I have added a blog to the sidebar, which is devoted to laying out principles of Magisterial Interpretation. I think this is extremely relevant to the topic of EENS, because almost all misunderstandings of EENS go along with misunderstandings of how to interpret Magisterial texts.
I would like to invite my readers, to feel free to check out the blog, and post all and any comments, questions, concerns, doubts, etc.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Why be Catholic? Part II
The next question that I intend to address is the inherent value of belonging to the Church, even aside from the greater probability of being saved within it. Thus, even if one assumed that all men had the exact same probability of being saved, it would still be better to belong to the Church than to be a pagan.
There is a good quote from the CDF on this:
“Although non-Christians can be saved through the grace which God bestows in “ways known to him,” the Church cannot fail to recognize that such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us. Indeed “there is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know him and to speak to others of our friendship with him.” The revelation of the fundamental truths about God, about the human person and the world, is a great good for every human person, while living in darkness without the truths about ultimate questions is an evil and is often at the root of suffering and slavery which can at times be grievous. This is why Saint Paul does not hesitate to describe conversion to the Christian faith as liberation “from the power of darkness” and entrance into “the kingdom of his beloved Son in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of our sins.” (Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization, CDF)
This makes it clear that non-Catholics, and those who do not know the face of Christ explicitly, even if they are united to him implicitly, nevertheless lack a real good. To make an analogy, one could consider a father who has a son and a servant working for him. The son works together with the father, helping him with his job; he is close friends with him. The servant works in a dusty office, and has a long and boring job; he never sees the father. Both the son and the servant are paid. Does this mean that there is no advantage for the son over the servant?
We can see this in the above quoted text from the CDF: "Such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us." What a tremendous loss, to not be able to know explicitly the God whom one is serving. In a certain sense, this puts a limit on the degree one can love God.
Someone who does not know who Jesus Christ is, that he became man out of love for men, and died a terrible death for men, will have a much harder time eliciting the same act of love that a man who does know this. It is easier for one to love Christ when one sees how much Christ loves him. Thus, because Christ's act was such a great manifestation of his love for man, one who knows this act will be able to love God more. The following quotation from the Catechism supports this point:
It should be clear how a statement such as this is compatible with saying that there can be some among those ignorant of Christ who are seeking God with a sincere heart, and are justified by their implicit faith. This does not detract from the importance of the Gospel; the justification of such a man only comes through Christ, regardless of whether he knows it or not. Christ is what such a man is seeking, and the Church has a grave obligation to bring Christ to all peoples.
There is a good quote from the CDF on this:
“Although non-Christians can be saved through the grace which God bestows in “ways known to him,” the Church cannot fail to recognize that such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us. Indeed “there is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know him and to speak to others of our friendship with him.” The revelation of the fundamental truths about God, about the human person and the world, is a great good for every human person, while living in darkness without the truths about ultimate questions is an evil and is often at the root of suffering and slavery which can at times be grievous. This is why Saint Paul does not hesitate to describe conversion to the Christian faith as liberation “from the power of darkness” and entrance into “the kingdom of his beloved Son in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of our sins.” (Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization, CDF)
This makes it clear that non-Catholics, and those who do not know the face of Christ explicitly, even if they are united to him implicitly, nevertheless lack a real good. To make an analogy, one could consider a father who has a son and a servant working for him. The son works together with the father, helping him with his job; he is close friends with him. The servant works in a dusty office, and has a long and boring job; he never sees the father. Both the son and the servant are paid. Does this mean that there is no advantage for the son over the servant?
We can see this in the above quoted text from the CDF: "Such persons are lacking a tremendous benefit in this world: to know the true face of God and the friendship of Jesus Christ, God-with-us." What a tremendous loss, to not be able to know explicitly the God whom one is serving. In a certain sense, this puts a limit on the degree one can love God.
Someone who does not know who Jesus Christ is, that he became man out of love for men, and died a terrible death for men, will have a much harder time eliciting the same act of love that a man who does know this. It is easier for one to love Christ when one sees how much Christ loves him. Thus, because Christ's act was such a great manifestation of his love for man, one who knows this act will be able to love God more. The following quotation from the Catechism supports this point:
"The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God's love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (CCC 458)
As the CDF pointed out, St. Paul calls acceptance of the Gospel a liberation "from the power of darkness," and an entrance into "the kingdom of his beloved Son in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of our sins." This goes along with what I have been saying, and is why the Church is so strongly urging missionary activity in the Church, even now. Missionary activity is necessary to bring the light and goodness of Christ to all peoples, so that they might become friends of Christ, and be saved in Him.It should be clear how a statement such as this is compatible with saying that there can be some among those ignorant of Christ who are seeking God with a sincere heart, and are justified by their implicit faith. This does not detract from the importance of the Gospel; the justification of such a man only comes through Christ, regardless of whether he knows it or not. Christ is what such a man is seeking, and the Church has a grave obligation to bring Christ to all peoples.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Why be Catholic?
In light of our investigations into the salvific value of implicit faith, the question now arises, why explicit faith? Why be Catholic? Why should we evangelize?
Someone once said something about this topic, along these lines:
“If I am in invincible ignorance of the Gospel, then I am not responsible for following the teachings of Christ. I don't need to listen to the Church, nor am I bound by her regulations. I don't need to listen to the Bible either! Also, because I do not know that what I am doing is a sin, then I am not sinning. I am INCAPABLE of sin!
Therefore, I can only conclude that God CURSED me by bringing the Gospel to me and making me aware of what sin is.
Woe is me!”
I think we can re-state the assertion that our anonymous author made in a different way, so that the same meaning is brought out, but it is more evident what exactly is being said:
“If I am in invincible ignorance of the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then I am not responsible for following the way of Life and Truth itself. Nor do I need to listen to the Church that God established as a universal means of salvation for mankind, nor am I bound to obey her rules ordered to this end. I don't need to listen to the inspired word of God either! Also, because I do not know that what I am doing is an offense against God, then it cannot be accounted to me as sin. NOTHING can be accounted to me as sin!
Therefore, I can only conclude that God CURSED me by bringing me Life itself, and making me aware of what offense against God is.
Woe is me!”
This should put things in perspective.
It is clear from reading this that the writer falls right into the category that Ratzinger described: “We are too much like the workers taken on in the first hour whom the Lord talks about in his parable of the workers in the vineyard. When they realized that the day's wage of one denarius could be much more easily earned, they could no longer see why they had sweated all day. Yet how could they really have been certain that it was so much more comfortable to be out of work than to work?”
The important sentence is the last one. The objector is assuming that it really is much better to not have to be subject to the Church, to be spiritually out of work, than to be in it. This is false in two ways: First, there is an implicit assumption that both states are equal in regard to the possibility of attaining salvation. Second, even if the two states were equal in regard to that possibility, it is false that it would not be better to belong to the Church.
The first assumption is false. The mere fact that it is possible for members of other religions to be saved does not mean that members of other religions have the same likelihood of being saved, objectively speaking. A man who is brought up and taught that there is no God, that he should give into his passions, that fornication is acceptable, that abortion and contraceptives are acceptable; how hard for such a person it will be to try and follow the natural law within himself, and do what is right, when he is being opposed by so many external forces. This is not to deny that God could give such a person the grace to do what is right. Nevertheless, objectively speaking, such a person is in a very difficult situation with respect to salvation. This is stated clearly in Dominus Iesus:
“Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God, and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”. Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors, constitute an obstacle to salvation.” (Dominus Iesus 21)
“With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. (Dominus Iesus 22)
It is clear that it is not the intention of the Church to assert that every religion has the same value. There is one true religion, which possesses the fullness of the means of salvation. Nevertheless, God is not bound by the means he has established for salvation; he can act outside the visible Church, and even in a salvific way.
Therefore, in considering the possibility of God acting outside the visible Church, we must avoid the mistake of thinking and believing that therefore all men are completely equal regardless of what means to salvation they have at their disposal. Someone who is fully within the unity of the Catholic Church is objectively in a much better position than someone who is not.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, July 3, 2009
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.]
"...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]
Thursday, July 2, 2009
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.
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).
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.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
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)
"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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
