Salvation of non-Christians post Vatican II

[ajcstr]

In another thread we got sidetracked onto this topic. One poster was suggesting that since Vatican II, the Church now teaches that non-Christians can achieve salvation by leading good lives, free of mortal sin, absent faith. Sounds like Palagianism to me. This article was referenced.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...xvis-recent-rare-and-lengthy-interview-26142/

Specifically

“While the fathers and theologians of the Middle Ages could still be of the opinion that, essentially, the whole human race had become Catholic and that paganism existed now only on the margins, the discovery of the New World at the beginning of the modern era radically changed perspectives. In the second half of the last century it has been fully affirmed the understanding that God cannot let go to perdition all the unbaptized and that even a purely natural happiness for them does not represent a real answer to the question of human existence. If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost – and this explains their missionary commitment – in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned.”

Now I am not taking the position that only Catholics/Christians can be saved but what are the parameters as taught by the Church in the post-Vatican II era?

 

[Wesrock]

I’ve seen a wide variety of opinion. Essentially, we are not culpable for invincible ignorance. That does not make wrong actions good, it simply mitigates culpability. The question of what constitutes invincible ignorance and what does not has not been clearly defined for all cases.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Using the word “parameters” is not a good starting point for your question. It was the use of parameters that was abandoned. I don’t think love qualifies as a parameter since it is not really quantifiable. God may have them, but they are essentially not very clear to us, hence the abandonment of the notion in question.

I’m sure someone will quote what the CCC says about it.

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

I hope so, I’m interested in the CCC on this.

My own view is influenced by the wideness and depth of God’s mercy. I leave it in His hands, but I do my level best to live a life of witness to the truth of the Catholic faith in the hope that I influence as many people as possible, always trusting in His mercy for those I cannot reach.

 

[lanman87]

I think any answer is purely speculative. However, I can say that anyone who hears the Gospel and rejects it will not be saved, regardless of how good a person they are and the sins they commit.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God - John 3:18

I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins. - John 8:24

What happens to those who don’t hear the Gospel and therefore, don’t have the opportunity to believe is a mystery that we can only speculate about. Ultimately, God will decide.

 

[ajcstr]

Now lanman… I know how a non-Catholic Christian will respond to this. Not trying to debate this, just trying to dig down to official church teaching. That’s why I posted in a Traditional Catholicism thread.

 

[ajcstr]

Using the word “parameters” is not a good starting point for your question.

OK, agreed, as I say just trying to find the line between this and Universal Salvation or Palagianism.
I know the Church views the latter as a heresy and to my knowledge has never taught the former. That’s really where I am coming from. One can argue that all non-Christians are invincibly ignorant.

 

[lanman87]

Now lanman… I know how a non-Catholic Christian will respond to this. Not trying to debate this, just trying to dig down to official church teaching. That’s why I posted in a Traditional Catholicism thread.

Understood, just putting my .02 in. I’ll bow out now.

 

[ajcstr]

Understood, just putting my .02 in. I’ll bow out now.

No No didn’t mean it that way ! I think this goes even beyond the faith/works discussion we were having.

 

[rcwitness]

I think there is a lot to consider about this.

First, there are those who do not know the God of Israel. Some might still believe in the Creator.

Then there are those who don’t know the Gospel of Christ. They may know another world religion, that was taught by their parents, and honor the commandment to honor parents even though they did not have the Commandments through Moses.

Then there are those who hear a false Gospel, or one taught by wicked men which turns them off to their message.

In the end, and in all situations, I believe we cannot deny the Creator and seek to know and honor His purpose.

The discussion in the other thread was more about Atheists. And there are various definitions of Atheism. I have the impression that the common use of the term is the belief that a creator being does not exist. And I think that is much different than a person seeking to know God, yet is uncertain if He exists.

No one knows without faith. An Atheist concludes that because He does not “know”, then he will not act as though He exists (such as prayer and thanksgiving).

I believe faith/belief is inevitable to know God and honor Him. And all have the ability to exercise faith, since we know that we are created in His image, and He is faithful.

 

[lanman87]

No No didn’t mean it that way !

I understand. I obviously have know idea about official Catholic church teaching on the subject. So my (name removed by moderator)ut would only serve to muddy the water. I’ll be interested to see the answers.

 

[ajcstr]

Then there are those who don’t know the Gospel of Christ. They may know another world religion, that was taught by their parents, and honor the commandment to honor parents even though they did not have the Commandments through Moses.

Yes and in this situation I understand the teaching and yes the other thread was dealing with atheism. Now Romans 2 actually speaks of this contrasting the gentiles who don’t believe in the one God and the Jews who believe and have the law. He says if they follow the natural law they are a law unto themselves and will be judged according to their works.

So to me we have the age old faith vs works, Luther vs Pelagius, both labeled heretics. So we need to fall somewhere in the middle which would have to include both faith AND works. What am I missing?

 

[Vico]

Using the word “parameters” is not a good starting point for your question. It was the use of parameters that was abandoned. I don’t think love qualifies as a parameter since it is not really quantifiable. God may have them, but they are essentially not very clear to us, hence the abandonment of the notion in question.

I’m sure someone will quote what the CCC says about it.

Gaudium Et Spes, Item 22

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Catechism

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Then there are those who don’t know the Gospel of Christ. They may know another world religion, that was taught by their parents, and honor the commandment to honor parents even though they did not have the Commandments through Moses.

Yes and in this situation I understand the teaching and yes the other thread was dealing with atheism. Now Romans 2 actually speaks of this contrasting the gentiles who don’t believe in the one God and the Jews who believe and have the law. He says if they follow the natural law they are a law unto themselves and will be judged according to their works.

So to me we have the age old faith vs works, Luther vs Pelagius, both labeled heretics. So we need to fall somewhere in the middle which would have to include both faith AND works. What am I missing?

Ecclesiastes 12
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.

 

[ajcstr]

I understand. I obviously have know idea about official Catholic church teaching on the subject.

LOL - don’t feel so bad… I’m getting the feeling that I don’t either.

Still can’t distinguish between what we are talking about here and Palagianism. Hopefully someone will be able to clear this up for me.

 

[ajcstr]

Let me try it a couple ways (baby steps)

a) If one is a Christian, then Palagianism is considered a heresy and is condemned by the Church. But for a person has no knowledge of the gospel the natural law is all they have so it kind of is their “Faith”. Kind of like the argument Paul uses in Romans 2.

b) God’s grace is at work in non-Christians as well, even if they don’t realize it.

Yes? No?

 

[rcwitness]

Let me try it a couple ways (baby steps)

a) If one is a Christian, then Palagianism is considered a heresy and is condemned by the Church. But for a person has no knowledge of the gospel the natural law is all they have so it kind of is their “Faith”. Kind of like the argument Paul uses in Romans 2.

b) God’s grace is at work in non-Christians as well, even if they don’t realize it.

Yes? No?

I think, yes to “a kind of faith” works in the person who follows the only knowledge of lawfulness and Godliness they know. And by God’s grace they may receive the gift of eternal life merited by Jesus.

What I am not convinced of, is that someone can deny the Creator even exists, while following natural law. It’s a contradiction.

But maybe this isn’t always a mortal sin. Only God knows. I believe it would normally be a mortal sin to believe there is no Creator who gives life and we are at His mercy.

 

[ajcstr]

What I am not convinced of, is that someone can deny the Creator even exists, while following natural law. It’s a contradiction.

That was going to be my next question. But that description does fit with Romans 1-2 also.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

What I am not convinced of, is that someone can deny the Creator even exists, while following natural law. It’s a contradiction.

That was going to be my next question. But that description does fit with Romans 1-2 also.

Right. So to say, a sincere Narural Law abiding person happens to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the Creator, Eternal Spirit, Supreme God, etc., then how is that “sincerely seeking God”?

One Scripture, which I think lends itself (in part) to that situation is the parable of the two sons.

Matthew 21
“What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’29 And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he repented and went. 30 And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him.

So while I think the important thing is to do the Father’s will, I’m not so sure that this would imply the person who believes God does not exist, since we know that the will of the Father is that we believe in Him. How can someone discern things about Natural Law, while rejecting a principle thing such as we are creatures of a creator, and we are meaningless apart from Him? If we believe in good works of Natural Law, why would we believe a terrible lie that we have no Father of Creation?!?

 

[ajcstr]

Right. So to say, a sincere Narural Law abiding person happens to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the Creator, Eternal Spirit, Supreme God, etc., then how is that “sincerely seeking God”?

Invincible ignorance could come into play here. This is where we are getting into the “in God’s hands” category.