In my current assignment I am having to do research on the effect of the salvation of Christ with non-catholics. From what I’ve gathered the two authors explain that “outside the Church is no salvation” is in grave err.
Then your authors that you have read are in grave error – “Outside the Church, No Salvation” [Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus] is a dogma of the Church. Yes, there are those who take it to an extreme and reject Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, which have been taught since the beginning (Feeneyism) but EENS itself is dogma and one must have the Catholic Faith in order to be saved. If someone is truly “invincibly ignorant,” they will not be condemned for not being Catholic but they may be indeed condemned for the thousands of other sins they have likely committed, the same sins a Catholic would be condemned for.
They state that the salvific work of God has been in works since the beginning of human history. An example is given with Lady wisdom or Sophia in the OT. They also state that Vatican 2 says there are many truths found in other faiths that are graces from God. Also arguing that the morality naturally given to humanity are graces from God which will lead them to salvation. To make it short they basically state that one does need to join the Church because it is not the sole ark of salvation. That one may follow their religion and reach salvation. So then I ask what’s the point of being Catholic? If one lives a moral life and believes in God what’s the point of being part of a religion?
God revealed Himself to humanity – who He is and how to worship Him. We can’t choose to be ignorant, we must respond to this revelation either by accepting it or rejecting it. There are those who are not Catholic but are laboring under the idea that they do believe what God has revealed about Himself and how to worship Him but are in error, such as Muslims, Jews, Protestants, etc. If they truly desire God and seek to follow the Natural Law, God will enlighten them and lead them to the Catholic Faith. For those who die without having yet been formally converted to the Catholic Faith, God knows their heart and will judge them justly.
We must keep in mind two principles:
- Christ died for all men, not the elect only.
- Christ is the only way of salvation.
If God created people in a way that they could not be saved, by having them born to parents who follow false religions – say, in a Muslim country to Muslim parents, never hearing the Gospel – then the first principle would be false and we would be reduced to the heresy of Calvinism/Jansenism, that Christ does not will the salvation of all men.
If false religions themselves are held to be salvific. That is to say, by following Talmudic Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. one can find salvation through that religion, then Christ was a liar when He said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (Jn 14:6). Yes, they have some parts of the truth, as Vatican II puts it, the Muslims believe that there is but one God, the Jews accept the Old Testament, etc. but these things by themselves are not salvific and they are only true because they are parts of Catholic Truth accepted by the false religions.
If non-Catholic Christian religions are held to be salvific, then the situation is really little different than that of Islam, Hinduism, and other non-Christian religions. For they are man-made religions made up of people’s personal opinions about Jesus. How can a man-made religion be salvific? You can’t just make up a religion, follow it and be rewarded by God for doing so, that makes man the author of his own salvation. One must follow the
true Christ, not various people’s personal opinions of Him. The benefit of being a Protestant is that one is probably in a better position to convert to Catholicism than if he were a Hindu or Buddhist.
Please don’t respond with the usual answers like the Church has the whole truth or it’s the one Church of Christ. These two priest (authors) refute those answers by acknowledging the ambiguity of Vatican 2. So what say you?
The Church didn’t begin at Vatican II. We can’t say “I don’t know what the Church teaches on X because Vatican II is ambiguous on X.” We have 2000 years of Catholic teaching (6000 counting the OT), not 40 or 50.
It may surprise you to learn that not all Catholics accept the Catholic Faith, not even all Catholic priests accept it. Many want to fashion it in their own image, which is no different than Protestantism – remember that Luther, Cranmer, Knox, and other Protestant founders were originally Catholic priests (not to mention most of the founders of the ancient heresies; additionally, Calvin went to seminary but dropped out to become a lawyer). You can find all kinds of heresies being spread by all kinds of “Catholics,” including priests and even bishops. That’s why we have to look at what the Church actually teaches, not just the opinions of individuals, especially ones who are not saints.