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.
We do good works in faith, not to buy our way into heaven. Faith without works is a dead faith.
"faith without deeds is dead" (James 2:26)
It's a nice reminder whenever some get too enthralled by worldly or carnal luxuries without faith in God (not appealing to either asceticism or a frantic search for counterfeit happiness, but simply occupied with how how Lord Christ Jesus gave us the perfect example of how we all shoulf solve problems in all our thinking and approaches to all situations.
Again, yes. There was never an instance when I sincerely asked Our Lord how I should handle something and was not given an unequivocal reply.
Thanks for the response, by the way, and I have a question. As the Gospel of John notes:
In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
Did Satan know Christ, when he rebelled? I realize this is not really an answerable question, I guess what I'm really asking is has it been speculated upon as to whether Lucifer's knowledge of Christ was part of the reason he rebelled?
Our abilities differ, but anyone who takes the time to read Roman Catholic teaching on works will understand that, theologically, the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church teach one and the same thing: good works are works of faith; faith without works is a dead faith.
This is not to say that, at one time, or even today, some Roman Catholics or Orthodox Christians do not, in pure ignorance or self-belief, contrary to the Church doctrines, believe that we can do good works outside of faith or that, worse, these works are "indulgences" with which we "pay off" our debt to God.
That being said, this is where we differ with Latins when it comes to after-life. The Latin teaching of Purgatory as a state where punishment leads to spiritual indulgences is foreign to Orthodoxy, but we do believe that our prayers and intercessions of the saints ease the discomfort of the souls of the departed. There is a huge difference, as you say, PM, in the two concepts. One suggests that our "indulgences" somehow pay off the debts of minor sins which cause discomfort or even pain to the souls of the departed, and (Orthodox teaching that prayers and fasts are) the easing of the discomfort of the souls who are in an unnatural state (separated from the body), with their unrepented sins exposed (shame comes to mind).
Ours are more like gentle patting on the backs and hugs; Catholic dogma is more an out-of-jail bond payment.
Thanks for your reply...Interesting perspectives.
I have to admit this statement "Our abilities differ, but anyone who takes the time to read Roman Catholic teaching on works will understand that, theologically, the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church teach one and the same thing: good works are works of faith; faith without works is a dead faith" has not always been stated this way to me on here...I've have more than my share of RCC'r's not state it this way...
Blessings in Christ.
It is obvious, however, that the nature of angelic sin is different because of the lack of flesh nature and associated passions that we are subject to. It is also to be noted that that the nature of angelic punishment for their fall is wihtout redemption, unforgivable.
One can only speculate as to why this is, but obviously the angls are held to a higher standard than men.
That's why I pinged annalex as my Catholic "censor maximus." :-)
I am no expert on this, but in exhanges between the Orthodox and the Catholics, the Latins assure us that their concepts of good works (through faith) and similar issues are identical.
The Purgatory is a different issue. But even there they assure us that our understanding of their concepts is a matter of differences in languge and concepts and not of faith. That I am not sure of.
No such thing as you being uninvited; I value your knowledge. You touched on all the things I was thinking about, so it was very good that you 'jumped in.'
Lucifer's rebellion occurred before the Garden of Eden or the creation of man. Angels might speculate but also do not know the future other than what has been revealed by the Father, as I understand it.
I've considered James, but I've also found the 'dead'ness is a state of existence involving separation. The dead faith might be a separation between body and soul or spirit and body. Not necessarily a state of loss or without salvation from condemnation.
There is a subtle difference on substance, I think, regarding the Purgatory, but I cannot quite put my finger on it. I promised Kolokotronis a good discussion on the Catholic theology of merit to see what exactly this thing is. But I also promised him a review of the excellent Cavarnos's book on iconography. One day, we'll get there.
I don't see what all the confusion and controversy is about. Sounds to me like the Holy Father is talking about simply what we used to call "Baptism of Desire."
Does the Jew in your example chose to be excluded from heaven?
Are you trying to insinuate the Jew wouldn't know about the NT if it wasn't for the Pope interpreting it for him?
What??? Good will equals good works which have NOTHING to do with receiving salvation. This is where the lie permeates Catholism I have found...Tell me, how many "Good" works must I do to receive salvation?
You quote John 17:3 after this and still are ignorant about God's plan of salvation?
"Unless a man is born again...." Good works are not a requirement of being BA.
...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 was actually just asking the question. It's fine to do good works and have good will, I thank the Catholic church for many fine ones, however to lead people to believe that good works lead to salvation is wrong.
There is no requirement to "understand" what God says, the requirement is to make "Jesus" Lord of your life when speaking of salvation.
Even when they parade as virtues of light, but go against the precepts of scripture?
Yeshua. Jehova. God.
Why?
Alright, but this still doesn't negate the fact the Catholic church has been over run by so many side issues that do not lead people to Christ, but to doing good works as the main focus to gain salvation.
If you take it in context with the other scripture, it's easily understandable.
Alright, but this still doesn't negate the fact the Catholic church has been over run by so many side issues that do not lead people to Christ, but to doing good works as the main focus to gain salvation.>>
So what? And Protestant churches don't?
We have one advantage only: like it or not, among churches, we're the One True. Though it's admittedly hard to tell sometimes.
Honestly, my intent is not to bash Catholism. My intent is to try to understand why it is that Catholics find it neccessary to include all this extraneous stuff that has nothing to do with focusing on what the BIBLE says CHRIST is about.
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.