St. Thomas Aquinas on the salvation of non-Christians

[Lazerlike42]

I know that Aquinas has no real authority in his teaching and that he was off on a few things, but this still bugs me.

In the Summa (here’s the link newadvent.org/summa/300207.htm)), Aquinas states that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. I guess where my problem is that we believe that all of our doctrines come down from the Apostles and have been believed, even if undeveloped, since then. So if this is true, why did Aquinas not know this? In other words, can we find reference to this teaching from before his time? I think you understand what I’m asking.

 

[Atreyu]

You need to get rid of the closing brace at the end of your link… Otherwise it won’t work. Just in case you can’t edit any more, here is the link.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42:

I know that Aquinas has no real authority in his teaching and that he was off on a few things, but this still bugs me.

In the Summa (here’s the link newadvent.org/summa/300207.htm)), Aquinas states that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. I guess where my problem is that we believe that all of our doctrines come down from the Apostles and have been believed, even if undeveloped, since then. So if this is true, why did Aquinas not know this? In other words, can we find reference to this teaching from before his time? I think you understand what I’m asking.

Actually, I don’t understand what you are asking. Perhaps you can rephrase it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… why did Aquinas not know this?

Why did Aquinas not know what?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Lazerlike42:

I know that Aquinas has no real authority in his teaching and that he was off on a few things, but this still bugs me.

In the Summa (here’s the link newadvent.org/summa/300207.htm)), Aquinas states that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. I guess where my problem is that we believe that all of our doctrines come down from the Apostles and have been believed, even if undeveloped, since then. So if this is true, why did Aquinas not know this? In other words, can we find reference to this teaching from before his time? I think you understand what I’m asking.

I don’t see why this bothers you, because the Catholic Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside of Her alone. This is dogma (the highest on the hierarchy of doctrine). Dogmas are believed to be truths that were explicitly revealed to us by Almighty God. And, if you’ve ever opened your Bible, this isn’t hard to believe considering that Christ said that it’s His way or the Hell-way. Oh, and by the way, since when does Thomas Aquinas “has no real authority”?! He is the only angelic doctor and, I think, has been recommended by every pope in history since his death.

 

[catholic_woman]

“I know that Aquinas has no real authority in his teaching and that he was off on a few things, but this still bugs me.”

St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church. He was never “off” on anything when it comes to Catholic Doctrine. And he is a SAINT to boot. I think he has more of a clue than any of us ever will. The Summa Theologica is one of the greatest Catholic works ever.

Faith in the Second Person of the Trinity IS needed for salvation. "No one comes to the Father except through Me’ (“Nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me” St. John, ch. 14, v. 6

 

[Lazerlike42]

What I am saying is that Aquinas taught that there is no salvation possible without explicit faith in Christ. We know that the Church teaches Salvation is possible, even if unlikely, without formal membership in Her, or even without knowing Christ explicitly. I seem to see two possibilities:

1. this is a new teaching of the Church that was not taught before the time of Aquinas, in which case I see a problem with the consistency of doctrien.
2. this teaching did exist before Aquinas but he was for some reason unaware or disagreed.

(As far as Aquinas having authority, he has authority in a loose sense in that his writings can be generally be taken as an authentic representation of Church thought, but he does not have authority in a strict sense such as to say that what he says goes in the same sense as the Magesterium. In other words, if the Magesterium had taught at one point that Christ was not divine, this would be a problem in terms of the Church’s infallibility, but if Aquinas had it would not matter.)

 

[Lazerlike42]

“I know that Aquinas has no real authority in his teaching and that he was off on a few things, but this still bugs me.”

St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church. He was never “off” on anything when it comes to Catholic Doctrine. And he is a SAINT to boot. I think he has more of a clue than any of us ever will. The Summa Theologica is one of the greatest Catholic works ever.

Faith in the Second Person of the Trinity IS needed for salvation. "No one comes to the Father except through Me’ (“Nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me” St. John, ch. 14, v. 6

Aquinas does not have true authority. The Pope and Magesterium and Bible have authority. Aquinas was a theologian, one of the best in history (perhaps *the * best), and is one of the doctors of the Church, but he does not have true authority and he did err on a few things (for instance, I and many others hold that he contradicted the 2nd council of Nicea on the matter of whether latria ought to be given to the cross.)

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not sure what you’re asking, to be honest. It seems that you are misunderstanding St. Thomas’ argument, however, as he’s addressing those who have reason to know but don’t explicitly adhere to what they know (or should know). He’s not saying that all must explicitly know Christ, or accept Christianity, in order to be saved. In his reply to Objection 3, he expressly addresses those with implicit faith, rather than explicit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lazerlike42]

Ghosty:

I’m not sure what you’re asking, to be honest. It seems that you are misunderstanding St. Thomas’ argument, however, as he’s addressing those who have reason to know but don’t explicitly adhere to what they know (or should know). He’s not saying that all must explicitly know Christ, or accept Christianity, in order to be saved. In his reply to Objection 3, he expressly addresses those with implicit faith, rather than explicit.

Peace and God bless!

You may be right, but I’m not sold yet. It seems to me that he is saying that this was possible before the Incarnation, but not after.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42:

What I am saying is that Aquinas taught that there is no salvation possible without explicit faith in Christ. We know that the Church teaches Salvation is possible, even if unlikely, without formal membership in Her, or even without knowing Christ explicitly. I seem to see two possibilities:

1. this is a new teaching of the Church that was not taught before the time of Aquinas, in which case I see a problem with the consistency of doctrien.
2. this teaching did exist before Aquinas but he was for some reason unaware or disagreed.

(As far as Aquinas having authority, he has authority in a loose sense in that his writings can be generally be taken as an authentic representation of Church thought, but he does not have authority in a strict sense such as to say that what he says goes in the same sense as the Magesterium. In other words, if the Magesterium had taught at one point that Christ was not divine, this would be a problem in terms of the Church’s infallibility, but if Aquinas had it would not matter.)

I disagree with your conclusions about Aquinas. He did not teach that you must have explicit faith in Christ absolutely. For he also states that there may be some who have not received a revelation about Christ, who are saved through implicit faith.

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him

Thus, St. Thomas is speaking of explicit faith for those who have received revelation from God about Jesus Christ. However, even then, I believe he is speaking of the objective order. As elsewhere he speaks of how invincible ignorance can remove culpability for sin.

For example, an infant who is baptized does not have the faculties to have explicit faith in Christ. Do you suppose St. Thomas would count baptized infants who died after baptizm as among the reprobate? I don’t. It seems clear to me that St. Thomas is speaking of the objective order. That is, it is objectively necessary for those fully capable of explicit faith in Christ to have explicit faith, insofar as it has been revealed to them. The subjective order remains equally true, that those not having received revelation about Christ may be saved through implicit faith.

In no way is any saved that does not have faith, either implicit or explicit, in Jesus Christ.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Lazerlike42:

I seem to see two possibilities:

1. this is a new teaching of the Church that was not taught before the time of Aquinas, in which case I see a problem with the consistency of doctrien.
2. this teaching did exist before Aquinas but he was for some reason unaware or disagreed.

The Church’s current stance does seem to contradict traditional Church teachings, and that’s why many traditionalists have a problem with all the false ecumenical nonsense that Church leaders are participating in.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As a doctor of Catholicism, St. Thomas indeed has real authority. He does not, however, have the same authority of the living magisterium.

Indeed, St. Thomas himself asserted: "“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in divine Scripture” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JSmitty2005:

The Church’s current stance does seem to contradict traditional Church teachings, and that’s why many traditionalists have a problem with all the false ecumenical nonsense that Church leaders are participating in.

I disagree with your characterization of the Church’s “current stance.” The Church’s current stance specifically refers to St. Thomas Aquinas in the sense in which non-Catholics are “related in various ways to the people of God.(18*)” (*Lumen Gentium, *16).

*Lumen Gentium *16, footnote 18 … is “(18) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1”, which states:

“Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things–first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.” (Summa Theologica, III, 8, 3)

In the same article, St. Thomas describes some of these who are “in the Church potentially” as “those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.” (ibid.)

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree with your conclusions about Aquinas. He did not teach that you must have explicit faith in Christ absolutely. For he also states that there may be some who have not received a revelation about Christ, who are saved through implicit faith.

St. Thomas: 'If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him."

Thus, St. Thomas is speaking of explicit faith for those who have received revelation from God about Jesus Christ. However, even then, I believe he is speaking of the objective order. As elsewhere he speaks of how invincible ignorance can remove culpability for sin.

For example, an infant who is baptized does not have the faculties to have explicit faith in Christ…

Dave,

Your quote from St. Thomas is completely out of context; and the conclusion you drew from the out of context quote is exactly contrary to what St. Thomas says in the same section of the Summa that the quote came from.

Your quote is referring to those who lived during the Old Testament only, not to those living during the New Testimate. Let’s review the entire section of the Summa that your quote was taken from (your quote is found in the reply to the third objection - near the end):

(For those unfamiliar with St. Thomas, he starts by posing a question. He first offers objections objections; then he gives his answer to the question; and then replies to the initial objections that were raised.)

continue…

 

[USMC]

continuation

St. Thomas:

Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?

*Objection 1. It would seem that it is not necessary for the salvation of all that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ. For man is not bound to believe explicitly what the angels are ignorant about: since the unfolding of faith is the result of Divine revelation, which reaches man by means of the angels, as stated above (6; I, 111, 1). Now even the angels were in ignorance of the mystery of the Incarnation: hence, according to the commentary of Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii), it is they who ask (Psalm 23:8): “Who is this king of glory?” and (Isaiah 63:1): “Who is this that cometh from Edom?” Therefore men were not bound to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation.

Objection 2. Further, it is evident that John the Baptist was one of the teachers, and most nigh to Christ, Who said of him (Matthew 11:11) that “there hath not risen among them that are born of women, a greater than” he. Now John the Baptist does not appear to have known the mystery of Christ explicitly, since he asked Christ (Matthew 11:3): “Art Thou He that art to come, or look we for another?” Therefore even the teachers were not bound to explicit faith in Christ.

Objection 3. Further, many gentiles obtained salvation through the ministry of the angels, as Dionysius states (Coel. Hier. ix). Now it would seem that the gentiles had neither explicit nor implicit faith in Christ, since they received no revelation. Therefore it seems that it was not necessary for the salvation of all to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Corr. et Gratia vii; Ep. cxc): “Our faith is sound if we believe that no man, old or young is delivered from the contagion of death and the bonds of sin, except by the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ.”

I answer that, As stated above (5;1, 8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons. The reason of this is that before the state of sin, man believed, explicitly in Christ’s Incarnation, in so far as it was intended for the consummation of glory, but not as it was intended to deliver man from sin by the Passion and Resurrection, since man had no foreknowledge of his future sin. He does, however, seem to have had foreknowledge of the Incarnation of Christ, from the fact that he said (Genesis 2:24): “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,” of which the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32) that “this is a great sacrament . . . in Christ and the Church,” and it is incredible that the first man was ignorant about this sacrament.

"But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death: for they would not, else, have foreshadowed Christ’s Passion by certain sacrifices both before and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by God in reference to Christ’s coming, and thus their knowledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated above (1, 7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more distinct was their knowledge of Christ’s mysteries.

"After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (1, 8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one’s state and office.*

continue…

 

[USMC]

continuation

*Reply to Objection 1. The mystery of the Kingdom of God was not entirely hidden from the angels, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. v, 19), yet certain aspects thereof were better known to them when Christ revealed them to them.

Reply to Objection 2. It was not through ignorance that John the Baptist inquired of Christ’s advent in the flesh, since he had clearly professed his belief therein, saying: “I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34). Hence he did not say: “Art Thou He that hast come?” but “Art Thou He that art to come?” thus saying about the future, not about the past. Likewise it is not to be believed that he was ignorant of Christ’s future Passion, for he had already said (John 1:39): “Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: ‘sin’] of the world,” thus foretelling His future immolation; and since other prophets had foretold it, as may be seen especially in Isaias 53. We may therefore say with Gregory (Hom. xxvi in Evang.) that he asked this question, being in ignorance as to whether Christ would descend into hell in His own Person. But he did not ignore the fact that the power of Christ’s Passion would be extended to those who were detained in Limbo, according to Zach. 9:11: “Thou also, by the blood of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein there is no water”; nor was he bound to believe explicitly, before its fulfilment, that Christ was to descend thither Himself.

It may also be replied that, as Ambrose observes in his commentary on Lk. 7:19, he made this inquiry, not from doubt or ignorance but from devotion: or again, with Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvi in Matth.), that he inquired, not as though ignorant himself, but because he wished his disciples to be satisfied on that point, through Christ: hence the latter framed His answer so as to instruct the disciples, by pointing to the signs of His works.

Reply to Objection 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): “I know that my Redeemer liveth.” The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: “Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again” [Cf. Baron, Annal., A.D. 780. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him*, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.” END

So, as we can see, St. Thomas said that “after grace has been revealed all are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ”.

Regarding the baptized infant: The infant is also require to make an act of explicit faith when they are capable of doing so. In the mean time, the faith of their parents suffices for the reception of baptism, in which supernatural faith is infused into the soul of the child, awaiting the day when he is capable of making an act of faith.

continue…

 

[USMC]

continuation

The unbaptized adult, however, who is “invincibly ignorant” of the truths of the faith neither has the grace of supernatural faith given at baptism (since he hasn’t received baptism), nor does he have explicit faith since he is ignorant of that which he must believe.

Dave:

As elsewhere he [St. Thomas] speaks of how invincible ignorance can remove culpability for sin.

That is true. St. Thomas says that invincible ignorance can remove the culpability of sin. No one is guilty for not believing something they are unaware of. Therefore, St. Thomas says that when such unbelievers go to hell, it is not due to their ignorance, which is invincible, but due to some other sin they have committed, which cannot be taken away without faith.

According to St. Thomas, invincible ignorance is not a means of salvation, but rather a punishment for sin:

St. Thomas:” If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith,** it bears the character of punishment, not of sin**, because such ignorance is a result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief”

Objection 1: It would seem that man is not bound to believe anything explicitly. For no man is bound to do what is not in his power. Now it is not in man’s power to believe a thing explicitly, for it is written (Rm. 10:14,15): “How shall they believe Him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” Therefore man is not bound to believe anything explicitly.

Reply to Objection 1: If we understand those things alone to be in a man’s power, which we can do without the help of grace, then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and our neighbor, and likewise to believe the articles of faith. But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help "to whomsoever it [Faith] is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld ** it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original, sin’,** as Augustine states” (De Corr. et Grat. v, vi *Cf. Ep. cxc; De Praed. Sanct. viii.]).

So, as was stated above, St. Thomas - the greatest theologian in the history of the Church - believed that invincible ignorance was a punishment for sin, not a means of salvation. I agree with St. Thomas.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

Reply to Objection 1: If we understand those things alone to be in a man’s power, which we can do without the help of grace, then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and our neighbor, and likewise to believe the articles of faith. But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help "to whomsoever it [Faith] is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld ** it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original, sin’,** as Augustine states” (De Corr. et Grat. v, vi *Cf. Ep. cxc; De Praed. Sanct. viii.]).

St. Thomas (and Augustine) here seems very much so to teach a heretical (Protestant, actually) view of original sin. In fact, upon thinking about it further, he seems here to teach implicitly some very troubling things regarding the nature of sin. The implication of this statement is that a lack of faith, and hence damnation, can constitute the temporal punishment for a sin.

In other words, if a person has faith withheld from him, it is a just punishment for some previous sin. Therefore the previous sin merited the lack of faith, without which salvation is impossible. This leads to the conclusion that the previous sin is unforgivable, because the punishment for that sin is the denial of the very virtue necessary for forgiveness.

 

[Lazerlike42]

In digging through all of this, I am have also realized that the beliefs asserted by Aquinas here are a result of his particular attitude on predestination, which was influenced greatly by Augustine, and which is not bound to be held by the faithful.

In any case, I am extremely certain that the view that invincible ignorance is a “punishment for sin” must fall into the category of heresy, for it denies the notion that all sins may be forgiven.