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.
But to me, if you are saved through Christ, you *are* a Christian. What did you mean?
As I was reading your post I realize I WAS causing contintion, and this was not my purpose, eventhough I believe Catholics have a more myopic view of scripture what is clear is, you are Christians, recognizing who gives and sustains life. And as long as we focus on HIM then all this other stuff doesn't matter.
You got it. This is the Church teaching: Christ converts some whose hearts are open to the Truth, to His one Church, on their deathbed. Thus a righteous Muslim dies Catholic. There is no salvation outside the Church.
Except that you cannot be righteous by works... it takes faith, which comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. Faith in Christ and his substitutionary atonement.
I dunno... I'll keep an ear open, but I don't like ecumenicism... I would never want us all to pretend to agree... just for the sake of getting along. (this is different from getting along in spite of not agreeing, which I do think is valuable).
Christ can give one faith when He chooses and when He sees a receptive heart. Works prepare for the gift of faith, just like they sustain and strengthen the faith already obtained. The word "righteousness" does not imply overt faith in Christ, but rather obedience to the natural law of God, manifested in works.
I agree that ecumenism for the sake of fake harmony is harmful and foolish. But the Pope did not engage in any such foolishness, to my knowledge. Rather, he explained the Catholic (in fact, both Catholic and Orthodox) view on who gets to be saved and how. He did not water down Catholicism in any way.
You shouldn't be able to get past that first sentence. It is the basis I believe for the entire argument, but it is a fallacy. Therefore, I hold little hope for the argument.
That was my point. It is incorrect to assume that the natural state of man is heaven, and that only those who CHOOSE to disobey God go to h*ll.
My interpretation of the Bible is that the natural state of man is h*ll, and only by a direct act by God can man be reconciled to Him, and be granted access to heaven.
These are two opposing views, which can't both be correct. And I am confident my position is correct, and therefore the other is wrong.
My position has the unfortunate side effect of NOT guaranteeing to parents that their infants automatically go to heaven when they die, something that disturbs a lot of people. However, I also believe in predestination, so at least I believe SOME infants will go to heaven.
Those who believe that the only way to get to heaven is to make a conscious, free-will decision to believe Jesus died for their sins have to postulate a completely separate mechanism in order for infants and severely mentally handicapped people to get to heaven. Leading them VERY CLOSE to the error I saw in the original article:
To wit -- infants are automatically saved because they aren't old enough to make a choice. Therefore, at some point, the act of growing older might cause them to go from a state of eternal dwelling in heaven upon death, to spending an eternity in damnation, simply because they aged a day and became "aware" of sin but hadn't yet done anything about it.
I only assert that I believe that my position is correct. I have to presume that every other believer also would assert that THEIR beliefs are correct -- it would hardly make sense to believe something you think is wrong.
Sir, with all due respect, perhaps you should consider the vast spectrum of something called "Protestantism". Millions of people of "good will" who believe they have the Spirit guiding them believe in diametrically opposed views on ESSENTIAL items! Please...
Your just proving my statement when I say the Catholic church is not centered on Christ, it's centered on itself, and all the orthogonal aspects of religion
Your senseless cliche aside, did Christ tell individuals to read the Bible, or did He leave an inner circle of men with the power of authority over a formed community of believers? Read the history - it is quite clear what Christ left to His followers to continue to bring the Kingdom of God to future followers - not a book, but a group of preachers and witnesses with authority. The Catholic Church is ABSOLUTELY centered on Christ.
Regards
While I do believe that God could be man - for He could do anything - I yet do not believe that a man was God.
Torah provides the guidance (i.e., Deut 4:19 and Malachi 1:11) we’ve been discussing. It’s inspirational to me as it suggests a largess universal, more appealing to me personally, as the suggestion or statement often made by many that without Christ you’re dammed.
I’d like to believe that, “The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come.”
Communism is anti-religion which I believe would tend to bring one unto the opposite judgement simply by its atheism and its belligerency.
Though don't get me wrong. I don't believe America could have been founded without Christianity.
Yet Maimonides and my time in synagogue has led me to a stricter monotheism.
Again, I ask you: Make your argument. Up to this point it consists of a single word, "whosoever."
Of course PAGANS can be saved! The whole point I'm making is, John 3:16 reference to "whosoever" includes pagans. John 3:16 is where God tells the world that "whoever" you are, Christ came and died for YOU.
It's a HUGE misconception to believe this verse was written only FOR believers.
>. Of course PAGANS can be saved! The whole point I'm making is, John 3:16 reference to "whosoever" includes pagans. John 3:16 is where God tells the world that "whoever" you are, Christ came and died for YOU. <<
Then maybe you either need to check the meaning of "whosoever" or re-read the verse. "Whosoever" means all members of the given set. That given set is "whosoever believes in him." By definition, a pagan is one who is not a Christian, and by definition a Christian is one who believes in Christ. Hence, by definition, a pagan is one who does not believe in Christ. So, when the scripture says, "whosoever believes in Him should not perish," it is equivalent to saying "whoever is a Christian should not perish," or "whoever is not a pagan should not perish."
The issue, then, is: "what does it mean to believe in Christ?"
The bible teaches, "if you believe in Christ, you will do the will of the Father." Hence, by contrapositive induction, we know that "if you do not do the will of the Father, you do not believe in Christ." (Hence, the Catholic Church asserts simultaneously that Works are a necessary condition for salvation, and that Faith is a sufficient condition for salvation.)
The problem is that the statement "if you do not do the will of the Father, you do not believe in Christ" is not logically equivalent to "if you do the will of the Father, you do believe in Christ." (For instance, if one says, "If Spot is a dog, Spot has four legs" is not equivalent to saying, "If Spot has four legs, Spot is a dog.")
The Calvinist belief in Utter Depravity could be expressed, however, as "There is not a case where someone does not believe in Christ such that he does the will of the Father." This is logically equivalent to, "If you do not believe in Christ, you do not do the will of the Father." THIS statement is logically equivalent, by contraposition, to "if you do the will of the Father, than you believe in Christ."
Two problems remain unsolved:
Many churches hold that there exists "prevening Grace," by which a person CAN do good even though he has not yet been saved. This is a refutation of the doctrine of Utter Depravity, and the debate over this position is beyong the scope of this discussion.
Secondly, what is "good?" Which of two alternative statements does the Doctrine of Utter Depravity imply: that if a man does good, then he believes in Christ, or that if a man does not believe in Christ, then no act he performs can truly be good.
By referring to acts of non-believers which were called good in the bible, I meant to disprove the second statement by counter-example. Thus, I would assert that if a pagan does good, then he believes in Christ. How is this not a contradiction? The pagan may not know Christ by name (so that he remains a pagan by definition), but may believe in Him by intuition.
So can a pagan be saved? Yes, if he does the will of the Father.
This does not mean that there is no point in converting pagans: It is much easier to do the will of the Father, if one is instructed what the will of the Father is, even though it is possible to know the will of the Father through sheer intuition.
The fact that you would even bring up doing good or bad shows me your lack of understanding of grace. Christ had to die for the SINNER. Do you understand this? Christ's death covers ALL sin, the responsiblity of the sinner is to make Christ Lord of their lives. Once you do this, it's finish, you are no longer held under penalty of sin.
Whosoever is ANYONE who comes to believe in Christ, especially the pagan.
>> Ok, what if the pagan decides to believe in Christ? <<
Well, then he'd be a convert, not a pagan. Please tell me we didnt waste this time debating whether *converts* are saved? (of course they are.)
LOL! I think we just did, but we didn't waste time, we at least, clearly communicated this time!
My whole point was that the "WHOSOEVER" opportunity is free for everyone or rether anyone to "convert" to Christ...
"Obviously, it cannot be merited. But perhaps a better question to ask is, how can theosis bestow merit? By "becoming Christlike in our very being" would we not also be made worthy to share in His inheritance?"
Quick answer is , yes.
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.