Does Perfect Charity save the non-Believer?

[DustinsDad]

This is a tenet of Protestantism of many varieties, particularly Martin Luther.

St. Thomas may be helpful, but there is a more definite definition of heresy of this idea by the Council of Trent Concerning Justification, Sixth Session, Canon 7:

“If anyone says that all works done before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more he greviously he sins, let him be anathema”.

peace

I guess the quote from that chapter of the Summa was all building toward that last reply - notice the highlighted parts below…
Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. **With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. **Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.
Since you stated earlier that you liked St. Thomas, I thought it would be good to look at this from him. Seems he would not agree that an athiest (if he was truly athiest) could be saved because he does not have faith - and hence would be incapable of making an act of perfect Charity.

An athiest, according to St.Thomas, could do deeds that are generically good - but not supernaturally good.

Peace in Christ,

DusitnsDad

 

[reluctant_saint]

On the contrary, the Holy Apostle says "If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. I Cor. 13:3

On the contrary, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, BUT HAVE PERFECT LOVE, I GAIN EVERYTHING.

This is only logical.

I quite agree with you. That, however, is not the point I was making. My point was the a man handing over his body to be burned is not a sign that he has sanctifying grace.

You said: “only salvation can procure the virtue of charity”

I think not! By God’s grace, I believe my soul is in the state of grace, and I have not attained salvation yet. I have the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, and I hope you do too. I have no guarantee that I will perserve to the end. I hope and pray so. How do you image that you don’t have the virtue of charity right now with sanctifying grace?

You must understand, I sometimes use Protestant terminology so that the Protestants reading along can follow. When I say salvation, I am refering to the sanctifying grace in the person’s soul that makes him worthy of salvation. Coincidently, Paul uses the term “saved” in the past, present, and future tenses all throughout his epistles. It is in this tradition that I use the term salvation.

An example from the Bible where Jesus uses salvation in the perfect tense is Luke 19:19: “Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.’”

OK, I have to write another post to address the bulk of your argument.

 

[reluctant_saint]

Whoops, I didn’t realize that DustinsDad beat me too it. Good work DustinsDad.

 

[mgrfin]

I do not think that everyone who lays down one’s life for another does so from supernatural charity…it can be done on the basis of natural love as well. In the latter case, it would profit nothing eternally for the person in question. I think you are reading too much into the passage.

I understand that folks lay down their lives for others - even athiests - but such acts are not necessarily on the supernatural level - and with true athiests - they couldn’t be. Such could be out of natural love - they could also be out of a sense of duty, honor, glory, excitement, etc. A multitude of reasons are possible.

I would only say that the Church teaches that it is impossible for a true athiest to make a supernatural act of love unless he/she is given a tremendous grace from Our Lord prior to that supernatural act of charity - in which case they would not technically be athiest when they die…they’d have been infused with His Divine Life which would have included Supernatural Faith, Hope and Charity, thus adding them to the body of Christ, the Church. In other words, God would have worked a miracle for that person. It’s theoretically possible sure - but we won’t know about it on this side of the pearly gates.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

We are just asking theoretical questions with real implications.

Sure it is possible for God to give him great grace, just as it is possible for our man to give the gireatest sacrifice, his life, for his fellow men.

I am asking so as to high light the importance of grace. Actual and sanctifying graces are pure gifts of God, so is salvation.
We do not purely merit heaven. It is given to us by God by living his commandments…“Love thy neighbor as thy self”.

The perfect charity of our man means he has perfect charity for God as well.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I quite agree with you. That, however, is not the point I was making. My point was the a man handing over his body to be burned is not a sign that he has sanctifying grace.

You must understand, I sometimes use Protestant terminology so that the Protestants reading along can follow. When I say salvation, I am refering to the sanctifying grace in the person’s soul that makes him worthy of salvation. Coincidently, Paul uses the term “saved” in the past, present, and future tenses all throughout his epistles. It is in this tradition that I use the term salvation.

An example from the Bible where Jesus uses salvation in the perfect tense is Luke 19:19: “Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.’”

OK, I have to write another post to address the bulk of your argument.

Please, let’s stay away from Protestant terminology. This is a Catholic site, and we are educated Roman Catholics. Use the terminology of the New Testament, if you will, or of the Council of Trent, or of St. Thomas. But, terminology of Martin Luther?

Please…

We have no guarantee of salvation, even though we possess santifying grace. OSAS and such nonesense was condemned at Trent. Please don’t raise my hackles by straying into Protestant waters, which will only drag us down in its wake.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I quite agree with you. That, however, is not the point I was making. My point was the a man handing over his body to be burned is not a sign that he has sanctifying grace.

QUOTE]

Having one’s body burnt is not a sign that one has santifying grace. Whoever said that?

But having perfect charity is THE sign that he has sanctifying grace!!!

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I guess the quote from that chapter of the Summa was all building toward that last reply - notice the highlighted parts below…
Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. **With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. **Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.
Since you stated earlier that you liked St. Thomas, I thought it would be good to look at this from him. Seems he would not agree that an athiest (if he was truly athiest) could be saved because he does not have faith - and hence would be incapable of making an act of perfect Charity.

An athiest, according to St.Thomas, could do deeds that are generically good - but not supernaturally good.

Peace in Christ,

DusitnsDad

I have not the slightest doubt that Thomas agrees with me that perfect charity carries with it all the virtues, including faith.

St. Thomas would find a way to save our Good Samaritan. If anything is clear in the NT is the need for charity, and the reward of charity.

One cannot read St. John’s First Epistle without being convinced. Or the words of Jesus himself.

The Angelic doctor is not going to condemn such a saviour to hell for his greatest sacrifice, and his greatest love.
It was charity that inspired Thomas, and made him the Angelic Doctor.

Perfect love of neighbor must include perfect love of God. And how could that be without perfect faith as well?

I fail to understand this love for FAITH ONLY giving us salvation. It is charity that justifies us, sanctifies us, and leads us to the Beatific Vision. With God in heaven, it is the only remaining virtue: Faith and Hope will disappear.

Tria haec: fides, spes, caritas. There remains these three. faith, hope and charity. But the greatest of these is charity (caritas).

peace

 

[AgnosTheist]

An athiest, according to St.Thomas, could do deeds that are generically good - but not supernaturally good.

And what is this so called ‘supernaturally good’?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Faith ONLY was the foundation of Luther’s religion. An atheist has a hard time getting into heaven under the Faith ONLY postulate. Without Faith, even some Protestants view any ‘good deeds’ of the non-believer as sinful.

The question asked is whether the non-believer, committing an act of perfect love (perfect charity) for his neighbor, can merit heaven.

We have the example of a atheistic fireman rushing into a burning building to save a child, in doing so, he loses his life.

Does his act of charity towards his neighbor merit for him everlasting salvation.

In other words, ‘Does perfect charity save the unbeliever?’.

peace

No

We are not saved by our works. A non-believer may risk his live to save a child but his life cannot be saved without Jesus Christ.

 

[mgrfin]

No

We are not saved by our works. A non-believer may risk his live to save a child but his life cannot be saved without Jesus Christ.

Please, no one said anything about being saved without Jesus Christ.

It has been made perfectly clear that all grace comes to us gratuitously, as does salvation.

We all agree that we are given heaven as a gift from God, and God sends us his special gifts (actual grace), and sanctifying grace freely.

We deserve none of it.

peace

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Please, no one said anything about being saved without Jesus Christ.

It has been made perfectly clear that all grace comes to us gratuitously, as does salvation.

We all agree that we are given heaven as a gift from God, and God sends us his special gifts (actual grace), and sanctifying grace freely.

We deserve none of it.

peace

We are saved by faith and works and we must belong to the Church.

If all he did was to risk his life to save a child and he died during that, he will not be saved.

If he converted before his death then that would be different, but the question doesn’t indicate that and asks whether his action would save him. The answer is that they woudn’t.

 

[mgrfin]

We are saved by faith and works and we must belong to the Church.

If all he did was to risk his life to save a child and he died during that, he will not be saved.

If he converted before his death then that would be different, but the question doesn’t indicate that and asks whether his action would save him. The answer is that they woudn’t.

Really? You’d better sing your “Te Deum” again.

If what you say is true, then we’d all better check out the condition of our souls first before loving our neighbor.

According to you, the Gospel message, and that of the Epistles is for naught. You want us to go back to the Old Testament were charity does not take pre-eminence in salvation.

Christ came to change all that. Thank you, God.

Perfect charity saves. Perfect charity is rewarded. Perfect charity certainly is not punished.

peace

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Really? You’d better sing your “Te Deum” again.

And?

If what you say is true, then we’d all better check out the condition of our souls first before loving our neighbor.

Why?

According to you, the Gospel message, and that of the Epistles is for naught. You want us to go back to the Old Testament were charity does not take pre-eminence in salvation.

So then we don’t have to believe in Christ and belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved? From now on we are saved by being very nice to other people? I hope that this is not what you’re saying.

Christ came to change all that. Thank you, God.

Yes, and he did. He is the only way to the Father and whoever rejects the Church rejects Him.

Perfect charity saves. Perfect charity is rewarded. Perfect charity certainly is not punished.

Christ saves, charity is rewarded, charity isn’t punished.

So tell me, how does an atheist get saved by risking his life when it is a dogma of the Church that one must be baptized to be saved?

 

[mgrfin]

And?

So then we don’t have to believe in Christ and belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved? From now on we are saved by being very nice to other people? I hope that this is not what you’re saying.

Yes, and he did. He is the only way to the Father and whoever rejects the Church rejects Him.

Christ saves, charity is rewarded, charity isn’t punished.

So tell me, how does an atheist get saved by risking his life when it is a dogma of the Church that one must be baptized to be saved?

He didn’t risk his life; he gave his life.

We Catholics believe in baptism of fire, and baptism of desire.

This good samaritan wasn’t just being ‘nice’ to someone. It is you who are minimilizing what he did. Would you minimilize the death of Jesus on the Cross for us? Like Jesus, he gave the most precious thing he possessed - his life to save another. The Good Samaritan of the Gospel did far less than our fireman, and he was praised and rewarded for it by Jesus’ words.

“This new commandment I give you, that you love one another as I have loved you.” And how did Jesus love us? He gave his life for us.

There is not one verse of Scripture concerning charity that anyone has debunked. All of a sudden, people are adding conditions to perfect charity. Oh, he wasn’t baptised, he didn’t belong to the Catholic Church, etc., etc. Jesus didn’t add conditions to it, neither did St. John.

The man is saved because of his perfect charity and perfect love of his fellow man, which includes perfect love of God.

Let the theologians figure out your objections. But Scripture is clear.

peace

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

He didn’t risk his life; he gave his life.

Well, the way you wrote it suggests that he didn’t know that he would be killed. But even if he did know, I don’t see how that makes a difference.

We Catholics believe in baptism of fire, and baptism of desire.

Blood, not fire. But baptism by blood applied to those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ. It’s a special case that can’t applied to any type of martyrdom.

This good samaritan wasn’t just being ‘nice’ to someone. It is you who are minimilizing what he did. Would you minimilize the death of Jesus on the Cross for us? Like Jesus, he gave the most precious thing he possessed - his life to save another. The Good Samaritan of the Gospel did far less than our fireman, and he was praised and rewarded for it by Jesus’ words.

To be honest, I do not understand what you’re saying? Am I minimizing Jesus’ sacrifice? Not at all.

As for the good Samaritan, how was he rewarded?

“This new commandment I give you, that you love one another as I have loved you.” And how did Jesus love us? He gave his life for us.

And? Does that mean that you don’t have to believe in Christ? That all we need is to love one another? That you don’t have to be baptized? That you don’t have to join the Church? If I’m understanding you correctly then you are going against dogmas of the Church.

There is not one verse of Scripture concerning charity that anyone has debunked.

Why would anyone be rebuked for being charitable?

All of a sudden, people are adding conditions to perfect charity. Oh, he wasn’t baptised, he didn’t belong to the Catholic Church, etc., etc. Jesus didn’t add conditions to it, neither did St. John.

Who are these people? The writers of the NT? The Church Fathers? Popes? Church councils?

John 3:5
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 18:17
“If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican”

John 3:18
“He that believeth not is already judged”

Luke 11:23
“He that is not with Me is against Me and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth”

The man is saved because of his perfect charity and perfect love of his fellow man, which includes perfect love of God.

Didn’t you say that he was an atheist? I think you’re contradicting yourself in your definitions. How can an atheist have a perfect love of God? How can one love God but at the same time reject him and deny his existence? Such man rejected our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Let the theologians figure out your objections. But Scripture is clear.

It is. Read the quotes above and explain to me why they don’t apply to the man in the fictional example?

God bless!

 

[DustinsDad]

We are just asking theoretical questions with real implications.

I know.

Sure it is possible for God to give him great grace, just as it is possible for our man to give the gireatest sacrifice, his life, for his fellow men.

I am asking so as to high light the importance of grace. Actual and sanctifying graces are pure gifts of God, so is salvation.
We do not purely merit heaven. It is given to us by God by living his commandments…“Love thy neighbor as thy self”.

The perfect charity of our man means he has perfect charity for God as well.

And a man committing suicide by jumping off a bridge might be given the gift of perfect contrition before he hits the water. In an extraordinary way, God might save your hypothetical athiest at this last instant of his life - but such would be an exception and not the normative rule.

And it is impossible for us to know whether his act of supernatural or natural.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…Perfect love of neighbor must include perfect love of God. And how could that be without perfect faith as well?

My point exactly - you said the person in question was an athiest. You see I think your hypothetical has a foundational error.

Kind of like asking if a square circle can roll down a hill.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

And a man committing suicide by jumping off a bridge might be given the gift of perfect contrition before he hits the water. In an extraordinary way, God might save your hypothetical athiest at this last instant of his life - but such would be an exception and not the normative rule.

And it is impossible for us to know whether his act of supernatural or natural.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Yep, and since the question never mentioned anything about conversion before death we are to suppose that this never happened that that his salvation would then be solely based on his actions.

 

[DustinsDad]

And what is this so called ‘supernaturally good’?

A good that is above our nature, above the mere natural level - something impossible to do on our own - we need His Divine Life in us (sanctifying grace) to be able to act such.

Read through this section of the catechism - on virtues - and you’ll get an idea of what we’re talking about. When we talk of the supernatural virtues, we are talking of the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity- these are supernatural in that they are above our nature and come from God:
…They are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life. …(cf CCC 1813)
The definition for the theological (or supernatural) virtue of charity is this:
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)
Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

Well, the way you wrote it suggests that he didn’t know that he would be killed. But even if he did know, I don’t see how that makes a difference.

Blood, not fire. But baptism by blood applied to those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ. It’s a special case that can’t applied to any type of martyrdom.

To be honest, I do not understand what you’re saying? Am I minimizing Jesus’ sacrifice? Not at all.

As for the good Samaritan, how was he rewarded?

And? Does that mean that you don’t have to believe in Christ? That all we need is to love one another? That you don’t have to be baptized? That you don’t have to join the Church? If I’m understanding you correctly then you are going against dogmas of the Church.

Why would anyone be rebuked for being charitable?

Who are these people? The writers of the NT? The Church Fathers? Popes? Church councils?

John 3:5
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 18:17
“If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican”

John 3:18
“He that believeth not is already judged”

Luke 11:23
“He that is not with Me is against Me and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth”

Didn’t you say that he was an atheist? I think you’re contradicting yourself in your definitions. How can an atheist have a perfect love of God? How can one love God but at the same time reject him and deny his existence? Such man rejected our Saviour Jesus Christ.

It is. Read the quotes above and explain to me why they don’t apply to the man in the fictional example?

God bless!

You ask a lot of questions in one post:

To me ‘baptism of fire’ is used as ‘baptism of blood’; baptism of fire is a better known term.

How was the Good Samaritan rewarded: Please read over Luke 10:25-37. **** “Master, what must I do to gain eternal life”.****

And who is my neighbor.

In response Jesus tells us the story of a Samaritan doing a good deed for a Jew. He sought to the care of this hated foreigner, paid for his room and medical care. The Good Samaritan didn’t die; but he did a good deed whereas others would not.

Well, if the Good Samaritan did a deed to gain eternal life, what do you think giving up your life for a neighbor gains for you.

You want no reward for this man?

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, Perfect Charity of our neighbor includes Perfect Charity for God. That Perfect Charity for our neighbor and Perfect Charity for God includes everything else you require. This explains how an atheist can have Perfect Love of God.

Otherwise, what you are saying is salvation is not gratuitous - it is earned. You are saying ‘faith’ earns salvation. Nonesense. Salvation and Sanctifying Grace saves our atheist and they are gratuitous, not earned. Perfect Charity opens the Gates of Paradise for all of us. Our souls are pure and white as a result of this infused Grace.

If not, please explain how you can have Perfect Love of God and be excluded from heaven. How? Just How?

If you believe in Baptism by fire, and baptism of Desire - everything is included, so you get into heaven. If you shed your blood to save your neighbor - that doesn’t get you into heaven too?

peace