Posted on 01/16/2006 6:00:21 AM PST by NYer
Theologian Ilaria Morali Responds
ROME, JAN. 15, 2006 (ZENIT.org).- If it is enough to seek peace with good will to be saved, of what use is Christianity?
This is the question posed after Benedict XVI's address during the Nov. 30 general audience, in which he spoke about the possibility of salvation for non-Christians.
In Part 1 of this interview with ZENIT, theologian Ilaria Morali, a professor of theology at the Gregorian University, and a specialist on the topic of grace, explains the Pope's words, and the Church's magisterium on the subject.
Q: The Pope said in that general audience that the salvation of non-Christians is a fact: "There are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the eternal city to which we aspire. They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for an authentic redemption." How is this possible?
Morali: According to what I have been able to read in the press or hear on the radio, the Holy Father's words have caused great surprise. It would seem that he said something absolutely new and revolutionary.
Some believe that with these words the Church has admitted at last that it isn't necessary to be a Christian to do good and to obtain salvation; that what matters is to be men of peace regardless of the faith one professes. It is, of course, a very hasty and superficial reading of the Holy Father's words.
To understand this address we must first emphasize three aspects.
The Holy Father made this affirmation in the context of St. Augustine's commentary for this Psalm: For St. Augustine, as for Christians of the first centuries, Babylon was the symbol par excellence of the city of evil, of idolatry. It is the opposite of Jerusalem, which, on the contrary, represents the place of God, the place where Christ's redemption was accomplished.
In Christian tradition the antithesis Babylon-Jerusalem has very many meanings. Essentially, the Pope presents two of them, which are intertwined. According to the earlier meaning, Babylon is the present in which we are prisoners, while Jerusalem is the heavenly goal.
The second meaning is of a different sort: Babylon as the city or area where people live who do not profess the biblical faith. On this level is encased what the Pope sees in St. Augustine as a "surprising and very timely note," the fact that the saint recognized the possibility that also in such a city, where faith in the true God is not cultivated, there can be people who promote peace and goodness.
A second aspect that must be pointed out of the Pope's words is the point of departure, taken from St. Augustine's words. The Pontiff stresses three specific characteristics: In the first place, that the inhabitants of Babylon "have a spark of desire for the unknown," desire for eternity; in the second place, that they harbor "a kind of faith, of hope"; and in the third place that "they have faith in an unknown reality, they do not know Christ or God."
A third and last point refers to these people's fate. The Pope affirms with St. Augustine that "God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, being predestined to be citizens of Jerusalem." But with a very specific condition: "That they be dedicated with a pure conscience to these tasks."
The Pope, as the words of St. Augustine themselves demonstrate, try to remind us of a truth that belongs from the beginning of Christian history to our faith and that profoundly characterizes the Christian conception of salvation.
This truth contains two fundamental principles: The first is that God wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth, as St. Paul says in the Second Letter to Timothy. To know, in this sense, means to adhere, to welcome the Lord in one's life.
The second: Historically, the Gospel has not been able to conquer all hearts, whether because it has not arrived materially in all places on earth, or because, though it has arrived, not all have accepted it.
Q: And, in this context, what is the Christian doctrine of salvation?
Morali: The Christian doctrine of salvation is very clear. To explain it, I would refer to two texts of the magisterium: The first is an address of Pius IX on the occasion of the consistory that took place on December 8, 1854, on the occasion of the solemn proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Pope said that those who do not know the true religion, when their ignorance is invincible, are not culpable before the eyes of God.
Years later he wanted to take up this teaching again clarifying the meaning of invincible ignorance in the encyclical letter "Quanto Conficiamur Moerore" of 1863. "It is known," he wrote, "that those who observe with zeal the natural law and its precepts engraved by God in the hearts of all men, can attain eternal life if they are willing to obey God and lead a good life."
Pius IX proposed again a conviction consolidated for centuries in Christian theology: There are men and women who, for various reasons, whether because of cultural conditionings, or because of an experience or a negative contact with the Christian faith, are unable to consent to the faith.
Although it might seem that these people consciously reject Christ, one cannot make an unquestionable judgment on this rejection.
Invincible ignorance indicates precisely a condition of lack of knowledge in regard to Christ, the Church, the faith, a lack of knowledge that, for the time being, cannot be overcome with an act of will.
The person is blocked, as though unable to express a "yes" to faith.
As we see every day among our acquaintances, the reasons why many people say no to Christ are many: disappointment, betrayal, poor catechesis, cultural and social conditioning.
Pius IX himself admitted the difficulty of delimiting the cases of invincible ignorance, stating: "Who will arrogate to himself the power to determine the limits of that ignorance according to the character and variety of peoples, of regions, of spirits and of so many other elements?"
Pius IX taught us therefore a great prudence and great respect for those who do not have the gift of faith in Christ.
We are not able to understand altogether the reasons for a rejection of faith, nor can we know with certainty that someone who seems to have no faith, in fact has a very imperfect form of faith.
Q: Given the fact that a Christian is baptized, can he think he is already saved?
Morali: Of course not. Baptism is not an automatic guarantee of salvation. If it were so, the effort to lead a Christian life would be futile. Every Christian must make the effort to merit this salvation with a life of fidelity to God, of charity towards his brothers, of good works. However, no one can be certain of his own salvation, because only God has the power to grant it.
Part 2 will be posted this evening.
Morali: The Christian doctrine of salvation is very clear. To explain it, I would refer to two texts of the magisterium: The first is an address of Pius IX on the occasion of the consistory that took place on December 8, 1854, on the occasion of the solemn proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Pope said that those who do not know the true religion, when their ignorance is invincible, are not culpable before the eyes of God.
Why not just go straight to the WORD? John 3:16 would be a good place to start! Why quote something a Pope said that has absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation?
This is why I ask these questions, because when something in scripture is clear as a bell, you have all this hierarchy making statements that make absolutely no sense, or directly contradict scripture...
Just cause you don't understand it, doesn't mean it makes "absolutely no sense."
SD
O, ne Zot! Not this again!
Look, I'm not bashing Catholismm here, I'm trying to grasp why Catholics look at scripture the way they do (with all this extraneous focus) and why they have this need to have others tell them what to think of scripture.
Does Good will equal salvation?
TO understand this, try this exercise. Presuppose that the message is this:
Heaven is not a reward for living a perfect life, but rather hell is the punishment for not working for God.
Therefore, if someone could NOT work for God (meaning it was impossible for them to work for God), they should not be punished with Hell.
Now, re-read the article, and see if everything pronounced makes sense. If so, it is probably what they were trying to say.
On the other hand, the bible indicates clearly what it takes to be "saved", and it has nothing to do with working for God, or having the ability to do so or not.
If one starts with the supposition that all humans are doomed to hell because of original sin, then hell is not punishment for not believing God, but rather for being born.
And Heaven is not the default state of man, but rather the place impossible to attain without devine intervention. And that intervention is not a right of man, but rather a gift of God.
And a gift is not earned, nor deserved, nor something you are entitled to. And if you never hear of the gift, there is no "special circumstance" that entitles you to the gift.
This does not mean that a person who it seems has an impossible task learning of God cannot be saved -- God could certainly provide a saving faith to any creature on the face of the earth -- he is after all all-powerful. But that would still be an act of God providing the gift, not an entitlement.
Suppose it was the case that everybody who doesn't have a chance for saving faith was automatically saved. Suppose also that salvation is an eternity in heaven, vs an eternity in hell, and that hell is much worse, and heaven much better, than anything that happens in this life.
Why, in that instance, wouldn't it be the act of greatest love to kill every newborn to ensure it's eternity, at the cost of a few years living this life? Of course, the perpetrator would go to hell, but would that be a small price to pay for the salvation of the world?
Further, wouldn't it be the best act of compassion to NOT send missionaries to corners of the world that have not heard of God, nor can they hear of God, if their salvation is assured by their "impossible task" of knowing God? Isn't our outreach to make it "possible" for them to know God an eternal death wish for many of them, if they were all destined for heaven before our arrival?
Good luck with that.
What about the Jew, for example, with no knowledge of the NT, who has steadfastly followed the teachings of the Bible and been faithful to God! Is he excluded from Heaven?
Why quote something a Pope said that has absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation?
Over the span of 2000 years, there have been great theologians who have studied Scripture. There have been Popes and Patriarchs who have convened Church Councils to discuss the truths of Scripture and establish consensus as to interpretation. Would you summarily dismiss them?
Yes, since Good Will is from God and is a function of grace. All men of Good Will will come to know the truth and will be saved. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace to men of good will." (St. Luke 2)
A different matter entirely is the salvific quality of being invincibly ignorant. Some apparently still labor under the misapprehension that ignorance = grace, and that ignorance of the divine religion excuses immoral personal behavior, thinking apparently the dumber and less knowledgable you are of the Lord, the closer you become to Him. "This is eternal life, to know thee, Father, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (St. John 17.3).
That's two HUGE questions, isn't it?
As to the first, I would say that the incredible multitude of denominations which claim to view the Bible as the word of God suggests that what is clear and indisputable to person A is complicated and questionable to person B, including John 3:16
Just as an exercise, "... all who believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" does not in itself necessarily imply that ONLY those who believe in Him can have everlasting life.
As to the second: I guess I don't see anywhere in the article cited anyone saying that Good Will equals salvation. Theology requires precise expression and careful, attentive reading and listening.
Here's a thought: Jesus says, "I have other sheep that ye know not of," (displaying a regrettable use of dangling prepositions, tsk, tsk). Now I know that a lot of Christians are only too eager to explain that He meant the Gentiles, and that therefore they DO in fact know of the sheep of whom Jesus says "ye know not of." Personally, I'm content to say that Jesus is right and I don't know of all His sheep.
Raucous round of applause!
If self-centered and psychopathic people almost entirely ignorant of human anatomy or psychology can beget, conceive, and bring children to birth, of what possible use is falling in Love?
I cannot see but that what +BXVI said is Orthodox theology as taught by the Fathers. Theosis is becoming Christlike in our very being, by dying to the self and focusing completely on God. Since God is wholly transcendant we can never in this life fully understand God. In that regard we have no more faculty of understanding than a pagan. What the Church gives us is a way of life which tends to focus the eye of the soul on God and away from ourselves. As that focus becomes clearer, grace, the uncreated energy of God, in turn further transforms us. But what is to say that, if the goal for, indeed the created purpose of, all humanity is to become Christlike, a pagan cannot, by grace, fulfill that purpose? Why would one presume to limit whither the Spirit goes? What does one say about a pagan born in a non Christian land who lives his life in such a manner as to become Christlike without even knowing it? The Fathers wrote of the "sporoi" the seeds of the Faith which they perceived in pagan beliefs.("Some say that we can do nothing good until we actively receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. This is not true." +Mark the Ascetic) These would seem to be the common heritage of created persons. If these exist, they exist for a purpose and I suspect that purpose is for the Holy Spirit to act upon them even if the seedbed isn't Christian or Jewish.How that happens, or even if it happens, I have no idea and I certainly don't ascribe to any sort of Universalism.
"Every Christian must make the effort to merit this salvation with a life of fidelity to God, of charity towards his brothers, of good works."
I think I know what he means, but I also think this is a very unfortunate choice of words. "Merit" doesn't fit real well with theosis. How does one "merit" theosis?
Sure.
I'm trying to grasp why Catholics look at scripture the way they do (with all this extraneous focus) and why they have this need to have others tell them what to think of scripture.
We simply don't believe one needs to wipe the slate clean with the birth of each new believer. We are allowed, nay, commanded, to share our understanding and wisdom.
Every time a scientist wishes to solve a problem, he does not begin with counting theory and then evolve arithmetic from the concept of numbers. He then doesn't go on to discover anew Calculus and Trigonometry and the other higher branches of knowledge.
Instead, he takes what has been discovered by those before him and works upon that foundation. Einstein called it "standing on the shoulders of giants."
I am unsure why anyone would want to reject summarily the thoughts and insights of the multiple generations of believers who came before us. I guess it's the difference between believing literally millions of minds over millennia can come to know what is true versus the hubris of believing one is sufficient in oneself to determine what is true.
SD
Yikes. It's really rather sad that a Professor of Theology at the Gregorian could be so unaware of what Augustine actually believed and taught. St. Augustine did not believe that God desires all men to be saved: "Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He 'will have all men to be saved,' although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, 'Who will have all men to be saved,' as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished." (Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity, no. 103) Of course he was wrong on this, since Scripture really is quite clear ... As regards ignorance, Augustine knew well that it cannot save. This interpretation of the Pope's words is abusive. "God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, being predestined to be citizens of Jerusalem." The Pope says these men are predestined to be citizens of Jerusalem, but Morali seems to think that they remain citizens of Babylon and are saved in that state...
Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ's divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? ' For "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? "Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth--because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way,--what must human nature do, or what has it done--for it had either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learnt that it was accomplished--but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ?
Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath--in a word, from punishment--except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ. (St. Augustine of Hippo, Treatise on Nature and Grace, Against the Pelagians, no. 2)
Kolo, you beat me to it! Good job! Hey, another piece of that wall between the Orthodox and Rome just came tumbling down. To which I say: Your Holiness, tear down that wall!
>> To which I say: Your Holiness, tear down that wall!<<
From your fingers to God's ears!
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.