Cardinal Charles Journet on EENS

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

I reproduce the relevant section here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albert the Great on Implicit Faith

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

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

Now it seems that it binds one to believe implicitly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sed Contra:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upcoming text from Albert the Great

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

Bishop Fellay and the SSPX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Ratzinger on Salvation Outside the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cardinal Arinze on Implicit Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archbishop Lefebvre on "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 . . .