Is it possible, in these pluralistic times, to claim that Jesus Christ is the unique saviour? Well, of course I think it is. Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, however, gave a wonderful anecdote about how difficult it can be to proclaim this – even to Christians.
Archbishop Di Noia is Vice President of the Pontifical Council ‘Ecclesia Dei’ in Rome. He was in London last week to speak to the clergy of Westminster Diocese at our annual summer gathering.
He was reminiscing about when the document Dominus Iesus was published in 2000 by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. The US Bishops’ Conference was given an embargoed copy of the text a couple of weeks before, and they gave it to Di Noia to ask what he thought of it, what he thought the public reaction might be (within and outside the Church), and how he thought they should prepare themselves in anticipation. He had some kind of advisory role there at the time.
So he read the document, and his reaction was (I’m quoting from memory): “There’s nothing particular striking or controversial here; nothing that isn’t in the Holy Scriptures or the Documents of the Second Vatican Council. I doubt it will get much attention. No action needed…”
Perhaps he was naive, but he himself admitted that he was completely unprepared for the forcefulness of some of the negative reactions. At the end of the story he quipped, with a smile: “I nearly lost my job”.
You can read the document here. The core is simply a re-statement of mainstream, historic Catholic belief that Jesus Christ is the unique saviour and that the Catholic Church has a unique place in God’s plan of salvation.
Dominus Iesus is a lot more inclusivist than many people think. It leaves open the hugely important questions about how people might be saved without an explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ or an explicit faith in him, and the different ways in which people can be related to the Catholic Church and share in the salvific communion that she mediates in history.
But it refuses to let go of these core beliefs which we receive from the Scriptures and the Tradition. What’s fascinating is to see how much these once uncontroversial beliefs challenge so much of what is taken for granted in the contemporary secular worldview, and how they even give many Catholics pause for thought.
[Scandal, in its original Greek context, does not mean a situation where some moral wrongdoing has taken place, but something that ’causes you to stumble’: that stops you in your tracks, that trips you up, that makes you think, that challenges you, that ‘scandalises’ you in the sense of overturning all of your preconceptions about a given situation.]
Ecumenism for a lot of people, has meant treating the Catholic Church as one more Christian denomination amongst many. This is step forward from Catholics and Protestants treating each other as enemies. However the result has been that many Catholics think of the Catholic Church as just one more Christian denomination amongst many and other religions as one more pathway to heaven amongst many.
Tonia is commenting on a pluralist view. Dominus Jesus caused offence because it said that churches were not really churches and it implied that the Catholic church was the only way to heaven!It was clearly meant as a rebuke to Dupuis and his valuable work. No trace of Rahner’s anonymous Christians at all! So it was a radical step backwards!
Hi John. I don’t think it is fair to say that Dominus Iesus implies ‘that the Catholic church was the only way to heaven’, as you write. It explicitly says, quoting the Decree on Ecumenism from the Second Vatican Council, that the ‘separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church’ (para 17).
We can begin by ‘claiming’ (living and owning) that Jesus Christ is Our unique saviour, and in doing and being so we allow all who meet us to become witnesses.
Me on Ecumenism;
Beyond the limits of all creation we know that God is Love and we know that God is spirit. Can we not believe that when anyone lives in this spirit of Love that they also live in God – Regardless of their religious/cultural upbringing.
Actually, I think Dominus Iesus doesn’t leave open the possibility of salvation without the explicit knowledge of Christ. Paragraph 7 makes a clear distinction between the gift of faith in the one and triune God, exercised in the Christian religion, and belief, found in other religions as a result of human tradition or endeavour. This needs to be read in conjunction with Vatican I’s teaching that without faith no one can be justified.
Thanks for the comment. You are right about this important distinction in para 7. I still think that para 12 leaves open this possibility of salvation ‘without explicit knowledge of Christ’ (but I wouldn’t say ‘without faith’).
I agree that paragraph 12 by itself would leave this possibility open, as it doesn’t distinguish between actual grace and sanctifying grace. But paragraph 7 defines faith as “the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God”. It would be strange to say that one can nevertheless have faith even if one denies the Trinity.
The modern catechism likewise says that ‘believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation’ (CCC 161). Can someone who doesn’t acknowledge Christ as Lord be said to believe in Him?
Clearest of all, I would say, against any theory of anonymous Christianity is the Council of Florence, which of course defined that ‘Jews and pagans’ don’t obtain salvation if they remain as they are until death. The phrase ‘Jews and pagans’ was intended to denote all adult human beings who don’t acknowledge Christ.
Im sorry I just do not believe that for e.g. a baby who does not yet know faith in Christ, or for a child, or anyone else for that matter that has not had the privilege of a practising Christian upbringing – that Christ did not die for them too. He died for the forgiveness of All our sins, regardless – else regarding All distinctions.
It is my experience that as we slowly grow more and more aware in conscience with age, we all have the capacity to become truly repentant for our sins, even as a child we repent in tears and therefore in our soul for things we feel bad about, many without the privilege of being brought up even knowing about the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and many brought up without even knowing Christ.
Christ died for us All. And whilst He tells us to go out and baptise all nations, he doesn’t say I Am not dying for the ones you have failed to reach. He also talks about every creature, not just humans. When any being lives in Love and Spirit, they live in God our Heavenly Father.
The richness of falling in Love in Christ however is to discover/glimpse/grow in the Kingdom of Heaven within life, before we change realms, and who wouldn’t Jesus want us to share that with, and who wouldn’t we we want to share that with, so that they too might know it.
I agree that Christ died for all, and since I also think that coming to know Him is necessary for salvation, it follows that God will give everyone a chance to come to know Him, even if it is in some way known only to Himself.
The key passage for me on this question of people coming to know Him in ways unknown to us is this from the Catechism, Para 1260: “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” [GS 22 § 5; cf. LG 16; AG 7] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”
Paragraph 12;
‘Furthermore, the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity.’
“All this holds true not only for Christians but also for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly.’
I think it is Jesus Christ’ in His dying for All regardless of anything . . . even for those ‘prior to messianic times’ even for those without knowledge that makes Jesus Christ the unique saviour.
‘But paragraph 7 defines faith as “the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God”.’
‘Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.’
Well based on the above quotes and based below on The Word
“He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love” – 1 John 4:8
This I believe, is one of only two direct descriptions that we have of God. That God is Love.
The other is: “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24
Therefore we know that anyone who knows Love – knows God, (even if they are unaware of it) This would of course be All beings. But then we have free choice – he who lives in Love lives in God, but that he who doesnt live in Love does not live in God. And as long as he lives in Love and is true, or seeks the truth he will be saved.
Regardless.
{reply to Fr Stephen’s last} Paragraph 1260 of CCC is no doubt an important passage, but then so is paragraph 161. More important than either of them, because a solemn definition, is the definition of the Council of Florence already mentioned. Obviously we want to read magisterial texts in such a way that they don’t contradict each other. This being so, I should say that we have to understand that the people who are ‘ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of His Church’ will, if they respond to the promptings of actual grace and follow the natural law to some extent, receive the opportunity to know Christ before the moment of death; and if they come to faith in Him, they can be saved. The Church has taught that desire for baptism and for membership of the Catholic Church can be implicit for someone who is nevertheless in a state of grace, but not that people today can be saved by an ‘implicit faith’ in Christ. I would say that Florence’s words rule this out.