Is the Pope your Teacher?
Most Catholics do not consider the Pope to be their teacher. Most Catholics do not consider the Magisterium to be their teacher. They have a set of beliefs, partly taken from sinful secular society, partly taken from their own understanding (and misunderstanding), and only partly taken from Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium. If the Pope says something and it conflicts with their own personal set of beliefs, they feel no obligation to change their minds. They don’t see him as their teacher. The same is true for the Magisterium.
At this point, you probably think that I am referring to non-practicing and minimally-practicing Catholics. I’m not. I’m referring to practicing Catholics, including persons who preach and teach the Catholic Faith (or so they think) online, to certain priests and theologians, to conservatives as well as liberals.
Conservative Catholics tend to think that all the heresies and grave doctrinal errors are found among liberals. They also tend to assume that the correct answer to every theological question is the conservative answer. But if we compare the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels to the theological opinion of His day (or even of today), His answers are sometimes liberal, sometimes moderate, sometimes conservative. Conservatism is not Catholicism.
[1 Cor]
{1:9} God is faithful. Through him, you have been called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
{1:10} And so, I beg you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that every one of you speak in the same way, and that there be no schisms among you. So may you become perfect, with the same mind and with the same judgment.
{1:11} For it has been indicated to me, about you, my brothers, by those who are with Chloes, that there are contentions among you.
{1:12} Now I say this because each of you is saying: “Certainly, I am of Paul;” “But I am of Apollo;” “Truly, I am of Cephas;” as well as: “I am of Christ.”
{1:13} Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Scripture is teaching us not to allow the Body of Christ on earth to become divided into the spiritual equivalent of political parties. Some were saying that they were of Paul, as a way of separating themselves from the rest of the Church. Some were saying they were of Christ, not in the sense of worshipping the Lord, but in a superficial sense of using His name to divide themselves from the rest of the Church.
And that is what is happening also today. Conservative Catholics speak with disdain about all liberals. If a liberal theologian offers a theological argument, it is rejected without consideration for its possible insights into the Faith. If a theological position is deemed to be liberal, the conservative Catholic rejects it, just as a conservative politician will argue against a policy presented by a liberal politician.
The Pope’s Sermon
So what happens, then, among conservative Catholics, when the Pope himself expresses a liberal theological position on an issue? We are seeing the answer this week, after it was reported that the Pope, during a sermon at Mass, expressed the idea that atheists could be saved, even without converting to belief in God. Here is the excerpt from the Pope’s sermon published by the official Vatican radio station.
Now there is an idea popular among conservative Catholics that no one can be saved who knows well about Christ and His Church and yet does not convert to believe in Him. This view prevails especially among the ultra-conservatives, those on the far right of the spectrum of Catholic theological opinion. They go so far as to claim that Jews, Muslims, other believers, agnostics, and atheists — who know about Christianity and who had opportunity to believe and become Christian — all will be sent to Hell by God because they did not convert. So they claim.
How did conservative Catholics respond to this sermon by the Pope at Mass? Very few treated his words as instruction from which they might learn something new. Very few took his words to heart and decided to change their views on salvation for atheists and other non-Christians. Instead, there were a variety of other responses.
Some conservatives dismissed the Pope’s sermon, in its entirety, by saying that we don’t have an audio recording or an exact transcription. So we don’t really know all that he said. Some said that we can’t really trust the reporting about what the Pope said, since news reports can be inaccurate on the subject of religion. Some pointed out that his words in a sermon are not infallible, and perhaps not of the Magisterium per se, and so we are not required to believe.
But if the Pope has said something that they liked, such as support for the Latin Mass, they would have treated his words as dogma.
Others took the approach of lamenting the Pope’s decision to speak extemporaneously on this subject, because people might misunderstand. They consider the idea that atheists can be saved without converting to be a misunderstanding of what the Pope said. Still others went to great effort to offer various interpretations of the Pope’s words that essentially nullified what he was saying. And of course there were many persons who ignored his words altogether, while they continued to spread their own view on salvation.
What all these approaches to the Pope’s words, in a sermon at Mass, have in common is a certain attitude. They do not treat the Pope as their teacher. They are not open to correction from the Pope. They will not change their minds in response to his words, his insights, his teaching, his preaching.
If the Pope says anything that might be considered a liberal theological point of view, they will not accept it. They will not accept any teaching from any Pope or Council (as we learn from their reaction to Vatican II) that is not in accord with their own political-party-like approach to the Catholic religion. Only conservative theological positions are acceptable to them.
Suppose that Pope Francis were to publish an encyclical teaching that non-Christians, who know well about Christianity and the Church, can be saved, even though they explicitly reject the Church and never convert to Christianity. How would these ultra-conservative Catholics react? I have no doubt that many would reject the teaching because it conflicts with their own ideas. They criticize liberals for rejecting magisterial teaching, but conservatives themselves feel no obligation when the teaching is deemed to be “liberal”.
Some conservatives would claim that the teaching was non-infallible, or not really under the Magisterium, but only an opinion. Some conservatives would radically re-interpret the Pope’s teaching to mean the opposite, and others would use radical re-interpretation to nullify the teaching altogether. For example, they could say that the path of salvation for atheists described by the Pope is hypothetically possible, but never actually happens, or only happens with extreme rarity.
Some conservatives would go so far as to claim that the Pope had fallen into heresy. This was the approach used by many conservatives in reaction to the teachings of Vatican II. And there has been talk ever since, even among those conservatives who accept Vatican II (but who also ignore and deprecate its teachings), that a Pope can fall into heresy and thereby lose his teaching authority. See my article to the contrary: Can a Pope Ever Be a Heretic?
It will happen sooner or later that Pope Francis, or a subsequent Pope, or a future Ecumenical Council, will teach some truth from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, a truth that is deemed to be “liberal”, and the ultra-conservatives will accuse the Pope and/or the Council of heresy and thereby depart from the Church. I can see the groundwork for this departure already being laid. Many Catholics online talk incessantly about their conservative point of view, speaking as if every liberal or moderate opinion must certainly be an error, and despising anyone who dares to answer any theological question with a moderate or liberal theological position. They are like the groups criticized by Saint Paul (“I am for Apollo”), dividing themselves from any Catholic, any theologian, any priest, any Bishop and even any Pope who dares to express an idea in Catholicism that is not in accord with the ultra-conservative version of Catholicism in their own minds.
Salvation for Atheists
What does the Magisterium teach? There is a clear set of teachings on salvation:
1. Everyone who dies in a state of grace will have eternal life in Heaven (perhaps after a temporary stay in Purgatory).
2. Fallen sinners can only enter into the state of grace through some form of Baptism, either the formal Sacrament (Baptism with water), or a Baptism of desire (even if it is implicit desire) or a Baptism of blood (like the holy innocents and certain catechumenate martyrs).
3. The state of grace can only be lost by an actual mortal sin, which is defined as a gravely immoral act committed with full and free choice of the will (full deliberation) and full knowledge of the grave immorality of that choice.
4. Everyone who dies unrepentant from actual mortal sin will have eternal punishment in Hell.
Now let’s apply those teachings to a hypothetical atheist.
An atheist can enter the state of grace by an implicit Baptism of desire. The atheist does not explicitly desire baptism. But he does so implicitly by an interior act of love of neighbor, in full cooperation with grace. The true love of neighbor is always, at least implicitly, also a true love of God. By loving his neighbor sincerely and selflessly, in cooperation with actual grace from God, the atheist can enter the state of grace (habitual grace).
This interior act of love of neighbor, which is implicitly also an act of love of God in full cooperation with grace, and which is the occasion for their baptism of desire by the Holy Spirit, may be entirely interior. Or it may be associated with an exterior good work, expressing concretely the love of neighbor. So Pope Francis was not saying that atheists are saved by their own works, but that good works done in cooperation with grace can be part of the path of salvation for anyone.
Now if a person knows about Christ and His Church, and refuses to believe, he commits an objective mortal sin, that is to say, the act is gravely immoral, from an objective point of view. However, if the objective mortal sin is not also an actual mortal sin, the state of grace is not lost. The atheist does not lose the state of grace, gained by an implicit baptism of desire, if his refusal to believe in God is due to invincible ignorance within a sincere search for truth. Such an atheist does not realize that Christ is the true Son of God and that the Church is the Ark of Salvation. He sincerely seeks the truth, and he mistakenly thinks that God does not exist.
How can he not realize? Countless grave serious sins by hundreds of millions of persons who call themselves Christian or Catholic have obscured the true faith, making it much more difficult to recognize. And sinful secular society has presented to its population many falsehoods within a conflicting array of ideas, obscuring the truth even further.
However, I must caution that, even if an atheist is not culpable to the extent of an actual mortal sin for his unbelief, he may still end up in Hell for unrepentant actual mortal sin on other topics: sins of violence, sexual sins, malice, murder, theft, adultery, etc. We are all under the same eternal moral law, and anyone who knowingly does what is immoral is guilty of sin.
So an atheist can enter the state of grace by an implicit baptism of desire. And he can avoid actual mortal sin, despite choosing to reject the Church, due to invincible ignorance. Then, if he commits an actual mortal sin in some other way, he can repent with perfect contrition, with sorrow out of love for his neighbor (which is implicitly also love for God). And in this way, the atheist can die in a state of grace and be saved.
by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.
the reproach of Christ 
I certainly do not contend that death is not the separation of the soul from the body. I was quoting Scripture that showed that it appeared there was a duration from when the soul separeted itself from the body. I do not see anything wrong with that.
The problem is your contention that an explicit encounter with Jesus occurs during that supposed duration, and that salvation occurs at that time.
The theology of the implicit desire of desire of baptism is not wrong, but it still remains incomplete in my view and the Church has not closed the door for doctrinal development in the matter of salvation theology.
The Return of Jesus of Christ returns at the hour of our death, as we pass from this world to the next, is given some credence. Spe Salvi refers to it as an encounter and Saint Faustina explains Christ offers his Mercy one last time to a sinner.
[redacted]
I deleted most of your post because your argument is contrary to Church teaching. The CCC clearly teaches that death is the separation of body and soul. The Scripture passages you quoted do not teach otherwise; you are interpreting those passage without regard for magisterial teaching. There is no basis for saying that death is a process, during which a special experience of Jesus determines salvation. That type of idea, in any form, nullifies all that Jesus and His Church teaches about living this life in a way that participates in our redemption and salvation. I’m not going to permit any more comments from you arguing along those lines.
There is room for further doctrinal development on salvation, and not every question is settled doctrine. But we must begin by accepting and understanding the doctrines of the Church, and then proceed to answer open questions in that light.
The Magisterium infallibly teaches that all who die in a state of grace are saved, and all who die in a state of unrepentant actual mortal sin go to Hell.
Ron, if that’s true, then why do Catholics bother praying for the souls of the dead, regardless of their being in a state of grace when they die?
Second, if any Pope issues a position (such as Pope John Paul II’s abolitionist stance on capital punishment for murder) that conflicts with a divine command (Genesis 9: 5-6), doesn’t such a Pope become a de facto heretic?
Third, didn’t Jesus Himself say that He was “the Way, the Truth and the Light,” that “nobody can come to the Father but through” Him, that He is the “sheep gate” and that anyone who tries to enter the sheepfold by any other means is “a thief and a robber,” in His words?
Catholic pray for the souls in Purgatory, who died in a state of grace, but in need of purification prior to entering Heaven. We pray for them because they are one in the Church with us and they are suffering.
No Pope can ever fall into heresy; see my article on that subject. Pope John Paul II’s position on the death penalty includes a judgment of the prudential order that modern society is able to omit the death penalty, while still addressing crimes and protecting society. Scripture orders the death penalty, in OT times, as a discipline, and all disciplines, even those from Divine Revelation, can be dispensed.
All who are saved are saved by Christ, but some are saved by knowing him only implicitly. They know and love Truth and Life and the Way of love of neighbor, and so they know Christ who is that Way, and Truth, and Life. The OT Patriarchs knew Christ implicitly, and were saved by him implicitly. So salvation by implicit knowledge of Christ is proven.
[1 Corinthians 10]
{10:1} For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and they all went across the sea.
{10:2} And in Moses, they all were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea.
{10:3} And they all ate of the same spiritual food.
{10:4} And they all drank of the same spiritual drink. And so, they all were drinking of the spiritual rock seeking to obtain them; and that rock was Christ.
Our Lady of Fatima said back in 1917 that most souls are in Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason. Although most souls are eternally damned for sexual sins, there are other souls in Hell that are eternally damned for other unrepentant mortal sins. Many souls in Hell are actually there due to sins other than atheism, and those who are eternally damned go to Hell because they gravely offended God while knowing better and they failed to repent from their actual mortal sins in this lifetime. It is possible for atheists, non-Christians who believe in God, and non-Catholic Christians to be saved, even if they do not receive formal baptism or formally convert to the Catholic faith prior to death.
I wasn’t trying to make any unsubstantiated claims about salvation you misunderstood my comment. I didn’t know if St. Faustina actually said those things or not, so I was asking if you knew if she did or didn’t. But your newest post pretty much answered my question anyways.
Thank you.
Here is the quote in question taken from the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, Marian Press, 2005, page 371 :
” I often attend upon the dying and through entreaties obtain for them trust in God‟s mercy, and I implore God for an abundance of divine grace, which is always victorious. God‟s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God‟s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God‟s mercy! But – horror! – there are also souls who voluntarily and consciously reject and scorn this grace! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God. But sometimes, the obduracy (71) in souls is so great that consciously they choose hell; they [thus] make useless all the prayers that other souls offer to God for them and even the efforts of God Himself”.
”Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. (Spe Salvi 47)”.
This encounter cannot occur after death, it is too late.
Certainly, repentance and salvation is possible even up to and including the last moment of life. And that is what Saint Faustina describes. But it is false to say that there is a “passage” between life and death, and an event during that passage that determines salvation. The last moment of life is the last opportunity to repent and be forgiven from actual mortal sin.
It is also contrary to Catholic teaching to speak as if the last moments of life were the sole or main determinant of salvation. The Church teaches us to live our whole lives in faith and prayer, in love and good works.
As for the claim that Christ explicitly reveals himself to everyone in those last moments, so that non-Christians can be saved, there is no support for that claim in Tradition, or Scripture, or magisterial teaching. But there is support for the position that an implicit baptism of desire is sufficient to obtain sanctifying grace. A salvific encounter with Christ can be implicit, in as much as the person loves his neighbor, and thereby encounters and loves Christ.
Strange, my comment didn’t show up in it’s entirety. […redacted…] I looked online a bit but I couldn’t find any direct quotes. I was wondering if you had ever heard of this before and if so, what are your thoughts on it. Thank you.
I deleted most of your first comment, and part of this one. You should not be making unsubstantiated claims about salvation. You might harm souls. If you can’t find a quote or citation to support your claim, then I won’t be commenting. The Church has definitive teachings on salvation. Learn them.
Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but supposedly St. Faustina wrote….
Please provide the quote and citation.
True : ”It is heretical to claim that a person can be saved by an event, such as an encounter with Christ, that occurs after death”.
However, my point is the encounter with Christ occurs PRIOR to death (in the passage of death). All Salvation Comes through Christ, and this becomes explicit at the passage of death (in the theological sense, not the philosophical sense). One cannot love what he does not know explicitly (Trent) . So Christ does return at the hour of our death and baptism is necessary to be saved and this baptism, or the effects of this baptism, are given by Christ himself at the passage of death.
(Vatican II, GS 25):
”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 men, 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 man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.”.
Your position is variously stated: (1) “prior to death” and (2) “in the passage of death”. Both versions are false. Neither Tradition, nor Scripture, nor the Magisterium teaches that Jesus meets with a person prior to death and gives them (as you explained in a previous comment) a chance to choose Him explicitly. No such teaching is found in Christianity. The quotes and citations that you are using to support your position do not actually say what you are saying. And such a claim negates the path of salvation taught by the Church, as if someone could ignore all Church teachings and all morality, and then just prior to death or (supposedly) “in the passage” of death, they would be saved.
Also, you again make the false claim that Trent required “explicit” desire for baptism. You claims in this matter are neither Christian, nor Catholic. Your understanding of the teachings of the Faith on salvation is over-simplified and in error. But like so many others who have gone astray, you do not accept correction from anyone. You ignore what Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II say on this topic. You misinterpret what Trent and Vatican are teaching on the same subject.
Good article.
Concerning your point on the baptism of desire (only the implicit one), one cannot be saved without knowing explicitly knowing Christ (Council Of Trent), even though, during the course of a lifetime, an atheist can cooperate with grace, and imlicitly love Christ. So then, how does one know Christ explicitly ?
Spe Salvi, 47 offers an explanation:
”Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”.
Through the passage of death (before death itself), I offer that this encounter occurs with Christ (just before the particular judgement where Jesus Our Lord and Saviour explicitly offers salvation to a soul ).
It is heretical to claim that a person can be saved by an event, such as an encounter with Christ, that occurs after death. The Magisterium infallibly teaches that all who die in a state of grace are saved, and all who die in a state of unrepentant actual mortal sin go to Hell. The heretical idea of salvation only after death recurs in many forms; but no matter what the explanation, it is false to propose that a person who dies in a state of grace can end up in Hell, or that a person who dies unrepentant from actual mortal sin can go to Heaven.
The Council of Trent did not teach that one cannot be saved without explicitly knowing Christ. The possibility of a Baptism of desire was taught by Trent. And subsequent development of doctrine understood this to include implicit desire for baptism. Pope John Paul II taught that it can be implicit: All Salvation Comes through Christ, General Audience, 31 May 1995. Pope Pius XII taught that “an act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” [Address to Midwives].