[Virtus In Medio Stat] Who Can Be Saved?: Catholic Development
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Church and Society - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Church and Society: The Laurence J. McGinley Lectures, 1988-2007 (Hardcover)
Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ
Chapter 38 - Who are saved?
Sold at Amazon.com here.
I went into B & N to read the next few chapters of a book I started there last month by Dinesh D'Souza, What's so Great about Christianity? But, alas, they are out of stock. So, this book caught my eye. I perused through the pages of the book, as well as the Table of contents, and this chapter caught my eye. I read through it and was thoroughly impressed by this theologian's brevity and clarity in presenting this topic. I think he makes very little of his own assertions, but did well to present the established and popular treatments of the issue, as the doctrine of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" developed over the centuries. He goes through it chronologically. He points out that early on, the Church's understanding of salvation was pretty black and white. Either you were in the Church or you weren't. All those, ignorant or otherwise, were not saved, if they were not formal members of the Church. Some aberrant understanding came from the likes of Origen, who believed that at some point, all the inhabitants of Hell will be saved, and Hell would be destroyed. This idea was condemned by the Church later on. After the discovery of the "new world" some time later, there developed an understanding of membership as membership in re, and membership in voto, that is, in formal membership, and in desire. I know that we can find this language in the canons of the Council of Trent with regard to the doctrine of Justification. The theologians had to deal with the question of what happened to all those who lived all those years between the time of Christ and the discovery of these new lands? At that point, theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas taught that even if these persons were ignorant of the Gospel, their only way of salvation was a direct illumination of their intellect by God, or God would send a missionary to those who would be saved, either naturally or supernaturally. Some theologians of the 19th century were then influential in the development of Pius IX's contribution to this doctrine with his explanation in two documents, that even though "outside the Church, there is no salvation", this does not refer to the person who through no fault of his own, did not know the Church, and thus, its necessity for salvation. This was called invincible ignorance, that is, ignorance which could not be overcome. Then we come to the teachings of Vatican II, which gave us the understanding that there is indeed elements of truth, and goodness, in various world religions. It also taught that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The elements of truth found in other religions, and more so the other Christian communions, is due to the Catholic Church, as the "universal sacrament of salvation". Any who are saved, outside of the true Church, is nevertheless saved because of the Church, and by Jesus Christ. Furthermore, through the ideas of Karl Rahner (at this point, this is where I clearly disagree), I believe it was, he gave us the understanding of the "anonymous Christian". He taught that God gave grace to all men, and as such, insofar as they respond to that grace, by whatever name the God is named in their culture, they may nevertheless be "anonymous Christians". He then recaps, his main points, and then gives us some statements of what we can say, and not say, according to the teachings of the Church.
Father Koller writes:
did he cover St. Augustine's City of God where he talks about some who are in the Church formally, but on their way out, and others who are formally not in, but on their way in?
Thanks for this, Laurence.
So, I'm not sure: are you just disagreeing with Rahner, or with Dulles, or both? Did this book cover Cardinal Raztinger's document while still with the CDF (at least I think) on Jesus Christ Savior of Men?
My response:
Hi Father Koller,
Thanks for your inquiry... No, Cardinal Dulles did not refer to Augustine's ideas from The City of God, although he did refer to Augustine's very strong position supporting formal membership in the Church. The Cardinal writes:
"Augustine taught that, because faith comes by hearing, those who had never heard the gospel would be denied salvation. They would be eternally punished for original sin as well as for any personal sins they had committed. Augustine's disciple Fulgentius of Ruspe exhorted his readers to 'firmly hold and by no means doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, and all heretics and schismatics who are outside the Catholic Church, will go to the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.'"
I disagreed with Fr. Rahner, as expressed by the words of Cardinal Dulles. Cardinal Dulles, referred to it as an "interesting" development after the Council... I do not know if he agreed with it, however, he seems to downplay its legitimacy considering it would seem to undermine the missionary work of the Church. The Cardinal further writes on Rahner:
"One of the most interesting developments in post-conciliar theology has been Karl Rahner's idea of "anonymous Christians." He taught that God offers his grace to everyone and reveals himself in the interior offer of grace. Grace, moreover, is always mediated through Christ and tends to bring its recipients into union with him. Those who accept and live by the grace offered to them, even though they have never heard of Christ and the gospel, may be called anonymous Christians.
I found the article online, and realize that I mis-titled it, and it is really titled, "Who Can Be Saved?", http://fratres.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/who-can-be-saved-by-avery-cardinal-dulles/
It is an excellent article… everyone should read it to see how doctrine develops through the centuries. Not to be confused with the so-called "evolution of dogma" thesis, which is heresy.
AMDG.
Laurence
Comments
Post a Comment