Church teaching on salvation is un-Biblical?

[Milliardo]

Let us clarify some points, because it seems there is some confusion here even among Catholics. First, the CCC:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.–CCC 847 (LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872).

Though at the same time:

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.–CCC 846 (LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5)

So what are these two points actually saying? Many post here passages regarding believing in Christ, and those who do not believe in Him will be condemned. Note though that this is not outright condemnation; belief entails a proclamation, or that it is first taught. Hence, one cannot say he rejects something which he has not known nor heard of. In short, he cannot be faulted for not believing because he has not heard of Christ. However, a person who does not believe because he rejects Christ is condemned, since that person has been taught of Him and His Church, and he refuses to believe. There is a distinction between the two cases, as implied by the Catechism.

 

[John_Hiner]

Jesus said in the Bible that those who did not believe in Him were condemned. Yet the Church says that even those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not condemned so long as they sincerely do not believe it. However, this contradicts the words of Jesus Himself who did not make an exception for those who heard and rejected but did so because they sincerely did not believe it. I can think of several passages where the Bible says that faith in Christ is required for salvation. But I can’t think of a single verse that offers the exceptions of “unless you never heard” or “unless you heard but sincerely did not believe”.

I’m having a hard time reconciling the teachings of Our Lord with what the Church is teaching on this issue. I’m not asking for logic or reason as reasonings galore could be provided I’m sure. I’m saying it seems to me that the Church’s teaching on the above seems to contradict scripture - not what we want scripture to say, but rather what scripture does actually say.

I’m RC myself but have struggled with the above for a while so thought I’d ask here.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Eric3141:

You may be overstating the Church’s position in a way that is confusing. This is easy to do; many seem to propagate a view of “salvation” which leads to the illogical conclusions that you hint at – namely that it is better to be ignorant of the Gospel than to know it – because ignorance will save one. This is false. It should not be understood as the Church’s teaching.

Here is an article by then Cardinal Ratzinger that may help to clarify this issue: Truth and Conscience.

A passage in Scripture that touches on these issues is: Romans 2.

Another difficulty might be a false dichotomy between the “teachings of Our Lord” and the “Church’s teaching.” “A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: ‘About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.’" Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997), 795.

Please consider that the only knowledge that we have of Our Lord’s words is as they appear in “the Church’s teaching.” The Scripture is a teaching of the Church. Hence, any dichotomy between the text of Scripture and the Church’s teaching is an illusion or misunderstanding. It may take work to appreciate the consistency between two given parts of the Church’s teachings – that is to understand them correctly – but we can always have confidence that it is our understanding that is confused, not the teaching itself. (This is one of the sure means of discerning the Church’s teachings; if a statement is truly in contradiction of Scripture, then it is not a teaching of the Church; if it is definitely a teaching of the Church, then it is not in contradiction to the Scripture.)

In the Creed, it is with the same “credo” that we entrust ourselves to the one God and the one Church.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[eric3141]

You have to take scripture as a whole though. We must reconcile Romans 3:19 and Romans 2:13-15. Not picking one over the other but using both of them to arrive at the truth. Here and here are some articles by CA that address this issue with scripture references. This article has some scripture references and also talks about the important issue of the Old Testament prophets who did not know Christ or His Church.

Thanks for the articles. I will read them.

You are inserting the bolded words into the Church’s teaching. These words are NOT there. The CCC says: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ or His Church…" It does not say “Those who have heard but have chose not to believe.” If you make a choice not to believe, then you are rejecting the Gospel of Christ. We are talking about two different groups of people.

You are correct that the CCC does not contain exactly what I said. However, it’s my understanding that part of the Church’s teaching includes the idea that those who have heard and reject Christ but remain “invincibly ignorant” may still be saved. This understanding has been reinforced by more than one very faithful, conservative, and traditional priest who has agreed (when I asked them) that someone who hears the gospel and rejects it is still not necessarily condemned.

 

[eric3141]

Rom 1:18-32

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This passage is about pagans to whom God has revealed HImself in creation.

True. But what I don’t see here is that they can be saved apart from faith in Christ per se. It says they can know that God exists. But it does not say that this will save them apart from faith in Christ. And there are other passages that say faith in Christ is necessary. Also, I am thinking that the view I’m giving makes sense because if they could be saved by having a general knowledge that God exists but did not need faith in Christ then what’s the point of telling them about Christ at all? Since they could be saved apart from knowing Him?

 

[eric3141]

You don’t want logic nor reason yet you want us to explain extra eclessiam nulla salus? (outside the church there is no salvation)

The Church says that nothing it teaches contradicts what is in the Bible. The Bible says a number of things about faith in Christ being necessary for salvation, good works apart from faith in Christ being of no good regarding salvation, etc. Yet the Church in Lumen Gentium says that those who do not have this faith may be saved. I’m under the understanding that elsewhere it says that even those who have heard but rejected are not necessarily condemned if they are “invincibly ignorant”. Both of these seem to contradict the bible passages. So I am asking for bible passages that show the teaching the Church is giving.

 

[eric3141]

Nowhere is it said that those who reject Christ and His Church will be saved; where did you get this idea?

I think you you may have mistaken what is said about those who, through no fault of their own, has not heard of Christ or His Church. That is different from those who reject Him consciously.

I have been told by more than one conservative, well educated, and faithful Catholic priest that even those who have heard but still reject Christ may still be saved if they are “invincibly ignorant”. This was taught by Pope Pius IX in the 1800’s. If my understanding of this teaching is incorrect, then I’d appreciate feedback on that.

Thanks!

Eric

 

[epostle]

I have been told by more than one conservative, well educated, and faithful Catholic priest that even those who have heard but still reject Christ may still be saved if they are “invincibly ignorant”. This was taught by Pope Pius IX in the 1800’s. If my understanding of this teaching is incorrect, then I’d appreciate feedback on that.

Thanks!

Eric

Well that’s reassuring. I can still get into heaven in spite of being stupid!

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I have been told by more than one conservative, well educated, and faithful Catholic priest that even those who have heard but still reject Christ may still be saved if they are “invincibly ignorant”. This was taught by Pope Pius IX in the 1800’s. If my understanding of this teaching is incorrect, then I’d appreciate feedback on that.

Thanks!

Eric

You were only told part of what the Church says in the Catechism. Invincible ignorance is only one of the factors involved. The person also has to be seeking God with a sincere heart and “moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”. This would seem to fit the people described in Romans 2:15— they know God through their conscience, even if they don’t know God through the Gospel.

We have to remember the the Bible also says God is just and God is merciful and God desires all souls to be saved. Would it be just and merciful for God to condemn a soul who, through no fault of their own, did not know Christ or His Church?

 

[porthos11]

The key verse is Romans 2:15, which speaks of the natural law written in the heart of every man. Here, the verse clearly refers to those who have been ignorant of the law, and that God would judge them accordingly.

This is what allows the Church to open its hope for the salvation of those who do not know Christ, for God alone knows the true disposition of any man’s heart. But since no one comes to the Father except through Christ, if indeed such people are saved, it would still have been through Christ.

This verse also, however, warns that everyone possesses the natural knowledge of God. This renders atheisim and agnosticism inexcusable. So for me, there is no such thing as a “sincere atheist”.

 

[eric3141]

You were only told part of what the Church says in the Catechism. Invincible ignorance is only one of the factors involved. The person also has to be seeking God with a sincere heart and “moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”. This would seem to fit the people described in Romans 2:15— they know God through their conscience, even if they don’t know God through the Gospel.

Does invincible ignorance apply to those who have heard of Christ and His church yet still reject it because they honestly don’t believe it? If so then it would seem the teachings of Christ in the Bible that he who does not believe is condemned are rendered null and void.

 

[Ignatius]

Jesus said in the Bible that those who did not believe in Him were condemned. .

Hi eric, let’s think about this. Please quote the actual scripture quotation here and we can discuss it.

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Your brother in Christ

 

[richardeekw]

It is very important to read Scripture as a who and not in isolation .

A very important question to as, when unsure is:
WHAT ELSE DOES SCRIPTURE SAY ON THIDS TOPIC?

Only then can we have the REAL intent of Scripture teaching which is taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the BEST guide.
It is the Church that gave us the Bible.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Does invincible ignorance apply to those who have heard of Christ and His church yet still reject it because they honestly don’t believe it? If so then it would seem the teachings of Christ in the Bible that he who does not believe is condemned are rendered null and void.

Just because one has heard of Jesus Christ or heard of the Catholic Church, that does not mean they have heard the Gospel. Millions of Muslims and Hindus have heard of Jesus… that does not mean they have been properly evangelized. But, no, if a person has been told the Gospel and they do not believe, then I don’t think that we can call them invincibly ignorant. I am sure that God will weigh all the factors though. He will know the difference between someone who has just heard of Jesus versus someone who has heard the Gospel and rejected it.

I do want to say that I will never limit the mercy of God. I know that God is love and that He desires all of mankind to be saved. I will not be one who will say “God can’t save that man, he doesn’t believe”. Who am I to say God can’t do something? If Jesus decides to appear to a non-believer in their final moments of life, they may well choose to believe in Him right before they die. I’m not saying that I do or don’t believe that He does that… only that if He can do that, if He so wills.

 

[eric3141]

Hi eric, let’s think about this. Please quote the actual scripture quotation here and we can discuss it.

I will give one such verse. But there are many others that could be given as well.

John 3:18 “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

Neither here nor anywhere else (that I know of) does it make the exception being taught by the Church today: unless you hear and sincerely don’t believe.

 

[John_Hiner]

I will give one such verse. But there are many others that could be given as well.

John 3:18 “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

Neither here nor anywhere else (that I know of) does it make the exception being taught by the Church today: unless you hear and sincerely don’t believe.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Eric:

This is a disturbing idea. Here is a document prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger for a conference of bishops in Texas in 1991: “Truth and Conscience.” Does this document address the issues you are concerned about?

I suspect, as Cardinal Ratzinger’s essay suggests, that what you are hearing is a mistaken extrapolation of some of the statements in the documents of Vatican II. To get to the bottom of the issue we might have to take a look at the passages involved, and see if they can fairly be read to teach such an “exception.” My impression from reading the documents sometime ago is that they cannot.

You have referred to the “exception” as “being taught by the Church today.” Where have you seen or heard it being taught? Do you know of any magisterial document that seems to make this claim?

What have you heard, seen, or read? Who in the Church seems to be “teaching” this?

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[epostle]

Evangelium vitae

1. Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. Life in time, in fact, is the fundamental condition, the initial stage and an integral part of the entire unified process of human existence. It is a process which, unexpectedly and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise and renewed by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full realization in eternity (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual’s earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an “ultimate” but a “penultimate” reality; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.

The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord, 1 has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person-believer and non-believer alike-because it marvellously fulfils all the heart’s expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.

In a special way, believers in Christ must defend and promote this right, aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: **“By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being”.**2 This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.

The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with ever new wonder.3 She feels called to proclaim to the people of all times this “Gospel”, the source of invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel of God’s love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.

1 The expression “Gospel of life” is not found as such in Sacred Scripture. But it does correspond to an essential dimension of the biblical message.

2 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22.

3 Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), 10; AAS 71 (1979), 275.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I had to follow up on this thread after listening to Open Line yesterday with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. He cited Mt 25: 31-41

31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32 and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37 Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40 And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

He says that the nations are the non-believers and that the expression “nations” is commonly used in ancient texts to mean gentiles. He claimsthis passage is about the judgement of non-believers. As we see, some will be called to Him (vs 34) and He will tell them that they had fed Him, clothed Him etc. But they did not know it was Him they were feeding and clothing, because they were not believers. Still, moved by His Grace (back to Romans 2:15) they followed the dictates of their conscience and fed the hungry, etc.

I suppose you have to listen to him say it to make any sense of it, but I wanted to throw it out there for you.

I had never heard of this particular understanding of Mt 25 before, but Fr. Pacwa is brilliant, so it is worth serious thought. By the way, if you don’t already know it, Fr. Pacwa speaks several languages-including Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and he did mention that the original word for ‘nations’ does support his understanding of this passage. Can’t remember what that word was though…

 

[eric3141]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Eric:

This is a disturbing idea. Here is a document prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger for a conference of bishops in Texas in 1991: “Truth and Conscience.” Does this document address the issues you are concerned about?

I suspect, as Cardinal Ratzinger’s essay suggests, that what you are hearing is a mistaken extrapolation of some of the statements in the documents of Vatican II. To get to the bottom of the issue we might have to take a look at the passages involved, and see if they can fairly be read to teach such an “exception.” My impression from reading the documents sometime ago is that they cannot.

You have referred to the “exception” as “being taught by the Church today.” Where have you seen or heard it being taught? Do you know of any magisterial document that seems to make this claim?

What have you heard, seen, or read? Who in the Church seems to be “teaching” this?

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

Every priest I have ever heard teach on this subject has included that exception. This includes priests on EWTN (don’t recall exactly which ones and which episodes). I have never heard a priest teach that if someone hears the gospel but rejects it because they sincerely don’t believe it then they are condemned (as John 3:18 seems to say). The US is full of Protestants who have heard enough to know that the Catholic church claims to be the Church founded by Christ and necessary to join it - yet they do not believe this and do not join. I don’t or hear priests, bishops, etc. being concerned because these people will be condemned. Why? Because of the exception I mentioned – that despite what the scriptures teach, one is not necessarily condemned if he has heard and does not believe.

Another poster (elsewhere) pointed out to me that the Roman guards who crucified the Lord likely knew His claims to be the messiah. They did not believe. Yet Christ forgave them from the cross anyway (“Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”) So it seems that even Jesus is not willing to let someone be condemned for unbelief despite the fact that in John 3:18 He seems to say just the opposite! Aaaarrrrrggggg!

 

[eric3141]

I had to follow up on this thread after listening to Open Line yesterday with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. He cited Mt 25: 31-41

He says that the nations are the non-believers and that the expression “nations” is commonly used in ancient texts to mean gentiles. He claimsthis passage is about the judgement of non-believers. As we see, some will be called to Him (vs 34) and He will tell them that they had fed Him, clothed Him etc. But they did not know it was Him they were feeding and clothing, because they were not believers. Still, moved by His Grace (back to Romans 2:15) they followed the dictates of their conscience and fed the hungry, etc.

I suppose you have to listen to him say it to make any sense of it, but I wanted to throw it out there for you.

I had never heard of this particular understanding of Mt 25 before, but Fr. Pacwa is brilliant, so it is worth serious thought.

Thanks. But this interpretation is difficult for me to accept since elsewhere in scripture it says that our righteousness (from doing our good works as above) is as filthy rags to God – in other words it’s not worth a whole lot. I always thought that Mt 25 was communicating the idea that one cannot only have faith in Christ but must do good works, too. But I am a confused sinner.

 

[RobbyS]

“Held accountable” — sure I think they will be judged for it. But I’m specifically asking the question if someone outside the Church can commit a mortal sin since they in fact they don’t know it’s a mortal sin. According to what the Church teaches (or my understanding thereof which might be wrong) it seems that they cannot commit a mortal sin because they quite literally don’t know it’s mortal. The FULL knowledge part would not be met because they don’t know it’s mortal.

I’m hoping I’m wrong about this as this seems to be an obviously wrong conclusion. But so far everything I’ve read says that someone has to know it’s mortal for it to be mortal.

The matter of natural law is aluded to by Paul in Romans. Basically, we are confused about what is right and wrong. Grace is always before us, but without right teaching, it is hard to co-operate with that grace. Hard but not impossible. Those who seek salvation without resort to what the Church teaches are like the man who tries to represent himself in court.
A good heart, true sincereity may carry a man through. But we lack the gifts to make our case effectively before the judge of the world. What great advantage is there in knowing who that judge is and how he regards us!