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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Pius XII on salvation by implicit faith

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

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

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

(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 II

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

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

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

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

“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

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.