Salvation of Virtuous Pagans

[kapp19]

Secunda Secundae… Questions 2 and 5…

 

[Gorgias]

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

And the Church teaches that this is true. Yet, Paul is talking about a different dynamic: he’s talking about those who reject the source of the Good that they see. Here in this thread, though, we’re talking about those who are “virtuous” yet have not heard the Gospel; the Church holds out the possibility of salvation for such people. Apples and oranges.

 

[kapp19]

And I am saying that one who does not acknowledge a precept of the Decalogue to be binding cannot be virtuous - as this is available to them from a right knowledge of God, from natural reason alone. Not sure if we’re talking past each other or what.

My point about Dupuis is that he tries to slide around it all and make there really be no “pagans” at all. Which is pretty out there.

 

[Genesis315]

If it were somehow possible for a “virtuous pagan” to persevere to the end without coming to faith in Christ–without which it is impossible to please God–then such a person could not be saved (see CCC 161). However, such a virtuous pagan would be led to faith before the end:

Pope Francis, Lumen Fidei

Because faith is a way, it also has to do with the lives of those men and women who, though not believers, nonetheless desire to believe and continue to seek. To the extent that they are sincerely open to love and set out with whatever light they can find, they are already, even without knowing it, on the path leading to faith…Anyone who sets off on the path of doing good to others is already drawing near to God, is already sustained by his help, for it is characteristic of the divine light to brighten our eyes whenever we walk towards the fullness of love.

St. Robert Bellarmine provided a more detailed explanation as to how this might happen (against certain Protestants who said the existence of pagans meant God did not provide the means of salvation to all):

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.

 

[Gorgias]

Not sure if we’re talking past each other or what.

No. We’re still saying distinct and different things.

And I am saying that one who does not acknowledge a precept of the Decalogue to be binding cannot be virtuous - as this is available to them from a right knowledge of God, from natural reason alone.

Hold on a second: you’re claiming that “keep holy the Sabbath” is something that we can know “from natural reason alone”? Or, that not having an explicit knowledge of God, one knows not to construct things to represent the Truth they’re trying to understand on their own? C’mon, friend…

 

[kapp19]

Yes but not the specific ritual details… the virtue of religion is a natural virtue.

Explicit faith is addressed by Thomas in the sections I mentioned. We can talk about it if you want.

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add to this debate, the CCC says “But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.” (CCC 1860).

 

[Gorgias]

Just to add to this debate, the CCC says “But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.” (CCC 1860).

Sure, but that’s not the end of the story:

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.

Therefore, although “the principles of the moral law… are written in the conscience of every” person, nevertheless one might fail to form properly his conscience. This failure might not be such that the sins chosen are imputable to the person.

That’s why I’m responding in the way I am to @kapp19. The Church doesn’t teach that mere lack of explicit identity with the Church is a mortal sin (which will cause a person to be damned eternally).

 

[kapp19]

One is bound to form the conscience correctly to a degree.

 

[Genesis315]

Therefore, although “the principles of the moral law… are written in the conscience of every” person, nevertheless one might fail to form properly his conscience. This failure might not be such that the sins chosen are imputable to the person.

That’s why I’m responding in the way I am to @kapp19. The Church doesn’t teach that mere lack of explicit identity with the Church is a mortal sin (which will cause a person to be damned eternally).

The principles of the moral law are written in everyone’s conscience, which is why no one can be ignorant of them–culpably or not. They don’t require additional formation.

Note, the principles of the moral law are not the entire moral law–they do not include “conclusions” which require additional inference from these principles. Here’s how the Catholic Encyclopedia sums this up (note, the “primary principle” is simply do good and avoid evil):

Passing from the primary principle to the subordinate principles and conclusions, moralists divide these into two classes: (1) those dictates of reason which flow so directly from the primary principle that they hold in practical reason the same place as evident propositions in the speculative sphere, or are at least easily deducible from the primary principle. Such, for instance, are “Adore God”; “Honour your parents”; “Do not steal”; (2) those other conclusions and precepts which are reached only through a more or less complex course of inference.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Natural Law

It is category 2 that requires formation and where ignorance can come into play.

Also, the question of moral uprightness is related, but different from the necessity of faith. The truths of faith cannot be known from reason alone, but only by the revelation from God. Faith is adhering to this revelation based on God’s authority. Faith is absolutely necessary for salvation (see CCC 161), but of course we acknowledge that “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)