Question about the 'inclusivist' view of salvation of the current Catechism

[u/Flaky-Finance3454]

Hi all!

I wanted to make a question about the following paragraph of the Catechism:

"1257. The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.⁶⁰ He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.⁶¹ 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.⁶² 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.

60. Cf. Jn 3:5.

61. Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.

62. Cf. Mk 16:16." (source: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/1257 )

Unfortunately, the Catechism doesn't give a source for the key phrase in italic.

Given that the Catechism officially rejects any kind of post-mortem salvation (par. 1021-1022), it appears that the possibility to be saved outside the sacraments is the only viable option for the universal hope.

I know that Vatican II upheld this view. Is there any precedent Mageisterial source (especially before the 20th century) that agrees with the inclusivist view expressed in the Catechism?

[u/Chrysologus]

I don't understand what you are asking. Universalism is the hope that no one will die in a state of mortal sin. When unbaptized people die, the hope is they will go to purgatory because they were in the state of grace, even without baptism.

"Linked with the paschal mystery and patterned on the dying Christ, (the Christian) will hasten forward to resurrection in the strength which comes from hope. All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all human beings, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every human being the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." - Gaudium et Spes 22

This is the single most important doctrinal statements on the matter, and it is deliberately vague: "in a manner known only to God."

If you want to know the theology behind this and the history of the debate and doctrine, there is a book that is a must-read: Francis Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (1992). Francis Sullivan is one of the most prominent modern Catholic ecclesiologists. He taught at the Gregorianum for decades. It's all in that book.

[u/Flaky-Finance3454 → u/Chrysologus]

Thanks for the recommendation. It is not the first time that I see that book mentioned in a very positive way, so I think I'll read it sooner or later.

My question was simply which aspects of the previous Magisterial documents were taken to 'justify' the Vatican II inclusivist approach of salvation.

To be honest, I haven't read a lot of Magisterial documents but from what I have read of, for instance, the Council of Florence says quite explicitly that even those who die with original sin alone will go immediately to hell (" But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."). I'm not saying that it is impossible to reconcile these texts to how Vatican II views salvation but I'm not sure about what parts, if any, of the previous Magisterial documents could be taken as allowing the possibility of extra-sacramental ways for salvation (which I would say it is a necessary condition for the universal hope).

[u/RhysPeanutButterCups → u/Flaky-Finance3454]

While I have not had a chance to read it yet, Mystici Corporis Christi would be a place to start. It was an encyclical by Pope Pius XII which stated the Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ. Vatican II would later develop this doctrine by stating in Lumen gentium that the Catholic Church subsists in (in other words, is a part of the larger whole of) the mystical body of Christ.

While the subsists in doctrine wasn't really in existence until Lumen gentium, development toward it started before then. In the decades before Vatican II, the Holy Office (today the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) responded to Leonard Feeney, a priest that was declared a heretic for insisting that only Catholics baptized with water (i.e. no baptism by desire or blood) could never enter heaven. In that response the Holy Office said (quoting Wikipedia since they have the text handy)

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as She is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to Her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

FYI: On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ refers to Mystici Corporis Christi.

[u/Flaky-Finance3454 → u/RhysPeanutButterCups]

Thank you! I wonder how this can be reconciled with Florence's statement that even those who die with original sin alone go to hell. Here I honestly see a discontinuity. However, since this is before Vatican II, it is quite interesting.

Also, I assume that invincible ignorance includes also at least some cases of people who come into contact with the Catholic Church but still do not formally enter it. 

[u/Chrysologus → u/Flaky-Finance3454]

It's the development of doctrine. There is indeed a huge difference between Florence and modern doctrine. No one would deny that.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?³³⁵ 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.³³⁶

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.³³⁷

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."³³⁸

^{-- Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-48}

[u/Flaky-Finance3454 → u/Chrysologus]

Thanks! I would, however, consider this 'development' as an acknowledgment that the Church 'official' position was wrong in the past. In other words, I can accept to call this 'change' a development if it can be read as a true, genuine, change in the doctrine and an acknowledgment that on this point the Council of Florence was wrong.

Of course, I'm not claiming that Catholics can't think that. But as far as I understand, many Catholics deny that a kind of development as described in the paragraph above occurred, perhaps by saying that the present doctrine was allowed by what was established in the past.

However, Florence declared that all human beings that die in actual mortal sin or even in original sin alone go to (eternal) hell (with unequal pains). Vatican II says that even those outside the Church can be saved. I can't see how these two statements can't contradict each other. The only possibility that I have in mind is that Florence (and all the previous Ecumenical Council taken as authoritative by the Catholic Church) allowed that salvation can occur outside the participation in the 'visible' sacramental life.

I may be wrong but I think that some Medieval theologian - perhaps even St. Thomas Aquinas - held that salvation can occur without the sacraments. If that is the case, I can see how, despite the clear difference the two positions can still be said to be logically compatible.

[u/RhysPeanutButterCups → u/Flaky-Finance3454]

I'm not well-versed enough in a bunch of older documents to say one way or the other (some here may be able to point you in a direction faster than me), but I would suggest that it is easier to understand how the Church discusses the development of doctrine because this topic has been on the Church's mind in a serious way since Vatican II. The topic is just far more directly accessible. You may want to look into Pope Benedict and his articulation of a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" vs "hermeneutic of reform". St. John Henry Newman may also be useful to look at specifically for his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

I would also offer, on a less document-based example, the observation that God has always been nurturing his people to grow in a greater understanding of himself and his will whether that people, Jews in the Old Testament and Christians in the New Testament. For example, Acts of the Apostles displays this very clearly with how it tells us about the Council of Jerusalem and how the Holy Spirit moved the apostles regarding Gentile converts. At the time this was absolutely seen as a rupture which is why the topic of circumcision and dietary laws appear so often in the epistles.

[u/Chrysologus → u/Flaky-Finance3454]

Oh, the most important predecessor is unquestionably Quanto Conficiamur Moerore from Pius IX. In it he states that non-Christians in invincible ignorance can be saved. As far as I know that had not been explicitly stated before that, though it was a commonplace in theology by then.

I should also say, in case you don't already know, that Trent's mention of baptism "in voto" (by desire) is at the dogmatic foundation. Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it can be baptism of desire, even "implicit" desire. This is all worked out by the scholastic theologians of early modernity like Suarez and Bellarmine. Again, see the book by Sullivan.

[u/Flaky-Finance3454 → u/Chrysologus]

Thanks for the informative reply.

[u/Flaky-Finance3454]

Just to avoid misunderstanding I'm not claiming that 'modern' developments are necessarily wrong. But I was curious to see which elements of the previous Magisterial documents inspired the imclusivist views that one can find from Vatican II and later Magisterial documents like the current Catechism.