sacred Scripture. He makes the claim that the overall impression that the New Testament gives one is that ECNS underlies everything, while admitting that it is not stated explicitly anywhere. He gives us a twofold reason for this overall impression:

1) “First, when we talk about “belief” in something or someone, we nearly always mean explicit, conscious belief unless otherwise stated, or unless the discussion happens to be precisely about the “implicit” vs. “explicit” problem.”

and

2) “Secondly, Scripture insinuates or suggests by what it omits, not only by what it says. And the silence of the N.T. seems rather eloquent on this point. When, for instance, Jesus bluntly asserts, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6), without immediately adding (as most modern commentators would do) that this doesn’t necessarily mean an explicit belief in himself is always required, the impression is left that it always is required.”

I have already refuted these objections in my posts on Sacred Scripture, but I will re-iterate the reason that these kinds of arguments fail. One simple question is enough to refute these arguments. Did the apostles intend all these statements about the necessity of belief in Christ to apply to those in the New Testament alone, or also to those in the Old? Nobody with a modicum of knowledge of the Church's teaching on this matter will say that they intended to exclude those in the Old Testament from the necessity of being saved by faith in Christ. Therefore, it follows that one cannot take statements like these to exclude the possibility of salvation by implicit faith in Christ, since many men in the Old Testament were saved without an explicit knowledge of Christ.

Did they come to the Father by anyone other than Christ? Or were they saved in any other name than Jesus? If not, then one cannot assert that these quotations are asserting a necessity for explicit faith in the new testament, which was not there in the old. The same thing holds true for the quotation from John 17:3 that Fr. Harrison gives. The fact is, even though it is true that the apostles themselves were principally thinking about explicit faith in Christ when they say things like “there is no other name by which someone can be saved,” nevertheless, this does not mean that they are excluding implicit faith, since this statement applies to men of the Old Testament.

He then continues on to say that “And if we read through Acts of the Apostles and the N.T. letters, the constant impression we naturally receive is that the preaching of the Gospel to those who do not yet “know” Jesus is urgently necessary in order for them to be saved. Once the assumption is widely diffused that untold numbers of Jews, pagans and unbelievers out there are already in the state of grace by virtue of their “implicit faith”, and so are heading straight for heaven, then that sense of urgency in spreading the Gospel is inevitably weakened very seriously.”

Fr. Harrison assumes that if the apostles thought that some people could be saved by implicit faith, then they would not have preached the Gospel so urgently. This shows a misunderstanding of the Church's teaching. Regardless of whether some non-catholics can be saved by implicit faith, the need to preach the gospel is indeed an urgent one. This has been constantly re-iterated by the Church, and is still done so today. I plan to devote a number of posts to how the doctrine “no salvation outside the church” and salvation by implicit faith relate to the Church's missionary duty, so I will not directly confront this position here, but will merely show that the present day Church still teaches this urgency to preach the Gospel today, while at the same time holding that some people can be saved by implicit faith.

“In the name of the whole Church, I sense an urgent duty to repeat this cry of St. Paul. From the beginning of my Pontificate I have chosen to travel to the ends of the earth in order to show this missionary concern. My direct contact with peoples who do not know Christ has convinced me even more of the urgency of missionary activity, a subject to which I am devoting the present encyclical.” (Redemptoris Missio, N.1)

“In the present state of affairs, out of which there is arising a new situation for mankind, the Church, being the salt of the earth and the light of the world (cf. Matt. 5:13-14), is more urgently called upon to save and renew every creature, that all things may be restored in Christ and all men may constitute one family in Him and one people of God. ” (Ad Gentes, N.1)

“Thus one understands the urgency of Christ’s invitation to evangelization . . . At the present time, with so many people in the world living in different types of desert, above all, in the “desert of God’s darkness, the emptiness of souls no longer aware of their dignity or the goal of human life”, Pope Benedict XVI has recalled to the world that “the Church as a whole and all her Pastors, like Christ, must set out to lead people out of the desert, towards the place of life, towards friendship with the Son of God, towards the One who gives us life, and life in abundance.” (Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization, CDF)

It is clear that the Church now speaks with the same urgency that she did before, while nevertheless at the same time saying that some can be saved by implicit faith in Christ. Thus, one cannot argue that the strong language used in the scriptures regarding the need for the Gospel implies the absolute necessity for explicit faith for salvation. In anticipation of my posts on this matter, I give one quotation:

“Although non-Christians can be saved through the grace which God bestows in “ways known to him,” the Church cannot fail to recognize that such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us. Indeed “there is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know him and to speak to others of our friendship with him.” The revelation of the fundamental truths about God, about the human person and the world, is a great good for every human person, while living in darkness without the truths about ultimate questions is an evil and is often at the root of suffering and slavery which can at times be grievous. This is why Saint Paul does not hesitate to describe conversion to the Christian faith as liberation “from the power of darkness” and entrance into “the kingdom of his beloved Son in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of our sins.” (Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization, CDF)

No Salvation Outside the Church after Vatican II

2009-06-26T13:31:00.003-06:00

It is after Vatican II that we get the most distinct statements of the Church's teaching on “No Salvation Outside the Church.” This is also the period of Church teaching that is most often ignored or brushed aside by those who attempt to force their own interpretation on the teaching of the Church.

“Now, two other big questions arise. How will the catechumens, or better still, all those who do not know the Gospel and the Church, be saved? This is the first question, and an enormous one. The other is this: Do sinners, who are not in God's grace, belong to the Church? We will not answer these questions here, for that would involve distinctions and details requiring long and careful consideration. We will simply say, with regard to the first, that a person can belong to the Church in reality, or in voto virtually, by desire (as the catechumens) or even by properly directing a life that may be deprived of any explicit knowledge of Christianity, but that is, because of the person's moral uprightness, open to a mysterious mercy of God. That mercy can link to mankind saved by Christ, and therefore to the Church, all the immense multitudes of human beings "who sit in the shadow of death," but who are themselves created and loved by the divine goodness.” (Paul VI, Voi Forse Sapete)

Paul VI raises two questions, which he says he is not going to answer here. Nevertheless, he offers us a thought concerning each one. The first question is this: How will catechumens, or those who are ignorant of the Church be saved? The second question is whether sinners, who do not have God's grace, belong to the Church.

As he says, he does not really answer the first question, because he does not tell us precisely HOW catechumens and those who do not know of the Church can be saved. Nevertheless, he gives us a general detail concerning their salvation. In regard to catechumens, they are joined to the Church by desire, and thus are able to saved even if they die still as catechumens. Likewise, those who do not know of the Gospel or the Church can be a member of the church by properly directing a life deprived of any explicit knowledge of Christianity, and thus can be saved even if they die still in this state.

Summarizing, Paul VI describes three ways in which one can belong to the Church: 1) in reality, i.e., having received baptism by water. 2) by desire, as catechumens. 3) By “properly directing” a life, even a life deprived of any explicit knowledge of Christianity. This is the same thing we saw in Lumen Gentium. Someone who properly directs his life insofar as is in him, even if he is deprived of a knowledge of the Church, is yet joined to the Church in some mysterious manner, and thus can be saved.

“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.” (JPII, Redemptoris Missio)

Pope John Paul II explicitly states here that salvation is granted even to those who do not explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Rather, he makes the argument that since salvation is something universal, it must be offered to all. But not everyone is able to explicitly believe in Christ or enter the Church. Hence “salvation in Christ” is accessible to these people by a grace which does not make them formally part of the Church.

This quote is very important because it makes clear that the teaching of the Church is not that God gives everyone the possibility of entering the Church, and thus of being saved, but in fact there are those who do not even know about the church, who may yet be saved through Christ. For those who stubbornly deny this, I give another quotation from John Paul II:

“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.” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998_en.html)

Notice that he quite explicitly says that they receive salvation EVEN WHILE they do not recognize him as their saviour. Here is another quotation for those who are fond of opposing the early statements on “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” against the current Church interpretation:

“Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"--"outside the Church there is no salvation"--stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html)

No Salvation Outside the Church in Vatican Council II

2009-06-25T14:45:00.004-06:00

Vatican Council II reaffirms the teaching that we saw in Pius XII. One of the most significant passages concerning the salvation of non-Christians actually references the letter of the Holy Office that we looked at in our last post. Let us first examine Lumen Gentium 16, which is a very debated passage in the discussion of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. ” (LG 16)

The part that I placed in bold is stating that those who are ignorant of Christ and his Church can attain salvation, provided that 1) it is not through their own fault, and 2) that they sincerely seek God and try to do his will as it is known to them. It is clear from this that such people place God as their last end, and this implies that perfect submission of the mind to God that I spoke of in my last post. Hence such people love God, and are in the state of justification.

Those who argue against this sense of this passage generally claim that the council is saying that such people can attain eternal salvation because if they seek God sincerely, God will bring them to an explicit knowledge of Christ and His Church.

This can clearly be seen to be false by looking at the official footnote that is given in this text. Lumen Gentium references the letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston that we already looked at. Nevertheless, let me quote the sections it references, to see what the point being made is.

“In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Regeneration and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance.

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”

So, there is a group of people, who do not know of Christ or his Church. Lumen Gentium says that they can attain eternal salvation by sincerely seeking God and doing His will as it is known to them through their conscience. The explanation for this is given by citing that part of the letter of the Holy Office which says that someone involved in invincible ignorance can be joined to the Church by an implicit desire.

Hence, it follows that what Lumen Gentium is asserting is that these people who do not have a knowledge of Christ, already belong to the Church by their implicit desire for the Church, which “is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God,” i.e., in their sincerely seeking God, and doing is will insofar as they know it.

(Unitatis redintegratio) “Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.”

Here it is explicitly stated that the life of grace and Faith, Hope, and Charity can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Thus, whoever has such is implicitly a Catholic, regardless of his state of knowledge.

A brief comment: some people respond to arguments like these by quoting many different passages from the council that very strongly emphasize the necessity of the Church for salvation. For example, see this document: http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf Such people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the very nature of what is being said. Nothing that I have said here goes against the truth that the Church is the means necessary for salvation, without which nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven. As is stated in the letter which LG 16 references, God allows a desire, even an implicit one, for these means to suffice in place of actually obtaining the means. Hence such a person is really part of the Church.

Trent and Thomas Aquinas on Baptism of Desire

2009-06-25T13:43:00.004-06:00

One of my readers left a comment about whether what I am saying about implicit faith is the same thing as baptism of desire, so I would like to take this opportunity to talk about that; particularly as it sums up in a nutshell what I am saying concerning implicit faith.

When we speak of “baptism” of desire, we are speaking of baptism analogically, insofar as baptism of desire remits original sin, which is the effect of baptism properly speaking, baptism by water. Hence, baptism of desire is called baptism from its effect, insofar as it has the effect of baptism by water.

So, what is baptism of desire, and why does it remit sin? Let us look at what the Council of Trent says:

“Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord. This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.”

If we look at this carefully, we can see that what the council of Trent is laying out is really the material dispositions in man of Faith, Hope and Charity. The first thing mentioned is that they are moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed. The second thing is that they consider from the fear of divine justice and by considering the mercy of God, they are raised to hope in God. Finally, that they begin to love him as the fountain of all justice. The last condition mentioned is that they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.

From this material disposition necessarily follows the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and thus of course the justification of the man, and his sanctification and renewal.

It should be noted that the fourth disposition for this justification, the purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God, is necessarily included in the third condition. This is because everyone who truly loves God wishes to keep his commandments, and to give up his offenses against God and to begin a new life. Likewise, anyone who truly loves God desires, at least implicitly, baptism by water, since this is the means that God has established for salvation.

There is a good text from St. Thomas which sums up this entire description:

“Therefore in all things it must be said that God is the first principle in justice and that whosoever gives to God the greatest thing that lies in him by submitting the mind to Him, such a one is fully just: ‘Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom 8:14). And hence he says, Abraham believed God, i.e., submitted his mind to God by faith: “Believe God, and he will recover thee: and direct thy way, and trust in him” (Sir 2:6); and further on (2:8): “ Ye that fear the Lord believe him,” and it was reputed to him unto justice, i.e., the act of faith and faith itself were for him, as for everyone else, the sufficient cause of justice. It is reputed to him unto justice by men exteriorly, but interiorly it is wrought by God, Who justifies them that have the faith. This he does by remitting their sins through charity working in them.” (Commentary on Galatians, Cap. 3, Lectio 3)

What the council of Trent describes as the preparation for justification, St. Thomas describes in a very compact form: The full submission of one's mind to God. Any man who does such an act is completely justified, since such an act is one of faith working through love. If we look at the description of the preparation for justification given by the council of Trent, we can see that St. Thomas's definition implies everything in it.

Because, one who fully submits his mind to God, necessarily accepts all that God has revealed to him, and is willing to accept everything else God will reveal. Furthermore, this implies hope and love, since one does not completely submit oneself to another without love of him, and hope and trust in him.

It is this kind of full submission of the mind to God which is commonly called baptism of desire; after baptism it is commonly called a perfect act of contrition. By such a submission man is justified, and made holy before God. If we apply this to the idea of salvation through implicit faith, we can summarize the entire argument for implicit faith in a nutshell.

Before the coming of Christ, the only way for men to be justified was through this perfect submission of the mind to God. At least those men who knew of God's existence, through the grace of God, were able to submit themselves fully to God and make an act of perfect love of Him. The only thing they needed for this was the knowledge of God's existence. They did not need a knowledge of Christ, or of God as Trinity, or the other truths of the faith.

Similarly, after the coming of Christ, those men who know of God's existence are able to make an act of perfect submission of their minds to God, and to love Him. This might be a faithful Jew who earnestly desires the coming of the Messiah, or it might be a Muslim who truly wishes to serve God. By this act they are justified and freed from sin, and thus belong to the church, no matter how implicitly.

It is obvious, of course, that since the catholic church is the true church founded by God, that as soon as such a person comes to the knowledge of the church, and that it is the church in which God wishes all men to be saved, he will immediately desire to enter it, and if he did not desire to enter it even knowing this, that would show that his mind was not fully submissive to God. This is why Lumen Gentium says,

“In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”(LG 14)

From this argument it follows that someone who affirms the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for justification is forced to say that God refuses those people who do not know explicitly of Christ the grace to make an act of love of Him. Since this was not the case for those before Christ, one would be forced to say that because of Christ's act of perfect love for mankind on the cross, God now refuses those who do not have explicit knowledge of him the grace to love him, regardless of the fact that he previously gave this grace to them.

Pius XII on salvation by implicit faith

2009-06-24T14:14:00.005-06:00

We are getting a lot of clarification on the teaching "no salvation outside the church" from the "Pius" Popes. The teaching of the Church on “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” was definitively clarified under the reign of Pius XII. This came about primarily because of the case of Fr. Feeney, whose story is probably well known to most readers of this blog. For those who are unaware of the sequence of events regarding Fr. Feeney, this site has the historical events in order: http://alcazar.net/Feeney2.html

The Holy Office sent a letter to the archbishop of Boston regarding the Feeney case, in which the following is stated: “After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful
in this matter . . . the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed . . . However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church . . . Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory. In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing . . . The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God . . . These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, . . . But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him”

It is abundantly clear here that the Holy Office is intending to interpret the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation,” in the manner in which the Church understands it. So, what is stated here? Here are the main points in order:

1) The Saviour decreed that the Church be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

2) At the same time, God has willed that the effects of the helps to salvation, which are necessary to be saved, can be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire or longing.

3) Statement number 2 applies to the Church, inasmuch as she is the general help to salvation.

4) Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated into the Church actually, but it is necessary to be united at least by desire and longing.

5) This desire need not be explicit; when a person has invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, which is included in the disposition of soul by which someone wants his will to be conformed to God's will.

6) This desire must be animated by perfect charity, and the person must have supernatural faith.

Thus, the Holy Office states explicitly that it is not necessary to be actually united to the Church as a member to be saved, but one can be united through desire and longing, and this desire does not have to be explicit, but can be implicit.

Furthermore, its teaching on “no salvation outside the church” is very helpful for understanding where many have gone wrong on the teaching. It says that the Church is necessary for salvation by divine institution, and therefore it is up to God to decide whether a desire, even an implicit one, for the church should suffice for salvation. This explains what is meant when people talk about something, say baptism, being a necessity of means for salvation. Necessity of means is opposed to the necessity of precept. There is a necessity of precept when God or the Church commands something to be done in a particular way, which might be done in some other way. For example, it is necessary to give honor to God. But this can be done in various ways. It is a necessity of precept that we attend Mass on Sundays. There is a necessity of means when there is no other way for a man to accomplish something. Thus, for example, the Church is necessary by a necessity of means. But this simply means that there is no other means available to man. It doesn't mean that no other means is available to God.

The point being, that necessity of means is said with respect to men. To make this clearer, let's look at number 1257 from the CCC: "The Lord himself affirms that BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. THE CHURCH DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY MEANS OTHER THAN BAPTISM that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." GOD HAS BOUND salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but HE HIMSELF IS NOT BOUND BY HIS SACRAMENTS."

Thus, even if someone were to say that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, that can be true while at the same time there existing the possibility of someone being saved by an implicit faith, which is what is asserted here in the letter.

This fact allows us to refute the claim that some people make: that it is still necessary to have an explicit faith in Christ. These people say that the letter does not make any claims about the precise nature of this supernatural faith; i.e., does it have to be an explicit faith in Christ, or would an implicit faith suffice. It merely says that the desire for the Church can be implicit. Against this, several things should be noted. First, as was stated in the paragraph above, even if explicit faith in Christ is a necessity of means, this is by divine institution, and was stated in the letter, God is not bound to the things he institutes in such a way that he cannot allow an implicit faith to suffice where normally an explicit faith is required.

Second, the letter itself references Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis, and says that this same teaching is taught in it. If we look at the passages of the encyclical that are referred to in the letter, we can see what kind of people fall under this possibility of salvation:

“Likewise, We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still outside the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us, who though unworthy, represent the person of Jesus Christ on earth . . . we have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. ”

It is very clear that Pius XII is excluding nobody here, but is referring to all those who are outside the visible Church, including those who have not been enlightened by the truth of the Gospel. While it is true that the phrase “not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel,” includes also those who know of the Gospel but have not accepted it, nevertheless it also includes those who do not know of the Gospel and have not accepted it. Hence, since he goes on to commit all those who do not belong to the visible Church to the protection of heaven, it is clear that he is referring to everyone who does not belong to the Church, regardless of whether or not he knows of Christ.

Note: The full text of the letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston can be found here: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt

Pius IX and Pius X on salvation by implicit faith

2009-06-23T16:05:00.003-06:00

Over the course of the last 150 years, the magisterium has made it very clear how the teaching “there is no salvation outside the Church” is to be understood. I will present the major explanations over the next few posts.

(Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX) “Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

Pius IX clearly says that all those who are invincibly ignorant, and yet live upright lives ready to obey God, will be saved. God does not allow anyone who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishment.

Some people are of the opinion that this text is only saying that God gives all such people the grace to convert to Catholicism before they die. The point that should be made about this, is that there is a clear contrast in the text between those who are “living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity,” and those who observe “the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God.” Thus, the statement made about the first group does not apply to the second. This is manifest even in the text, since Pius IX states that the first group cannot attain salvation whereas the second group can.

I would also note that the aforementioned position is forced to hold the position that these people who are “ observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God,” and live “honest lives,” nevertheless are unable to love God. This is a very strange position, since these people are ready to obey God.

From our next pope, Pius X, we have this same teaching clearly asserted in his Catechism. Cardinal Ratzinger made this comment about this Catechism: "The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X's catechism always retains its value . . . it should not be forgotten that that the Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of content."

Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? (A.9 Q.29)

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Now, what does he mean for a man to be united to the soul of the Church? He explains this in another article:

Q: In what does the Soul of the Church consist?(A.9 Q.22)

A: The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.

According to St. Pius X, then, someone who is outside the Church through no fault of his own, whether he belongs to some other sect of Christianity, or even if has only an implicit desire for baptism, can possess the grace of faith, hope, and charity, and thus be in the state of justification. This faith would have to be an implicit faith in Christ in the case of those who do not know of Him and His church.

St. Thomas Aquinas on Salvation by Implicit Faith

2009-06-22T15:21:00.002-06:00

I would like to discuss St. Thomas's position in some detail, because he is often cited by proponents of the necessity of explicit faith for salvation, even though his actual position is much more nuanced than they believe.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in I-II, Q.89, A.6 that when a child reaches the age of reason, if he orders himself toward his last end as well as he can, he immediately attains sanctifying grace (which we would call baptism of desire), and if he does not, he sins mortally. His state of knowledge is not relevant, so the child is able to attain grace even if he is completely ignorant of the Church and Christ.

"I answer that, It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace. " (I-II, Q.89, A.6)

Okay. Let us see what St. Thomas's position is on implicit faith. If we look at the article that I just quoted, I-II, Q.89, A.6, we see that St. Thomas holds to the idea of sanctification by implicit faith. St. Thomas claims in this article that a child can attain sanctifying grace before baptism, and even before he attains explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, if there is no one to teach the child at the time when he reaches the age of reason.

How do we know that this is St. Thomas's position? One of the objections is, "An age can be determined in which the child can first perform an actual sin. When he comes to this age, he can stand for at least a brief space of time, without sinning mortally, since this happens even in the most wicked men. Now in that space of time, howsoever short, the child can sin venially. Therefore venial sin can be in someone with original sin, without mortal sin." In the body St. Thomas also says, "The first thing which occurs to someone to consider, is to deliberate about himself. And if he orders himself to the due end, he attains by grace the forgiveness of original sin. But if he does not order himself to the due end, insofar as in that age he is capable of discretion, he will sin mortally, not doing what he is able to do."

Let's put these texts together. The objection is that a child can be in original sin, attain the age of reason, and then refrain for at least a short time from mortal sin. Within this time, he may happen to commit a venial sin. If this happens, then the child will have both original and venial sin, but not mortal sin. The purpose of St. Thomas's article is to prove that this cannot happen.

In the body, St. Thomas says that when someone reaches the age of reason, the first thing he does is consider his end. If he aims at his end rightly, he attains by grace the forgiveness of original sin. If he aims at his end wrongly, he commits a mortal sin. After one of these alternatives has happened, the child may commit a venial sin, and then he will either have grace together with venial sin, or mortal sin together with venial sin, depending on which alternative happened. The child will never have original sin and venial sin together without mortal sin, however, because this is excluded by each of the alternatives.

In the response to the objection, St. Thomas says that the child will commit a mortal sin of omission unless he turns to God as soon as possible. And for this reason there cannot be a space of time when the child is in original sin without mortal sin, during which he might commit a venial sin, so as to have venial sin together with original sin, but without mortal sin.

What does this tell us? St. Thomas's position is that after the age of reason, there is no period of time, however brief, during which the child is in original sin, but not mortal sin. Why not? If there is such a period of time, then the child might commit a venial sin. This was the objection. St. Thomas answers it by saying that there is no such period of time. Not five days, not five hours, not five minutes. As soon as the child has reached the age of reason, if the child is in the state of original sin, the child is also in the state of mortal sin. Otherwise there would be the interval of time that St. Thomas excludes after the age of reason, namely a time when the child is in original sin but not mortal sin.

What happens if the child reaches the age of reason and turns to God according to his ability? According to St. Thomas, the child attains by grace the remission of original sin. According to St. Thomas, then, the pagan child is born in original sin. He comes to the age of reason. If he does not commit a mortal sin, but turns to God as well as he can, “insofar he is capable of discretion”, then in that very moment he attains grace and the remission of original sin. Then, in God's own time, God will lead him to explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Nor can one say that St. Thomas is saying that at the moment when a pagan child reaches the age of reason, if he has not been instructed about the faith, there is a moral inevitability that he will commit a mortal sin in that very moment. In the first place, this position is impossible in itself, since although without grace one cannot avoid sinning for a long period of time, it is not true that without grace one cannot avoid a particular sin at a particular moment. If one could not, it would not be a sin. Second, this position is directly against the very words of St. Thomas, as will be seen below.

Quaestiones Disputatae, "De Veritate," Q. 14, art. 11: Objection: "It seems that it is not necessary to believe explicitly. For nothing should be accepted, from the acceptance of which something inappropriate would follow. But if we accept that it is necessary to salvation that something be believed explicitly, something inappropriate would follow. For someone might have been reared in the woods, or among wolves; and such a one cannot know explicitly anything of faith, so that thus there would be a man who would necessarily be damned-which is inappropriate; hence it does not seem to be necessary to believe in anything explicitly."

Response: "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)." It is very clear here that St. Thomas is saying that explicit faith is necessary for salvation, and he asserts in the body of this article that explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation. But note: necessary for "salvation," which is not the same as necessary for the state of grace. According to St. Thomas, someone raised in the woods might attain the state of grace first, by the baptism of desire, and then later God would teach him the truths of the Trinity and Incarnation. Thus St. Thomas says above that if someone were to follow natural reason, then God would respond by teaching him the faith. But this implies that there is some act by which the man follows natural reason first, and then afterwards, even if very shortly afterwards, God teaches him the faith, just as Cornelius worshipped God first, and then afterwards God sent Peter.

We have already seen that St. Thomas holds that the child attains grace in the first act in which he follows natural reason. Thus we can see that he holds that it is possible for a child to attain sanctifying grace by following natural reason, and then later, God will reveal to him the mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Again, the concrete example that St. Thomas give of this is Cornelius. St. Thomas explicitly maintains that Cornelius received an implicit baptism of desire by his implicit faith in Christ, and then later God sent Peter to him to teach him the truths of the faith.

“Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.” (II-II, Q. 10, A.4, Reply to the third)

“As stated above, man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.”

Thus it is very clear that St. Thomas holds that Cornelius was justifed by his implicit faith and implicit desire for baptism before he knew about Christ or the Trinity. Nevertheless, it is St. Thomas's belief that, after the promulgation of the Gospel, God will bring all such people as Cornelius to an explicit knowledge of Christ and the Trinity.

Now, let us examine in what sense St. Thomas believes that explicit faith is necessary for salvation. We can investigate this question by asking, “Why does God give explicit faith to someone like Cornelius, since he is already sanctified by his implicit faith?” St. Thomas answers this question in the article where he asks, “Whether grace is necessarily given to whoever prepares himself for it, or to whoever does what he can?”(I-II, Q.112, A.3) Within the article, he distinguishes, and says that considered on the part of man's free will, there is no necessity that he be given grace, since the act of giving grace exceeds any preparation on man's part. However, on the part of God, he says that there is a certain necessity, not of coercion, but of infallibility, insofar as God's intention never fails.

This comparison is very helpful when looking at the necessity of explicit faith for salvation. Obviously St. Thomas does not believe that it is necessary by an absolute necessity, both because men before Christ were saved without it, and also because men after Christ can be justified, and made fit for heaven without it. However, he seems to hold a necessity of infallibility, insofar as God intends that after the advent of Christ, every man who dies justified also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ.

From the foregoing we can gather that when St. Thomas says explicit faith is necessary for salvation, he is using an extended sense of necessary, and not what people normally mean when they say that explicit faith is necessary for salvation.

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part V

2009-06-21T12:18:00.004-06:00

(St. Augustine, letter 43) "That the raven sent out after forty days did not return, being either prevented by the water or attracted by some floating carcass; as men defiled by impure desire, and therefore eager for things outside in the world, are either baptized, or are led astray into the company of those to whom, as they are outside the ark, that is, outside the Church, baptism is destructive. That the dove when sent forth found no rest, and returned; as in the New Testament rest is not promised to the saints in this world. The dove was sent forth after forty days, a period denoting the length of human life. When again sent forth after seven days, denoting the sevenfold operation of the Spirit, the dove brought back a fruitful olive branch; as some even who are baptized outside of the Church, if not destitute of the fatness of charity, may come after all, as it were in the evening, and be brought into the one communion by the mouth of the dove in the kiss of peace."

St. Augustine explicitly says here that those who are outside the Church can still have Charity. Thus they are justified, and are united to the Church spiritually by that Charity. Because he says “may come after all, as it were in the evening, and be brought into the one communion by the mouth of the dove in the kiss of peace,” it is evident that he is not referring to people who at the moment are desiring to enter the Church. Thus someone can be spiritually united with the Church, even if he does not actually desire at the moment to be united.

This passage leaves open the possibility that those who do not even know Christ and/or hold many heresies may have charity, since St. Augustine does not exclude the possibility of an infant being baptized outside the Church, and then being raised without knowledge of the Church.

Here is another passage which again says the same thing:

“There are some also who as yet live wickedly, or even lie in heresies or the superstitions of the Gentiles, and yet even then "the Lord knoweth them that are His." For, in that unspeakable foreknowledge of God, many who seem to be without are in reality within, and many who seem to be within yet really are without. Of all those, therefore, who, if I may so say, are inwardly and secretly within, is that "enclosed garden" composed, "the fountain sealed, a well of living water, the orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits." The divinely imparted gifts of these are partly peculiar to themselves, as in this world the charity that never faileth, and in the world to come eternal life; partly they are common with evil and perverse men, as all the other things in which consist the holy mysteries.”

Notice that he says here that those who lie in heresies or the superstitions of the Gentiles can seem to be without, yet in reality are really within, because they possess “the charity that never faileth.” Again, he implies that even those without an explicit faith in Christ may yet have charity, since presumably one kind of “superstition” of the gentiles, or heresy would be to not have faith in Christ as God.

Here is another passage of St. Augustine which is related to these, and to the doctrine of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”

“The Apostle Paul has said: 'A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself.' But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.”

St. Augustine says here that someone who holds false doctrines because he has accepted it from misguided parents, but who nevertheless are open to the truth should not be counted as heretics. In other words, such a person is implicitly a Catholic and is within the Catholic Church, even before they have given up their heresies. This has significant implications for those who hold to the strict view of EENS.

We read in the council of Florence that “It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.” This passage is often quoted for those who hold to a rigorist interpretation of EENS. However, notice this: The council of Florence includes heretics as those who will go into the everlasting fire. As St. Augustine points out, though, not everyone who holds false doctrine is accounted a heretic. If someone is not obstinate, and is open to the truth, even though he has received false teaching from his parents, he is not a heretic. Thus, just as we make a qualification in regard to heretics, more generally we also have to qualify who is outside the catholic church.

Incidentally, those who think that there is a contradiction between the council of Florence and what St. Augustine says here, and say that St. Augustine erred in his opinion, are implicitly saying that St. Augustine was damned, since if he erred, he was to be counted a heretic, even if he was open to the truth; and thus, according to such people's reading of the council of Florence, St. Augustine departed “into the everlasting fire.”

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part IV

2009-06-20T13:28:00.005-06:00

(Acts of the disputation with Manes) "Manes said: You are caught in the charge you yourself bring forward. For you have been speaking now against yourself, and have not perceived that, in trying to cast reproaches in my teeth, you lay yourself under the greater fault. Tell me this now, I pray you: if, as you allege, those who have died from the time of Tiberius on to the days of Probus are to say to Jesus, "Do not judge us if we have failed to do Your works, for You did not send the Paraclete to us, although You promised to send Him; " will not those much more use such an address who have departed this life from the time of Moses on to the advent of Christ Himself? And will not those with still greater right express themselves in terms like these: "Do not deliver us over to torments, seeing that we had no knowledge of You imparted to us? "And will it only he those that have died thus far previously to His advent who may be seen making such a charge with right? Will not those also do the same who have passed away from Adam's time on to Christ's advent? For none of these either obtained any knowledge of the Paraclete, or received instruction in the doctrine of Jesus. But only this latest generation of men, which has run its course from Tiberius onward, as you make it out, is to be saved: for it is Christ Himself that "has re-deemed them from the curse of the law; " as Paul, too, has given these further testimonies, that "the letter kills, and quickens no man," and that "the law is the ministration of death," and "the strength of sin." Archelaus said: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God. For many have also perished after the period of Christ's advent on to this present period, and many are still perishing—those, to wit, who have not chosen to devote themselves to works of righteousness; whereas only those who have received Him, and yet receive Him, have obtained power to become the sons of God. For the evangelist has not said all have obtained that power; neither, on the other hand, however, has he put any limit on the time. But this is his expression: As many as received Him. Moreover, from the creation of the world He has ever been with righteous men, and has never ceased to require their blood at the hands of the wicked, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias. And whence, then, did righteous Abel and all those succeeding worthies, who are enrolled among the righteous, derive their righteousness when as yet there was no law of Moses, and when as yet the prophets had not arisen and discharged the functions of prophecy? Were they not constituted righteous in virtue of their fulfilling the law, every one of them showing the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing them witness? For when a man who has not the law does naturally the things contained in the law, he, not having the law, is a law unto himself. And consider now the multitude of laws thus existing among the several righteous men who lived a life of uprightness, at one time discovering for themselves the law of God implanted in their hearts, at another learning of it from their parents, and yet again being instructed in it further by the ancients and the elders."

Bishop Archelaus here is refuting the objection that those men before the coming of Christ were not able to receive Him, and he tells us who it is that can receive Christ. "whereas only those who have received Him, and yet receive Him, have obtained power to become the sons of God. For the evangelist has not said all have obtained that power; neither, on the other hand, however, has he put any limit on the time." Only those who have received Him (those before Christ), and yet receive Him. (those in the present time, after the coming of Christ) These people have a common account, namely that they have devoted themselves to the works of righteousness, following the law written upon their hearts.

Thus, Archelaus is making the point that everyone in all times is able to receive Christ by doing the works of righteousness, whether they explicitly know of Christ or not. It is true that he is principally speaking of those before Christ, but it is clear that he is not limiting what he says to that when he says "For many have also perished after the period of Christ's advent on to this present period, and many are still perishing—those, to wit, who have not chosen to devote themselves to works of righteousness," signifying that he is talking about the period of time after Christ. He then goes on to say what it means to do works of righteousness, namely, following the law upon one's heart, as the Fathers before Christ did.

(Clement of Alexandria) "For although you are not yet able to do the things enjoined by the Law, yet, considering that the noblest examples are set before us in it, we are able to nourish and increase the love of liberty; and so we shall profit more eagerly as far as we can, inviting some things, imitating some things, and fearing others. For thus the righteous of the olden time, who lived according to the law, "were not from a storied oak, or from a rock;" because they wish to philosophize truly, took and devoted themselves entirely to God, and were classified under faith. Zeno said well of the Indians, that he would rather have seen one Indian roasted, than have learned the whole of the arguments about bearing pain."

St. Clement clearly says here that the righteous of the olden times were classified under faith because they wished to philosophize truly, and devoted themselves entirely to God. Thus, they were classified under faith, implicitly believing in Christ through their seeking after righteousness through philosophy. This is even clearer in another passage from the same work:

"Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. "For your foot," it is said, "will not stumble, if you refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence." Proverbs 3:23 For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring "the Hellenic mind," as the law, the Hebrews, "to Christ." Galatians 3:24 Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ."

St. Clement says that philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness before Christ, because it brought them to Christ, as the law did to the Hebrews. Now, he says, "it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration." Notice that this is not to say that it is no longer possible to obtain righteousness by it, rather, it is no longer necessary for righteousness, for those who come to believe explicitly in Christ. Thus, "Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ." But notice that he says "philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks" But clearly no person has been called to whom the gospel has not been preached. Hence, it is clear that St. Clement is not excluding the possibility of righteousness for those who have had no possibility of hearing the Gospel, for these people philosophy would still be necessary for righteousness.

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part III

2009-06-19T15:32:00.003-06:00

(Epistle of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians) “Wherefore let us forsake idle and vain thoughts; and let us conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down to us; and let us see what is good and what is pleasant and what is acceptable in the sight of Him that made us. Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace of repentance. Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn how from generation to generation the Master hath given a place for repentance unto them that desire to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and they that obeyed were saved. Jonah preached destruction unto the men of Nineveh; but they, repenting of their sins, obtained pardon of God by their supplications and received salvation, albeit they were aliens from God. The ministers of the grace of God through the Holy Spirit spake concerning repentance. Yea and the Master of the universe Himself spake concerning repentance with an oath: for, as I live saith the Lord, I desire not the death of the sinner, so much as his repentance . . . Seeing then that He desireth all His beloved to be partakers of repentance, He confirmed it by an act of His almighty will. Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and glorious will; and presenting ourselves as suppliants of His mercy and goodness, let us fall down before Him and betake ourselves unto His compassions, forsaking the vain toil and the strife and the jealousy which leadeth unto death. Let us fix our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto His excellent glory. Let us set before us Enoch, who being found righteous in obedience was translated, and his death was not found. Noah, being found faithful, by his ministration preached regeneration unto the world, and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered into the ark in concord. Abraham, who was called the ‘friend,’ was found faithful in that he rendered obedience unto the words of God . . . And again He saith; God led Abraham forth and said unto him, Look up unto the heaven and count the stars, and see whether thou canst number them. So shall thy seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. For his faith and hospitality a son was given unto him in old age, and by obedience he offered him a sacrifice unto God on one of the mountains which He showed him . . . For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved . . . and moreover they gave her a sign, that she should hang out from her house a scarlet thread, thereby showing beforehand that through the blood of the Lord there shall be redemption unto all them that believe and hope on God. Ye see, dearly beloved, not only faith, but prophecy, is found in the woman . . . for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you. With this commandment and these precepts let us confirm ourselves, that we may walk in obedience to His hallowed words, with lowliness of mind. For the holy word saith, Upon whom shall I look, save upon him that is gentle and quiet and feareth Mine oracles? Therefore it is right and proper, brethren, that we should be obedient unto God, rather than follow those who in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders in abominable jealousy.”

From this text alone we can gather several things: First, the grace of salvation has been made available to the whole world through the death of Christ. Pope Clement proves this universal availability of salvation by giving numerous examples of those who before Christ were able to be saved through their faith in God. There is not the slightest evidence here that he would limit this justification after Christ to those who explicitly know Christ. The contrary conclusion would seem to be the case, since even now men who do not know Christ, but have faith in God and turn to Him fall completely within the description of the justified men that Pope Clement lays out.

Let us look further on in the same epistle:
“Let them learn how lowliness of mind prevaileth with God, what power chaste love hath with God, how the fear of Him is good and great and saveth all them that walk therein in a pure mind with holiness. For He is the searcher out of the intents and desires; whose breath is in us, and when He listeth, He shall take it away. Now all these things the faith which is in Christ confirmeth: for He Himself through the Holy Spirit thus invite thus: Come, my children, hearken unto Me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is he that desireth life and loveth to see good days? Make thy tongue to cease from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. Turn aside from evil and do good. Seek peace and ensue it. The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are turned to their prayers. But the face of the Lord is upon them that do evil, to destroy their memorial from the earth. The righteous cried out, and the Lord heard him, and delivered him from all his troubles. Many are the troubles of the righteous, and the Lord shall deliver him from them all. And again Many are the stripes of the sinner, but them that set their hope on the Lord mercy shall compass about. The Father, who is pitiful in all things, and ready to do good, hath compassion on them that fear Him, and kindly and lovingly bestoweth His favors on them that draw nigh unto Him with a single mind. Let us therefore cleave unto His blessing, and let us see what are the ways of blessing. Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning. Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac with confidence, as knowing the future, was led a willing sacrifice. Jacob with humility departed from his land because of his brother, and went unto Laban and served; and the twelve tribes of Israel were given unto him. If any man will consider them one by one in sincerity, he shall understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by Him. For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven. They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will. And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Here Pope St. Clement clearly says that faith in Christ “confirms” lowliness of mind, chaste love, fear of God, and walking in a pure mind with holiness. He does NOT say that these things cannot be had without an explicit faith in Christ. In fact, it is evident that this is excluded, since he again goes on to consider as examples of these kind of men those who lived before Christ. He concludes with the universal statement that God justifies all men by faith, and has done so since the beginning. Again, there is no evidence here that God has somehow changed his means of justification. Men are justified by one and the same thing in all ages, faith, whether this is implicit or explicit.

Further in the epistle Pope Clement writes:

“Who can declare the bond of the love of God? Who is sufficient to tell the majesty of its beauty? The height, where unto love exalteth, is unspeakable. Love joineth us unto God; love covereth a multitude of sins; love endureth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love hath no divisions, love maketh no seditions, love doeth all things in concord. In love were all the elect of God made perfect; without love nothing is well pleasing to God: in love the Master took us unto Himself; for the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God, and His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives. Ye see, dearly beloved, how great and marvelous a thing is love, and there is no declaring its perfection. Who is sufficient to be found therein, save those to whom God shall vouchsafe it? Let us therefore entreat and ask of His mercy, that we may be found blameless in love, standing apart from the factiousness of men. All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away: but they that by God’s grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the Kingdom of God . . . who therefore is noble among you? Who is compassionate? Who is fulfilled with love? Let him say; If by reason of me there be faction and strife and divisions, I retire, I depart, whither ye will, and I do that which is ordered by the people: only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters. He that shall have done this, shall win for himself great renown in Christ, and every place will receive him: for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. Thus have they done and will do, that live as citizens of that kingdom of God which bringeth no regrets. But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions. We know that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves have fed others. Many women being strengthened through the grace of God have performed many manly deeds. The blessed Judith, when the city was beleaguered, asked of the elders that she might be suffered to go forth into the camp of the aliens. So she exposed herself to peril and went forth for love of her country and of her people which were beleaguered; and the Lord delivered Holophernes into the hand of a woman. To no less peril did Esther also, who was perfect in faith, expose herself, that she might deliver the twelve tribes of Israel, when they were on the point to perish. For through her fasting and her humiliation she entreated the all seeing Master, the God of the ages; and He, seeing the humility of her soul, delivered the people for whose sake she encountered the peril.”

Pope St. Clement speaks of love as uniting us to God. Who is sufficient to have love? Only those to whom God gives it, by His grace: “All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away. But they that by God’s grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the Kingdom of God.” All those whom by God's grace were given love are saved. What reasonable basis could one have for saying that a gentile who knows God and serves Him, is unable to love him without an explicit knowledge of Christ? Pope Clement goes on to describe those who love God as those who do whatever is necessary for the peace of their fellow men, and gives examples of Gentiles who have done so.

(Origen: Contra Celsus) “And yet, after making such a statement, he raises a new objection, saying: After so long a period of time, then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives, but neglect to do so before? To which we answer, that there never was a time when God did not wish to make men live righteous lives; but He continually evinced His care for the improvement of the rational animal, by affording him occasions for the exercise of virtue. For in every generation the wisdom of God, passing into those souls which it ascertains to be holy, converts them into friends and prophets of God. And there may be found in the sacred book (the names of) those who in each generation were holy, and were recipients of the Divine Spirit, and who strove to convert their contemporaries so far as in their power.”

Origen is answering Celsus, who asks how is was possible for men to be saved before Christ, since all salvation is through Christ. Origen's response is to say that God's wisdom passes into those souls that are holy in every generation, and makes them into friends of God. This is similar to what we have seen above. Those men who follow the natural law written on their hearts, are given the grace to love God, and are made friends of God by that love.

Origen also has an interesting passage on pagan sacrifices, commenting on how God was present in Balaam's sacrifices.

(Homily on Numbers 16) "The thing indeed was done with profane sacrifices, and required a divination with magic art, nevertheless, God, willing for grace to abound where sin superabounded, deigned to be present, nor did He flee away from those who did not act according to the Israelite instruction, but according to the error of the gentiles. He was not present in the sacrifices, but in the one coming to meet Him, and there he gives His word."

Here he implies that God will be present even to pagans offering profane sacrifices, insofar as the pagan runs to, or meets God. Later we shall see that John Paul II made a statement almost identical to this one, concerning the salvation of those who seek God with a sincere heart in their religion. Such men can be saved in their religion, though not by it.

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part II

2009-06-18T14:28:00.002-06:00

St. Gregory Nazianzus in a funeral oration for his father: "Even before he was of our fold, he was ours. His character made him one of us. For, as many of our own are not with us, whose life alienates them from the common body, so, many of those without are on our side, whose character anticipates their faith, and need only the name of that which indeed they possess.”

St. Gregory of Nazianzus's father was a convert to Christianity, and St. Gregory is describing him before he converted. He says that his character ANTICIPATES his faith, and he needed ONLY THE NAME of what he indeed possessed already. This implies that his father already possessed the virtue of faith. This could only be an implicit faith, since he is speaking of before the time that he explicitly believed in Christianity. Hence his father was already implicitly a christian, and was spiritually united to the Church by charity.

(St. John Chrystostom, Homily 23 on the Acts of the Apostles) “This also Paul declaring, says, For there is no respect of persons with God. What then? Is the man yonder in Persia acceptable to Him? If he be worthy, in this regard he is acceptable, that it should be granted him to be brought unto faith. The Eunuch from Ethiopia He overlooked not. What shall one say then of the religious men who have been overlooked? It is not the case, that any (such) ever was overlooked. But what he says is to this effect, that God rejects no man.”

I intentionally chose this passage, because these kinds of statements are common in the fathers, and are often used as support for those who claim that the fathers believe explicit faith is necessary for justification.

Chrysostom explicitly brings up the case of a man in a far away country who has not heard of Christ, and asks whether he is acceptable to God. He declares that if he is worthy, than God will bring him to the faith. However, this is not to make any claims upon whether the man is able to love God and (what comes to the same thing) whether the man is justified before God. Further on in the same homily, he says:

“What then? Was He a respecter of persons beforetime? God forbid! For beforetime likewise it was just the same: Every one, as he says, that fears Him, and works righteousness, would be acceptable to Him. As when Paul says, For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature the things of the Law. That one fears God and works righteousness: he assumes both doctrine and manner of life: is accepted with Him; for, if He did not overlook the Magi, nor the Ethiopian, nor the thief, nor the harlot, much more them that work righteousness, and are willing, shall He in anywise not overlook. What say you then to this, that there are likely persons, men of mild disposition, and yet they will not believe? Lo, you have yourself named the cause: they will not. But besides the likely person he here speaks of is not this sort of man, but the man that works righteousness: that is, the man who in all points is virtuous and irreproachable, when he has the fear of God as he ought to have it. But whether a person be such, God only knows. See how this man was acceptable: see how, as soon as he heard, he was persuaded.”

Chrysostom is in the middle of a discussion concerning Cornelius here, and he relates the scripture verse which says that everyone who fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to God to the verse in Romans which says that the Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the things of the law. He then applies this verse to both those before Christ, and those after Christ. Now, since those before Christ were justified by love of God with an implicit faith in Christ, this is already a sign that Chrysostom believes that those after Christ can also be justified by this same love of God and implicit faith. He merely believes that God will bring those people who are justified by this implicit faith to an explicit faith in Christ.

If this is not clear enough, let us look at a passage from his twentieth homily on first Corinthians.

“And yet not even love, you will say, without knowledge has any advantage. Well: this he did not say; but omitting it as a thing allowed by all, he signifies that knowledge stands in extreme need of love. For he who loves, inasmuch as he fulfils the commandment which is most absolute of all, even though he have some defects, will quickly be blest with knowledge because of his love; as Cornelius and many others. But he that has knowledge but has not love, not only shall gain nothing more, but shall also be cast out of that which he has, in many cases falling into arrogance. It seems then that knowledge is not productive of love, but on the contrary debars from it him that is not on his guard, puffing him up and elating him. For arrogance is wont to cause divisions: but love both draws together and leads to knowledge. And to make this plain he says, But if any man loves God, the same is known of Him. So that I forbid not this, says he, namely, your having perfect knowledge; but your having it with love, that I enjoin; else is it no gain, but rather loss.”

Here St. John Chrysostom explicitly says that Cornelius and many others have love first, but which then quickly leads to knowledge, i.e., explicit faith in Christianity. Thus it is clear the interpretation of the former text is quite accurate: Chrysostom believes that those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and his Church, yet follow the law written on their hearts, may attain to love of God, which will later lead to explicit faith in Christianity.

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part I

2009-06-17T13:16:00.003-06:00

Now I will examine the Fathers, to see what their position is on the matter. As a whole, the Fathers are not concerned with addressing this issue in detail. Nevertheless, when they do speak of it, they generally put some qualifications on the statement that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” Sometimes it is clear what they mean, other times not so clear. In some cases it is quite clear that they allow for implicit faith, in other cases not so clear. Let us look at the texts:

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 46: "We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the reason in which all mankind partakes [John 1:9] . Those, therefore, who lived according to reason were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians.”

St. Justin clearly admits as a “Christian” anyone who lives at any time according to reason, even those outside the visible Church. The discussion comes up in the context of answering how people before the coming of Christ were still responsible for their actions, because they did not know Christ. His response is to say that those who lived according to reason were really Christians, while those who lived against reason were wicked and hostile to Christ. And notice what he says, "whereas those who lived then or WHO LIVE NOW according to reason are Christians." It is quite clear that while the argument arose in the context of salvation before Christ, he nevertheless applies precisely the same argument now: i.e., those who do not know of Christ now, but live according to reason are really Christians. Thus, since those before Christ were Christians and could be saved by an implicit faith in Christ, likewise those after Christ are Christians and can be saved by an implicit faith in Christ.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, BK IV, Ch, 22, “It was not merely for those who believed in Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practiced justice and piety towards their neighbors, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice. Wherefore He shall, at His second coming, first rouse from their sleep all persons of this description, and shall raise them up, as well as the rest who shall be judged, and give them a place in His kingdom.”

St. Irenaeus says that all will be saved who have feared and loved God, practiced justice and piety towards their neighbors, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice. Notice this: All those who have done this “according to their capacity,” will be saved. Now, those who have not heard of Christ only have the capacity to have an implicit faith in him; hence that is sufficient for their salvation. If someone were to object that this is not the intention of St. Irenaeus, contra this is the fact that he explicitly applies this text to those before Christ, who were not able to believe in Christ explicitly, but only implicitly. At the same time, it is clear that he is not limiting this application to those before Christ, since he says that when Christ comes again, he will grant salvation to “all men together, who from the beginning, etc.”

The Testimony of Holy Scripture on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part IV

2009-06-16T12:50:00.005-06:00

I will conclude the discussion on the evidence for implicit faith from Scripture with a consideration of the relationship between those before Christ, and those after Christ.

Before the coming of Christ, men were able to be justified by making an act of perfect love of God, through the grace of God. As the council of Trent states, this kind of perfect act of love of God reconciles one with God, bestowing sanctifying grace upon the one making it. Not all of the men before Christ had an explicit knowledge of Him; in fact, very few of them did. Their justification came about through an implicit faith in Christ, which was included in their act of love of God, in the sense that no one can truly love God without being willing to accept everything that he chooses to reveal to them.

After the coming of Christ, how does it come about that one cannot be justified without explicit faith in Him? We know that if someone has a perfect act of love of God, his sins are forgiven him, and he is made a child of God. Therefore, on the supposition that explicit faith in Christ is needed for justification, nobody in the world after the coming of Christ is able to make an act of perfect love of God without an explicit knowledge of Christ.

So, we have two alternatives.

1) We could say that all those just pagans who formerly were able to love God cannot elicit a perfect act of love for Him anymore. God withholds that grace from them. Why? Because now that His son has been crucified for THEM, they have to explicitly believe in Him, even if they have the misfortune of living and dying without ever hearing of the Gospel. Tough luck. Hmmm. I think you can judge for yourselves whether this position is consistent with the crucifixion as the greatest manifestation of God's love for us.

2) Alternatively, we could say that all these pagans or Jews CAN make an act of perfect love of God still, but an explicit revelation of Christ comes along with it. This seems to be extremely unlikely, because we just don't see this happening. In fact, it is even excluded by the New testament narrative, as I will make clear.

Just in case this isn't convincing enough, let's talk about the time at which all are bound to have explicit faith in Christ, still proceeding under this supposition.

First let us suppose that there was a definitive moment at which all men, without exception, are bound to have explicit faith in Christ for justification. Okay. What happens to all those men, both Jews and Gentiles, who right up until that moment had perfect love of God? On the supposition that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for justification, we again have two options.

1) All these men who are in the state of justification without explicit faith in Christ spontaneously commit mortal sins, and turn away from God.

2) All these men who are in the state of justification without explicit faith in Christ spontaneously have a Divine revelation of Christ, and thus are able to remain in their state of justification.

Number 1 is definitely a no no. Number 2 is contradicted in the New Testament by the example of Cornelius, who was a faithful Jew who was acceptable in God's eyes. It is true that he had a revelation by an angel, but it was not a sudden revelation of Christ, rather the angel was instructing him to send for Peter, who then instructed Cornelius in the faith and baptized him. Hence we must say that Cornelius, who was “acceptable to God”, and a just man, was already justified and in the state of sanctifying grace by his love of God and implicit faith in Christ. Later, still in the state of justification God brought him to an explicit knowledge of Christ.

Hence, this position would be consistent with the position of some theologians that implicit faith is sufficient for justification, but God always grants such people an explicit knowledge of Christ before they die. However, one must hold even here that IF God were to allow such people to die before coming to an explicit knowledge of Christ, they would be saved. It is clearly and constantly taught by the Church that if a man dies after being justified, he is saved.

Now, we could get around some of these difficulties by saying that the necessity of explicit faith in Christ did not bind all men all at once, but only those are heard the preaching of the apostles. Under this account, those who died before having a chance to hear the Gospel could still be saved by implicit faith in Christ. This seems consistent with the statement of Lumen Gentium, that, “In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. ”

If we do say this, then it is clear that the necessity of explicit faith for justification does not bind those who do not know of the Church, and not through their own fault.

In conclusion of our examination of the Scriptures, let us restate our major conclusions:

1. The Holy Scripture affirms the necessity of salvation through Christ.

2. Nevertheless, it also seems to hold out the possibility of salvation for those who do not know Christ, and not through their own fault.

3. This is abundantly confirmed by a consideration of the change in situation of the men before Christ, and those after.

The Testimony of Holy Scripture on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part III

2009-06-15T14:25:00.005-06:00

I shall now consider some of the scripture verses that are often used as an objection against salvation by implicit faith. I have grouped them according to categories.

“This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12)

“But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. We also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)

“Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest. And how can we know the way? Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him.” (John 14:5-7)

“Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

These texts in no way imply that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. It is easy to see this. Let us consider this: were the Jews and Gentiles of the Old Testament saved in another name than Christ? Or were they justified by the works of the law, and not by faith in Christ? This cannot be; salvation comes through Christ. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever.” (Heb 13:8) It is the constant teaching of the Church that all salvation comes through Christ, even for those who were saved in the Old Testament. Therefore, if these verses apply to both those in the Old Testament who had implicit faith in Christ and those after Christ who had explicit faith, on what grounds can we justify using them as an argument against implicit faith?

“And continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart: Praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:46-47)

“Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord hath commanded us: I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles: that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth. And the Gentiles hearing it were glad and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting believed.” (Acts 13:46-48)

These quotes not only fail to prove the point, they are not even relevant. First, they are talking about those who, having had Christ preached to them, believed explicitly in Christ. This is not to make an assertion about this or that group of people being damned because they do not believe. Furthermore, it is not even making the assertion that all those who believed upon first hearing the Gospel were saved. As Christ says in the parable of the sower, there are those who receive the word with joy upon first hearing it, but then fall away afterwards.

“For, whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel. But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14-17)

“But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him.” (Heb 11:6)

The second text here is not relevant to the question about implicit faith in Christ. One might argue that it implies the necessity of explicit faith in God, but we shall leave that aside for the moment. The first text here is actually St. Paul giving an argument against the idea that God will give a divine revelation to those gentiles who follow the natural law in order to bring them to explicit faith. Rather, he implies that the only way they will come to believe explicitly in Christ is through a preacher.

Now, one might think at first that he is saying that one cannot be saved without someone preaching to him the word of God, for he begins “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” and continues “How then shall they call,” all the way until “How shall they preach unless they be sent,” implying that the first statement, calling upon the name of the Lord and being saved is dependent upon the last, i.e., a preacher being sent.

Let's look at the context. St. Paul is speaking concerning the Jews, and he laments that they are making their own righteousness unto themselves, because Christ is the fulfillment of their law, and they are failing to turn to him. Now, immediately after this text, he continues, “But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did Israel not know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, With a nation void of understanding will I anger you.” (Romans 10:18-19) The Apostle is answering an objection which would give the Jews an excuse for believing in Christ, namely, that they have not heard the Gospel preached to them. He responds first by quoting Psalm 19:4, “Their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” Whose sound is this referring to? “The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands. Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge. There are no speeches nor languages, where their voices are not heard. ” (Psalm 19:1-3) Thus, it is actually because “the heavens proclaim the glory of God” that the Apostle can say that they have not heard. It is through the preaching of God's creation that causes them to be inexcusable.

Thus, we see in context that the Apostle is indeed saying that one cannot be saved without faith, and one cannot come to faith without a preacher, but he then goes on to say that all the earth has been preached to, through the glory of God's creation. This echoes what he said in the beginning of Romans, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”(Romans 1:18-20) This is the same point that St. Paul is making in chapter 10; he blames the Jews for making unto themselves their own righteousness, and says that they are inexcusable because “the heavens proclaim the glory of God.” Thus, this passage, far from being an argument against implicit faith in Christ, actually strongly supports it.

"He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30)

This is an interesting text sometimes used to argue for the non sufficiency of invincible ignorance to save someone who does not have explicit faith in Christ. Leaving that question aside, though, this passage is not clear enough to make a definite assertion about it. Clearly, both those before Christ who were justified by implicit faith, and those who were justified by explicit faith are with Christ. Nevertheless, this passage brings up an opportunity to critique this kind of “face-value” interpretation of Scripture. Let's look at another passage from Scripture.

“John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:38-40)

Interestingly enough, Jesus seems to say the opposite in this passage as he does in Matthew 12:30. This passage could be just as easily be used to argue that someone in invincible ignorance necessarily is “for Christ”, since he is not against Him.

Passages like these confirm what we already knew: Scripture cannot always be simply interpreted according to the face value of the words, but rather in light of tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. Any theory of interpretation which excludes these two is Protestant, and not Catholic.

One last interesting text is Christ's description of the last judgment, which describes all righteousness men in the mode of those who do good to Christ in an implicit way, without necessarily realizing it.

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee? And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:37-39).

Interesting. Remember that it is said that Christ will reward each one according to his works. I will discuss how natural justice in man relates to supernatural justice in a later post.

The Testimony of Holy Scripture on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part II

2009-06-14T12:49:00.003-06:00

“And Peter opening his mouth, said: in very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him. God sent the word to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all).” (Acts 10:34-36)

St. Peter here again repeats what we have already seen: that God does not respect persons, and that every man who fears God and does what is just is acceptable to Him. I want to draw emphasis to this phrase, “But in every nation” because there are several important points that we can draw out of it.

First, it is clear that St. Peter is not limiting this claim of his to any particular time; God is eternal and does not change. This truth holds always and everywhere. St. Peter here is expressing a truth concerning the universality of the manner in which God relates to men.

Second, because this truth is so universal, St. Peter must be referring it to Gentiles and Jews, both before Christ and after Christ. If he did not intend it to apply to the gentiles who have not heard the preaching of the Gospel, this would destroy the universality of the truth expressed, since it clearly applies to Gentiles before the Gospel.

Some might object to this and say, “Of course everyone that fears God and works justice is always and everywhere acceptable to Him, but those Gentiles who have not heard the preaching of the Apostles just are not able to be just, because they need Christ to be justified.” This claim is absurd, since St. Peter's statement applies to before Christ came, when faith in Christ had to be implicit, and thus those before Christ were able to fear God and work justice without an explicit faith in Christ. But St. Peter is clearly giving the same terms of salvation for before, and after: Everyone who does what is just is acceptable to him.

Furthermore, as we saw in the first Scripture text from Romans, the Gentiles are able to do what is just by fulfilling by nature the law that is written upon their hearts. Hence it is clear that everyone has the power within him to do what is just. (Of course this cannot be without the grace of God moving one to fulfill the law written on one's heart)

Also, it is abundantly clear from the context that the source of St. Peter's comes from the testimony of Cornelius, because God found Cornelius acceptable, who was a gentile, yet feared God, and was a just man who spent time in prayer to God. Thus, the apostle is clearly applying his principle to a man after the preaching of the Gospel, yet he does not distinguish the principle between those men before Christ and those after; therefore it is reasonable to place Cornelius into the category of those men who were justified by their implicit faith in Christ before the coming of Christ.

The Testimony of Holy Scripture on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part I

2009-06-13T17:06:00.005-06:00

First, we shall consider the Scriptures, and see what they tell us concerning this doctrine. This is not an attempt to make a private interpretation of the Scriptures. The Church is the ultimate authority of the manner in which Scripture must be interpreted, and thus we cannot make the final determination as to the meaning of these many verses that speak about salvation. Instead, we must look to the Fathers of the Church and the Magisterium, in order to show that they support the conclusions which we shall reach.

“For we know that the judgment of God is, according to truth, against them that do such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such things and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and patience and longsuffering? Knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God: Who will render to every man according to his works. To them indeed who, according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: But to them that are contentious and who obey not the truth but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil: of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. But glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God. For whosoever have sinned without the law shall perish without the law: and whosoever have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. But if thou art called a Jew and restest in the law and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will and approvest the more profitable things, being instructed by the law: Art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law. Thou therefore, that teachest another, teachest not thyself: thou, that preachest that men should not steal, stealest. Thou, that sayest men should not commit adultery, committest adultery: thou, that abhorrest idols, committest sacrilege: Thou, that makest thy boast of the law, by transgression of the law dishonourest God. (For the name of God through you is blasphemed among the Gentiles, as it is written.) Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. If then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, shall not this uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not that which by nature is uncircumcision, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly: nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh. But he is a Jew that is one inwardly and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:2-29)

St. Paul makes a number of important claims here:

1.) God will render to every man according to his works. Good to those who do good, and evil to those who do evil.

2.) It is possible for men to do by nature those things that are of the law, and to act according to their conscience, and by fulfilling this law on their hearts, they may be justified.

3.) Being a true Jew is a matter of a circumcision “of the heart”, and is something within. In fact, since St. Paul is referring this to those who have not received the external law, but fulfill the law written on their hearts, this is akin to saying that they are “implicitly” Jews, on account of the interior circumcision of the heart and spirit.

Not only this, but St. Paul even implies that these gentiles have implicit faith in Christ. Why? Because he says that, for some of these men, their thoughts shall defend them, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

Notice that he says these men shall be judged according to the Gospel. Yet these are gentiles who have not had the truth about God preached to them, but are following the natural law written on their hearts. Hence they do not know explicitly of Christ. Nevertheless, as is abundantly clear in the Scriptures and the Fathers, there is no salvation except through Christ. Hence they must believe in Christ in an implicit manner, since their conscience excuses them when they are judged according to the Gospel.

Also consistent with this explanation, we shall see later in the Fathers that many of them interpret this text as St. Paul explaining how the gentiles before Christ were able to be saved without explicit faith in Him. This reading is certainly consistent with the points made above. It should be noted, however, that St. Paul gives us no indication that his teaching here is limited to the time before Christ, rather the text seems precisely to be talking about a universal state. God will render to every man according to his works, regardless of whether he lived before or after Christ.

The teaching of the Church

2009-06-12T14:36:00.006-06:00

What is the teaching of the Church on "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"?

This doctrine finds one of its most famous expression in the profession of faith given in the eleventh session of the council of Florence.

"It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."

This teaching of the council of Florence is one of the most misinterpreted texts of the Church on EENS. Some extremists go so far as to hold that it teaches that unless one receives baptism of water, he cannot be saved. Others, more moderate, hold that it teaches that those who do not have at least a desire of entering the Church, together with explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, cannot be saved.

As we shall see, both of these positions fall short of the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church.

The Church teaches in an absolute way that "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." Nevertheless, the Church also teaches that those who are outside the visible Church through no fault of their own, may still be united to her by a mysterious means known to God alone. This union can be attained on the part of the one who is invincibly ignorant even without any explicit faith in Christ or even any knowledge of the Church.

In my next few posts, I will begin to show that this is the official teaching of the Church on this matter.