Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Can Be Saved?
First Things ^ | January 2008 | Avery Cardinal Dulles

Posted on 02/22/2008 1:58:09 PM PST by NYer

Nothing is more striking in the New Testament than the confidence with which it proclaims the saving power of belief in Christ. Almost every page confronts us with a decision of eternal consequence: Will we follow Christ or the rulers of this world? The gospel is, according to Paul, “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (Rom. 1:16). The apostles and their associates are convinced that in Jesus they have encountered the Lord of Life and that he has brought them into the way that leads to everlasting blessedness. By personal faith in him and by baptism in his name, Christians have passed from darkness to light, from error to truth, and from sin to holiness.

Paul is the outstanding herald of salvation through faith. To the Romans he writes, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). Faith, for him, is inseparable from baptism, the sacrament of faith. By baptism, the Christian is immersed in the death of Christ so as to be raised with him to newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).

The Book of Acts shows the apostles preaching faith in Christ as the way to salvation. Those who believe the testimony of Peter on the first Pentecost ask him what they must do to be saved. He replies that they must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and thereby save themselves from the present crooked generation (Acts 2:37-40). When Peter and John are asked by the Jewish religious authorities by what authority they are preaching and performing miracles, they reply that they are acting in the name of Jesus Christ and that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul and his associates bring the gospel first of all to the Jews because it is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. When the Jews in large numbers reject the message, Paul and Barnabas announce that they are turning to the Gentiles in order to bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 13:46-47).

A few chapters later in Acts, we see Paul and Silas in prison at Philippi. When their jailer asks them, “What must I do to be saved?” they reply, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” The jailer and his family at once accept baptism and rejoice in their newfound faith (Acts 16:30-34).

The same doctrine of salvation permeates the other books of the New Testament. Mark’s gospel ends with this missionary charge: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole of creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).

John in his gospel speaks no less clearly. Jesus at one point declares that those who hear his word and believe in him do not remain in darkness, whereas those who reject him will be judged on the last day (John 12:44-50). At the Last Supper, Jesus tells the Twelve, “This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). John concludes the body of his gospel with the statement that he has written his account “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).

From these and many other texts, I draw the conclusion that, according to the primary Christian documents, salvation comes through personal faith in Jesus Christ, followed and signified by sacramental baptism.

The New Testament is almost silent about the eternal fate of those to whom the gospel has not been preached. It seems apparent that those who became believers did not think they had been on the road to salvation before they heard the gospel. In his sermon at Athens, Paul says that in times past God overlooked the ignorance of the pagans, but he does not say that these pagans were saved. In the first chapter of Romans, Paul says that the Gentiles have come to a knowledge of God by reasoning from the created world, but that they are guilty because by their wickedness they have suppressed the truth and fallen into idolatry. In the second chapter of Romans, Paul indicates that Gentiles who are obedient to the biddings of conscience can be excused for their unbelief, but he indicates that they fall into many sins. He concludes that “all have sinned and fall short” of true righteousness (Rom. 3:23). For justification, Paul asserts, both Jews and Gentiles must rely on faith in Jesus Christ, who expiated the sins of the world on the cross.

Animated by vibrant faith in Christ the Savior, the Christian Church was able to conquer the Roman Empire. The converts were convinced that in embracing Christianity they were escaping from the darkness of sin and superstition and entering into the realm of salvation. For them, Christianity was the true religion, the faith that saves. It would not have occurred to them that any other faith could save them.

Christian theologians, however, soon had to face the question whether anyone could be saved without Christian faith. They did not give a wholly negative answer. They agreed that the patriarchs and prophets of Israel, because they looked forward in faith and hope to the Savior, could be saved by adhering in advance to him who was to come.

The apologists of the second and third centuries made similar concessions with regard to certain Greek philosophers. The prologue to John’s gospel taught that the eternal Word enlightens all men who come into the world. Justin Martyr speculated that philosophers such as Socrates and Heraclitus had lived according to the Word of God, the Logos who was to become incarnate in Christ, and they could therefore be reckoned as being in some way Christians. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen held that the Wisdom of God gave graces to people of every generation, both Greeks and barbarians.

The saving grace of which these theologians were speaking, however, was given only to pagans who lived before the time of Christ. It was given by the Word of God who was to become incarnate in Jesus Christ. There was no doctrine that pagans could be saved since the promulgation of the gospel without embracing the Christian faith.

Origen and Cyprian, in the third century, formulated the maxim that has come down to us in the words Extra ecclesiam nulla salus—”Outside the Church, no salvation.” They spoke these words with heretics and schismatics primarily in view, but they do not appear to have been any more optimistic about the prospects of salvation for pagans. Assuming that the gospel had been promulgated everywhere, writers of the high patristic age considered that, in the Christian era, Christians alone could be saved. In the East, this view is represented by Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom. The view attributed to Origen that hell would in the end be evacuated and that all the damned would eventually be saved was condemned in the sixth century.

In the West, following Ambrose and others, Augustine taught that, because faith comes by hearing, those who had never heard the gospel would be denied salvation. They would be eternally punished for original sin as well as for any personal sins they had committed. Augustine’s disciple Fulgentius of Ruspe exhorted his readers to “firmly hold and by no means doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, and all heretics and schismatics who are outside the Catholic Church, will go to the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

The views of Augustine and Fulgentius remained dominant in the Christian West throughout the Middle Ages. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) reaffirmed the formula “Outside the Church, no salvation,” as did Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. At the end of the Middle Ages, the Council of Florence (1442) repeated the formulation of Fulgentius to the effect that no pagan, Jew, schismatic, or heretic could be saved.

On one point the medieval theologians diverged from rigid Augustinianism. On the basis of certain passages in the New Testament, they held that God seriously wills that all may be saved. They could cite the statement of Peter before the household of Cornelius: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). The First Letter to Timothy, moreover, declares that God “desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). These assurances made for a certain tension in Catholic teaching on salvation. If faith in Christ was necessary for salvation, how could salvation be within reach of those who had no opportunity to learn about Christ?

Thomas Aquinas, in dealing with this problem, took his departure from the axiom that there was no salvation outside the Church. To be inside the Church, he held, it was not enough to have faith in the existence of God and in divine providence, which would have sufficed before the coming of Christ. God now required explicit faith in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In two of his early works ( De Veritate and Commentary on Romans), he discusses the hypothetical case of a man brought up in the wilderness, where the gospel was totally unknown. If this man lived an upright life with the help of the graces given him, Thomas reasoned, God would make it possible for him to become a Christian believer, either through an inner illumination or by sending a missionary to him. Thomas referred to the biblical example of the centurion Cornelius, who received the visitation of an angel before being evangelized and baptized by Peter (Acts 10). In his Summa Theologiae, however, Thomas omits any reference to miraculous instruction; he goes back to the Augustinian theory that those who had never heard the gospel would be eternally punished for original sin as well as their personal sins.

A major theological development occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The voyages of discovery had by this time disclosed that there were large populations in North and South America, Africa, and Asia who had lived since the time of Christ and had never had access to the preaching of the gospel. The missionaries found no sign that even the most upright among these peoples had learned the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation by interior inspirations or angelic visitations.

Luther, Calvin, and the Jansenists professed the strict Augustinian doctrine that God did not will to save everyone, but the majority of Catholic theologians rejected the idea that God had consigned all these unevangelized persons to hell without giving them any possibility of salvation. A series of theologians proposed more hopeful theories that they took to be compatible with Scripture and Catholic tradition.

The Dominican Melchior Cano argued that these populations were in a situation no different from that of the pre-Christian pagans praised by Justin and others. They could be justified in this life (but not saved in the life to come) by implicit faith in the Christian mysteries. Another Dominican, Domingo de Soto, went further, holding that, for the unevangelized, implicit faith in Christ would be sufficient for salvation itself. Their contemporary, Albert Pighius, held that for these unevangelized persons the only faith required would be that mentioned in Hebrews 11:6: “Without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” They could therefore be saved by general revelation and grace even though no missionary came to evangelize them.

The Jesuit Francisco Suarez, following these pioneers, argued for the sufficiency of implicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation, together with an implicit desire for baptism on the part of the unevangelized. Juan de Lugo agreed, but he added that such persons could not be saved if they had committed serious sins, unless they obtained forgiveness by an act of perfect contrition.

In the mid-nineteenth century, the Jesuits of the Gregorian University followed in the tradition of Suarez and de Lugo, with certain modifications. Pope Pius IX incorporated some of their ideas in two important statements in 1854 and 1863. In the first, he said that, while no one can be saved outside the Church, God would not punish people for their ignorance of the true faith if their ignorance was invincible. In the second statement, Pius went further. He declared that persons invincibly ignorant of the Christian religion who observed the natural law and were ready to obey God would be able to attain eternal life, thanks to the workings of divine grace within them. In the same letter, the pope reaffirmed that no one could be saved outside the Catholic Church. He did not explain in what sense such persons were, or would come to be, in the Church. He could have meant that they would receive the further grace needed to join the Church, but nothing in his language suggests this. More probably he thought that such persons would be joined to the Church by implicit desire, as some theologians were teaching by his time.

In 1943, Pius XII did take this further step. In his encyclical on the Mystical Body, Mystici Corporis, he distinguished between two ways of belonging to the Church: in actual fact (in re) or by desire (in voto). Those who belonged in voto, however, were not really members. They were ordered to the Church by the dynamism of grace itself, which related them to the Church in such a way that they were in some sense in it. The two kinds of relationship, however, were not equally conducive to salvation. Those adhering to the Church by desire could not have a sure hope of salvation because they lacked many spiritual gifts and helps available only to those visibly incorporated in the true Church.

Mystici Corporis represents a forward step in its doctrine of adherence to the Church through implicit desire. From an ecumenical point of view, that encyclical is deficient, since it does not distinguish between the status of non-Christians and non-Catholic Christians. The next important document came from the Holy Office in its letter to Cardinal Cushing of Boston in 1949. The letter pointed out—in opposition to Father Leonard Feeney, S.J., and his associates at St. Benedict Center—that, although the Catholic Church was a necessary means for salvation, one could belong to it not only by actual membership but by also desire, even an unconscious desire. If that desire was accompanied by faith and perfect charity, it could lead to eternal salvation.

Neither the encyclical Mystici Corporis nor the letter of the Holy Office specified the nature of the faith required for in voto status. Did the authors mean that the virtue of faith or the inclination to believe would suffice, or did they require actual faith in God and divine providence, or actual faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation?

The Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and its Decree on Ecumenism, made some significant departures from the teaching of Pius XII. It avoided the term member and said nothing of an unconscious desire for incorporation in the Church. It taught that the Catholic Church was the all-embracing organ of salvation and was equipped with the fullness of means of salvation. Other Christian churches and communities possessed certain elements of sanctification and truth that were, however, derived from the one Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church today. For this reason, God could use them as instruments of salvation. God had, however, made the Catholic Church necessary for salvation, and all who were aware of this had a serious obligation to enter the Church in order to be saved. God uses the Catholic Church not only for the redemption of her own members but also as an instrument for the redemption of all. Her witness and prayers, together with the eucharistic sacrifice, have an efficacy that goes out to the whole world.

In several important texts, Vatican II took up the question of the salvation of non-Christians. Although they were related to the Church in various ways, they were not incorporated in her. God’s universal salvific will, it taught, means that he gives non-Christians, including even atheists, sufficient help to be saved. Whoever sincerely seeks God and, with his grace, follows the dictates of conscience is on the path to salvation. The Holy Spirit, in a manner known only to God, makes it possible for each and every person to be associated with the Paschal mystery. “God, in ways known to himself, can lead those inculpably ignorant of the gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him.” The council did not indicate whether it is necessary for salvation to come to explicit Christian faith before death, but the texts give the impression that implicit faith may suffice.

Vatican II left open the question whether non-Christian religions contain revelation and are means that can lead their adherents to salvation. It did say, however, that other religions contain elements of truth and goodness, that they reflect rays of the truth that enlightens all men, and that they can serve as preparations for the gospel. Christian missionary activity serves to heal, ennoble, and perfect the seeds of truth and goodness that God has sown among non-Christian peoples, to the glory of God and the spiritual benefit of those evangelized.

While repeatedly insisting that Christ is the one mediator of salvation, Vatican II shows forth a generally hopeful view of the prospects of non-Christians for salvation. Its hopefulness, however, is not unqualified: “Rather often, men, deceived by the evil one, have become caught up in futile reasoning and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or, some there are who, living and dying in a world without God, are subject to utter hopelessness.” The missionary activity of the Church is urgent for bringing such persons to salvation.

After the council, Paul VI (in his pastoral exhortation “Evangelization in the Modern World”) and John Paul II (in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio) interpreted the teaching of Vatican II in relation to certain problems and theological trends arising since the council. Both popes were on guard against political and liberation theology, which would seem to equate salvation with formation of a just society on earth and against certain styles of religious pluralism, which would attribute independent salvific value to non-Christian religions. In 2000, toward the end of John Paul’s pontificate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the declaration Dominus Iesus, which emphatically taught that all grace and salvation must come through Jesus Christ, the one mediator.

Wisely, in my opinion, the popes and councils have avoided talk about implicit faith, a term that is vague and ambiguous. They do speak of persons who are sincerely seeking for the truth and of others who have found it in Christ. They make it clear that sufficient grace is offered to all and that God will not turn away those who do everything within their power to find God and live according to his law. We may count on him to lead such persons to the faith needed for salvation.

One of the most interesting developments in post-conciliar theology has been Karl Rahner’s idea of “anonymous Christians.” He taught that God offers his grace to everyone and reveals himself in the interior offer of grace. Grace, moreover, is always mediated through Christ and tends to bring its recipients into union with him. Those who accept and live by the grace offered to them, even though they have never heard of Christ and the gospel, may be called anonymous Christians.

Although Rahner denied that his theory undermined the importance of missionary activity, it was widely understood as depriving missions of their salvific importance. Some readers of his works understood him as teaching that the unevangelized could possess the whole of Christianity except the name. Saving faith, thus understood, would be a subjective attitude without any specifiable content. In that case, the message of the gospel would have little to do with salvation.

The history of the doctrine of salvation through faith has gone through a number of stages since the High Middle Ages. Using the New Testament as their basic text, the Church Fathers regarded faith in Christ and baptism as essential for salvation. On the basis of his study of the New Testament and Augustine, Thomas Aquinas held that explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation was necessary for everyone who lived since the time of Christ, but he granted that in earlier times it was sufficient to believe explicitly in the existence and providence of God.

In the sixteenth century, theologians speculated that the unevangelized were in the same condition as pre-Christians and were not held to believe explicitly in Christ until the gospel was credibly preached to them. Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council taught that all who followed their conscience, with the help of the grace given to them, would be led to that faith that was necessary for them to be saved. During and after the council, Karl Rahner maintained that saving faith could be had without any definite belief in Christ or even in God.

We seem to have come full circle from the teaching of Paul and the New Testament that belief in the message of Christ is the source of salvation. Reflecting on this development, one can see certain gains and certain losses. The New Testament and the theology of the first millennium give little hope for the salvation of those who, since the time of Christ, have had no chance of hearing the gospel. If God has a serious salvific will for all, this lacuna needed to be filled, as it has been by theological speculation and church teaching since the sixteenth century. Modern theology, preoccupied with the salvation of non-Christians, has tended to neglect the importance of explicit belief in Christ, so strongly emphasized in the first centuries. It should not be impossible, however, to reconcile the two perspectives.

Scripture itself assures us that God has never left himself without a witness to any nation (Acts 14:17). His testimonies are marks of his saving dispensations toward all. The inner testimony of every human conscience bears witness to God as lawgiver, judge, and vindicator. In ancient times, the Jewish Scriptures drew on literature that came from Babylon, Egypt, and Greece. The Book of Wisdom and Paul’s Letter to the Romans speak of God manifesting his power and divinity through his works in nature. The religions generally promote prayer and sacrifice as ways of winning God’s favor. The traditions of all peoples contain elements of truth imbedded in their cultures, myths, and religious practices. These sound elements derive from God, who speaks to all his children through inward testimony and outward signs.

The universal evidences of the divine, under the leading of grace, can give rise to a rudimentary faith that leans forward in hope and expectation to further manifestations of God’s merciful love and of his guidance for our lives. By welcoming the signs already given and placing their hope in God’s redeeming love, persons who have not heard the tidings of the gospel may nevertheless be on the road to salvation. If they are faithful to the grace given them, they may have good hope of receiving the truth and blessedness for which they yearn.

The search, however, is no substitute for finding. To be blessed in this life, one must find the pearl of great price, the treasure hidden in the field, which is worth buying at the cost of everything one possesses. To Christians has been revealed the mystery hidden from past ages, which the patriarchs and prophets longed to know. By entering through baptism into the mystery of the cross and the Resurrection, Christians undergo a radical transformation that sets them unequivocally on the road to salvation. Only after conversion to explicit faith can one join the community that is nourished by the Word of God and the sacraments. These gifts of God, prayerfully received, enable the faithful to grow into ever greater union with Christ.

In Christ’s Church, therefore, we have many aids to salvation and sanctification that are not available elsewhere. Cardinal Newman expressed the situation admirably in one of his early sermons:

The prerogative of Christians consists in the possession, not of exclusive knowledge and spiritual aid, but of gifts high and peculiar; and though the manifestation of the Divine character in the Incarnation is a singular and inestimable benefit, yet its absence is supplied in a degree, not only in the inspired record of Moses, but even, with more or less strength, in those various traditions concerning Divine Providences and Dispositions which are scattered through the heathen mythologies.

We cannot take it for granted that everyone is seeking the truth and is prepared to submit to it when found. Some, perhaps many, resist the grace of God and reject the signs given to them. They are not on the road to salvation at all. In such cases, the fault is not God’s but theirs. The references to future punishment in the gospels cannot be written off as empty threats. As Paul says, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7).

We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth. Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God.

Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of believers to help these seekers by word and by example. Whoever receives the gift of revealed truth has the obligation to share it with others. Christian faith is normally transmitted by testimony. Believers are called to be God’s witnesses to the ends of the earth.

Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: salvation

1 posted on 02/22/2008 1:58:12 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Avery Cardinal Dulles
2 posted on 02/22/2008 1:59:07 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.

Ooohh, that's gonna get a reaction!

3 posted on 02/22/2008 2:08:29 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time." - Amos 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

How do these heretics rise to power in the Catholic, Methodist Church et. al. while spouting this false doctrine? You would think that during their tenure their beliefs would have come under scrutiny before now.

Has the church adopted the Peter Principle like the rest of the corporate world?


4 posted on 02/22/2008 2:37:24 PM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

To think that Cardinal Dulles was once affiliated with Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center!


5 posted on 02/22/2008 2:40:03 PM PST by Ozone34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bump for later


6 posted on 02/22/2008 3:45:20 PM PST by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Perhaps explaining who can be damned would have been an easier task for the cardinal.


7 posted on 02/22/2008 4:04:45 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; GambrillsGuy; 50mm; Elvina; ConservativeTrucker; SavannahJake; PaulZe; AKA Elena; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

8 posted on 02/22/2008 4:17:09 PM PST by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
How do these heretics rise to power in the Catholic, Methodist Church et. al. while spouting this false doctrine?


9 posted on 02/22/2008 4:20:30 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time." - Amos 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I have heard the arguement that those who have not heard the Gospel (so therfore have not refused it) yet believe in God and respond to the Law of God written on their heart have indeed the possibility to be saved by the Name of Jesus, though they may have never heard it, due to the mercy of a loving God.

I am not so wise that I would exclude this. Maybe there are some here that would have an arguement against this - I would like to hear it.

Cheers

Mel


10 posted on 02/22/2008 4:37:00 PM PST by melsec (A Proud Aussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

In what way is Cardinal Dulles a heretic?


11 posted on 02/22/2008 4:43:04 PM PST by gpapa (Kill the terrorists, protect the borders, punch the hippies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer; gpapa

I have to say that the majority position in Orthodoxy seems to be that we simply don’t know what happens outside the bounds of The Church and it is inappropriate to circumscribe whither the Spirit might go. Salvation/theosis is indeed found within The Church. Beyond, well, who can say?


12 posted on 02/22/2008 5:50:16 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Cardinal Dulles' last paragraph is well taken: indeed, people in those groups "can" be saved. However, he leaves out one very important point: all people, at death, must be in a state of sanctifying grace in order to be saved. While, certainly, God can so illuminate the soul of anyone in such a way as to have that soul embrace His true Essence, and thereby be saved, it is by no means certain that this sort of illumination is at all common.

God's normal and primary extension of sanctifying grace is through His Sacraments. It is true that "God is the Author of the Sacraments, but He is not bound by them." Even so, they are His ordinary means of sanctifying grace. In that non-Christians and even non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians do not avail themselves of the Sacraments - Confession or Reconciliation being especially germaine in this discussion - it is difficult to see how, without innumerable extraordinary interventions into the free will of such people at death, God can pull very many through under such conditions. Well, one might say, a perfect act of contrition could suffice for such people. Indeed it could. But, as a matter of practical experience, how many non-Catholics even have the slightest notion that, at a bare minimum, such a contrite state of soul is necessary to be saved? I would venture fairly few!

The Church is beginning to show signs of backing away from tolerating an almost implicit universal salvationism common over the last couple of generations, and backing in toward the center. The rigorism of the first half or more of the Christian era went too far in one direction, to the point where it was considered flat-out impossible for any non-Catholic to be saved. God would be little better than a monster for creating souls He knew from all eternity had no chance whatsoever to be saved. The excessively hopeful expectations of salvation for non-Catholics of more recent times went too far in the other direction. God, in such a scenario, instituted Sacraments and called people to the Narrow Way for no serious purpose, since virtually everyone can attain salvation, Sacraments or no.

The "correct" answer may lie in the unpacking of what it means to be in a state of sanctifying grace, what is required by God to be considered in that state, and, realistically, how many people outside of the sacramental system are likely to attain it.

Given that it's possible for non-Catholics to attain such a state, even deprived of the Sacraments due to particular circumstances, God isn't a monster. Yet, to the extent that people are accountable through evidence supplied by their own consciences, people who cannot bring themselves (even - and this is important - with the availability of the "actual grace" given by God to do it) to a state of "perfect contrition" at death are still judged justly, and with a consistency that can harmonize itself well with a true need for the Sacraments as the "ordinary means" of salvation.

Salvation, at bottom, is very difficult for non-sacramental Christians to achieve, and even harder for non-Christians. At the very least, we should presume such is the case, lest the graces gained for us on the cross should be watered-down. We are all still responsible for our sins, and the presence of sanctifying grace in one's soul at death seems to be an absolute requirement. This may grate on lot of people here, yet the concept is only one step removed from what most of them would say themselves (often rather cavalierly) about all non-Christians. The Bible is used by them to support the notion that, unless one embraces Christ as He would want to be embraced, one cannot be saved. Though the Church, as I've tried to make clear, isn't quite that absolutist about it, as a practical matter, She can respond to that notion with a "Just so!"

13 posted on 02/22/2008 6:12:01 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: melsec; NYer; Resolute Conservative

I think you’re getting at what the catechism used to call (maybe still does) “Baptism of Desire” and the “natural law”. The natural law, which the 10 Commandments reflect, is inherent in human beings, human nature is basically good (Catholic viewpoint, not Calvinist), not evil, and someone who has never been introduced to Christ or baptized may still say “yes” to God in the limited capacity possible to him by adhering to the natural law and following a true desire to know truth and goodness. There’s a joke that “ignorance is the 8th sacrament”...in other words, we don’t know, but God may forgive an awful lot because someone just did not know any better. But a person, Christian or not, will be accountable for saying “no” to God, that is following malicious or evil tendencies, regardless of Baptism.

Well, I’m not a theologian, hope I explained OK, if not someone is sure to correct me.


14 posted on 02/22/2008 6:13:28 PM PST by baa39 (Help Sgt. Evan Vela! DefendOurTroops.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Though the Church, as I've tried to make clear, isn't quite that absolutist about it, as a practical matter, She can respond to that notion with a "Just so!"

This is a truly distressing article, that casts the rather vague pronouncements of Vaticn II in the worst possible light. A better tool than that could not be given to the ultra-traditionalists. I trust that the cardinal did not mean to send an indifferentist message, but that is the only note that I distinctly pick up in this.

Thnak you for bringing some order into this with your enlightened post.

15 posted on 02/22/2008 7:27:54 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

If that is the majority Orthodox position, then I agree.

Cardinal Dulles, musing upon the salvation of the unevangelized, in the third to the last paragraph tells us that “How that happens is known to God alone”, then, like God, tells us exactly how God does it in the last paragraph.


16 posted on 02/22/2008 7:38:12 PM PST by sandhills
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: baa39

Thanks for that!

Mel


17 posted on 02/22/2008 10:08:21 PM PST by melsec (A Proud Aussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: melsec

Thank YOU.


18 posted on 02/22/2008 10:31:39 PM PST by baa39 (Help Sgt. Evan Vela! DefendOurTroops.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

An excellent discussion, M. Thank-you.


19 posted on 02/23/2008 5:25:19 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: melsec; baa39; gpapa; magisterium; Kolokotronis
I have heard the arguement that those who have not heard the Gospel (so therfore have not refused it) yet believe in God and respond to the Law of God written on their heart have indeed the possibility to be saved by the Name of Jesus, though they may have never heard it, due to the mercy of a loving God.

From the following article:

But they also had the biblical narrative of the "pagan" Cornelius who, the Acts tell us, was "an upright and God-fearing man" even before baptism. Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were "God-fearing" people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized. Ambrose and Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions. By the twelfth century, it was widely assumed that a person can be saved if some "invincible obstacle stands in the way" of his baptism and entrance into the Church.

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church (Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)

20 posted on 02/23/2008 5:50:03 AM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer
What an article...

The one thing that stands out is that NO ONE in your religion is qualified to tell anyone how to get saved...

How many times have your 'church' fathers changed horses in the middle of the stream and after 2000 years, they're not done yet...

Doesn't it occur to you people that probably millions have been condemned to hell for believing your various false teachings???

One of the most interesting developments in post-conciliar theology has been Karl Rahner’s idea of “anonymous Christians.” He taught that God offers his grace to everyone and reveals himself in the interior offer of grace. Grace, moreover, is always mediated through Christ and tends to bring its recipients into union with him. Those who accept and live by the grace offered to them, even though they have never heard of Christ and the gospel, may be called anonymous Christians.

Although Rahner denied that his theory undermined the importance of missionary activity, it was widely understood as depriving missions of their salvific importance. Some readers of his works understood him as teaching that the unevangelized could possess the whole of Christianity except the name. Saving faith, thus understood, would be a subjective attitude without any specifiable content. In that case, the message of the gospel would have little to do with salvation.

You think the people that followed this false prophet ended up in heaven??? Wow!!!

Your problem starts here...You guys don't understand justification...

For justification, Paul asserts, both Jews and Gentiles must rely on faith in Jesus Christ, who expiated the sins of the world on the cross.

21 posted on 02/23/2008 6:14:11 AM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: melsec
I have heard the arguement that those who have not heard the Gospel (so therfore have not refused it) yet believe in God and respond to the Law of God written on their heart have indeed the possibility to be saved by the Name of Jesus, though they may have never heard it, due to the mercy of a loving God.

Don't believe everythng you hear...Study and search the scripture for yourself to find the truth...

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

If you are going to live by the law, you will be judged by the law...And you will be condemned, unless you come up with some blood...There has to be a blood sacrifice...And if you are under the law, you are not covered by the blood of Jesus...Better start raising some goats...

22 posted on 02/23/2008 6:27:59 AM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Doesn't it occur to you people that probably millions have been condemned to hell for believing your various false teachings?

My friend, all of the doctrines your denomination holds that are at variance with the teachings of the Catholic Church (and, yes, they are legion!), did not see their first sunrise until 1500 years or more after Pentecost, the birth of the Church. Yet, you have the utter gall to make the pronouncement noted above! You cannot possibly square this simple historical truth with the Providence of God when He established the Church in the first place, when He promised, among other things, that the Church would be both "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1Timothy 3:15) and that the "gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

If your position is in fact correct, then, clearly Jesus did allow Hell to prevail against His Church from the beginning, as the teachings of the Catholic Church are indeed traceable to the beginning. And, should you be correct, the Church was not (from the beginning, mind you!), a pillar and bulwark of the truth, but a vehicle for most egregious error. This makes Jesus out to either not really mean what He said, or shows Him to be an out-and-out liar! There is no way around this conclusion, since the Catholic Church's teaching are traceable to the Apostolic Age, and are perfectly in accord with a right understanding of Scripture, which, by the way, was also written, vetted, compiled and canonized by the very same Church, as part of its mission as the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The doctrines you harp on incessantly on this forum, again, cannot trace themselves back more than 500 years, many of them cannot find historical evidence for their existence even 200 years ago. You rail against our beliefs and practices because they are utterly foreign to you. That's understandable, I suppose, but you must consider that they are utterly foreign to you because your ancestors, at one point or another, consciously removed themselves from the bosom of the Church. Over time, what has been "Christianity" for the entire Christian Era has become so removed from your denomination's doctrinal novelties that authentic Christianity seems little better than a cult to you. I recommend that you get with the program and do some honest, objective and thorough research into what the Church has taught and believed through the ages. Not the Hislop slop and Ralph Woodrow blow that you no doubt have memorized, but serious discussions of authentic Christian theology down through the ages. You will be shocked by what you find at total variance with what you misapprehendingly consider "Christian" teaching! Ruminate a bit on the concept of God's Providence when He established His Church, and you should expect to grow a bit warm under the collar.

Having done that, you would do well to ruminate some more on my last paragraph in post 13 of this thread, which, if I may say so, is perfectly in harmony with what the Christian Church has believed through the ages about the salvation prospects of those not receiving the Sacraments. I trust you'll know what to do next.

Do not object that the difficulties non-Sacramental Christians have in achieving salvation are mean-spirited and exclusivist. They are no more exclusivist than the beliefs of virtually all Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians with respect to the pagans. Those beliefs are, in essence, probably correct, taking the words of Scripture to heart. But, what you don't realize is that they apply to all people who do not partake of the Sacraments God Himself established. This applies to Christians outside of visible, actual communion with the one Church Christ Himself established, if for no other reason than they cannot partake of sacramental grace, and thereby find themsleves unable to avail themselves of the ordinary means of salvation that Jesus Himself ordained for us

I am well aware that you don't "buy" any of that, but that is what historical Christianity has taught throughout its 2000 year history. You better start that rumination session on God's Providence now, and try to square your novel doctrines with those established during the Apostolic Age, some 1500 years or more further back in time. Yes, to the very words of Christ Himself!

Given all of this, you will see how Catholics and Orthodox will consider your words in the passage I quoted above to be cheeky, arrogant and theologically and historically naive in the extreme. Your own prospects for salvation, measured against what the Church, which is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth, has taught for two millenia, are shakier than you could imagine. May God give you the grace to enlighten you.

23 posted on 02/23/2008 9:08:07 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Certainly, I agree with Fr. Hardon when he says that people in the circumstances he describes "can" be saved. But, in order for them to be saved, they must have sanctifying grace in their souls at death. No one in a state of mortal sin can be saved, by definition. This is true of Catholics, Hindus and everyone in between. Therefore, it seems to me that the issue shouldn't focus so much on whether non-Catholics can be saved, as it is understood that such is possible. Indeed, I have been using Romans 1 and 2 for years against the hyper-exclusivists myself. Rather, it seems to me that the focus should be on to what extent God goes outside of His "normal means" of bestowing sanctifying grace through the Sacraments.

Considerations in that discussion would include asking to what extent God imposes Himself on the free will of all concerned at their deaths, "enlightening" them outside of their life-long experience to bring them to some form of saving faith; how, if this is done with great frequency by God, this does or does not circumvent the real "necessity" of receiving sanctifying grace through the Sacraments; how, indeed, this sort of deathbed enlightenment of everyone doesn't make a mockery of the Cross, and how it can square with the universal call to holiness and the careful walk described in Matthew 7:13-14.

I am not an exclusivist, I assure you. But I think it is rash for us to simply assume the wide availability of deathbed enlightenment and conversion for those deprived, for one reason or another, of sacramental grace. Again, the presence of sanctifying grace is essential to gain Heaven, and we are told clearly by Our Lord Himself how to attain that grace. That He may go outside of His own established norms is truly a given - He is God. But it is prudent to suppose that He meant what He said, and that what His Church, ordained by Him as the pillar and bulwark of the truth, has taught throughout the Christian Era in regard to the Sacraments is wholly in harmony with His will.

The bottom line is that we cannot know with certainty to what extent, if any, God goes outside of His own established norms. He has not chosen to reveal that to us, and it is thus outside of the Deposit of Faith. So it is prudent to assume that even the non-sacramental Christians will have a much more difficult time dying in a state of perfect contrition - and thus having sanctifying grace in their souls - than any of us would find it comfortable to suppose.

Are there non-Catholic Christians in Heaven? Almost certainly. Are there non-Christians in Heaven? Quite possibly. But, how many? Only God knows, and He ain't tellin'! The Church, in the meantime, would do well to suppose that "ordinary means of salvation" means just that, and to continue evangelizing accordingly!

24 posted on 02/23/2008 10:00:24 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

“Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice”. God is not Allah, or any other name.

The Bible does not say this nor even hint at this. Thus anyone who changes the Word or adds to it preaches false doctrine.


25 posted on 02/24/2008 6:58:20 PM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson