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.
Who is the shepard?
I'm not saying what you wrote is bad, or wrong, it would just take a theologian or a philosopy professor to understand it. Compare what you wrote to John 3:16.
In my experience this is MOST of the time. I'm not trying to be coy or sarcastic here, what every Catholic should ask themselves is this:
Why am I a Catholic?
What has the church taught me about God's word?
Does it jive with what the Holy Spirit teaches me?
Did Christ promise the Holy Spirit to each and every Christian to determine correct doctrine, or to the Apostles? I believe the Scriptures clearly point out that we are to obey those in authority over us, not subject their teachings to our own ideas of truth.
Regards
Basically if you are sincerly honest Christ promised the Holy Spirit for decernment to all who accept him. If Christ is in us, what or who do you need other than Christ as a guide?
I'm going to try like this:
Even good works are a gift. Merit is a gift. Faith is a gift. Salvation is a gift.
And I am (I think) an orthodox Catholic.
John 3:16:
"God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall have eternal life."
Where does that say anything about whether a pagan can be saved? I've heard universalists point to that verse as an argument that everyone is saved, but that is plainly a heresy, refuted in many laces within the bible.
>> If you spoke in terms of scripture <<
I presumed a basic bible literacy when I referred to Naomi, Cyrus, Moses, etc. Are you really incapable of finding out where in the bible the righteousness of these people is hailed?
>> I might be able to understand what you're trying to point out, <<
If the more complex reasons to spread God's word are too incomprehensible, the first should be simple enough: "Jesus told us to." And again, I presume a basic bible fluency enough that you could (a) recognize that that IS in the bible (b) if for some reason, you needed chapter and verse, you could find it with the help of a concordance.
>> focusing on extraneous stuff <<
It's actually none of our business whether a pagan might be saved. What is our business is that we are morally obligated to preach the gospel to that pagan. So, actually what I did is I brought the conversation from an abstract issue to what we are commanded by Jesus to do. And I don't think you can get simpler in logic than "Jesus told us to."
But because some intellectuals like to know more of the why, I gave further reasons.
>> NOTHING to do with leading people to Christ, only to Catholicism. <<
Again, what I did was shift the issue from an abstract discussion to one which defines our moral obligations. And I never mentioned one word about Catholicism. But since the Church is the body of Christ, and Catholicism is the church which was founded by Christ, bringing someone to Catholicism is identical to bringing someone to Christ. So had I focused on bringing people to Catholicism, I would still have been bringing people to Christ.
>> From your fingers to God's ears! <<
Dn't go sticking your fingers in God's ears!
Hehehehe :^)
Well said, klossg.
It's amazing the way people quote chapter and verse as if the bible were an instruction book. I cited bible story after bible story, and sirchtruth attacks me for basing my argument on the Catholic church instead of on the bible! Chapter and verse are a fourth century invention of St. Jerome!
The form of the bible is not a list of instructions. Maybe about 0.02% of the bible actually is instructions. The form of the bible is a set of true stories which demonstrate the relationship between God and Man. Pulling statements out of characters' mouths out of context is a perversion of the bible, one which we are warned the devil is quite fond of.
>> I wonder if the arguemnt of invincible ingorance works for speeding tickets? <<
I know you are only joking, but you hit on a good metaphor, because justice comes from God, and human justice is an imitation (albeit very pale) of divine justice.
If a man is zooming 65 MPH down a rural highway and he flies past a school zone (15 MPH), and strikes a child, he will be arrested. The judge will ask him, "Did you not see the speed limit sign?"
If the sign was cloaked by undergrowth, the man will show the judge that the sign could not be seen. The judhe may then ask, "Surely, you can know the law without being told. If you did not see the sign, you must know that it is not reasonable to drive past a school at 65 MPH.
If the man argues that the school was recessed on the property, and many trees were planted in front of it, and there was no crosswalk, the judge will set him free.
He will turn instead to the school administrator and say, "Why did you allow the overgrowth to conceal the sign? Why did you not paint crosswalks? Why was there no school guard on duty?" And the administrator will be sued, and will be found liable for the child's death.
I can't remeber chapter and verse, but I thinnk this is from Ezekiel (paraphrased): "If you admonish a person for his sins, and he continues in his sinfulness, he will suffer judgment. You shall have your reward. But if you do not admonish the sinner, he shall be innocent of his sin, and you shall be held guilty for his transgressions."
Even when they parade as virtues of light, but go against the precepts of scripture?
Yes, thank you for demonstrating what I mean by "reject summarily."
SD
There are hundreds of Catholic Apologetics sites. In fact if you are seriously looking go to the Forums on http://www.Catholic.com and try the threads of Apologetics or the Non-Catholic religion threads.
Both can answer your questions.
Why is it that rank-and-file Christians of other sects can discuss this topic intelligbly, while to you the language is impenetrable?
You seem to think sophisticated discussion is evidence of sinfullness and error. Perhaps you should avoid threads discussing theology, since it is apparently an occasion of sin for you.
SD
Was Calvin a sincere person? Was Luther a sincere person? Were the founders of the various Protestant denominations sincere? And yet, they disagree on ESSENTIAL doctrine. Apparently, good will and honesty do not necessarily lead to truth.
The gift of discernment is not the gift to judge the contents of the deposit of faith. If you will note the Pastorals, for example, Paul speaks of a deposit of teachings given - and he expected for that deposit to be kept unchanged. It was not subject to the whims of culture or the people. Discernment is more properly defined as determining God's Will for us in our lives, in particular, identifying an event and prayfully figuring out what God wants from us. It has nothing to do with interpreting Scriptures apart from the Church.
Do you get the impression that Paul desires a plethora of different Gospels to be preached, based on the individual feelings and "discernment" of Christians?
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:6-8)
No, despite what our society tells us about being individualistic, etc., the SCRIPTURE doesn't tell us that. It tells us to follow the Gospel GIVEN to us (not how WE interpret it). Christianity is a REVEALED religion, not a philosophy where WE determine what seems right or deny what WE determine seems wrong.
Christ is in us guiding us, but it doesn't follow that He reveals to us individually correct doctrine. That sort of protection is given to the Church, not individually. Another thing to note, of course, is that humans are STILL fighting against the flesh (as Paul notes in Romans 7). Thus, can we really know what is from Christ and what is from ourselves, when it comes to whether it is feasible to baptize infants?
Regards
Right. Indeed, how would it ever be possible for a pagan to be moved to enter the Church without a motion of the Spirit to bring him there?
Deny any movement of the Spirit whatsoever in the pagan, and the Christianity of conversion and theosis no longer stands.
St. Peter is the Shepherd (John 21:15-17)
Good article.
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.