Non-Catholics saved?

[TMC]

That doesn’t conflict with any of the other equally relevant and authoritative sources I provided.

It is not consistent with your own words, however, which were:

“Non-Christians cannot be saved, unless they come to faith in Christ before death, and persevere to the end in faith and charity.”

That may be your belief (and you are entitled to your own beliefs, obviously), but it is not what the Church teaches.

 

[Genesis315]

No, there wasn’t. So according to the OP nobody back then could have been saved. Likewise no Native Americans or Native Australians could have been saved before the arrival of Christian missionaries in their lands.

Is God’s saving power limited by the speed at which a sailing boat can travel the world? Doesn’t sound very omnipotent to me.

For those before Christ, the Jews had faith in the coming Messiah based on God’s prophecies. Likewise, one reason Christ descended to the dead and “preached” to those there was so that the just could adhere to him by faith. From the CCC:

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."48

He did this because “faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

As for those who you mention who lived after Christ died and rose, see my post above (#27): "in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him.” (CCC 848).

St. Robert Bellarmine explained how this might happen, when countering Protestants who said the existence of non-Catholics meant God did not provide all with the means of salvation:

De Gratis et Libero Arbitrio, lib. 2, cap. 8

This argument only proves that not all people receive the help they need to believe and be converted immediately. It does not, however, prove that some people are deprived, absolutely speaking, of sufficient help for salvation. For the pagans to whom the Gospel has not yet been preached, can know from His creatures that God exists; then they can be stimulated by God, through His prevenient grace, to believe in God, that He exists and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him: and from such faith, they can be inspired, under the guidance and help of God, to pray and give alms and in this way obtain from God a still greater light of faith, which God will communicate to them, either by Himself or through angels or through men.

Pope Francis taught the same thing in the passage in Lumen Fidei I posted in post #27.

This coming to faith, however, may only come at the “11th hour” (see Matt. 20:6), that is in the final moments of life and in a way not outwardly manifest to witnesses.

 

[Genesis315]

It is not consistent with your own words, however, which were:

“Non-Christians cannot be saved, unless they come to faith in Christ before death, and persevere to the end in faith and charity.”

That may be your belief (and you are entitled to your own beliefs, obviously), but it is not what the Church teaches.

It is exactly what the Church teaches as I posted. I addressed how the CCC paragraph you posted and the ones I posted are consistent. Can you explain to me how they actually conflict?

We both agree that God offers the means of salvation to all, you just deny faith as one of those means.

 

[TMC]

It is exactly what the Church teaches as I posted. I addressed how the CCC paragraph you posted and the one’s I posted are consistent. Can you explain to me how they actually conflict?

Yes, you can just read them and see that they are directly in conflict. The Catechism says that all may (not will, but may) be saved whether Christian or not. You say they must convert. Those are two very different views.

The exact quote from the Catechism is:

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.

That is pretty clear. How are they saved without baptism? The next line tells us:

It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

I don’t see how it could be more clear. That teaching has been reinforced and repeated by many statements by the Popes, both in Church documents and in more casual settings. I am sure you are familiar with them, so I am puzzled as to how you could believe that the Catechism means something different than it actually says.

 

[rossum]

As for those who you mention who lived after Christ died and rose, see my post above (#27): "in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him.” (CCC 848).

So, you agree that your earlier post was incorrect when it said:

Non-Christians cannot be saved, unless they come to faith in Christ before death,

Now you are saying that people can be saved even if they have no faith in Christ. That is a much more satisfactory position.

 

[Genesis315]

If you’re claiming the Catechism is directly contradicting itself within its own pages, I’m guessing we may be at an impasse. I claim they are coherent and complementary. Am I misunderstanding your position?

Anyway, I didn’t say anything about Baptism–I totally agree with you that the desire for Baptism, which is implicit in faith, suffices.

Again, in my prior post I already walked you through the statement you cite about those desiring the truth, being saved in context with other CCC passages.

The quote from the Catechism you provide is from Vatican II’s Constitution Lumen Gentium. Vatican II in Ad gentes said faith was absolutely necessary but God will lead a person to faith who seeks the truth with an upright conscience (see below). In Lumen Gentium, the quote you provide has a footnote to the letter from the Holy Office in the famous Boston heresy case. That letter affirms that those “outside” the Church who desire baptism can be saved as we agree.

However, it clarifies:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith.

St. John Paul II is well known for defending the truth that God provides all the means of salvation to those seeking them with an upright conscience. However, he made sure to clarify he did not intend to imply salvation apart from faith in Christ. For example, in one of his catechetical audiences (May 31, 1995), after repeating the idea you quoted, he says:

What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.” As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7).

Notice, he rules out salvation that is “independent from faith in Christ” and finishes by quoting the passage from Ad Gentes (quoted in CCC 848 that I keep posting) about God leading such an ignorant person to faith. Thus, he reconciles both the universality of God’s salvific will with the necessity of faith, just as I am trying to show you.

 

[Genesis315]

So, you agree that your earlier post was incorrect when it said:

Genesis315:

Non-Christians cannot be saved, unless they come to faith in Christ before death,

Now you are saying that people can be saved even if they have no faith in Christ. That is a much more satisfactory position.

I should have clarified that my “before death” quote only applied to those who die after Christ has died and risen. It would not apply to those who died before He died, and who had to wait in “prison” until He descended and preached to them there so they could hear His word, have faith, and enter the beatific vision as the CCC passages I provided explain. But this waiting place no longer exists since Christ has risen.

But my point remains, faith in Christ is necessary. As the Church teaches, "without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"43 (CCC 161, citing the Council of Trent).

 

[TMC]

If you’re claiming the Catechism is directly contradicting itself within its own pages, I’m guessing we may be at an impasse. I claim they are coherent and complementary. Am I misunderstanding your position?

Yes. Completely. The Catechism is not self-contradictory, but it is at odds with your position.

Anyway, I didn’t say anything about Baptism–I totally agree with you that the desire for Baptism, which is implicit in faith, suffices.

The Catechism (as well as Lumen Gentium and other Church documents) explains that Baptism of Desire extends to all those who would have desired baptism had they known it was necessary for salvation. Perhaps that is the source of confusion.

 

[Dovekin]

Even if in good conscience, people in non-Christian religions cannot have faith–they simply do not believe what God has revealed. Their belief is merely “religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself” and therefore “the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus 7).

I think this is where the problem arises. Dominus Iesus goes on to consider books that are sacred in other traditions, concluding:

Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.
Dominus Iesus 8
.

Your conclusion, which I bolded above, does not follow from what DI says. Non-Christians do have some access to elements of goodness and grace that come from Christ, and they can assent to them with faith. it may not be the full assent we learn from Christ, but it is an obedience to the goodness and grace from Christ.

I think this is a problem in DI itself, not in how you are reading it. Which may mean you understand better than I do. I am just pointing to this as the place where disagreement is coming from.

 

[rossum]

I should have clarified that my “before death” quote only applied to those who die after Christ has died and risen.

Then we are back to the issue of Native Americans and Native Australians and your attempting to limit God’s saving power to the speed at which missionaries could travel the world. You do not appear to have a very powerful God if He is limited to the speed of a sailing ship. The God of the Catholic Church is more powerful than that.

 

[Crusader13]

Then we are back to the issue of Native Americans and Native Australians and your attempting to limit God’s saving power to the speed at which missionaries could travel the world. You do not appear to have a very powerful God if He is limited to the speed of a sailing ship. The God of the Catholic Church is more powerful than that.

This issue is covered by the understanding that they never heard of Jesus or the Church or salvation. Having never heard of Jesus is different then refusing to believe.

Salvation is only through Jesus Christ. This is exactly why the Church is necessary and vitally important. Her entire existence was the means by which the good news of Salvation was to be spread.

This is why, especially in the past, she was so unyielding in proclaiming the truths of the gospel. We used to fight against error and heresies. We prayed for the conversion of all unbelievers, including the Jews. This has not changed, but too many people, including some within the Church, have sought to compromise on the truth, to foster better ecumenical relations with non-Catholics.

Jews and Muslims aren’t saved simply by being faithful Jews and Muslims.

 

[TMC]

This issue is covered by the understanding that they never heard of Jesus or the Church or salvation. Having never heard of Jesus is different then refusing to believe.

This is factually true, of course, but not relevant. As framed by the Church, the issue is whether they “know” that belief in Christ is required for salvation, not whether they have “never heard of Jesus.”

Salvation is only through Jesus Christ. This is exactly why the Church is necessary and vitally important. Her entire existence was the means by which the good news of Salvation was to be spread.

Yes, the Church teaches exactly this, but does not teach that Jesus will not save anyone who is not a member of His Church.

Jews and Muslims aren’t saved simply by being faithful Jews and Muslims.

The Church does not teach that Jews and Muslims can be saved “simply by being faithful Jews and Muslims.” The Church does teach that faithful Jews and Muslims (and atheists and Buddhists, and others) may be saved by Christ. (Not that they will. Not that evangelizing is not important. But that they may be saved by Christ.)

 

[rossum]

Salvation is only through Jesus Christ.

And that salvation is not limited by how fast missionaries can travel.

 

[Crusader13]

As framed by the Church, the issue is whether they “know” that belief in Christ is required for salvation, not whether they have “never heard of Jesus.”

So what does it mean to know something. Most non-Catholics, from other religions, have heard of the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ. They may not believe in Jesus as being Lord and Savior, but they know who he is and that Christians believe that Jesus is necessary.

Unfortunately, too many people want to say that knowing must include believing.

 

[Crusader13]

And that salvation is not limited by how fast missionaries can travel.

You’re making a point that nobody is contesting. If missionaries can’t reach a small village in some remote part of the world, then it can be said they probably never heard of Jesus or the Church.

The issue is people who disbelieve that Jesus is even necessary and openly refute Him and the Church.

 

[TMC]

Unfortunately, too many people want to say that knowing must include believing.

That is the ordinary understanding of that word, and that is the way the Church is using it. Just hearing something that one does not understand or does not believe is not “knowing.”

 

[rossum]

You’re making a point that nobody is contesting.

Genesis315 appears to be contesting it.

 

[Crusader13]

That is the ordinary understanding of that word, and that is the way the Church is using it. Just hearing something that one does not understand or does not believe is not “knowing.”

One can know something and not believe it. For example, I know that the JWs teach an overlapping view of the “generation“ spoken about in Matthew 24 and I understand their views on eschatology.

I don’t need to believe their teachings to comprehend them.

There are many non-Catholics who understand our teachings and outright reject them. There are those who know about Jesus and the Christian view of salvation, but absolutely refuse to believe in any form of religion.

You keep insisting that the Catholic Church, from your understanding of the catechism you cited, is saying that these people may be saved because they don’t know/believe the truth of salvation.

 

[TMC]

One can know something and not believe it. For example, I know that the JWs teach an overlapping view of the “generation“ spoken about in Matthew 24 and I understand their views on eschatology.

This is a semantic argument and a poor one. The issue is not whether they know what the Church teaches. If someone asked you if you know that Jesus was a prophet but not the Messiah, you would say “of course I don’t know that.” Yet you do know that is what Muslims teach. The only sensible meaning of “know” in those passages is in the sense of “understand and believe.” We can also see that in how the Church applies those teachings.

There are many non-Catholics who understand our teachings and outright reject them. There are those who know about Jesus and the Christian view of salvation, but absolutely refuse to believe in any form of religion.

Yes, they reject them because they do not know that Jesus is the Messiah and that believing that is required. They know you believe that, but they do not know that it is true.

You keep insisting that the Catholic Church, from your understanding of the catechism you cited, is saying that these people may be saved because they don’t know/believe the truth of salvation.

That is exactly what the Church is saying. I could understand if you were saying you disagree, but how can you say that is not what the Church teaches? Have you read, for example, Dominus Iesus:

Furthermore, the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity.

and

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.

 

[Crusader13]

Yes, they reject them because they do not know that Jesus is the Messiah and that believing that is required. They know you believe that, but they do not know that it is true.

No. They do not believe He is the Messiah. There is big a difference.

You can’t grant someone invincible ignorance just because they refuse to believe a biblical truth. We share the truth of the gospel and some will accept it, others refuse it.

In Scripture it says “those who believe and are baptized will be saved”.

You can’t give some one a free pass just because they choose not believe and then say “well it’s just because they don’t know…”.

Again you’re saying they don’t know it’s true so they don’t believe it. Well why do you and I and other Catholics believe it?? It’s not like we have hidden evidence that we aren’t sharing. We believe based on faith! Which they chose to place their faith in something besides Jesus Christ.