Good Will Equals Salvation? (Did the pope say non christians could be saved - part 1)

Zenit News Agency ^ | January 15, 2006 | Ilaria Morali

[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.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Good will equals good works which have NOTHING to do with receiving salvation.

Good will is a disposition of the soul, meaning that it is open to the influences of grace. A man of good will will perform good works under the guidance of grace, but good will is not good works.

Good works are not a requirement of being BA.

Sure they are. One must come to a Christian Church, make a profession of faith and a confession of sins, and be baptised to be born again. That is three good works right there.

No one can confess Jesus is Lord without a movement of their will to accept this belief.

[sirchtruth]

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.

What do you not understand about "WHOSOEVER?"

If the more complex reasons to spread God's word are too incomprehensible, the first should be simple enough: "Jesus told us to."

You're right. Jesus told us to spread HIS word, not the Catholic church's.

If you're bringing someone to Christ I understand, many Catholics have brought people to Christ, and I dare say probably more than any other donomination thoughout history, but the focus of the Catholic church is not centered on Christ, it's centered on itself.

[sirchtruth]

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.

What rubbish! Try a little less leaven, will ya?

[sirchtruth]

Thanks for the link, I'll look!

[sirchtruth]

Then right after you were corrected, you continue to dig at your fellow Christians (Catholics) with your "Catholic warning questions:"

I do not mean at all to insinuate Catholics are not Christians, I am pointing to what the focus is on that I have witnessed time and time again in the Catholic church and that is a concentration on the hierarchical structure.

The Pope, Bishops, Priests, Mary, the Apostles, as if these have divinity that is almost equal with Christ's...The mere fact it is taught that Catholics should go to a priest and confess their sin and wait for his blessing or to say "Hail Mary's" to forgive that sin is so contrary to scripture! Christ is the ONLY forgiver of sin and arbiter to bridge the great divide betweem sinful man and God.

Scripture teaches to build a relationship directly with Christ, not with a priest that is a go-between. A priest has NO power to forgive sin or bestow the inheritance only God has to give.

Eps 2:8-9 For by GRACE are you saved through faith; and that NOT of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[dangus]

>> What do you not understand about "WHOSOEVER?" <<

Make your argument, and I'm sure I'll understand it. But when I ask if pagans can be saved, and you point out 3:16, you seem to be missing the issue. I'm askig about pagans, and you refer to a verse about those who believe in Jesus.

>> If you're bringing someone to Christ I understand, many Catholics have brought people to Christ, and I dare say probably more than any other donomination thoughout history, but the focus of the Catholic church is not centered on Christ, it's centered on itself. <<

That's absurd. The Church is the body of Christ. Nearly every word uttered in the course of a mass is a quotation from scripture, excet the homily, which is an explanation of the readings, which are scripture. The Church even confesses public revelation is complete within the scripture. (This is as close as you can get to sola scritura without being self-contradicting.)

[onedoug]

Deuteronomy 4:19..."And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Malachi 1:11..."For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."

Though, "If I knew God I'd be Him."

[klossg]

sirchtruth,

You are a very concerned individual. It is a bummer that your knowledge of Catholic life is not as open so as to match your concern.

I accept your concern but not your condemnation of our Sacrament of Reconciliation. I want you to know that Priests rarely ask a person to simply say Hail Marys anymore. What they ask a sinner to do is something to help the sinner to try and avoid the sin through God's grace. For example if one confesses talking behind someones back, the Priest might ask the sinner to find a person they talked to while talking behind the other person's back and explain that it was wrong to do so and apologize. But, there is nothing wrong with praying a Hail Mary so that Our Lady will pray for the sinner so that they might obtain the grace to sin no more. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary or the Priest forgives sin. Never has, never will. That would be false and pathetic.

You need to be less condemning of your fellow Christians. No harm is done by confessing one's sins to another person. Non-Catholics and non-Christians do this all the time when they say sorry or otherwise apologize. Examples of this are throughout the scriptures. It is even part of the Our Father! And, Catholics know that the Priest is there only to represent Christ and regardless of the Priest's personal sins or goodness, it is Christ who forgives their sins. The Priest has no such ability. Through Christ and the Holy Spirit he provides the words of absolution and reminds us that our sins hurt not only ourselves but Christ and the Church. Luther confessed his sins after he broke from the Church. Luther just didn't want Reconciliation to be a sacrament. He saw the goodness of confessing one's sins. Also, you point out Eph 2:8-9 but what about all the scripture that backs Reconciliation through the Church. As Christ said to the Apostles in Matt 18:18 "Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." See also, Matt 6:15, John 20:23

You calling out Eph 2:8-9 would be better called out if we were arguing about not needing Jesus to redeem us. You suddenly shifted from the present article and who is saved via Morali's statements, and act as if I was arguing the Pelagian position against St. Augustine and yourself.

You are shifting the focus in an attempt to smear your fellow Christians and avoid your error. I understand, as I am a sinful Christian as well. So, out of charity and hope I will respond to your shift toward a global condemnation of Catholics based on the Sacrament of Reconciliation. No, I'd never argue as a Pelagian and think that I have the ability to achieve goodness or heaven without Christ and his grace! Similarly Catholics would not argue against St. Augustine as a Donatist who held that sinful Bishops/Priests/Deacons could not baptize (or provide other valid sacraments).

Please do not believe those who teach that Catholics base their salvation on their works or on anyone other than Christ. This is an attempt by the sin of pride to divide us Christians. It is the same pride that separated our parents Adam and Eve from God's love. If either of us had the logic or power to condemn the other as God condemns, there would be no need for Christ to have redeemed us. Catholics would have run a long time ago to the Protestant faith. It is our souls that are on the line, who wants to live in ignorance when our very souls are in the balance. So, I say cling to your faith and love your neighbor, including us Catholics who are on the same path as you. We want to do good with God's grace even if sometimes we say Hail Marys.

[onedoug]

"Malachi 1:11 prophesies the Sacrifice of the Mass throughout the world...."

Interested though I may be in Catholicism, this seems quite a stretch.

[sirchtruth]

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.

It doesn't get any more contrived than your statement! Of course Christ reveals to us INDIVIDUALLY correct doctrine that's why INDIVIDUALLY we are to study, reproof, and give a reason for the hope that's within us.

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.

[sirchtruth]

St. Peter is the Shepherd (John 21:15-17)

Do you notice Jesus tells Peter to feed "MY" lambs. Maybe I should have said owner.

[sirchtruth]

I'm askig about pagans, and you refer to a verse about those who believe in Jesus.

Again what do you not understand about the meaning of the word, whosoever?

John 3:16 is written to pagans...

[annalex]

Yes, the entire Church -- the Pope, the clergy and the laity -- belongs to Christ.

Your initial question was, why the Catholics treat the Holy Scripture the way they do. Did I answer that question?

[onedoug]

Buddhists make offerings for all manner of blessings, as do many other religions. I find the One God's recognition thereof - barring those steeped in immorality or licentiousness - universal, which is what I'd expect, or certainly hope for from the Creator.

[Terriergal]

in which he spoke about the possibility of salvation for non-Christians.

I'm not Catholic, but I really DO hope he didn't say that... if so, I dread what the power of the Catholic church could do toward this great big ecumenical one world church movement that is going on.

[annalex]

The Church always taught that non-Christians can, in principle, be saved through Christ. The Pope did not say anything new.

[Terriergal]

Heaven is not a reward for living a perfect life, but rather hell is the punishment for not working for God.

I can't get past that first sentence however, since there is none that does good, none seek after God. All my righteousness is like filthy rags. I dunno... I guess I can't reconcile those two concepts, except to know that Christ offers me forgiveness through his sacrifice, for his sake, not mine... he deserves those for whom he gave his life, whom he loves... and it is not me deserving anything.

In any case, just watch for this idea to grow -- the sign of belonging to the 'church' will become 'good works' (defined by people like Jim Wallis of www.sojo.net and Rick Warren who want to solve the entire world's worldly problems by teaming with government and other unredeemed people to accomplish the church's work) and that will be an entirely unbiblical 'church.'

This kind of talk really is frightening, to me. Pretty soon those who insist salvation is through Christ alone will be thought to be the old sticks-in-the-mud holding up the progress of the 'church' (I'm not speaking of any denomination in particular, btw) and will suffer persecution for it. This is I think what is spoken of in Revelation. Another partnering of religion and government as happened in the past... only this will be worldwide.