Salvation of Virtuous Pagans

[harshcshah]

In short - can virtuous pagans be saved?
It is my understanding - correct me if I am wrong - that the Angelic Doctor held that virtuous pagans would not be saved but would not suffer the torments of hellfire either. Since, they did not know of God through the Old Covenant (like the OT righteous) or through Christ they are unable to attain the beatific vision. However, they, being righteous, do not deserve the pains of hellfire and thus attain a state of natural happiness in limbo. Thus, it is argued, the doctrine of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is preserved.
This view has been challenged recently by the notion of invincible ignorance - a position that I held - which states that those who are invincibly ignorant can go to heaven because they cannot have ever heard the Gospel (i.e. pagans born before Christ) and therefore by living in accord with the natural law alone they are able to be saved. They are not saved because of their ignorance, they are saved in spite of it. The fruits of Christ’s salvific work are applied to them. Thus, it is argued, the doctrine of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is preserved.
I ask this question because a sedevacantist, of all people, declared me a formal heretic for having adhered to the latter position! I did some more research and am now more in agreement with the Angelic Doctor’s perspective. I would really appreciate your opinions before reaching a final judgement (pun unintended).

 

[Mythicalbio]

I think they will be saved by the same way the Israelites of old were saved (perfect contrition, baptism of desire, acts of love, etc). Christ did not come to make it harder for salvation, but the way is even broader now. Anyone who enters the state of grace and is saved is part of the Church. The doctrine is preserved when the definition is expanded of ecclesiam.

I reject entirely any idea of natural happiness without sight of God, and any third final destinations. Invincible ignorance is also not the only way, I think someone can even reject the Church and he saved if it is not an actual mortal sin. And if it is, they can be forgiven by one of the ways above, which would still make them a member.

Ignore sedes they can not even see who is clearly the Pope, their moral and theological judgments are worthless as a result of their spiritual blindness. The way of salvation is simple and easy, although limited to one way which is grace.

 

[ioannes_pius]

I ask this question because a sedevacantist, of all people, declared me a formal heretic for having adhered to the latter position!

You should this individual the following quote by Pius IX: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore - August 10, 1863)

The possibility of salvation for the invincibly ignorant of good will is the teaching of the Church. This is just one instance in which it was taught.

There is no room for debate about this.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In short - can virtuous pagans be saved?

We do not know for sure who gets saved, but we certainly hope and pray for their salvation. We recognize that they have the possibility of salvation, hence our hope.

If indeed they are saved, then they accept the Trinitarian God and become part of His Church no later than the moment of their salvation. It may be that God gives them a chance to do this at their time of death. Again, we really don’t know how it works.

Ignore sedes

Good idea, unless one is trying to convert them. But definitely don’t go taking to heart what they say.

 

[kapp19]

Take a look at Question 1 in the Prima Pars… what is your take?

 

[harshcshah]

Take a look at Question 1 in the Prima Pars… what is your take?

The Angelic Doctor argues that it is necessary for salvation that God makes his divine revelation for what knowledge we would be able to attain of him via reason would be limited and mixed with errors and would thus be insufficient for salvation.
I’m by no means ever going to argue from a heretical Pelagian perspective and agree with Aquinas here; I would say, however, that one could argue that God is both just and merciful and if a hypothetical righteous pagan did arise which - sustained by divine grace (for it is necessary for even a fallen human to pursue natural goods to be supported by divine grace) - did not commit mortal sins, only sinning venially then it could be so that God, in his justice and mercy, would allow this pagan into heaven after being purified in purgatory. Furthermore, this salvation would come from Christ as all salvation comes from Him and insofar as that salvation comes from Him it also comes from His Holy Church for she is his Mystical Body.
Whilst it seems incredibly unlikely that such a person would ever arise - given our fallen state - I would not discount it from ever being possible.
For virtuous pagans who have committed mortal sins and have felt contrition for them and been virtuous otherwise, I would think that they would exist in a state of limbo.

 

[harshcshah]

I think that it’s possible to maintain limbo whilst recognising that insofar as one holds that God would punish someone only for committing actual sins; not original sin. Since babies who have been aborted or have died in infancy have not committed actual sins, one could hold that God would not deprive them of salvation.

I’m not entirely firm on this topic so I’m bound to have errors peppered throughout

 

[kapp19]

Ah, I remembered the reference to Aratus but thought he had the other points there somewhat as well, but it is all II-II 2 and 5… you have read this of course? He seems to make a strong statement and then walk it back slowly. It’s odd.

 

[Gorgias]

For virtuous pagans who have committed mortal sins

So… just to make sure I understand what you’re asserting: you’re saying that those who have never heard the Gospel might commit grave sins, knowing that they’re grave, and fully consenting to them nevertheless?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So… just to make sure I understand what you’re asserting: you’re saying that those who have never heard the Gospel might commit grave sins, knowing that they’re grave , and fully consenting to them nevertheless?

I would assume that your average pagan would at least know that certain sins against the natural law, such as willful murder or major fraud for personal gain, are indeed wrong.
Pagans in more developed societies might have additional acts that they would consider a serious sin, such as adultery or rape.

 

[Gorgias]

I would assume that your average pagan would at least know that certain sins against the natural law, such as willful murder or major fraud for personal gain, are indeed wrong.
Pagans in more developed societies might have additional acts that they would consider a serious sin, such as adultery or rape.

Perhaps. And yet, I would think that it would be far more likely that they subscribe to a moral code that doesn’t perceive of these as ‘sin’, per se. (For example, ‘consequentialism’. If they see the consequences of doing something as more beneficial to them than not doing it, then they wouldn’t perceive of this as ‘sin’, but as ‘morally acceptable.’) In that case, it would be objective sin, but not ‘mortal’…no?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m not an expert on pagan views of sin, but I know for instance Hindus have very developed concepts of sin as a moral evil that can be remedied through god’s forgiveness. It’s not just a matter of “this has bad consequeces so I avoid it”, it’s actual moral evil.

I am sure that with the many pagan religions out there, many different views of moral evil/ sin/ bad acts exist, but it does not seem out of the question for a pagan to think they have commited some grave moral wrong or that it damages their connection to a deity/ their progress towards some state of bliss.

 

[harshcshah]

Today I found this article: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation) | EWTN by Michael J. Mazza which has helped to clear up my views somewhat. If someone would like to read it and give their thoughts, I would appreciate it.

 

[kapp19]

That would seem rather lax, to be frank. Otherwise, why preach the Gospel at all? Romans 1 stands in the way of this thought at a minimum. The natural law is written on the heart.

Those who lack explicit faith - at least in the Paschal Mystery’s essence by a kind of trust in Providence, for the “minores,” the “unlearned” in spiritual things - are already resisting sufficient grace to prompt them to faith. Which is mortal sin. The lack of a preacher being sent is the upshot; it is just for God not to reward such sin. He can have mercy on whom He will.

 

[Gorgias]

That would seem rather lax, to be frank.

“Lax” or not, it stands to reason, don’t you think? How can you intend a sin you don’t recognize as such?

Otherwise, why preach the Gospel at all?

Lumen gentium discusses a notion similar to this one, and provides the answer:

The Church has received this solemn mandate of Christ to proclaim the saving truth from the apostles and must carry it out to the very ends of the earth. Wherefore she makes the words of the Apostle her own: “Woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel”, and continues unceasingly to send heralds of the Gospel until such time as the infant churches are fully established and can themselves continue the work of evangelizing. For the Church is compelled by the Holy Spirit to do her part that God’s plan may be fully realized, whereby He has constituted Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. … The obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ, according to his state.

Romans 1 stands in the way of this thought at a minimum. The natural law is written on the heart.

The natural law is written on the heart, without a doubt. However, some do not form their consciences properly and, as a result, do not hear what their hearts are telling them.

Those who lack explicit faith - at least in the Paschal Mystery’s essence by a kind of trust in Providence, for the “minores,” the “unlearned” in spiritual things - are already resisting sufficient grace to prompt them to faith. Which is mortal sin.

Wow. So, by your standard, everyone who doesn’t have explicit faith in Jesus is in a state of mortal sin? That’s not the teaching of the Church, friend.

 

[kapp19]

Well, Jacques Dupuis does not have it right either.

Thomas has a lot to say on the topic - and I am pulling from him (and no, that is not precisely what I said - the Paschal Mystery is not simply “Jesus” - and the minores/maiores distinction is important, as well as Thomas’ point about implicit faith through the explicit trust in Providence)… and again, the ever-relevant Romans 1. Do they know that they are sinning? Doesn’t seem to matter for Paul - the point is that they COULD know but sink deeper into ignorance through sin, and into more sin through ignorance, and so on.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Today I found this article: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-1012 by Michael J. Mazza which has helped to clear up my views somewhat. If someone would like to read it and give their thoughts, I would appreciate it.

I’m not sure what there is to say. Fr. Feeney was really famous, he was excommunicated for disobedience to his superior and not for his views on EENS, but he got back in the Church just before he died, and he died in the Church. The group he started (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) is still with us but split into two factions, one of which I believe is in communion with the Church and one which is not. We’ve had threads on Fr. Feeney before.

As the article states, when Fr. Feeney was creating a stir in Boston, the Church hadn’t clarified its teaching and there were a lot of average Catholics who believed EENS meant non-Catholics (not just the unbaptized, but non-Catholics in general, like mainline Protestants etc) didn’t go to Heaven. Older members of my family, like aunts and uncles, would tell jokes about this. Limbo of infants was also being taught as part of the Baltimore Catechism although the Church had never formally adopted the teaching that unbaptized babies went to Limbo, and indeed never adopted that teaching. Several Popes from Pius XII onwards worked to clear this up, resulting in the teaching of today’s Catechism.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, Jacques Dupuis does not have it right either.

Non sequitur.

the ever-relevant Romans 1. Do they know that they are sinning? Doesn’t seem to matter for Paul

Ahh, except that he claims that they know God, which was one of the premises of this thread – those who do not know God. (“As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks.”)

 

[kapp19]

Verse 20… it is knowledge available to all… from the nature of creatures.

 

[harshcshah]

II-II 2 and 5

In 5 he seems to differentiate between knowledge of God that can be accessed through reason alone (i.e. Divine Simplicity) and knowledge that can only be known through faith (i.e. the tripersonal nature of God. He then goes on to say, as I interpret it, that unbelievers cannot know their knowledge to be credible whereas the Christian can for the Christian sees in the light of faith. I don’t see how this would impact upon his view of salvation, though.