Читать книгу Only One Way? - Gavin D'Costa - Страница 16

The most important dogmatic document (in contrast to a pastoral document or declaration) on this question is The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 16 (Lumen Gentium, 1964 – subsequently LG). Before turning to section 16 in detail, it needs contextualizing. LG 1–7 reiterates previous teachings. It starts with the basic Catholic plot-line: God created the world, which was good. After the fall humans seek the living God and yearn for that original communion that has been lost. That restoration begins in Israel and the broken relationship is fully and finally restored in the second Adam, Christ, who is founder of the Church. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it:

Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in . . . Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of . . . Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to ‘convict the world concerning sin’ (Jn. 16:8), by revealing him who is the Redeemer.12

The document then expands on the trinitarian foundation of the Church through the Father, and the Son who founded the Church through the power of the Spirit (2–4). It recognizes the way the kingdom is made present in the Church, primarily through its sacramental character but also in the works of charity that follow conversion of the heart, mind and will to God (5). It shows how the Church is prefigured in the Old Testament (6) and then reflects upon New Testament images of the Church (7), leading to the conclusion that the Church is the sacramental mediator of saving grace: ‘Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (*)13 through which He communicated truth and grace to all (8). It is then stated that this unique Church of Christ ‘subsists [subsistit] in the [Roman] Catholic Church . . .’. This term ‘subsists’ replaced the term ‘is’ [est] in the original draft, and there has been much discussion about the significance of ‘subsists’.14 The same sentence continues: ‘although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.’

The rest of the document until paragraph 16 delineates the different types of relation and belonging to the Church, first for Catholics and then for other Christians and then finally in section 16 in relation to other religions. Catholics are fully ‘incorporated’ (plene incorporantur) into the Church and catechumens are ‘united’ (coniunguntur) to the Church in virtue of their desire to join the Church (14). The term voto (desire) is used solely for catechumens. Then come non-Catholic Christians, who are ‘joined’ (coniuncti) to the Church for various reasons, but are ‘incorporated’ (incorporantur) into Christ. Finally, in paragraph 16 the Council turns to non-Christian religions and non-religions. The stage is now set for our topic and three points are important.

First, LG reiterates the ancient teaching: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the Church) but with a different phrase: ‘Docet autem, sacra scriptura et traditione innixa, Ecclesiam hanc peregrinantem necessariam esse ad salute’ (‘Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation’).15 The different Latin phrase outlines an important shift of emphasis: the old dogmatic truth is reiterated – that Christ and his Church are necessary for salvation; but that truth is now expressed not in negative relation to others – no salvation outside Christ and his Church, but as a positive teaching about the Church and its binding force upon Catholics. Hence, this same section ends: ‘Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved’ (14). What was often employed negatively against non-Christians before is now turned into a profound call to Catholic Christians and those who truly hear the gospel message. But it does not negate the objective claim that the Church is necessary for salvation. Rather there is an acknowledgement that hermeneutically, the way this might apply to different groups requires contextualizing and further theological reflection.

Before the Council there had already been clarification on extra ecclesiam nulla salus when in 1949 the Holy Office, now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemned the teachings of Leonard Feeney SJ, who held to a literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Feeney claimed all non-Catholics were damned: including other Christian denominations as well as those in non-Christian religions. The Holy Office issued a letter against Feeney’s literal interpretation making it clear that the teaching did not mean damnation for all those who were not Roman Catholics. The letter stressed that all people who had not explicitly rejected the gospel had a possibility of being ‘related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire’.16 This teaching would find different expression in the Council, which dropped the notion of ‘unconscious desire’ and ‘Mystical’ Body, as the former was just one model of explaining how this might happen and the Council was not keen to close down discussion in this area, but simply offer a general orientation. It thus still insisted on a connection to the Body of Christ, the Church. The Council also reiterated the clear teaching that those who die not knowing Christ on earth, and even those who do not know God, might still be saved:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (16)

This is not Pelagianism through the back door, but presumes grace for the possibility of the ‘good life’. This is very important to stress, for otherwise the effects of original sin would be gravely eclipsed, undermining dogmatic truth.

Here we have the Christological, trinitarian and ecclesiological theologoumena delicately welded together in Catholic theology. Christ, the self-revelation of the triune God, through the power of the Spirit is the source of all salvation. But Christ through the power of the Spirit founds the Church, which is his instrument for salvation to the entire world because the Church is the sacramental body of Christ to the world. Thus all non-Christians who are saved are related to the Church. The relationship of Christ to the Church and precisely how it is to be explained in the context of the salvation of non-Christians is a matter for Catholic theologians to attend to. The Council was simply laying down the legitimate dogmatic parameters for reflection reiterating the tradition. After the Council there have been significant debates about the two central links in this claim: first, whether and how Christ is the sole constitutive cause of all saving grace; and second, whether and how the Church is the means of salvation to those who die outside its visible boundaries but may nevertheless be saved. What is important right now is to state those claims and note that there has been considerable discussion about them.17

Second, LG 16 addresses the question of non-Christians (those from other religions and none) and distinguishes their relation to the Church not in terms of those ‘incorporated’, or ‘united’, or ‘joined’, but as those ‘ordained (ordinantur – *) in various ways, to the People of God’. In the footnote to the term ordinantur, Aquinas’s Summa Theologica III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1 is cited.18 In that section of the Summa, Thomas is discussing the headship of Christ both to theChurch and to all humans and is answering the objection that the unbaptized have no relation to the head as they are not part of the body (the Church). The answer given by Thomas resists any such decapitation and severance of relation: ‘Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things – first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.’19 It should be recalled that Aquinas’s adoption of Aristotelian terms here requires ‘potentially’ to be understood as referring to something future, which at present exists only as a germ to be evolved. The potentiality has been variously interpreted subsequent to Aquinas as I have noted when looking at the medieval period above. Pius XII used the term ordinantur in Mystici Corporis (1943) of those who have not been baptized to say they are ‘oriented towards [the Church] by a certain unconscious desire and wish’ (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris corpus ordinari) (103). Here, Thomas’s ‘potentiality’ is given its future orientation towards actus (being fulfilled) in terms of ‘unconscious desire’.20 I have spent time on this matter as this issue has been hotly debated since the Council. My own elaboration of the implication of this future actualization of potentiality can be found elsewhere.21 However, let me make three brief remarks concerning salvation and the eschaton.

If it is clear that salvation is possible for the non-Christian, yet salvation involves the beatific vision (the direct vision of God as Father, Son and Spirit), then I would argue that salvation for the non-Christian is an eschatological event. It cannot be an event that happens in this life for the non-Christian who dies as a non-Christian, not because they are necessarily lost (which is contrary to church teaching), or because they lack nobility, holiness and goodness that might put many a Christian to shame, but simply because to posit the beatific vision for such a person would be epistemologically overriding their freedom, imposing upon them a relation with a reality that they do not know. Ontologically, in God’s eyes, this person is known to be saved, but the epistemological reality of this is yet to happen. Does this mean that non-Christians are any the less good and noble? Not at all. Does it mean that as human persons they do not show remarkable courage and deep compassion? Not at all. All that is being claimed here is that salvation as the enjoyment of the beatific vision is something that will be enjoyed only after this life. To further contextualize these remarks, it should also be said that apart from Mary and the saints, the beatific vision will only be enjoyed in the eschaton by most Christians. Most Christians, while being justified by baptism and faith, will die still lacking purity and perfection which is what will be required for their participation in the beatific vision. Hence, this sense of seeing the salvation of non-Christians as a future event does not in any way provide a commentary on the individual person. It is clear that their religion cannot be objectively true although it may contain many elements of goodness, truth and beauty as well as reflect the light that enlightens all men and women.

Second, this individualist manner of speaking about salvation only tells part of the story. Salvation is a deeply corporate and social event, for the body of Christ is not about the salvation of an individual but the salvation of a community. Here Karl Barth’s rereading of double predestination is most illuminating. Barth questions Calvin’s focus on the individual as the site of predestination but rather sees this double predestination concretized in Jesus Christ. First, as the damned, in so much as Jesus undertakes that which rightly belongs to the damned: death and dereliction. Second, as the redeemed, in so much as Jesus through his resurrection redeems fallen men and women and his being saved by the Father is the first-fruits of God’s reconciliation. Barth overstepped the mark, at least the Catholic mark, in then arguing from this to a form of universalism (that all men and women will be saved). Christ’s resurrection and transformation of humanity means that all men and women will have the opportunity to be saved, as taught by Vatican II and the tradition, not that all men and women will actually be saved. Universalism compromises the radical nature of human freedom. Its condemnation is only concerned with human freedom, not a meanness of spirit about the numbers who might be saved. As I noted earlier, of course, until the modern period salvation optimism was quite novel.

Third, if we are to uphold Augustine’s teaching that conversion cannot happen after death, a teaching that has been upheld my the majority of the tradition since Augustine’s days and forms one of the parameters within which we must try and address the question, have we come to a dead end (in a double sense) when dealing with the question of the fate of the non-Christian? Fortunately, there is another route to think through this matter and it is along the route related to the righteous before the coming of Christ. Remembering that this metaphoric language requires careful handling, elements of the tradition teach that Christ descended into hell to save these souls who were destined for paradise but could not yet enter the gates of heaven as they had not yet met Christ. Are there not many millions after Christ who are in an analogous situation? These people have not had the opportunity to hear the gospel but may, through God’s Spirit and thus through the promptings of grace, have followed the dictates of their conscience and the good elements within their religions and thereby sought to follow the good at great personal cost. This does not mean that they have received Christ as is sometimes taught by certain theologians, but rather that they would do (as in Thomas’s difference between potentiality and actuality) and in this sense, their future salvation may be construed.

This analogical application of an ancient doctrine is not without problems, but has the benefit of keeping intact a non-Christian’s freedom, allowing for their decisions in this life (potentiality) to bear full fruit (actuality) in the beatific vision. Clearly, there is thus continuity and discontinuity involved, but we must assume that only God is the just judge who can adjudicate on such questions and how they might be measured. After all, it took the thief on the cross, Dismas, a single moment of recognition to be assured of future salvation. One cannot imagine that after death he had much inner transformation to undergo before final purification was attained. Augustine argued that he was probably someone who had already been baptized and had fallen away from the Church so that his argument about conversion after death was not weakened, but there is little to support such a reading, although there is admittedly little evidence to refute it. Furthermore, to reiterate, it should also be remembered that apart from Mary and the saints, Catholic theology teaches that many who are Christians and are destined for salvation will nevertheless after death enter into an interim stage of further purification and transformation before enjoying the beatific vision. This is called purgatory. Elsewhere I have related these doctrines of purgatory and the limbus patrum (the limbo of the fathers, the place where the righteous before Christ awaited his descent into hell and the opening of the gates of heaven) to provide a solution to an unresolved lacuna in Catholic teaching: how a non-Christian who dies as a non-Christian can be said to be saved, when salvation (as beatific vision of the blessed Trinity) entails a state of which they have no consciousness in this life.22

The metaphoric complexity of both the limbo of the fathers and purgatory should make us wary of pushing these models too far. When writing about the fires of purgatory, Benedict XVI touches on this deepest of mysteries in his Encyclical Spes Salvi:

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’. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the ‘duration’ of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter eludes earthly time . . . it is the heart’s time, it is the time of ‘passage’ to communion with God in the Body of Christ. (47)

To conclude this section let me summarize: God through Christ is the cause of all salvation and the Church is Christ’s body on earth, the means by which all grace is mediated. How this grace might be mediated to those outside the Church is an area that is not defined or resolved, but that this grace is mediated to those outside the Church is a certainty. Catholics can be confident that non-Christians might be saved which is the solemn dogmatic teaching on this matter. There is obviously a lot of work for theologians to do in developing, explicating and defending this teaching, but this is the basic teaching of the Catholic Church on these questions.