Here’s an example of what I was discussing yesterday: Pat Archbold’s post called A Long Way To Go. The post describes a conflict between himself and a priest on the topic of salvation. Why is this an example of the “approaching conservative heresy and schism”? There are a few reasons.

1. Archbold describes himself as “a tradition-minded guy who writes about Catholic stuff”. Fine. But in his dispute with a Catholic priest, he takes the attitude that his own ideas on salvation theology cannot be mistaken. Archbold speaks as if he could not possibly have misunderstood the teaching of the Church on salvation theology, and as if this priest could not offer him any insights beyond what he already thinks is true.

His attitude toward this Catholic priest is condescending. He tells this priest what is and is not Church teaching. He offers no theological argument. He simply judges and condemns the priest’s position, to his face, as if his own understanding were infallible. He is the judge over this priest and his words, to such an extent that, at the end of his post he accuses the priest of heresy.

And this is a serious problem found among many conservative or “tradition-minded” Catholics. They think that by being conservative, and by taking the traditionalist position on any issue, they cannot be mistaken. Anyone who disagrees must be in heresy. What other explanation could there be? Tradition is infallible, therefore anyone who labels himself a “traditionalist” is also infallible? Right?

How well does Archbold understand salvation theology? He has published nothing of substance on the subject. He has written no books of theology at all. As far as I could determine, he has no degree in theology. He is not a bishop, priest, or deacon. He is a Catholic blogger. So why does he feel that he understands salvation theology so well that he can judge and condemn a Catholic priest? because he’s a conservative Catholic. And certain conservative Catholics have decided that they cannot be mistaken. Anyone who has a differing, more complex and subtle, theological position must have fallen into heresy.

It would be a different matter, if Archbold had a theological argument, in a book or article of theology, to support his view, and to prove by that argument that another person’s position, expressed in his book or article of theology, were heresy. Archbold’s post offers no theological argument. He has no works of theology. And his condemnation of this priest is based on a few words by that priest in off-the-cuff remarks.

2. Archbold’s view on salvation theology is overly simplistic, and he regards every element of his position as if it were dogma.

His accusation against this priest is based on one sentence in the priest’s sermon, and on the subsequent conversation.

“…and we should not look down on other religions as well. Their religions offer salvation as well.”

Archbold states that he had no objection to the priest’s entire sermon, except for the last sentence above. I’d like to present to my readers Archbold’s theological argument, but he offers none. Is there a sense in which other religions, aside from Catholicism, offer salvation? That is a legitimate theological question. And there is no teaching of the Magisterium on salvation that would make one answer or another dogma or heresy. A theologian or priest might take the position that other religions, in some sense, offer salvation or salvific grace or salvific elements.

Of necessity, the Catholic view must include that every offer of salvation is through Christ, at least implicitly, and everyone who is saved is in some sense a member of the Church. But a person who is not a formal member of the Church, by baptism with water, can be a mystical member by a non-formal baptism of desire or of blood.

Given this essential teaching, we might go on to say that other Christian religions, the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant denominations, have salvific elements and that they offer salvation in the sense that they offer baptism and the teachings of Scripture. We might say that the Jewish faith offers salvation in that it offers a path to a baptism of desire, by teaching from the Old Testament on the love and mercy of God and the love of neighbor.

As we get further away from Catholicism, the number of salvific elements in any religion are fewer and fewer. But most world religions offer some help to their adherents to find salvation, if only by teaching the love of neighbor and a distinction between moral good and moral evil.

So there is nothing heretical about the priest’s statement: “Their religions offer salvation as well.” In some sense, other religions, especially those of Christianity and Judaism, offer salvation or at least some salvific elements.

Archbold conversed with the priest after Mass. In his own account of the conversation, Archbold is exceedingly arrogant. The entire conversation is suffused with his assumption that his own understanding of salvation theology cannot be mistaken. He repeatedly says to the priest: “No.” — a simple judgment and condemnation of the priest’s position, without a theological argument.

The priest explained that other religions “have salvific elements.”

Archbold: “Salvific elements? Salvific elements is not what you said in your homily, you said salvation. But even so Father, no. Elements of truth, ok. Elements of salvation?”

From a theological point of view, I see nothing wrong with the assertion that other religions, in some sense, offer salvation or, as the priest clarified, “salvific elements”. But do you think that, if Archbold accused this priest of heresy to his bishop, that the bishop would condemn his priest for saying either “offer salvation” or “salvific elements”? Certainly not. The Church permits a wide range of theological expression of Church teaching as well as pious disagreement on open questions. The Church even permits, to some extent, licit theological dissent from non-infallible magisterial teaching. For there exists in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and thought as well as general norms of licit theological dissent.

But when has the Church ever spoken about elements of salvation in other religions?

Pope John Paul II (Angelus): With the Apostle Peter, we confess that “there is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4: 12). The Declaration Dominus Iesus, following the lead of the Second Vatican Council, shows us that this confession does not deny salvation to non-Christians, but points to its ultimate source in Christ, in whom man and God are united. God gives light to all in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation, granting them salvific grace in ways known to himself (Dominus Iesus, VI, nn. 20-21). The Document clarifies essential Christian elements, which do not hinder dialogue but show its bases, because a dialogue without foundations would be destined to degenerate into empty wordiness.

The same also applies to the ecumenical question. If the document, together with the Second Vatican Council, declares that “the single Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”, it does not intend thereby to express scant regard for the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities. This conviction is accompanied by the awareness that it is not due to human merit, but is a sign of God’s fidelity, which is stronger than the human weaknesses and sins solemnly confessed by us before God and men at the beginning of Lent. The Catholic Church – as the Document says – suffers from the fact that true particular Churches and Ecclesial Communities with precious elements of salvation are separated from her.

Notice the depth and subtlety of Pope John Paul II’s position on this question. He asserts both that “there is salvation in no one else” and that salvation and “salvific grace” are available to non-Christians. He rejects the attitude of those who “express scant regard” for other Christian Churches and denominations, for they have “elements of salvation” in their religions as well.

Here is an example of a subtle and profound discussion of the possibility of “elements of salvation” or “salvific elements” in other religions, especially in the Jewish religion. It is a document of the International Theological Commission, entitled “Christianity and the World Religions”, from the Vatican.va website.

Archbold is not qualified to judge someone else’s salvation theology. He lacks a sufficient understanding of the topic. He has written nothing of note on the subject. He has published no theology, other than blog posts. He couldn’t write a coherent lengthy theological argument on any topic if his readers required it of him. (They don’t.)

Archbold’s view is essentially Catholic fundamentalism. He oversimplifies the Church’s teaching on salvation. He treats his own understanding, on every point, as infallible dogma. Even on questions of mere terminology, he allows no deviation from his own understanding and choice of words.

The Protestant fundamentalist does not distinguish between the infallible teaching of Scripture and his own interpretation and understanding of Scripture. He admits no possibility of error in his own mind. Thus, he cannot be corrected when he misunderstands Scripture. The same is true for Catholic fundamentalists. They do not allow for any possibility of error in their interpretation and understanding of Church teaching. And so they accept correction from no one, not even the Pope.

Catholic fundamentalists err by regarding every teaching of the Magisterium as if it were infallible. They fail to understand that some elements of the Church’s teaching are non-infallible, non-irreformable, and subject to a limited possibility of error. They think that their own understanding of Church teaching is identical to Church teaching, and that all teachings of the Church are necessarily without any error. In effect, they have made themselves out to be infallible. Their attitude is: “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, unity. In all things, traditionalism decides what is unity.”

3. Archbold goes on to describe another assertion by this same priest: “The Church abrogated that teaching in Vatican II.” The teaching supposedly abrogated was that “outside the Church, there is no salvation”.

Now I agree with Archbold that Vatican II did not abrogate that teaching, but clarified it. However, I disagree with his assertion: “The Church can never abrogate its own teaching, Father. Never.”

Again, we see an extreme arrogance on the part of this “tradition-minded guy”. He assumes that because he is a traditionalist, taking the conservative position, he cannot be mistaken. The priest seems to regret his choice of the word “abrogate”, since he subsequently says “You just want to argue over that word now?” But to some extent, if we soften the wording, the priest was correct on this point also.

Vatican II clarified the infallible teaching of past Ecumenical Councils that outside the Church, there is no salvation, by broadening the definition of Church to include non-formal members, persons who have entered the Church by a baptism of desire or of blood, rather than of water. But the non-infallible teaching of the Church in past centuries interpreted that saying too narrowly, and that non-infallible teaching has been reformed. I think “abrogated” is too harsh a term, since this is a point of interpretation that has changed over time. But it is certainly true that a non-infallible magisterial teaching, even when it is itself an interpretation of an infallible teaching, can err to some extent, and that the point in error can be corrected.

Archbold’s judgment of this priest’s words is harsh, allows for no legitimate difference of theological position on open questions, and no legitimate diversity of expression. Moreover, Archbold’s own theological position is shallow and simplistic. A priest who disagrees is met with this attitude: “No, Father. Never, Father. No, no, no, Father”. And then he publicly accuses this priest of heresy on his blog.

Some priests do teach heresy. But the burden of proof is on the accuser, to present a theological argument based on that priest’s published theology. One phrase in a sermon and a subsequent brief conversation is not sufficient. Even the Spanish Inquisition would not condemn a priest for heresy on such scant basis.

I once heard a talk in which the Catholic speaker (who is now a priest) said: “There is only one person who can help you in that situation: God.” Of course, he did not mean to imply that God is one person, rather than Three Persons. And none of his listeners accused him of heresy, nor did they go up to him after the talk to correct him. A charitable interpretation of his words forestalled any objection.

The Approaching Conservative Heresy and Schism

Pride goeth before a fall. Certain conservative or traditionalist Catholics (not all of them), have decided that their own understanding of Catholicism is identical to Catholicism itself. They have decided that their own understanding of Church teaching is identical to Church teaching. They have decided that the Magisterium can never err. They have decided that anyone who disagrees with their own understanding of infallible teaching must be a heretic. And they mistakenly think that the Pope can possibly fall into heresy.

So what will happen if Pope Francis or a subsequent Pope were to teach that other religions have elements of salvation? Or that non-Christians, who know about Jesus and His Church, can be saved without converting? Or that atheists and agnostics can be saved without converting? What will happen when (not if) some Pope, by an act of the Magisterium, dares to contradict some idea that conservatives, unofficially and by their own pretended authority, have declared to be a dogma?

I suggest that many conservatives and traditionalists will judge and condemn that Pope for heresy, just as Archbold judges and condemns this priest. For they cannot imagine that their own understanding might be in error, or over-simplified, or in need of a more profound understanding.

Summary of my position

In what sense might there be “elements of salvation” in other religions?
In what sense might other religions “offer salvation”?

Every authentic prayer is prompted by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in every human heart.

The presence and activity of the Holy Spirit affects not only individuals, but also society, history, peoples, cultures, and religions.

The Spirit is at the origin of the noble ideals and undertakings which benefit humanity on its journey through history.

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.

Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.

The Holy Spirit offers salvation in Christ to persons brought up in other religious traditions, in a way that is accommodated to their spiritual and material situations, even when the social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit them to accept the Gospel or to enter the Church formally.

A person who outwardly rejects the Church can still be a member of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, implicitly and mysteriously.

An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism.

An atheist or agnostic can be saved without converting to belief in God.

A non-Christian, who knows about Jesus and His Church, can be saved without converting to Christianity.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.