P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Vouthan,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. May I just thank you for your very detailed and informative batch of dispatches, which I think have articulately and correctly expressed the teaching of the Church on this oft debated topic.
That was an excellent point, my dear friend, about there being both inclusivist and exclusivist magisterium texts prior to the Second Vatican Council. This at least demonstrates that our Church did not suddenly get all submerged in ecumenical politeness at VII and change its fundamental dogma accordingly. It is important that non-Catholics understand that VII did not change the Church’s definition of EENS, indeed it could not do this because that is irreformable dogma which is not subject to change.
The doctrinal intention of the Council fathers was merely to affirm that, by the criterion of evangelical and Catholic truth, there are elements of truth and holiness in religions outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition as well. The anchor-hold in Sacred Tradition for this is in the early Apologist St. Justin’s notion of the ‘seeds of the word’ scattered through paganism, a notion tacitly accepted by the consensus of the Church Fathers in their careful use of Greco-Roman philosphy, and underscored in the VII Council Decree on Missions when it speaks of a ‘secret presence of God’ in whatever ‘truth and grace are to be found among the nations’ (Ad Gentes 9). Moreover, if, de facto, some aspect of the teaching or the practice of a non-Christian religion is consonant with the doctrine of the Church respecting faith and morals, then there is no logical ground for denying such a fact. Essentially, VII was saying let us look at the good and true things that we hold in common with the world’s religion’s and let us acknowledge them and not deny them; let us look for points of contact rather than for points controversy and disagreement. It was surely about adopting a more concilliatory and inclusivist tone than had hitherto been the norm, though not entirely, as you brought to our notice, dear brother.
It is quite intresting that the official teaching of the Church coincided with the work of Karl Rahner, an official adivser at VII, who held that God’s saving grace is so powerfully seeking men that those who have not, as yet, had exposure to the Gospel message 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, Darton, Longman and Todd, London, Vol. V, pp. 121,125). Now as some here will be aware, Mr. Rahner controversially regards sincere non-Christians as ‘anonymous Christians’, in virtue of the grace of Christ which they received and unwittingly responded to in their respective religions. As can be seen from the phraseology used by Mr. Rahner, much of what he said is not wholly disimilar to what is said in the official teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
Our Church surely is doing no more than offering a charitable hope as regards the salvability of sincere and earnest non-Christians who, “through no fault of their own”, have never heard the Gospel or claims of the Church, owing to the fact that they have, alas, been bred in ignorance and error from their very earliest days. Moreover, even if they have heard (e.g. via the interweb) they very often view the Gospel through the distorted lens of deep seated prejudice and misunderstanding. These and other disadvantaged men may not necessarily be excluded from the benefit of Christ’s Atonement. This charitable hope sees beyond a conscious acceptance of the Gospel to an acknowledgement of the wideness of God’s mercy.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
We’ve discussed EENS on other threads.
:tiphat:
Nothing has changed there is no salvation outside of the CC or as I said Jesus Christ.