St. Thomas Aquinas on the salvation of non-Christians

[Matt16_18]

Lazerlike42:

The Latin term for Hell, as opposed to the underworld, is different, isn’t it?

CCC 633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

 

[USMC]

Matt16_18:

Sure I do. But unlike you, I don’t believe that the Catechism of the Council of Trent contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So, you beleive that “infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism”?

I could be mistaken, but didn’t you and itsjustdave1988 have a conversation a few months ago, where you were defending some kind of “second change” after death for those who died without baptism - by which they obtained the state of grace after death?

And I never said that the new Catechism contradicts the Catechism of Trent. In fact, I specifically pointed out that it did not say unbaptized babies are saved, but only gave the impression of saying so.

 

[Lazerlike42]

CCC 633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

If the latin word for the hell of the damned is not infernum, that is what I am asking. Please provide the other word.

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

So, you beleive that “infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism”?

What is baptism but an immersion into the death and resurrection of Jesus? No one is saved apart from being immersed into the death and resurrection of Jesus, no one.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257** The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments” - the Catechism is quoting Aquinas in this sentence.

I could be mistaken, but didn’t you and itsjustdave1988 have a conversation a few months ago, where you were defending some kind of “second change” after death for those who died without baptism - by which they obtained the state of grace after death?

The Saints of the Old Testament were in a state of grace in the limbus patrum. They were in a state of grace, and they were never baptized. They had wait in the limbus patrum to be immersed into the death and resurrection of Jesus before they could behold the beatific vision, i.e. their “entry into eternal beatitude” was through the infinite merits of the cross.

Infants that die before they have received baptism have committed no personal sin, and the Catechism teaches that to be damned, one must commit a presonal sin that is mortal, and that one must persist in unrepentance for moral sin until death. CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.God is not a Calvinist that predestines innocent infants to eternity in the fires of hell!

 

[USMC]

USMC:

I could be mistaken, but didn’t you and itsjustdave1988 have a conversation a few months ago, where you were defending some kind of “second change” after death for those who died without baptism - by which they obtained the state of grace after death?

Matt16_18:

The Saints of the Old Testament were in a state of grace in the limbus patrum. They were in a state of grace, and they were never baptized. They had wait in the limbus patrum to be immersed into the death and resurrection of Jesus before they could behold the beatific vision, i.e. their “entry into eternal beatitude” was through the infinite merits of the cross.

Infants that die before they have received baptism have committed no personal sin, and the Catechism teaches that to be damned, one must commit a presonal sin that is mortal,

The Catechism is based on the teachings of the Church; and the teaching of the Church is that those who die in original sin only go to hell (Council of Florence).

You have come to believe that those who die without baptism will somehow have a “second chance” after death.

Please provide the magisterial document that teaches such a thing; and if you don’t have one, please admit that you made this teaching up.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Matt16_18:

God is not a Calvinist that predestines innocent infants to eternity in the fires of hell!

This sounds more like wishful thinking and allowing emotions to override intellect. Please back this claim up. God doesn’t damn anyone. Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, we’re on the same path as them unless we’re baptized.

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

You have come to believe that those who die without baptism will somehow have a “second chance” after death.

Do the souls in purgatory get a “second chance after death”? No. When souls in the Church Suffering die, they descend to hell (infernum) immediately after their death where they are judged that they are not ready to enter Heaven. God commands that the Church Militant pray for the Church Suffering, because the prayers of the Church Militant aid in the sanctification of the Church Suffering.

Infants that die by abortion never even had a “first chance”, so why would I believe that they are getting a “second chance” after they have been murdered by their parents?

Why is it so very difficult for you to believe that we should pray for the salvation of infants that have died without being baptized?

 

[JSmitty2005]

USMC:

The Catechism is based on the teachings of the Church; and the teaching of the Church is that those who die in original sin only go to hell (Council of Florence).

You have come to believe that those who die without baptism will somehow have a “second chance” after death.

Please provide the magisterial document that teaches such a thing; and if you don’t have one, please admit that you made this teaching up.

What about Limbo, baptism of blood, and baptism of desire?

 

[Matt16_18]

JSmitty2005:

Please back this claim up. God doesn’t damn anyone.

I can back up what I have said with the teachings of Blessed Pope Pius IX.

You are correct in saying that God does not damn anyone - we damn ourselves by using our free will to die unrepentant for mortal sin. But God is not a Calvinist, God desires all men to be saved, and God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. God is not a monster that damns infants to the eternal fires of hell that have committed no personal sin.

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863

 

[USMC]

Matt16_18:

Do the souls in purgatory get a “second chance after death”? No.

Souls in purgatory died in the state of grace and are saved. They are on the way to heaven, but have to go through purgatory firsty. The souls who die in original sin are not on their way to heaven, since they do not possess sanctifying grace.

Matt16_18:

When souls in the Church Suffering die, they descend to hell (infernum) immediately after their death where they are judged that they are not ready to enter Heaven. God commands that the Church Militant pray for the Church Suffering, because the prayers of the Church Militant aid in the sanctification of the Church Suffering.

Sort of. When souls die they are judged, and then sent to heaven, hell, or purgatory. Those who are in the state of grace either go directly to heaven, or first to purgatory to be purged of their sins. The Church militant does not pray for the souls in heaven because they have already attained beatitude and are not in need of prayers; it does not pray for the souls in hell because they are damned and the prayers will not help them. It prays for the souls in purgatory because these souls can benefit from their prayers since they died in the state of grace.

You are allowing your sentiment to do your thinking for you. The Church teaches those who depart this life in original sin only go to hell. You may not believe this, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is what the Church teaches.

It is not a matter of my not wanting to pray for an aborted baby. It is a matter of you not believing what the Church teaches.

I have no problem praying that God would use extra sacramental means to sanctify a baby in the womb of its mother prior to being aborted. Some theologians have speculated that this could be possible.

But if this ever happens (if some babies are sanctified extra sacramentally in the mother’s womb), it would be on the level of a miracle, since it would be outside of the normal means established by God. Therefore, this is not something that can be presumed to take place, yet we can “hope” that it sometimes happens and even pray that it does.

But again, extra sacramental sanctification is not a teaching of the Church, but merely speculation by some theologians. Therefore, we can’t reject what the Church has taught on the mere “hope” that this might take place.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC:

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.

I disagree with you.

St. Thomas is speaking of the objective order throughout the context. He doesn’t address the subjective instance, for example, when an infant who dies after baptism but does not ever have explicit faith. Is such an infant hell-bound? I don’t think that is St. Thomas’ conclusion, based upon his theology as a whole, do you? One need only find one subjective contradiction to the claim that one needs explicit faith in order to understand that St. Thomas did not intent that this be held absolutely.

Furthermore, as we’ve already discussed in another thread, Cornelius had only implicit faith before being justified (Acts 10). Thus, to limit implicit faith as efficacious toward salvation only prior to the promulgation of the Gospel is nonsensical. This is yet another example which contradicts the notion that one must have explicit faith absolutely.

St. Peter tells us that “in every nation, he that feareth [God], and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:35). Given the context of Scripture, this passage presupposes faith in God, but in no way suggests that an explicit faith is necessary in the absolute sense. I don’t agree that St. Thomas makes such a claim for the subjective order. Instead, he asserts, “Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit” (Summa Theologica, III, 69, 4). "[Cornelius] had implicit faith*, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.*" (*Summa Theologica, *III, 69, 4).

When did the Holy Spirit pour out upon Cornelius and his family and friends? After they explicitly (expressly) confessed their faith in Jesus Christ, his Incarnation and Resurrection? NO. They didn’t express a thing, but were still listening to Peter in silence when they were justified. By what kind of faith were they justified by? Implicit (un-expressed) faith in what Peter was proclaiming.

I understand you disagree. However, you’ve not brought any texts forward from St. Thomas which contradict me.

 

[USMC]

JSmitty2005:

What about Limbo, baptism of blood, and baptism of desire?

Limbo is actually located on the outer edge hell, and is therefore included in the word “hell”. Baptism of blood and of desire are teachings of the Church, but they would not apply to infants since they do not have the ability to desire baptism, nor to give their lives as martyrs (although some theologians have speculated that a child that was killed for Christ could receive baptism of blood).

The Catechism of Trent explains this pretty well in the section on baptism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42:

What I am saying is that Aquinas taught that there is no salvation possible without explicit faith in Christ.

The above may be your opinion, but I deny it is a correct interpretation of St. Thomas’ works. You are not considering what St. Thomas teaches is necessary in the objective order, versus what is absolutely necessary in every instance. If it were absolutely necessary (as is baptism or its desire), then there would be absolutely no exceptions, such as infants who die after baptism who cannot have explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Resurrection.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Matt16_18:

Do the souls in purgatory get a “second chance after death”? No. **When souls in the Church Suffering die, they descend to hell ** (infernum) immediately after their death where they are judged that they are not ready to enter Heaven.

I thought that everyone in the Church Suffering (aka Purgatory) was saved.

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

to limit implicit faith as efficacious toward salvation only prior to the promulgation of the Gospel is nonsensical.

I understand you disagree. However, you’ve not brought any texts forward from St. Thomas which contradict me.

St. Thomas: "Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of 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.

“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”.*

I think we have had at least three other discussions on this subject. We’ve probably both said all we can. Since this is merely speculation anyway, I don’t see much reason in arguing over it. As I wrote in another discussion, it would not surprise me too much of one in a billion was justified without explicit faith. I think the Diologue of Catherine of Sienna may even discuss that possibility.

But I do reject the idea that St. Thomas taught that implicit faith would suffice. He “explicitly” says that explicit faith is necessary today.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Matt16_18,

Since the ascension of Christ, the Church Suffering are in *purgatorio. *They do not descend to *infernum. *

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Thomas: "Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of 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.

"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".

I think we have had at least three other discussions on this subject. We’ve probably both said all we can. Since this is merely speculation anyway, I don’t see much reason in arguing over it. As I wrote in another discussion, it would not surprise me too much of one in a billion was justified without explicit faith. I think the Diologue of Catherine of Sienna may even discuss that possibility.

But I do reject the idea that St. Thomas taught that implicit faith would suffice. He “explicitly” says that explicit faith is necessary today.

Sounds subjective to me. Note that it doesn’t simply differ by time (as you would have us believe), as if after Pentacost, things changed for all persons absolutely. It seems also your implication that "After grace had been revealed" means a specific past event in time. I don’t interpret it that way. Grace has been revealed (past event), is being revealed (present event), and will be revealed (future event). So I see this revelation as not the general public revelation at Pentacost, but the very subjective revelation to each and every individual, like Peter made manifest to Cornelius, to which Cornelius became justified without ever even saying the word “Jesus” or “Incarnation” or “Resurrection.”

I understand your opinion. However, it differs from mine. And both yours and my opinion also differs Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *which carries the Imprimatur of the Church, right? Dr. Ott states, “**Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace…As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Heb 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held…with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices.” **(Ott, pg. 241)

So it appears that from my perspective, the conclusion you and I (or Ott) draws need not be held as if our opinion was equated to magisterial authority.

Perhaps you can define for us your undrestanding of “explicit faith.” What does it mean, in your view? Is it that which is expressed? And if so, how is it expressed? Cornelius seemed to lack a verbal expression of explicit faith the Incarnation in Acts 10.

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

So it appears that from my perspective, the conclusion you and I (or Ott) draws need not be held as if our opinion was equated to magisterial authority.

I completely agree.

Dave:

Perhaps you can define for us your undrestanding of “explicit faith.” What does it mean, in your view? Is it that which is expressed? And if so, how is it expressed? Cornelius seemed to lack a verbal expression of explicit faith the Incarnation in Acts 10.

I would define explicit faith as that which is intellectually assented to by the will. I wouldn’t say that it has to be verbally spoken to be explicit. For the spoken word would merely be the external expression of that which is explicitly believed. Explicit faith would, therefore, preceed the spoke word, and as such, a person will have explicit faith prior to expressing it.

I would say that a person would have explicit faith at the moment that the free will accepted the truth proposed by the intellect.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the context of the reply to objection 3, one should intepret the context of Objection 3. It states…

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.

Dionysius taught that revealing orders of angels presided over every nation including Judah (whose presiding angel was Michael). His teaching made no distinction between post-pentacost and pre-Pentacost angelic revelations. The objector in Thomas’ Summa thinks that the angelic revelation given to some Gentiles post-Pentacost is limited such that they could not know about Chirst. St. Thomas disagrees. Dionysius made not such assertion. St. Thomas asserts instead examples of such revelations of angels to the nations that included explicit teachings about Christ. Thus, he makes mention of pre-Pentecost revelations (eg. Sibylline Oracles) such as those *predicting *Christ, as well as a post-Pentacost revelation of angels in the time of Constantine.

St. Thomas summarizes his reply to this general objection, making no distinction with respect to post- and pre-Pentacost revelations:

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.”

I don’t understand as you imply that this context pertains only to those prior to the advent of Christ who “were saved without receiving any revelation.” I disagree as the example given by St. Thomas of the revelation to Gentiles during the time of Constantine would not fit this context, nor the context of Dionysius’ teaching about angels revealing the truth to every nation even in his day. St. Thomas is instead speaking of both, pre-Pentacost and post-Pentacost when he speaks of some who “were saved without receiving any revelation” who “did not believe in Him explicitly” but nonetheless had “implicit faith.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I would define explicit faith as that which is intellectually assented to by the will.

Hmmm…that’s what I would call implicit faith.