#applying to magisterium tradition in a way actually

[pzychojinx]

what is lord asriel belacqua if not representation for unhinged capricorns

[spiritualdirections]

Can John Paul II’s sainthood be cancelled?

The editors of the National Catholic Reporter have asked that the cult of John Paul II be suppressed for his role in the appointment of Theodore McCarrick to be Archbishop of Washington, DC. This comes in the light of the “McCarrick report” last week. 

Some people think that the Church’s canonizations are infallible acts, declaring infallibly that the canonized is a saint in heaven. In which case, what the NCR editors are asking would be impossible. 

But that’s not actually the Church’s teaching. It is possible to remove a canonized saint’s public cult. However, the NCR editors haven’t come close to making that case. (Deep dive below the break.)

Infallibility only applies to matters that are part of the deposit of faith or directly implied by the deposit of faith. Cardinal Avery Dulles, in his book Magisterium (p. 78), points out that whether or not such-and-such a person who lived after the death of the last apostle is in heaven--that’s not in either category. He then cites the conclusion of a Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue (in which he had participated):

32.  The  theological  manuals  of  recent  generations  rather  commonly  hold that  solemn  canonizations  of saints,  as contained  in papal  decretal  letters, are infallible. The tradition in favor of infallibility in the matter has been traced back at least to the time of Thomas Aquinas, but there are genuine difficulties  in seeing how canonizations fall within the object of  papal  infallibility  as taught  by Vatican I  or Vatican II. Certainly, the virtues  of  particular  persons  of  postbiblical  times,  and  their  present  situation  before  God,  can  scarcely  be  reckoned  as  part  of  the  apostolic  deposit of faith. If one looks on revelation as having become complete in Christ, holiness may reasonably be seen as a concrete way of living, in a given  culture,  the  saving  truth  revealed  in  Christ.  The  Church has  the  power to recognize  authentic  Christian holiness, yet  canonization would not seem  of its  nature to  convey  infallible  certitude  that  the holiness in question was actually present in the life of this or that historical person.

Here are the relevant parts of Vatican I and II on the “object of infallibility”: Vatican I’s Dei Filius ch. 4, par.13

“For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed... has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted”

and Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4, par.6

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles”; 

and most importantly Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium #25: 

“This infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.”

In an excellent article in Nova et Vetera 17:3, William Diem, after surveying the theological tradition, concludes that canonizations hold a middle position between merely disciplinary/liturgical decrees and infallible teaching. The Church infallibly declares that, based on what we know about a person’s moral life and about the miracles attributed to that person’s intercession, the canonized person is a saint deserving of a public cult. The infallibility extends to what’s publicly known--assuming that there’s nothing we don’t know that would change the answer, what we do know establishes that this person’s life is worthy of imitation and is an example of what has been handed down about holiness from the deposit of faith. For instance, you can’t point to the penitential practices of a canonized saint and say, “this guy is not holy because of his penitential practices.” Saint Bonaventure, in defending the Franciscan view of poverty, pointed out that saints in the past had been canonized while publicly taking vows of poverty, and so taking vows of poverty was infallibly declared by the Church to be compatible with holiness. 

However, if there’s something not publicly known about the person (some secret sin) or if the witnesses to either  the miracles or the moral life of the canonized are in some way mistaken, then the canonized person might not actually be in heaven. If the canonized is in heaven, then asking for his or her intercession makes abundant sense. If the canonized not in heaven, then our prayers for intercession are misdirected, and a public cult is not in order.

It’s that last part which (if we’re charitably assuming the NCR editors are theologically on top of the status questionis) gives their argument some purchase. So, is there anything that we learned in the McCarrick Report that 1) was not publicly known about Pope John Paul II at the time of his canonization and that 2) disqualifies him from being in heaven? I don’t think so, for more or less the reasons that George Weigel outlines here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/11/theodore-mccarrick-not-john-paul-ii-is-the-story-of-the-mccarrick-report

The report on pp. 149-192, goes into detail about what was being said about then Archbishop McCarrick before his appointment to DC. Basically, nobody had anything more than rumors about any sexual impropriety. Nothing was on the record. Cardinal John O’Connor of New York desperately didn’t want McCarrick to succeed him as Archbishop, and so his passing along the rumors to the Pope was probably discounted for the reason that he wasn’t objective about McCarrick for other reasons. The reports says (p. 179 fn 593) that it was important to the pope that the Archbishop of Washington be politically savvy, which McCarrick was, and it seems that was his major qualification for the post. Major figures in the Church investigated McCarrick’s moral life and didn’t find anything to disqualify him, and told the Pope that. The report says (p. 173 fn 580) that the pope believed that people often used rumors of sexual misconduct to discredit figures in the Church--indeed the Communists in Poland tried to discredit him by planting evidence of an affair in his apartment. In the US, Cardinal Joseph Bernadin of Chicago was falsely accused of sexual abuse--the putative victim later recanted. 

Since John Paul II didn’t have anything more than rumors to discredit McCarrick, rumors that his own experience told him not to trust, he eventually decided to appoint him. Since the rumors about McCarrick had already been investigated, it was decided that they didn’t need to be investigated again. That last, procedural decision not to repeat the work already done by others, is what the NCR editors think means that John Paul II isn’t in heaven. As if not doing redundant paperwork is a mortal sin. 

To be fair to their editorial, what they are insinuating is that the procedural decision reveals something that was not known at the time of the canonization: that John Paul II didn’t care about the sexual abuse of minors: “John Paul, in many ways an admirable man, was willfully blind to the abuse of children and young people.” In which case, not de-canonizing him would be an infallible declaration that the Church doesn’t care about the abuse of minors! But that’s pretty thin, for at least three reasons: 1) The report explicitly undermines their uncharitable interpretation by providing context; 2) the pope did take action against clerical abuse when he grasped the scope of the problem; and 3) John Paul II’s handling of the sex abuse crisis was something already known and discussed before his canonization. 

If Thomas Aquinas is right that it’s an act of piety to trust the Church’s canonizations (pie credendum est), the NCR editorial is, simply put, impious.

[pamphletstoinspire]

Suicidal Ideation in Church and State

With the terrible events of this past weekend, which witnessed mass shootings in both Dayton and El Paso, the media-consuming public is being subjected to any number of diagnoses from activists, journalists, social scientists, and others, especially Democratic candidates for the presidency.

What I wish to propose in this Ad Rem is that the true etiology underlying many of these mass shootings is very similar to the etiology of current civil and especially ecclesiastical illnesses.

Prescinding from these most recent massacres, about which too little is presently known, there is evidence that connects certain pharmaceuticals (psychotropic drugs) with homicidal ideation. This will probably get some but not enough attention in the next few days and weeks. Other causes are at work, to be sure (mostly spiritual), but anyone who is familiar with the iatrogenic nightmares of the opioid crisis and the benzodiazepine crisis will find what I’m saying here credible. As one who has experienced both of these crises up close in the debilitating effects they have had on my parents, I have no trust in the system that fostered them.

Big Pharma is the tail that wags the dog of the “healthcare” industry in America. And yes, the power quotes were deliberate. As is the case with other things our modern parlance couples with the word industry (e.g., food, music, entertainment), healthcare has suffered immeasurably from being industrialized, capitalized, and governmentalized.

But to bring us closer to our point, there is another harmful effect of certain widely used pharmaceuticals: suicidal ideation. I refer to the known association between suicide and some classes of drugs, such as opioids, SSRIs, and benzodiazepines. For example, there is a correlation between the alarming rate of military suicides we keep hearing about and the pharmaceuticals military personnel are given to treat PTSD and other problems.

When psychotropic drugs are prescribed for people diagnosed with psychopathologies by the failed mental health system, what is happening? Supposedly sick people are given drugs that we know make people sick — and included in that latter sickness is violent ideation, of both the suicidal and homicidal varieties. This is not healthcare, but societal suicide that enriches the drug companies and their co-conspirators. Dr. G.C. Dilsaver summarized it this way in a recent interview (around the 2:04:00 mark): “In short, the mental health system, the psychopharmacological companies, and the insurance agencies get away with murder.”

These terrible phenomena of drug-induced mass shootings and rising military suicide rates may be compared to the current crisis in the Catholic Church with very clarifying results.

The three-part pattern is quite similar: (1) A genuine problem exists, (2) to which is applied an unhealthy remedy, (3) with disastrous results. Here is a concrete application in the mental health profession, where a patient might: (1) experience some sort of anxiety or depression, diagnosed by a “mental health professional” using his handy-dandy, unscientific DSM, (2) at which point he is treated by psychotropics, producing the result of (3) iatrogenic sickness, including possibly suicide and/or homicide.

Let us apply this pattern to one current “Catholic problem,” church closings: (1) There is the problem of low Church attendance resulting in financial hardship for parishes. (2) The “remedy” is to close parish churches by combining two existing parishes into one and selling off the property of the church building no longer needed, possibly demolishing the building so that it does not become desecrated by its new owners. (3) Among the known results of such an action is that a definite number of parishioners will leave not only the parish, but the Catholic Church, for good. One estimate has that number at forty percent. According to Philip Gray, who runs the Saint Joseph Foundation, the percentage of Catholics who leave due to church closings varies based on how well the bishop handles the situation: if well, it goes down to around twenty percent; if badly, it goes up to about sixty percent. So the best-case scenario in church closings is that one in five parishioners is lost to the Catholic Church! Therefore, closing churches is a losing proposition for the Church, a gun to the ecclesiastical head.

What would a real remedy look like? Here is a missionary solution: Send priests, upper-class seminarians, and religious out into the streets to invite people — Catholics and non-Catholics — to come to Church, getting the Roman collar, the cassock, and the religious habit in plain view and making your new diocesan missionaries vulnerable to a hostile or indifferent populace. They will be targets, but that’s OK, so were the Apostles. Once they have people’s attention, they must invite them, challenge them, engage them, hear their grievances compassionately, and answer their questions with thoroughly orthodox and uncompromising replies. Put on special classes and some cultural events for the people you have so invited. Make them feel welcome, not by some big PR splurge that you’ve paid too much for on TV and radio, but by having genuine human interaction that has as its sole purpose the glory of God and the salvation of souls. In short, save the parish; don’t shut it down, and save souls in the process: a net gain for the Church.

It is probable that there are some shakers and movers in the parish, capable and energetic lay folk who want to do something good for the Church. Instead of clericalizing these zealous individuals by making them Eucharistic ministers, lectors, “song leaders,” and other unnecessary add-ons to the clerics and male acolytes in the sanctuary, have them help with these truly missionary efforts. They could actually be working to save souls.

Note that the proposed solution is missionary. In other words, it involves the Church doing something integral to the divine constitution of the Church and therefore traditional. Traditional remedies are the best!

Another example: Instead of merging a Catholic hospital system with a pro-abortion secular institution in order to “save” it — which is institutionally suicidal as well as homicidal to bodies and souls — try expanding the reach of authentic Catholic healthcare by partnering with medical schools that enthusiastically assent to the Church’s moral magisterium, and establishing guilds of Catholic physicians, nurses, and support staff who take professional oaths to be pro-actively pro-life and pro-family. No, it won’t be easy, but partnering with the medical culture of death is taking a Glock to the head!

Other examples:

Youth programs designed to “keep the young people,” or draw them back to the Church: Instead of trying to make them “relevant” by employing the worst of pop-culture and therefore giving them nothing particularly Catholic to grab hold of, have family-based activities that bring youth, parents, and clergy together. Emphasize holiness by offering retreats, wholesome camping and/or scouting activities, and events that promote genuine culture. Focus the events around the liturgical year, the sacraments, and big anniversaries, e.g., of the parish, to give them that sense of belonging to a community that they need.

Seminary formation: Instead of welcoming effeminate men into the seminary, as has been common in the last decades (even still!), make a very public statement that you only want masculine men who want to sacrifice themselves in the seminary (think vintage 1985 Marines), and that you will keep the homosexuals out; challenge young men to be “man enough” to embrace the Cross of the Catholic priesthood, and then introduce traditional clerical asceticism into the seminary environment and formation programs. Teach them what spiritual fatherhood is. No, this is not an attempt at recruiting “dumb jocks” to the priesthood; strong academics and exposure to genuine Catholic culture must also be present in the formation.

Altar Servers: Make it an exclusive male-only brotherhood, emphasizing virtue as well as knowledge of how to serve.

Some of what is true of Church demographics also applies to civil societies in former Christendom. Institutionally, most European nations are displaying suicidal ideation, too. Declining birthrates are compensated by profligate immigration from Muslim countries. That is a gun to the national head if ever there was one. But what can be done about it? Consider Hungary, where strict immigration laws prevent Muslim invasion and financial incentives are available to married couples who have at least three children. No wonder the liberal globalist elites hate Viktor Orbán!

In the Church, bishops could do things to incentivize higher birthrates by imitating the impressive incentive of Georgian Orthodox Patriarch Ilia II, who offered personally to baptize every third child and over born to a married couple. He actually caused a demographic uptick in his country, a former Soviet republic. It should be mentioned that for the Church to accomplish this, her ministers must fearlessly preach the truth about marriage and parenthood to the faithful, including the mortally sinful nature of birth control as well as abortion. Priests and bishops who do that are still, sadly, rare birds.

In general, churchmen seem to favor expensive bureaucratic solutions to the problems caused by modernity when the answer is a return to tradition, even if that return to tradition will require some modern methods (such as electronic media). It’s bad enough to be ineffective, but, as we have seen, churchmen become institutionally suicidal whenever they do something contrary to the nature of the Church — her divine constitution, her faith or morals — such as partnering with an expensive pro-abortion PR firm, as at least one archdiocese in the US actually does!

As far as the lowly faithful are concerned, we cannot institute these changes, but we can teach people the truth about the problems and authentic solutions that flow from a well-formed sensus Catholicus. And the laity can also use the power of the purse string by supporting only apostolates that actually advance the mission of the Church rather than picking up someone else’s suicide tab.

When many of the old nominally Catholic institutions have killed themselves off, those few who have reformed themselves in fidelity to tradition will join the new ones that will inevitably crop up to foster a genuine renaissance of Catholicity. Then the Church will have the resources to provide authentically Catholic remedies to all those horrible social problems about which there is so much clueless pontificating today.

BY: BROTHER ANDRÉ MARIE

From: www.pamphletstoinspire.com

[ianspirations]

Dominus Iesus: The Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

The mission of the Church sprouts from the commission of Jesus (Mt 28:18-20) and is fulfilled “in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the incarnation of the Son, as saving event for all humanity” (#1). Over the centuries, the Church has faithfully preserved and proclaimed the ‘Gospel of Jesus.’ With Vatican II the Church became sensitive to the riches and goodness in non-Christian religions and saw in them “a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra Aetate#2). But this sensitivity which is the bedrock of inter-religious dialogue does not replace the call for mission ad gentes from which “it follows that all men and women who are saved share though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit” (#2).

This document aims at emphasizing indispensable elements of Christian doctrine and does not seek to propose answers to theological questions. It was published in 2000 by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, then headed by Josef Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II.

The Church’s mission is challenged by relativism which seeks to justify religious pluralism not only in fact but also in principle. This attitude leads to a watering down of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the inspired nature of the books of the Bible, the unity of the Eternal Word and the historical Jesus, the close connection between the Holy Spirit and the Son of God and the cooperative role of the Church in God’s work of salvation (#4).

At the core of these issues lie certain philosophical and theological presuppositions:

1. The elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth even by revelation.

2. Relativistic idea of truth – there is no absolute Truth.

3. Strict dichotomy between the logical inclination of the West and the symbolic inclination of the East.

4. Subjectivism that is centred on oneself and incapable of looking to anything beyond and above.

5. Difficulties in understanding and accepting definitive eschatological events in history

6. Metaphysical emptying of the historical incarnation of the Eternal logos (kenosis)

7. Eclecticism of theological research resulting in lack of consistency, systematic connection and compatibility with Christian truth.

8. The tendency to read and interpret Scripture outside of the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. (#4)

I. The Fullness and Definitiveness of the Revelation of Jesus Christ

In order to combat relativism it is necessary to assert the truth of Jesus’ revelation. In Jesus, God fully revealed Himself (#5). Jesus through his life and work revealed God: “through his words and deeds, his signs and wonders, but especially through his death and glorious resurrection from the dead and finally with the sending of the Spirit of truth” (#5). Since Jesus revealed the fullness of God, no further revelation is necessary. The incarnation of Jesus is “a universal and ultimate truth” (#5). The idea that all religions including Christianity possess only part of the truth about God because of His incomprehensibility is therefore, false since Christianity clearly believes that it has witnessed the direct revelation of God. The truth about God is not diminished because it is spoken in human language but it is unique since it is spoken by God in human language (#6)!

The proper response to God’s revelation is ‘obedience of faith’ (Rom 16:26) – a total self-surrender. Faith is a gift of grace and in order for one to have faith, they need the grace of God and the help of the Holy Spirit (#7). Obedience implies accepting Christ’s revelation thus making it a double assent to the God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals. It is necessary to distinguish between theological faith and belief. Faith can only apply to Jesus while belief remains open to all since it is made of the “sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasure of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute” (#7). Normally, this distinction is ignored and the two are considered as similar. For this reason, the difference between Christianity and other religions is minimized to the point of non-existence.

With regard to the scriptures of other religions, there are elements in them which foster spiritual growth and a relationship with the Divine (#8). Nevertheless, the Church does not consider them on par with the Bible. The Bible is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and has God for its author. Thus, it communicates faithfully, and without error the truth which God wishes to communicate. Yet, the Church holds that God continues to make himself present and known to people through the spiritual riches of various religious traditions. Other scriptures receive from Christ whatever goodness they possess.

II. The Incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit in the Work of Salvation

There is a trend of research that holds Jesus to be merely a historical figure without any divine attachments. They situate him as one of the many individuals who reveal God to the world. Another trend proposes that the Eternal Word manifests itself outside of the Church and remains unrelated to her. This view tries to downplay the significance of Jesus even though it states that Jesus reveals God better (#9). Both these ideas are contrary to Christian faith. Faithful to Scripture, the First Council of Nicea developed a creed that we use even today: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten generated from the Father…God from God…” Vatican II affirmed Jesus to be the one who restores human dignity as image and likeness of God and brings about redemption and reconciliation with the Father through His blood. It is erroneous also, to assume that Christ the saviour is other than Jesus, the man. In the incarnation, the salvific work was done “in unity with the human nature that he has assumed” (#10). Jesus is the “mediator and the universal redeemer” (#11).

There is another false teaching that proposes the Holy Spirit’s work as greater than the Incarnational experience. The incarnation was a Trinitarian event. Scripture however, bears witness that Jesus, the Incarnate Word, acts as the locus for the Holy Spirit’s presence and is the mediator of the Spirit’s falling on humanity, not only while he lived on earth but even prior to that (#12). Vatican II emphasized the close connection between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Christ’s work of building the Church “is seen as an action which he does in communion with his Spirit” (Lumen Gentium #3-4).

The salvific work of Jesus through the Spirit goes beyond the Church; therefore, the use of words like ‘people of goodwill’ – the idea is that all are called by God to share in His divine life but in a way that only He knows. The Holy Spirit enhances and actualizes the salvific work of Jesus in all, both those who preceded his earthly sojourn and those who came later. The Holy Spirit continues Jesus’ work of salvation. He continues sowing seeds in the hearts of people and in cultures and enables them to come to the knowledge of truth. Thus, the action of the Spirit is not outside or parallel to Christ. There is only one salvific action and it is accomplished by the Trinity (#12).

III. Unicity and Universality of the Salvific Mystery of Jesus Christ

Christ died to save all of humanity; this is the firm belief of the Church. The idea that his salvific activity does not extend to all has no biblical foundation. The New Testament affirms that Jesus is the Son of God who came to save. St. Paul writes that there is only one God and one Lord, Jesus Christ, “through whom are all things and for whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:5-6).

It was in this context that the early Christians encountered the Jews, “showing them the fulfilment of salvation that went beyond the Law and, in the same awareness, they confronted the pagan world of their time, which aspired to salvation through a plurality of saviours” (#13). The Church holds that Christ is the centre of human history. “The universal salvific will of God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God” (#14). With this in the background, theology is invited to explore if, and in what way, other religions fall within the divine plan of salvation. However, they must do this keeping in mind the unique mediation of Christ; anything contrary or beyond this cannot be considered to be in keeping with Christian doctrine.

The Christian faith cannot shy away from using words like ‘unicity’, ‘universality’ and ‘absoluteness’ even though theology among others raise concerns because not doing so would imply inauthenticity with the true significance of the salvific event of Jesus Christ. From the beginning, Christianity held that Jesus alone could offer salvation. “In this sense, one can and must say that Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute” (#15).

IV. Unicity and Unity of the Church

Jesus did not gather merely a community of disciples but formed them into a Church, which is itself a salvific mystery – Jesus is in the Church and the Church is in him (Jn 15:1). Therefore, the fullness of Jesus’ salvific mystery belongs also to the Church. Jesus continues his presence and work through the Church.

“Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: ‘a single Catholic and apostolic Church’” (#16). The Church’s integrity is not dependent on itself but on the promises made by the Lord. There is a historical continuity in the Church which gives it a certain legitimacy over other institutions even though they claim faith in the same Lord Jesus. The true Church is the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. Having said this, the Church believes that there are many elements of truth and sanctification to be found in those Churches and ecclesial communities not yet in communion with Her. But the Church reiterates that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio #3).

Those Churches which are not in perfect communion remain united “by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist” (#17). Those Churches which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not Churches in the proper sense but their members are still incorporated in Christ by virtue of their baptism. “Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church” (#17). It is a misconception to think that the Church is a mere collection of ecclesial bodies or that it does not exist in fact but only as a concept. The lack of unity among Christians is a ‘wound’ for the Church – it does not mean that she is deprived of unity but that she is not fully capable of exercising her universality in history.

V. The Church: Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Christ

The Church’s mission is to proclaim and establish the Kingdom of God. She herself is a sacrament – “a sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of unity of the entire human race” (LG #1). She is also the seed of the Kingdom. The Kingdom has an eschatological dimension – it is a reality present in time but its full realization will come only with the fulfilment of history.

The terms ‘kingdom of heaven,’ ‘kingdom of God’ and ‘kingdom of Christ’ are not synonymous. There are various theological explanations given, none of which can exhaust the definition. The kingdom cannot be separated from Jesus. Doing so leads to perversion of revelation. Likewise, the kingdom cannot be separated from the Church because she is directed to establish the kingdom.

But the kingdom must not be identified with the Church. It transcends it. In an attempt to describe the relation between the Church and kingdom one must be careful. Stressing certain qualities like calling it ‘kingdom centred’ can be harmful because they are one-sided. Very often, they are silent about Christ and attempt to appeal to the general sensitivity. They are erroneous since they deny the unicity of Christ, the Church and the kingdom of God (#19).

VI. The Church and the Other Religions in Relation to Salvation

The Church is necessary for salvation because it mediates the presence of Christ. Jesus stated the necessity for faith and baptism in order to be saved (Mk 16:16, Jn 3:5) and the Church offers the possibility for both. Those who do not belong to the Church can be saved by the enlightenment offered by the Church and suited to their spiritual and material condition. This enlightenment has its source in Christ and is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit (#20).

It is wrong to hold that the Church is one way of salvation alongside those of other religions. Each religion is directed to God and inspired by the Spirit in varying capacities but they do not have a divine origin nor salvific potential which is present in the Sacraments. Rituals and customs based on superstition become obstacles to salvation.

Other religions are disadvantaged in as much as they are deprived of the fullness of truth and grace that is to be found in the Church but Catholics ought to beware of thinking that it is their merit that has brought them this grace. It is God’s gift and they can find themselves deprived of salvation should they “fail to respond in thought, word, and deed” (#22).

Inter-religious dialogue is an important part of the Church’s mission. It presupposes equality but this equality is of the person’s engaging in dialogue and not of the doctrinal content. The Church has to proclaim the truth revealed by Jesus and encourage people to convert and receive baptism and the other sacraments “in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (#22). The Universal Salvific Will does not diminish but increases the duty and urgency of proclaiming salvation and conversion to Jesus.