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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He quotes Dominus Iesus as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being. For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued . . .

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

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)