Rome and Universalism

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings.

For some while now I have felt uneasy regarding the wording of certain Vatican II documents, for example, Lumen Gentium, for they seem to embrace a universalistic standpoint in so far as they hold out the hope of salvation to the adherents of other faiths and to those who seek and search for God apart from Christ.

Moreover, it would appear that there has been a revolution in Rome with respect to its attitude towards the non-Christian religions. Father Leonard Feeney aside, prior to Vatican II the dominant position throughout the centuries seems to have been that salvation was exclusively available through Christ alone and through the Church alone, as expressed in the oft cited saying of Origen ‘extra ecclesiam, nulla salus’ (outside the Church there is no salvation). However, unless I am utterly mistaken the Council, through a number of ducuments (Lumen Gentium, ‘Dogmatic constitution on the Church’; Nostra Aetate, ‘Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions’; Gaudium et Spes, ‘Pastoral Constitution’; Ad gentes, ‘Decree on the church’s Missionary Activity’) articulated a much more inclusivist view in which God’s grace is said to operating in and through other religions because of God’s desire to offer salvation to all of mankind (see Lumen Gentium 16 and Nostra Aetate 2).

The official teaching of the Council coincided with the work of Karl Rahner, an official adviser at Vatican II, who held that God’s saving grace is so powerfully seeking men that those who have as yet had no exposure to the Gospel are ‘allowed’ to find in their own religion ‘a positive means of gaining a right relationship to God and thus attaining salvation, a means which is therefore positively included in God’s plan of salvation’ (Theological Investigations, London: Darton, Longman and Todd, Vol. V, pp. 121, 125). As many will know, he regards sincere non-Christians as ‘anonymous Christians’, in virtue of the grace of Christ which they received and unwittingly responded to in their own faiths! Thus, it is conceivable that any man who has aspirations after goodness can be saved by God’s grace in Christ, without actually belonging to the ‘One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. The sincere Hindu, for example, can be saved by Christ, but it is through the ‘sacraments’ of Hinduism that Jesus saves him; he is in fact one of these ‘anonymous Christians’, so beloved of Rahner. It must surely be asked, given his influential advisory role at the Council, what precisely was the impact of Rahner, and indeed other progressive types, on the findings of Vatican II? More crucially, it must also be asked whether the progressive (name removed by moderator)ut was so influential that it ultimately changed the Church’s position in relation to the non-Christian religions and beyond even.

Perhaps our Church is doing no more than offering a charitable hope as regards the salvability of the sincere heathen who, ‘through no fault of their own’, to use the official phraseology of the Council and Catechism, have never heard of Christ or the Gospel, and who has perhaps been bred in ignorance and error from his very earliest days. For these, and perhaps for other ‘disadvantaged men’, one can see that they may not be excluded from the benefit of Christ’s atonement. However, I, and indeed many others, have wondered if that was all that the Council was saying or whether it was radically changing its whole approach by adopting a much more inclusivist and liberal stance.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Portrait,

I share your concern as well. However, since I’ve only been a Roman Catholic for a little less than two years now, I am not entirely familiar with the documents you are referring to. Perhaps now would be a good time to start familarizing myself with them! I’m going to keep checking in on this thread to see what more experienced Catholics have to say on the matter.

In the meantime let me just say that, in my journey home to the Catholic faith, I came across some pretty exclusivist protestant denominations which left a bad taste in my mouth. The very idea that only a few thousand of one particular sect “can be saved” at the “rapture” was pretty hard to swallow, at least in the light of my understanding of an all-loving God. In RCIA I learned that Catholicism was the “fullest expression” of the Christian faith and , for this reason, tended to appear more “inclusive” than “exclusive” in its teachings on Christian practice. There are Catholics who feel their great wealth is no obstacle to their salvation, and Catholics who actually choose poverty because they feel that it would. There are Catholics who go to confession almost daily, and other who only feel the need to go once a year. There are Catholics who keep statues inside their homes, while other avoid them. The spiritual paths which have been formed over 2000 years, all WITHIN the Church, are almost countless. “In my father’s house there are many mansions”. This is one of the things that attracted me to Catholicism.

RCIA also taught me that ALL salvation comes through the Church, whether or not one is consciously aware of it or not. I found this to be a fascinating TRUTH as well; for if there is indeed only ONE truth, and only ONE church… the rest follows.

But, as you have stated, just how far can we take this concept before we cross the fine line of heresy?

 

[Ocarm]

More crucially, it must also be asked whether the progressive (name removed by moderator)ut was so influential that it ultimately changed the Church’s position in relation to the non-Christian religions and beyond even.

---

However, I, and indeed many others, have wondered if that was all that the Council was saying or whether it was radically changing its whole approach by adopting a much more inclusivist and liberal stance.

Without approaching the substance of your question, I’d nevertheless make a contextual observation that may clarify it a little. Lumen Gentium was, as you point out, a dogmatic constitution; as such it was infallible teaching of divinely revealed origin (that’s what a dogmatic constitution is).

This means that either:

1. Jesus lied to us, and the gates of hell have prevailed against the church because it is capable of producing definitive teaching that is in error

or, more likely (!)

1. That the theology of Lumen Gentium is congruent with previous teaching but restates and develops it in the manner that theology can (entirely properly) undergo such development. That being so, your worries about it going too far are unnecessary.

I’ll just quickly add that there is a fondness in some quarters for stating that the Second Vatican Council produced no infallible teaching. If that is the case, then 1. above must be true, since the church has produced a definitive teaching that is in error. The assertion generally comes from people who, with respect, do not fully understand the doctrine of infallibility and what a dogmatic constitution is - namely, a form of document reserved for definitive and infallible teaching only. If the church was capable of wrongly labelling such a document when it actually contained flawed teaching, then it is capable of other gross errors; and so hell has prevailed, and Jesus was wrong.

Since I don’t believe that for a second, neither do I believe that Lumen Gentium can indicate a change in the church’s position, or be the result of a putative liberal conspiracy. We can surely continue to believe the promise that Jesus made to us. That doesn’t mean that the stated positions of the documents you mention aren’t complex or difficult to understand, and worthy of the closer examination that you suggest.

 

[JM3]

For some while now I have felt uneasy regarding the wording of certain Vatican II documents, for example, Lumen Gentium, for they seem to embrace a universalistic standpoint in so far as they hold out the hope of salvation to the adherents of other faiths and to those who seek and search for God apart from Christ.
However, unless I am utterly mistaken the Council, through a number of ducuments (Lumen Gentium, ‘Dogmatic constitution on the Church’; Nostra Aetate, ‘Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions’; Gaudium et Spes, ‘Pastoral Constitution’; Ad gentes, ‘Decree on the church’s Missionary Activity’) articulated a much more inclusivist view in which God’s grace is said to operating in and through other religions because of God’s desire to offer salvation to all of mankind (see Lumen Gentium 16 and Nostra Aetate 2).
Perhaps our Church is doing no more than offering a charitable hope as regards the salvability of the sincere heathen who, ‘through no fault of their own’, to use the official phraseology of the Council and Catechism, have never heard of Christ or the Gospel, and who has perhaps been bred in ignorance and error from his very earliest days. For these, and perhaps for other ‘disadvantaged men’, one can see that they may not be excluded from the benefit of Christ’s atonement. However, I, and indeed many others, have wondered if that was all that the Council was saying or whether it was radically changing its whole approach by adopting a much more inclusivist and liberal stance.

Have you read the documents yourself? This would be preferable then relying on other peoples perspective.

Lumen Gentium
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.** He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.** He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also** can attain to salvation *who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. *Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20) **She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

It says ‘can’, not ‘will’. And agrees with St. Paul in Romans 2:14-15.

 

[JM3]

NOSTRA AETATE

1. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history;** at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father.** This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which,** though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.**** Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4) **

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

Perhaps, Charity?

 

[Portrait]

Without approaching the substance of your question, I’d nevertheless make a contextual observation that may clarify it a little. Lumen Gentium was, as you point out, a dogmatic constitution; as such it was infallible teaching of divinely revealed origin (that’s what a dogmatic constitution is).

This means that either:

1. Jesus lied to us, and the gates of hell have prevailed against the church because it is capable of producing definitive teaching that is in error

or, more likely (!)

1. That the theology of Lumen Gentium is congruent with previous teaching but restates and develops it in the manner that theology can (entirely properly) undergo such development. That being so, your worries about it going too far are unnecessary.

I’ll just quickly add that there is a fondness in some quarters for stating that the Second Vatican Council produced no infallible teaching. If that is the case, then 1. above must be true, since the church has produced a definitive teaching that is in error. The assertion generally comes from people who, with respect, do not fully understand the doctrine of infallibility and what a dogmatic constitution is - namely, a form of document reserved for definitive and infallible teaching only. If the church was capable of wrongly labelling such a document when it actually contained flawed teaching, then it is capable of other gross errors; and so hell has prevailed, and Jesus was wrong.

Since I don’t believe that for a second, neither do I believe that Lumen Gentium can indicate a change in the church’s position, or be the result of a putative liberal conspiracy. We can surely continue to believe the promise that Jesus made to us. That doesn’t mean that the stated positions of the documents you mention aren’t complex or difficult to understand, and worthy of the closer examination that you suggest.

Dear Mike,

Cordial greetings and how good to hear from a fellow UK citizen. Thankyou kindly for your response to my post.

First, I do not think that it is helpful to reduce this debate to the question of the Church’s infallibility, for the documents I referenced from Vatican II have been much debated and critiqued from both within and without the Catholic Church. Thus, evidently they do present some very weighty and genuine problems that have, and indeed continue, to engage and perplex the minds of men.

Second, is the teaching of *Lumen Gentium *really consonant with the Church’s previous position?, I am not so certain that it is. Take the following, for example:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved” Pope Inocent III (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, D430).

“The most holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and Heretics and Schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive eternal recompence for thier fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441, D714).

"This true Catholic Faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I do promise and swear that I will most constantly keep and confess whole and inviolate with the help of God until the last breath of my life, and that I will take great care that it be held, taught, and preached by my inferiors and by those who are placed under my charge (Papal Oath, Vatican II).

Now all the woolly statements contained the Vatican II documents can hardly be said to be a re-formualtion of such clear and unequivocal statements as those cited above; on the contrary they appear to be a radical departure from such unambiguous and forthright language, the meaning of which is quite unmistakeable. Vatican II does appear to have been embarrassed by such language and thought that it was too harsh and thus needed to be tempered by a more moderate and charitable phraseology. This seems incontrovertible as one juxtaposes the two sets of statements and carefully compares them.

Whilst I recognize that the Council was seriously engaging with the issue of the “invincibly ignorant” and their salvation, they did not need to resort to a spurious ecumenism in order to sound more charitable and inclusive, for the invincibly ignorant will be brought to the truth (and the Church), by miraculous means, if necessary, to procure their salvation. This has occured in the past; saints have been raised from the dead specifically to receive Holy Baptism and saints have been re-located to preach the Gospel to natives etc. With this St. Thomas Aquinas is in agreement:

“If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is”.

“If a man be born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ocarm]

Dear Mike,

Cordial greetings and how good to hear from a fellow UK citizen.

And to you as well.

First, I do not think that it is helpful to reduce this debate to the question of the Church’s infallibility, for the documents I referenced from Vatican II have been much debated and critiqued from both within and without the Catholic Church.

As I said in my response (although perhaps not very clearly) I was trying to give a context for discussion rather than offer thoughts on the subject itself. The context is that, for Roman Catholics, the teaching of Lumen Gentium is infallible. That means that any discussion has to be predicated on the belief that it is, rather than might not be, congruent with other dogmatic teaching.

Although non-Catholics are able to start from a position that disregards this reality, Catholics are not. This means that the question to be asked and answered here is not 'is this document consistent with previous teaching? 'but ‘how do we properly understand this document given that it is authentic and definitive?’.

is the teaching of *Lumen Gentium *really consonant with the Church’s previous position?, I am not so certain that it is.

See what I mean? Wrong place to start.

Please don’t misunderstand. Its a free country that we both live in, and of course you can disregard the issue of infallibility if you choose. But there’s a logical absurdity at work if you do. Your question concerns itself with consistency in church teaching; but if you choose to ignore the infallible status of Lumen Gentium, then you’re basically saying that the church is capable of teaching error - in which case your question becomes irrelevant, because there’d be no reason to expect the church to be teaching consistently.

For what its worth, there have been endless discussions here on CAF about the issues you raise. The discssions usually follow a specific pattern: A says that the teaching is inconsistent; B says they don’t think it is, and anyway, its authoritative and definitive; and A says they still don’t think its consistent. And so it goes on.

I’m not suggesting bad faith in this. I’m just saying there is a qualitative difference between entering the discussion knowing that consistency must be there even if its difficult to find, and entering it believing that maybe it simply isn’t there. If a person accepts the teaching authority of the church - and if they don’t, why be concerned with possible inconsistency, as you are? - then statements like yours above are problematic and illogical.

I will add a brief formulation of LG’s teaching as I understand it. Development of dogma has led us to the conclusion that the church on earth extends not only to her avowed membership, but also to all people of good faith who seek after truth, and that the visible sign of their membership is their good faith itself. This doesn’t mean that all people will benefit from the salvific plan, merely that they may do so. But that’s as true for Christians as for non-Christians: we can still reject God even after we have been baptised.

That God does not limit the promise of salvation to those who offer the more obvious sign of engaging with the sacraments, but offers it to all of humanity through His church - the mystical body of Christ here on earth, not the human institution - seems to me to be entirely consistent with the desires of a loving creator. So I don’t see any problem with the teaching of Lumen Gentium. In fact I think it is a wonderful clarification of the church’s teaching, and a beautful sign that points to the great mercy of God.

And its infallibly taught.

 

[Portrait]

And to you as well.

As I said in my response (although perhaps not very clearly) I was trying to give a context for discussion rather than offer thoughts on the subject itself. The context is that, for Roman Catholics, the teaching of Lumen Gentium is infallible. That means that any discussion has to be predicated on the belief that it is, rather than might not be, congruent with other dogmatic teaching.

Although non-Catholics are able to start from a position that disregards this reality, Catholics are not. This means that the question to be asked and answered here is not 'is this document consistent with previous teaching? 'but ‘how do we properly understand this document given that it is authentic and definitive?’.

I will add a brief formulation of LG’s teaching as I understand it. Development of dogma has led us to the conclusion that the church on earth extends not only to her avowed membership, but also to all people of good faith who seek after truth, and that the visible sign of their membership is their good faith itself. This doesn’t mean that all people will benefit from the salvific plan, merely that they may do so. But that’s as true for Christians as for non-Christians: we can still reject God even after we have been baptised.

That God does not limit the promise of salvation to those who offer the more obvious sign of engaging with the sacraments, but offers it to all of humanity through His church - the mystical body of Christ here on earth, not the human institution - seems to me to be entirely consistent with the desires of a loving creator. So I don’t see any problem with the teaching of Lumen Gentium. In fact I think it is a wonderful clarification of the church’s teaching, and a beautful sign that points to the great mercy of God.

And its infallibly taught.

Dear Mike,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.

May I first of all make it abundantly clear that I assent unreservedly to the teaching authority of the Magisterium and have no problem whatsoever with the infallibility of the Church. Indeed, it was because I was wholly convinced of the Church’s infallibility that I converted to Catholicism from the Church of England after some tweenty years of intensive study and painstaking research. Moreover, I am thoroughly persuaded that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established upon St. Peter (St. Matt. 16: 18) and that each Pope thereafter is the authentic successor of St. Peter.

Your argument is both logical and well-founded; clearly if one accepts the infallibility of the Church, then they will not talk of any inconsistentcy in its teaching, for any such talk would be to challenge that authority and call it into question. This should, effectively, close down all meaningful discussion, for any further debate is merely academic and not really of any practical relevance, as the issue has already been decided authoritatively by the Church. However, the fact remains that the subject currently under review is hotly debated as the multiple threads on the issue here at CAF amply bear witness.

Is it not rather patronising towards men of other religions, or “people of good faith who seek after truth”, to somehow grant them Church membership on the basis of “their good faith”. Please forgive me dear friend if I am misconstruing your meaning, but that does seem to be the general drift of your argument. The honory granting of Chrurch membership to those who have not requested it, and who have, in some cases, positively resisted it (as is true of both Muslims and Jews), surely savours of sheer imperialism; one can easily imagine what the Catholic reaction would be if they were to be told by the ardent represenatives of Islam, that they are in fact ‘anonymous Muslims’, to use the silly Rahnerian phraseology. No, the (name removed by moderator)ut of progressive thinking has profoundly and undeniably impacted the Second Vatican Council and reformulation, or at least some clarification, is most urgently required, otherwise the debate will only continue unabated among the Catholic community.

BTW, the religions of the world are hopelessly idealised by an inclusivist mentality and especially ‘anonymous Christianity’. The world’s religions are not kindly debating societies, rather they are a morass of superstition, ignorance, exploitation, oppression and fear, as any man who has lived among them for any length of time will testify.

Therefore our Church’s approach to the non-Christian religions is on the whole far more positive than is deserved by their actual ‘track record’ in promoting mankind’s happiness and good relations on earth, let alone in providing the possibility of eternal salvation. The fact is that these non-Christian religions are not ‘a preparation for the Gospel’ or the revelation of Christ. Paradoxically, the closer any religion stands to Christianity, so higher the barrier errected by it between its own adherents and the Christian revelation. If salvation is to be found by the adherents of these religions, it may well be found whilst they are still in them, but it will be found not because of them, but in spite of them; God, in His infinte mercy, will ensure that they have an opportunity somehow to embrace the Gospel before they die, either by special inspiration or by sending an official expounder of the Christian revelation, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, ‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ’ (Rom. 10: 17). Moreover, '…how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how can men preach unless they are sent?..’ (Rom. 10: 14,15, added emphasis mine).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ocarm]

Dear Portrait,

Allow me to quote myself:

there have been endless discussions here on CAF about the issues you raise. The discussions usually follow a specific pattern: A says that the teaching is inconsistent; B says they don’t think it is, and anyway, its authoritative and definitive; and A says they still don’t think its consistent. And so it goes on.

And now to quote you:

May I first of all make it abundantly clear that I assent unreservedly to the teaching authority of the Magisterium and have no problem whatsoever with the infallibility of the Church.

Your argument is both logical and well-founded; clearly if one accepts the infallibility of the Church, then they will not talk of any inconsistentcy in its teaching, for any such talk would be to challenge that authority and call it into question.

No, the (name removed by moderator)ut of progressive thinking has profoundly and undeniably impacted the Second Vatican Council and reformulation, or at least some clarification, is most urgently required, otherwise the debate will only continue unabated among the Catholic community.

The world’s religions are not kindly debating societies, rather they are a morass of superstition, ignorance, exploitation, oppression and fear, as any man who has lived among them for any length of time will testify.

Therefore our Church’s approach to the non-Christian religions is on the whole far more positive than is deserved by their actual ‘track record’

It would appear that you are A, and I am B. And I have no real interest in maintaining this kind of dialogue, because experience tells me it doesn’t get us anywhere. So this will be my last contribution to this thread.

I’ll just repeat myself one last time. With respect, you simply can’t have this one both ways. Either you accept the infallible teachings of the church, including the ecumenical and interfaith dimensions of Lumen Gentium; or you pick away at them and deconstruct them and ultimately, refuse to accept them.

All of the bishops present at the Second Vatican council signed off on the documents produced, including Archbishop Lefebvre, so I refuse to believe that they were not in continuity with church teaching. That they use language or a conciliatory approach of which you disapprove is unremarkable, and ultimately irrelevant; the particular lexicon of church documents is often not easy to approach, or obscure, and the message intended may require some effort to uncover.

You are claiming fidelity to the magisterium, but you words imply otherwise (note I say imply - I’m not pretending that I can read your mind) - because they are critical of extraordinary magisterial teaching. The council was not limited to using language with which you are comfortable, nor to expressing dogmatic truths in the same language used on previous occasions. Theology, and dogma, undergo development - and development is not the same as reversal, or wholesale change.

I think the individual who disapproves of LG’s teachings has two choices: acknowledge that they must be mistaken, or continue to argue that the church somehow got it wrong, even in her dogmatic teaching. If they go for the latter, I don’t see how they can claim fidelity to the magisterium.

All good wishes, and farewell for this thread.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Greetings,

This is just MHO. I believe it lines up with the Church stance. It is only through christ that we are saved, That Christ gave us the chruch as the vehecule of the salvation and outside of the Chruch there is not salvation. That said we have to look at does God condem automaticaly all those that have never heard of Christ? Also what of those that because of the way they were raised they accept Christ, but have been given such prejudice against the Catholic church as they can not enter it? thes are the ones that are being addressed here.

Just a thought on how this may work in the Cronicals of Narnia the last book " The Last Battle" show at the end one boy whom was not a follower of Aslan being saved by him even though he was a follower of the demon that his people worshiped. In his heart and though he did not really know it he was following Aslan.

I can not know or understand completely, this side of heaven, God plan or love. I can accept That he loves us all and that natural Law is written in our hearts if we allow ourselves to follow it.

One last thing. To me the no salvation outside the Chruch specks more to those that are in the Chruch and then reject it.

 

[rinnie]

To make a long story short! A person who does not have the truth revealed to him cannot be held responsible for what he does not know.

All Salvation is through Jesus Christ! We know this, but for those who have not had the truth revealed to them cannot know this.

The teaching has never changed. All Salvation is still through Jesus Christ. God knows who he has revealed himself to and who he hasn’t. And for those who has not had the truth revealed he will find a way to do it.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Ocarm

Dear Mike,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your courteous replies. Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[JM3]

“The most holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and Heretics and Schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive eternal recompence for thier fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441, D714).

It is interesting that this is the only part of the Papal Bull that is quoted. I did read the whole Papal Bull once and there is a section of it that agrees with LG16. Sadly, it was several months ago and I cannot find it again, as I didn’t bookmark it.

 

[rinnie]

The bottom line is this. What is the definition of the RCC. To us the RCC and Jesus Christ are ONE. Now so is there Salvation outside of Jesus Christ? We are taught that there is only ONE GOD in 3 separate persons. One is Jesus Christ. We believe in the Holy Trinity.

Now to anyone who knows what the Trinity is, and understands it, they know that there is no Salvation outside of Jesus Christ. Which is what the Holy Roman Church teaches, and will always teach. So whats the problem?

 

[Portrait]

Greetings,

This is just MHO. I believe it lines up with the Church stance. It is only through christ that we are saved, That Christ gave us the chruch as the vehecule of the salvation and outside of the Chruch there is not salvation. That said we have to look at does God condem automaticaly all those that have never heard of Christ? Also what of those that because of the way they were raised they accept Christ, but have been given such prejudice against the Catholic church as they can not enter it? thes are the ones that are being addressed here.

Just a thought on how this may work in the Cronicals of Narnia the last book " The Last Battle" show at the end one boy whom was not a follower of Aslan being saved by him even though he was a follower of the demon that his people worshiped. In his heart and though he did not really know it he was following Aslan.

I can not know or understand completely, this side of heaven, God plan or love. I can accept That he loves us all and that natural Law is written in our hearts if we allow ourselves to follow it.

One last thing. To me the no salvation outside the Chruch specks more to those that are in the Chruch and then reject it.

Dear Scott,

Cordial greetings.

Thus is it case of God obliging no man to the impossible? If those who are genuinely ignorant of the Gospel, for whatever reason, are sincere in their mistaken beliefs, endeavour to obey the dictates of natural conscience and natural law, repent of their shortcomings and sins, will God give them the necessary interior graces for their salvation, graces due to the merits of Christ? Moreover, after the moment of their death will they know that Christ has been their Redeemer, notwithstanding, ‘through no fault of their own’, they did not recognize that fact during their life time? Would the same be applicable to the countless millions who lived before the Gospel?

If all the answers to the above are in the affirmative, then has that been the consistent teaching of the Church throughout its history. The words of Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino (previously cited), would appear to be at variance with this more charitable and positive standpoint.

As far as Pope Eugene is concerned, it would appear that when he spoke of their being no salvation beyond the Church, he was refering also to those outside the bosom of the Church, for he specifically spoke of Jews and pagans as well as heretics and schismatics. None of these will share in eternal life, but rather will go to eternal fire, Hell. This seems exceedingly hard to reconcile with the goodwill style language of *Lumen Gentium *16.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[JM3]

As far as Pope Eugene is concerned, it would appear that when he spoke of their being no salvation beyond the Church, he was refering also to those outside the bosom of the Church, for he specifically spoke of Jews and pagans as well as heretics and schismatics. None of these will share in eternal life, but rather will go to eternal fire, Hell. This seems exceedingly hard to reconcile with the goodwill style language of *Lumen Gentium *16.

All Salvation Comes through Christ
General Audience — May 31, 1995

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Dear Scott,

Cordial greetings.

Thus is it case of God obliging no man to the impossible? If those who are genuinely ignorant of the Gospel, for whatever reason, are sincere in their mistaken beliefs, endeavour to obey the dictates of natural conscience and natural law, repent of their shortcomings and sins, will God give them the necessary interior graces for their salvation, graces due to the merits of Christ? Moreover, after the moment of their death will they know that Christ has been their Redeemer, notwithstanding, ‘through no fault of their own’, they did not recognize that fact during their life time? Would the same be applicable to the countless millions who lived before the Gospel?

If all the answers to the above are in the affirmative, then has that been the consistent teaching of the Church throughout its history. The words of Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino (previously cited), would appear to be at variance with this more charitable and positive standpoint.

As far as Pope Eugene is concerned, it would appear that when he spoke of their being no salvation beyond the Church, he was refering also to those outside the bosom of the Church, for he specifically spoke of Jews and pagans as well as heretics and schismatics. None of these will share in eternal life, but rather will go to eternal fire, Hell. This seems exceedingly hard to reconcile with the goodwill style language of *Lumen Gentium *16.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

After reading The words of Pope Eugene IV in Cantatel Domino I would still have to say it does not include those that have not heard the Gospel, only those that have and reject it.

Even if not stated in that document, just like with scripture you can not piece work it but must look at the entire work so with the documents of the Church, Pope Eugen wrote no salvation outside to Church and the Church has since then defined what that means.

 

[Portrait]

After reading The words of Pope Eugene IV in Cantatel Domino I would still have to say it does not include those that have not heard the Gospel, only those that have and reject it.

Even if not stated in that document, just like with scripture you can not piece work it but must look at the entire work so with the documents of the Church, Pope Eugen wrote no salvation outside to Church and the Church has since then defined what that means.

Dear Scott,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above.

Would you agree that prior to Vatican II the Church taught that Jews, Muslims and pagans could not be saved outside of the bosom of the Church, but that because of development of dogma the Church now holds that they can? If that is the case where does that leave Pope Eugene IV and all those who placed reliance upon his infallible teaching?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Dear Friend,

I would say that that would be the general understanding. Given that in the Gospel Christ states that no one comes to the Father but by the Son, he was reiterating Christ statesments. Now that said does that mean prior to christ coming and even after those that have never heard the word are condemed? I see nothing in his stament that hold to that. This would still have to align with what has now been said that it only applies to those that haveing heard willfully reject. And then only if doing so it is because they refuse to accept not because for what ever mental, or social barriers that may have been involed in their development that now prvents them form totally and fully accepting.

The Jew that can not accept because it was germans did to the jewish people in wwII, the muslem that can not because of the crusades, the Protestant that can not because all his/her life they were taught how wrong the Catholic church was and even now can not wrap their head around all those they loved and that taught them being wrong.

Just as in reading scripture you have to look at how it ws written and to who it was written and what it was addressing at the time. so to with this Bull by Pope Eugene IV, Then great schism with the east had happened only a couple hundren years earlier. Muslems were moving in to spain. There was still a larg pagan influnce over much of Europe and his writting was addressed to the Catholic that may be sudduded by these influneces. it was not addressed to those people.

Rember also that as catholic we do not believe that salvation is a one ad done event but is something that happens in baptism and is happening as we continue our lives in Christ and hope to happen when we die. He is Telling the faithful that if they leave the Church they have no hop for salvation.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Friend,

I would say that that would be the general understanding. Given that in the Gospel Christ states that no one comes to the Father but by the Son, he was reiterating Christ statesments. Now that said does that mean prior to christ coming and even after those that have never heard the word are condemed? I see nothing in his stament that hold to that. This would still have to align with what has now been said that it only applies to those that haveing heard willfully reject. And then only if doing so it is because they refuse to accept not because for what ever mental, or social barriers that may have been involed in their development that now prvents them form totally and fully accepting.

The Jew that can not accept because it was germans did to the jewish people in wwII, the muslem that can not because of the crusades, the Protestant that can not because all his/her life they were taught how wrong the Catholic church was and even now can not wrap their head around all those they loved and that taught them being wrong.

Just as in reading scripture you have to look at how it ws written and to who it was written and what it was addressing at the time. so to with this Bull by Pope Eugene IV, Then great schism with the east had happened only a couple hundren years earlier. Muslems were moving in to spain. There was still a larg pagan influnce over much of Europe and his writting was addressed to the Catholic that may be sudduded by these influneces. it was not addressed to those people.

Rember also that as catholic we do not believe that salvation is a one ad done event but is something that happens in baptism and is happening as we continue our lives in Christ and hope to happen when we die. He is Telling the faithful that if they leave the Church they have no hop for salvation.

Dear Scott,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your reply above. Please forgive my delay in responding but it is my custom to have a breather from the boards at weekends.

Whilst I do appreciate the general purport of your argument, Pope Eugene’s words are, nevertheless, quite specific, “The most holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagan, but also Jews and Heretics and Schismatics can have a share in eternal life; but they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her” (Cantate Domino). Now clearly these words have no application to and indeed do not even refer the faithful who may be contemplating leaving the Church; they are incontrovertibly refering to “those existing outside the Catholic Church”.

Now it seems that at the Second Vatican Council a new and much broader religious definition of the church began to emerge and make its presence felt; one in which God’s presence is no longer exclusively contained within the Church. Thus, in such a new religious milieu, supposedly harsh and uncharitable words such as those of Pope Eugene’s, which unequivocally circumscribed the limits within which God and salvation could be found, presented a problem and embarrassment to the new Vatican II theologians, who were undeniably men of universal vision, or should I say, *universalist *vision?

The question for the new thinkers, men such as Karl Rahner (an official adviser), was precisely how can the new emerging theology endorse at the same time the tradtional view of the Church (noted for its exclusiveness), as expressed by Pope Eugene and Pope Innocent III for example, and the new vision with its new view of man (noted for its inclusiveness)?

The new progressive theologians were confident that a harmonization between the two opposing viewpoints could be found not merely by a legitimate development but by a radical reinterpretation of the old in terms of the new. In this way, elements of the traditional doctrine (which many disliked intensely) could be retained though their real substance was adapted and transformed. It is surely rather naive to assume that the likes of Rahner et al had no influence whatsoever, since their impact is to be seen in all the Council documents.

The old traditional Catholicism was formulated by men who were thoroughly and unreservedly convinced that they could know God’s truth infallibly; truth was always truth, error was always error and the distinction between the twain was never blurred. Consequently, there was, and still is, for traditional Catholics an unbridgeable chasm between Christ and the Devil, light and darkness, Catholic and non-Catholic religion. Morevover, traditional Catholics would not regard this as a rather facile oversimplification of of the actual situation, on the contrary, they would regard it as being loyal to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout its magnificent history, rather than capitulating to wishy-washy liberal sentiments, such as the whole notion of “anonymous Christians”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax