Bringing you the
"Good News" of Jesus Christ
and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC
Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's
magisterium
I am having a difficult time with our teaching
that "Outside of our Church there is
no salvation".
I recently visited the Holocaust museum in
Washington, D.C. and I cannot believe that
God would not allow the victims into Heaven
because they were Jewish.
To me, that seems to make God a bigot and
I don't want to think that. This is a fairly major conflict for me.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Marc
{ Doesn't our teaching
that "Outside of our Church there is
no salvation" make God a bigot? }
Mike
replied:
Hi Marc,
Thanks for the question.
We have to remember a few things
when talking about this extremely
important dogma of the Church, which
all Catholics must believe. One of
the biggest problems we have today
is either a misunderstanding of what
it means, or an incorrect explanation
of it, usually by an omission of
a critical part.
God does not bring people into
life just to damn them. God always
gives every person a means of
salvation to which they can, with
a good conscience, turn. A means
which will lead them into the
Church.
Those who, through no fault of
their own, do not know the Gospel
of Christ or his Church, but who
nevertheless seek God with a sincere
heart, and, moved by grace try,
in their actions, to do His will
as they know it through the dictates
of their conscience — those
too, may achieve
eternal salvation. — Vatican II and CCC
846-847, below.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? (cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169; De unit.:PL 4,509-536.)
Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Note: the Catechism states "may" not "will" achieve salvation.
I recently finished a very good book by a friend of mine, Roger.
It is currently unavailable, but
in Chapter 3, Roger addresses this
issue by discussing three types of
ignorance. I've paraphrased very
small portions in order for them
to read smoothly:
Invincible ignorance. This
is when a person simply is not
aware of an explicit religious
truth due to no fault of his or
her own.
Antecedent
ignorance. This is
when truth presents itself
to the intellect saying there
is a deeper truth, which will
be shown if it is not rejected.
The conscience now enters in.
It beckons the individual to
take the next step along the
path of truth. The person may
refuse to do so because of
an unwillingness to repent
and therefore rejects the deeper
truth that would have been
made known to them.
This is no longer innocent, invincible
ignorance. It's willful sinful
ignorance. There may be conditions
in each life such as childhood
abuse, or prejudice instilled
in them during their youth, and
so on. These thing may certainly
affect their response to the deeper
truth. A response might not even
occur until the moment before
death. However, at judgment, everyone
will be responsible for rejection
of truth known to him or her,
if they did not respond to the
degree to which they were obligated.
Consequent ignorance. This
happens, not
only when one refuses
to take a step towards truth,
but one embraces an attitude of
hostility which results in a deeper ignorance and blindness. It gets
closer to the original blindness
that came from the fall of man.
There is a temptation to fling
open the doors of the heart and
mind to moral and religious relativism.
Antecedent and Consequent ignorance
can be seen at both ends of the
religious spectrum. It can be
found in those the jungle as well
as in those who refuse to recognize
the Papacy. We cannot see what
is in the heart and mind of a
person as God does. That is why
it is dangerous to judge motives.
Since we cannot be fully aware
of motives we do not know if a
person is responding to or rejecting
grace.
This is why all we can
do, as Catholics, is state the unchanging, truth according to
the mind of the Church. In charity,
we have a duty to respond to relativism and those who oppose the Church.
Roger goes on to talk about the difference
between:
invincible
ignorance about revealed truth and
invisible
ignorance about the natural law where
moral objectivity is present.
He says:
No one is
ignorant about the latter, i.e., the
natural law where moral objectivity
is present. Culpable ignorance does
not apply to those who cannot
reason, through no fault of their
own.
He goes on to say:
The promise of salvation to our
first parents after the fall was
a religious revelation that had
nothing whatsoever to do with
the natural law or what our first
parents knew through reason. The
revealed promise was unchangeable
and objective; otherwise there
is no certainty of salvation in
Christ.
A few questions must now be asked.
Can the term "invincible
ignorance" be applied
to those in the jungle?
The answer to this question is
two-fold.
If "invincibly ignorant" means
that someone has never openly
heard of the Gospel then of course
the term applies.
If, however, invincibly ignorant
means that one has not even a
grain of salvation's promise from
our first parents, Adam and Eve,
which connects them to the Gospel,
then it does not apply.
Can anyone be invincibly
ignorant of religious truth?
If they cannot, is the door
of salvation open to them?
Can the degree of Revealed
Truth in anyone's life satisfy
the necessity of belonging
to the Catholic Church?
Religious relativists, as well
as those who speak of the necessity
of being within the visible confines
of the Church, must "see" what
is before them. When discussing
salvation they both talk about "those
people in the jungle" as
though they appeared growing on
the branch of some tree, and when
ripe appeared on the jungle floor
as though they have no connection
or lineage to our same first parents,
Adam and Eve.
This brings us to a significant
matter that can be illustrated
by asking a question.
Can we not say that the Jewish
people, the direct line of
salvation, had the same first
parents as Catholics and those
of the jungle?
The answer
can only be "yes"!
It's important to understand that
the Jewish people did not have
the fullness of revelation explicitly
revealed to them by Christ until
He came into this world. This is a fact. This brings us to several more questions.
Are we to say Jewish people
of the Old Testament were not
of the same identifiable Catholic
faith?
Do we say they had no connection
to the visible confines of
the Catholic Church?
Do we say that they have
identifiable link to the Gospel
because they possessed a lesser degree of Revelation?
Do we say the lesser degree
of revelation which they had
in their possession meant they did not have the same faith?
That this lesser degree of
revelation could not save them?
We had best be able to say they
are of the same faith and that
they could be saved, in spite
of the difference in the degree
of revelation because Catholicism
speaks of Abraham as "...
our Father in faith." If
we say they are not of the same
faith, we condemn everyone in the Old
Testament, including the prophets,
because they did not have the
fullness of revelation.
This demonstrates that the degree
of revelation one possesses, even
in it's not the fullness of revelation,
is the standard in their life.
This determines if people are
connected to the Catholic faith,
provided they have not rejected
the degree of revelation presented
or known to them.
This is no less true for those
of the jungle. They live, like
the Old Testament Jewish people
did, according to the degree of
Revelation present in their lives.
These degrees of Revelation establish
a connection to the Catholic Church
which shows the necessity of the
Church for salvation has not been
violated.
The main concern I have, is for those
in the Antecedent
ignorance camp. I'm concerned
that there are many that incorrectly
believe something like:
"As long as I live a good
life and be a good person, I will
go to Heaven."
This attitude tends to want to chide
God on Judgment Day, by saying:
"I know you gave me free
will and an intellect; and that
you revealed your Divine Truth
to me so I could meditate, ponder,
and study about you, My Lord, and the history of your Church,
and therefore be your witness
to the world of Your Word in my
life, but decided not to use
it. Besides Your Mercy outweighs
Your justice, so can you please
let me into Heaven?"
This is an incorrect attitude. A
good case example is Our Lord's parable
of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30.
Why didn't Our Lord have mercy
on the slothful servant who buried
the one talent?
If those who fall in the Antecedent
ignorance camp don't take
the next step along the path of
truth, they will have to answer
for those "sins of omission" on
Judgment Day. It can
be willful sinful ignorance.
I hope this clarifies the Church's
view on this important dogma.
Mike
Eric
replied:
Hi Marc,
Another important thing to keep in
mind is that the Lord condemned those
victims of the Holocaust (and we
can't be sure He condemned them all), not because they were Jews, but because they were in a state
of separation from God, into which
all of us are born.
There is no discrimination here;
their Jewishness doesn't enter into
the decision. They are judged as
every other human being is judged.
Eric
Mary
Ann replied:
Dear Marc,
"Outside the Church there is
no salvation" simply means "without
the Church there is no salvation." That
means that the Church in the world
is the way that grace is in the world.
The Church is the Sacrament of God's
presence and action in the word.
"All salvation comes from
Christ the Head through the Church
which is His Body" (CCC 846).
Membership in it is only necessary
for an individual's salvation if
the individual knows it is the true
Church.
"Those who, through no fault
of their own, do not know the
gospel of Christ or his Church,
but who nevertheless seek God
with a sincere heart, and, moved
by grace, try in their actions
to do His will as they know it
through the dictates of their
conscience — those too may achieve
eternal salvation." (CCC 847).
Every reflection of truth and goodness
that people find, and do, is part
of the One Truth and the One Good
that is in God, and it is acceptable
to God because Christ has joined
Himself to humanity in the Incarnation,
and He works through, and in, us
by the Spirit.
To be brief, just
substitute "Without" for "Outside" and
you have the idea.
Mary Ann Parks
Mike
replied:
Dear Marc,
I have to take exception with my
colleague, Mary Ann, and her reply.
Let me preface my comments by saying I
agree with the line of reasoning
in her reply, but we should not be
privately changing the language of
the dogmas of the Church.
If the Church intended to teach "Without
the Church there is no salvation",
She, in Her Wisdom, would have written
that in Her numerous Church documents, Vatican II and theCatechism of the Catholic Church,
but She did not.
The Church teaches: "Outside
the Church there is no salvation".
If the Church chose to teach, "Without
the Church there is no salvation",
it could imply to the un-catechized Catholic or non-Catholic that one can live a good life without
the need for pursuing the Catholic
faith. Peter Protestant
could say,
"Hey, the Church is physically
and visibly on Earth, so that's
all I need."
The reason this would be a problem
is because they might think all they
need are the graces, not the Church.
Even if my reasoning is incorrect
here, I just don't think we should
be changing the language of the dogmas
of the Church. We should be explaining
them better.
The Church teaches, "Outside
the Church there is no salvation".
Mike
Mary
Ann replied:
Mike —
"Extra" ecclesiam would
mean "outside of", or without or beyond.
We are not saved without or beyond
or outside of the Church. A person does not have to be a full member
of the Church by belief and Sacrament.
The knowledge and love that he does
have already unites him implicitly
to the Church. This union, any union,
with the Church is a union in grace,
which is first of all a spiritual
union involving love in the will (a full member of the Church who
is in grave sin is not spiritually
united, and is in danger of damnation).
So what is, "intra" (inside) or "extra" (outside), the
Church, is the will.
Anyone in grace, by reason of freely
willing to follow the truth as known
to his conscience, is thus united
to the Church, even if not by full
membership, and thus their salvation
is not "outside the Church".
This is looking at the question from
the point of view of the internal
reality of salvation.
Looked at from the outside, as an
external matter of membership, anyone
can be saved, whether external members
or not. Salvation comes through the
Church, whether they know it or not. That is the sense in which I meant "without" — which
also has the meaning of "outside" in
English. It was a hint on how to conceive
the problem, not a substitution
for a saying of the Fathers which,
in any case, was said in Latin and
Greek.
Mary Ann Parks
Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey
