Made a Cardinal by Francis, so we can assume the answer to the question is a resounding "NO"! Pray that God sends us a Catholic Pope!
From LifeSiteNews
By S.D. Wright
If Aveline really is Francis’ ‘favorite’ to succeed him, then understanding his theology is vitally important.
Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline is rumoured to be the favourite to succeed Francis in the next conclave.
Vatican insiders have relayed to LifeSiteNews their belief that Aveline “will be the next pope.”
He is also featured in lists of papabile cardinals, and Edward Pentin and Diana Montagna’s Cardinalium Collegii Recensio states that this “affable and scholarly prelate” is “allegedly Pope Francis’ ‘favorite’ cardinal to succeed him.”[1]
In addition, the French Bishops’ Conference (CEF) elected him as its president on April 2, 2025.[2]
In light of this growing prominence, this four-part study will examine Aveline’s theology. It will demonstrate that in spite of his moderate, “center-left” portrayal, his theological outlook is radically Bergoglian—subtly but systematically dismantling Catholic doctrine.
His project is an attempt to hollow out the Catholic religion altogether, and to substitute it with an entirely new system—whilst maintaining a veneer of Catholicism through the use of reimagined Catholic terms. This new system is built upon different presuppositions, ordered to different priorities, and yielding different conclusions, and leads to a fundamental reconfiguration of the Church, faith, revelation, and salvation.
Aveline’s three claims
We shall examine three interlinked claims that define Aveline’s thought, and which he claims represent “the current position of the Catholic magisterium.”[3] He summarizes this “current position” as follows:
- That non-Catholic religions play a positive role in the plan of salvation.[4]
- That all men are included in a “universal christic mediation.” (Here, we are following Aveline’s use of the uncapitalized adjective “christic.”)[5]
- That the Church’s mission has a “dialogic foundation”—a claim that recasts dialogue not as a method, but as the very essence of her identity.[6]
In each part of this study, we shall consider one of these three claims. In this part, we shall consider the first, which we shall give in full after establishing the doctrinal and methodological background.
While some may regard these three claims as conservative or orthodox, we shall see that they are in fact gravely erroneous and incompatible with Catholic doctrine—either in themselves, or in the sense that Aveline intends them. By treating false religions as salvific—notwithstanding the qualifiers he offers—Aveline denies the necessity of the Catholic Church and redefines the nature of supernatural faith and Christ’s status as the unique mediator between God and man.
In doing so, he dismantles the foundations of the Catholic religion, and replaces them with the principles of interreligious dialogue. Dialogue, then, is not merely a strategy for peaceful coexistence—it becomes the new doctrinal ground of the Church’s life and mission. Each of Aveline’s doctrinal revisions serve this “dialogical imperative.” In Part III, we will examine this more fully, but its influence is already visible in Aveline’s treatment of faith, salvation and the status of the Catholic Church.
Further, these three claims are not speculative musings. They are the operative principles of the current regime. They inform everything from Francis’ Abu Dhabi declaration to his denunciations of “proselytism.” Aveline supplies a theoretical and pseudo-theological “scaffolding” for the revolution his master has embodied.
In this first part, we shall consider the foundation of the Catholic religion: the necessity of the Church for salvation, and the nature of supernatural faith. Aveline’s revisions of these truths are the cornerstone of his broader project. For if false religions are to be construed as salvific, then supernatural faith and the uniqueness and mission of the Church must be redefined—and that is exactly what he attempts to do.
Problematizing the Catholic faith: Aveline’s subversion through doubt
Aveline’s theological project rests on a technique widely used by modern liberal thinkers: problematization. This method seeks to “deconstruct” commonly accepted ideas by treating them not as settled realities, but as contingent constructs requiring reinterpretation and “interrogation.” Its goal is typically not a neutral attempt to refine or understand, but to destabilize.
The pedigree of this method is unmistakably liberal: it emerges from post-Enlightenment philosophy and is particularly present in post-modern literary criticism. It is often used as a means to achieve some form of change.[7]
When applied to traditional ideas, values, and institutions, problematization does not aim to clarify—it is used as a means of deconstructing and dissolution.
Applied to the Church, this method does not confront or deny Catholic teaching openly. At times, it may attempt to grapple with genuine problems like religious pluralism, albeit still subversively: indirectly undermining revealed truths by transposing a social problem into a theological one.
At other times, it “problematizes” revealed truths directly, as if they too were subject to unresolved “problems,” and thus in need of rethinking in order to remain tenable. This rethinking may take place in the light of pluralism, historical consciousness, or modern experience, or anything else. In fact, this is a significant inversion. It is the Church’s teaching that gives us the light to evaluate these other problems, not the other way around.
Aveline’s approach strips the Church and her doctrine of their divine authority and casts them instead as human constructs—culturally conditioned and historically mutable. Both the method and the motivation were central to the modernist heresy, as described by Cardinal Pietro Parente, who defined modernism as:
A heresy, or rather a group of heresies […] with the pretense of elevating and saving the Christian religion and the Catholic Church by means of a radical renovation.[8]
But as Parente warned, this “radical renovation” achieved no such thing. It resulted instead in:
[A] hybrid amalgamation of verbal Catholicism with real naturalistic rationalism… (Emphasis added)[9]
This is the intellectual maneuver at the heart of Aveline’s theological system. He problematizes both the phenomenon of religious pluralism and the solemn dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (along with a host of other doctrinal points related to it). The former becomes a “mystery”—a new source of revelation, and grace to be engaged with through the quasi-sacramental lens of “dialogue.” The latter is no longer a revealed truth, but a historical “adage” to be questioned, reinterpreted, and ultimately subordinated to man’s evolving religious consciousness.
Sources of error: Protestant and Modernist influence
Cardinal Aveline’s work is built on a set of assumptions which are in fact theological errors—errors that lead to a thorough-going undermining of Catholic doctrine. Chief among these is the claim that other religions play a necessary and God-willed role in the plan of salvation.
He has long been immersed in interreligious dialogue, shaping his theology around it. His doctoral thesis, For a Christological Theology of Religions, Tillich in Debate with Troeltsch, examined how false religions might “participate in [Christ’s] unique mediation.”[10] This is a prime example of the “problematization” of a previously clear and settled area of doctrine, based on a prior commitment to the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church.
His choice of sources—a German American Lutheran and a liberal Protestant—already signals a troubling framework. His handling of their errors is evasive—he withholds judgement, yet consistently draws from their conclusions. He accepts their errors as grounds for reinterpreting Christianity itself, rather than confronting their contradiction with Catholic truth.
His model tacitly excludes supernatural faith—without which no one can please God. He follows Claude Geffré in speaking of a “mystery of religious pluralism”—a concept that demands Christianity reconsider its claims in light of other religions. He approvingly quotes those who insist that other religions pose an “absolutely pressing question” to Christianity, “which must, in their presence, reconsider its claim and thus receive from them at the very least a service of purification.”[11]
For Aveline and those he cites, the diversity of religions is not a problem to be overcome but a divinely intended reality—recalling Francis’ words:
[T]he pluralism and the diversity of religions […] are willed by God.[12]
From these presuppositions, Aveline frames the task as follows.
… renewing the understanding of faith not only from the consideration of religious plurality but also from the specific questions that each religion addresses to Christian theology.[13]
This approach relativizes Christianity, treating it as a historically conditioned phenomenon. Indeed, Aveline says that there is a “need for awareness of the relativity of Christianity in the history of religions.”[14] While historical analysis has its place, Aveline invokes it to relativize divine revelation. In manufacturing false dilemmas that undermine the faith, Aveline eschews Catholic tradition and frames his approach through the lens of Protestant theorists and naturalism. The result is that fundamental truths are problematized, reframed as tensions to be overcome, and finally subordinated to the new summum bonum of “dialogue”—a dialogue understood not as a means to truth, but as the lens through which the proclamation of the Gospel must be understood.
Naturalistic view of religion
In 2019, during his visit to a mosque, Aveline provided us with the key to understanding his religious views:
The most important thing for me is these relationships of friendship. At the end of the day, whether we’re believers or not, we’re all men and women living a human life with all the questions it raises.
We can have theories in our heads, throw verses from the Koran against verses from the Bible, but we still face the same questions, one day or another: what is life? What’s next? How do we find happiness? Why does suffering exist?
Basically, religions are ways for men and women to seek answers to the great, simple questions of life. It’s better to have a religion that helps you, that doesn’t give you answers to questions you don’t ask yourself, but that helps you to truly experience life—that’s the most important thing.[15]
Aveline also presents a naturalistic conception of the virtue of faith (discussed below), without a clear distinction between the supernatural faith of Catholics and the natural faith (or rather opinions) of non-Catholics.
This naturalism is unsurprising, given his reliance on Henri de Lubac, who is decisive in Aveline’s thinking. His blurring of nature and grace enables Aveline to transform false religions from obstacles to salvation into instruments of “christic mediation.” This blurring both elevates nature to the level of the supernatural, and reduces the supernatural to the level of nature—which results in what Pope Pius XII condemned in Humani Generis.[16]
In spite of this tendency, which he applies throughout his work, Aveline praises de Lubac’s theological reflections having “paved the way” for much of modern theology.[17]
Positive role of non-Catholic religions: a dogma reimagined
Let us return to the claim under discussion. Aveline states that the Catholic Church recognizes:
[T]he possibility of a positive role for other religions, as socio-cultural realities, in the general economy of salvation. This excludes an exclusivist position, which, on the basis of a narrow ecclesiocentrism, would deny non-Christian religions any salvific or revelatory value, relying on a hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation of the ancient Patristic adage: ‘Outside the Church, no salvation.’
Since God wills that ‘all men be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), it is possible to affirm that within the religions themselves are deposited ‘seeds of the Word,’ ‘rays of the truth that enlightens every man,’ and that ‘the Holy Spirit offers to all, in a manner known to God, the possibility of being associated with the Paschal mystery.'[18]
However, the phrase “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is not merely an “ancient Patristic adage.” It is a dogma, defined on several occasions by the extraordinary magisterium, and taught consistently by the ordinary magisterium. Aveline’s treatment does not admit to rejecting the dogma, but instead reframes it as a problem, suggesting it requires reinterpretation to remain meaningful today.
Before we can proceed in analyzing Aveline’s work, it is necessary to understand the true meaning of this dogma, which we shall explain in three key points:
- The definitive nature of the Church’s teaching on this dogma.
- The necessity of faith, and the necessity of the Church for someone to make an act of faith.
- The uniqueness of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.
1. The dogma outside the Church there is no salvation
The Church has explicitly defined this dogma on multiple occasions. The Fourth Lateran Council (Confession of Faith, 1215) links it to the sacrifice of the Mass:
There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.
His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us.[19]
However, this is not saying that any denomination with a valid priesthood and Eucharistic sacrifice is a part of the Church. The Council of Florence (Session XI, 1442) makes clear that the sacraments themselves do not contribute towards salvation to those outside of “the unity of the ecclesiastical body”:
[“The Holy Roman Church”] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.[20]
Pope Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam, 1302) also made clear that this unity is found only in subjection and obedience to a (true and legitimate) Roman Pontiff:
We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.[21]
Although these formulations may seem very challenging, we cannot claim that they represent a “hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation” of the dogma. They represent the dogma itself.
Nor can we attempt to soften or reinterpret this dogma. The First Vatican Council, Pope St. Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and the Anti-Modernist Oath reaffirm that no dogma cannot be rethought, reimagined, or recast in response to supposed new circumstances.
Pope Pius XII also condemned attempts to soften or reinterpret this dogma in particular in Humani Generis:
Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.[22]
As such, the dogma remains a fundamental, non-negotiable tenet of the Catholic Faith.
Aveline’s appeal to the Church Fathers
Considering all this, presenting the dogma as a mere “ancient Patristic adage” is unacceptable. Aveline’s warning against a “narrow ecclesiocentrism” that “denies non-Christian religions any salvific or revelatory value” is also extremely misleading.
To paraphrase the Council of Florence in reverse, it seems that Aveline holds that “not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics can indeed share in eternal life”—provided that one insists that this is achieved because of the Church and Christ, rather than apart from them. He claims that this is the “Patristic heritage” of the dogma:
By drawing on the Patristic heritage, de Lubac showed that the nuanced judgement of the Fathers regarding pagan religions should today translate into a patient and rigorous work of discernment, concerning each religion on its own, beyond mere seduction or simple rejection.[23]
But where is this supposedly “nuanced judgment” in the Fathers themselves? For example, the following statements leave no room for ambiguity:
- Origen: “Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved.”[24]
- St. Cyprian (d. 258): “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church.”[25] (Unity of the Catholic Church)
- St. Augustine: “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation.”[26]
- St. Fulgentius (d. 533): “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”[27]
These statements (which could be multiplied) are not a “hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation of the ancient Patristic adage”—they are the Patristic formulations, and they represent the unanimous voice of the Fathers and tradition.
In short, whilst claiming to return to the Church Fathers, Aveline’s revisionism contradicts them on this matter.
However, the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus cannot be understood apart from the nature and role of supernatural faith, and it is to Aveline’s misrepresentation of faith that we now turn.
2. What is supernatural faith?
No one is saved without supernatural charity—that is, the love of God above all things, and of one’s neighbor for God’s sake.
Implicit in this charity is contrition for one’s sins.
However, neither charity nor contrition are natural sentiments of philanthropy or remorse. They are supernatural realities; and in turn, they depend absolutely on the presence of supernatural faith.[28] Holy Scripture is clear: “Without faith, it is impossible to please God.” (Heb. 11:6). While supernatural faith is insufficient for salvation on its own, supernatural charity and contrition are impossible without it. As such, it is absolutely necessary for salvation.
Pope Gregory XVI affirmed that this is itself a dogma of the Catholic faith:
You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation.[29]
But what is this supernatural faith?
Faith is often understood as, in Martin Luther’s words, “a living, bold trust in God’s grace.”[30] This definition—common even among misguided Catholics—is more akin to the theological virtue of hope. St. Paul, by contrast, distinguishes faith from hope, and defines the former as “the substance of things to be hoped for” (Heb. 11:1). In other words, it is not hope itself.
In the broad sense, faith means assenting to a proposition on the authority of another. However a merely natural faith is not sufficient, and under Pope Bl. Innocent XI, Rome condemned the idea that faith “in the broad sense […] is sufficient for justification.”[31]
By contrast, the faith required for justification and salvation is supernatural—it is the “supernatural gift of God, which enables us to believe, without doubting, whatever God has revealed.”[32] This supernatural faith is specifically:
- An assent to divinely revealed truths,
- Founded on God’s authority,
- Proposed by the Church, either explicitly (through definitions of popes or councils) or implicitly (through the universal magisterium).
The Athanasian Creed reinforces the necessity of supernatural Catholic faith for salvation:
Whoever willeth to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith, which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally.
Since faith is a supernatural assent to divine revelation, it follows that this assent must be based on God’s authority as the revealer, on the condition of the Church’s proposition.[33] Divine revelation reaches individuals in two ways:
- Directly (immediately), as in the case of the Apostles, who received revelation straight from Christ.
- Indirectly (mediately), through the Church, which transmits divine truth via the magisterium.
While immediate divine revelation remains possible, certain principles must be upheld:
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A person who claims private revelation must have solid, certain, and indubitable grounds; otherwise, the alleged revelation lacks the certainty necessary for faith.
- Revelation is not a matter of personal experience. Feelings, intuitions, or subjective convictions—even strong ones—are not divine revelation and cannot constitute the object of supernatural faith.
- Direct revelation, at least in “normal” circumstances, points towards the Church. Saul, despite encountering Christ directly, was sent to the Church for instruction. Similarly, accounts of Christ appearing to Muslims immediately (e.g., Joseph Fadelle) point them toward the Church for the fullness of revelation to be given in the ordinary, mediate way.
This means that without either…
- The Church’s teaching as the proximate rule of faith, or
- An extraordinary private revelation directly from God
… a person’s “belief” in revealed truths—such as Christ’s divinity—cannot be an act of supernatural faith.[34] Instead, such “belief” remains a matter of personal opinion or private conviction, neither of which are sufficient for justification and salvation. These crucial distinctions do not play a role in Aveline’s discussion of interreligious issues.
Let us consider further why it is that supernatural faith is absolute necessary.
Why is faith necessary for salvation?
In answering this question, we could start by noting that faith is necessary for salvation because charity is necessary for salvation, and charity presupposes faith.
But we could consider the matter further. First, our supernatural destiny is to see God in the beatific vision; that is, to know and love God for all eternity. Knowledge and love correspond to our intellect and will; and these faculties must be elevated and ordered towards this utterly supernatural end. This is the role of supernatural faith and charity, which perfect our intellect and will respectively.
Second, it is through Christ’s mediation that we may attain this end. In order to benefit from this mediation, we must be united or associated with Christ. This is why we speak of the Church as his mystical body: it is as members of this body that we are united to the head, and can benefit from his atoning and redemptive sacrifice on the Cross. But mere membership of the Church is not sufficient: we must also be living members of this body; that is, animated in a state of grace and with charity in our souls.
Third, charity is dependent on faith because we cannot love what we do not know, and faith is the means by which we attain certainty of the supernatural truths which God has revealed. Conversely, we cannot be said to love God if we refuse to believe what he has taught us. Both faith and charity represent the beginning of eternal life, here and now, and are utterly indispensable for attaining this supernatural end.
Aveline’s quiet sidelining of supernatural faith as a key means by which man is united to God is also crucial for his problematization of religious pluralism, as well as his redefinition of Christ’s mediatory role and his concept of “christic mediation”—as we shall see in the next part.
Naturalism and the collapse of the supernatural
However, while Aveline does not explicitly deny the need for supernatural faith, he does not actually need to do so. Faith is simply the casualty of problematization elsewhere, and results in a conception of faith in naturalistic terms, rather than an assent to divine revelation proposed by the Church.
In practice, this renders supernatural faith unnecessary. It is a functional denial of the truth that “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). This is not a minor adjustment—it is the fruit of sustained problematization, in which the act of faith is no longer an assent to God’s revelation, but a human interpretive response.
For example, Aveline provides the very problematic alternative definition of faith, proposed by Claude Geffré:
If faith is fundamentally an act of interpretation, combining an hermeneutic of the Word of God and an hermeneutic of human existence, and if the situation of religious plurality and the mingling of beliefs has become a constitutive component of human existence today, then a theology aspiring to be hermeneutic must engage in a long and patient work of interpreting the religious dimension of human existence, a dimension expressed through the symbols, myths, and rites of the various religions.[35]
Aveline notes that from such ideas, Geffré “deduces the necessity of a true ‘paradigm shift’ in theology.”[36] But to speak of a “paradigm shift” in theology is already to acknowledge the deposit of faith—and then to reject it. This is no innocent questioning or benign development: it presupposes knowledge of the Church’s teaching, only to replace it; it is practically a confession of pertinacious heresy. In any case, the language betrays the real aim—not to illuminate the concept of faith, but to problematize and dissolve it into irrelevance.
Further, we must also note that faith is not “fundamentally an act of interpretation,” as Aveline/Geffré put it. This false definition, and Aveline’s failure to recognize the traditional definition discussed above, may be what leads him to talk freely of “faith” amongst non-Catholics, in the following ways:
- “… the attitude that believers, in the name of their faith…”[37]
- [Quoting Christian de Chergé] “… by the sign of their respective faiths…”[38]
- “… our respective fidelities to different faith standards…”[39]
- “… Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all seeking new formulations of their faiths…”[40]
This loose way of talking is impossible for one recognizes the clear distinction between the natural and supernatural orders, particularly in relation to faith. As such, it is unsurprising that Aveline’s ideas lead so far away from Catholic orthodoxy.
We should also note that Aveline’s citation of Geffré ignores the fact that religious pluralism is not a uniquely modern phenomenon. The Church has always existed amidst a multiplicity of religions, and he is simply attempting to apply the method of problematization to it in the modern world. But even if this were a new reality, it would not justify a radical rethinking of the Church’s understanding of herself or of the nature of faith.
This brings us to the third aspect of the dogma which we must discuss.
3. The uniqueness of the Church
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is inseparable from the unicity of the Catholic Church. The Church is not merely one religion among many. While we may speak of “religions” in a broad sense, it is a mistake to treat this as a category in which Catholicism is simply the correct religion.
The Church is not merely the best among religions—it is of an entirely different order. Aveline appears to acknowledge this:
[T]he Church is not entirely reducible to what is ordinarily meant by the word religion. And it is precisely this that makes her uneasy in the forms that interreligious dialogue sometimes takes today.[41]
However, as with much of Aveline’s work, traditional language masks an unorthodox meaning. Immediately following this statement, he adds:
She [the Church] knows that, according to her Gospel, God is no closer to the religious man than to the secular man![42]
The idea that God is closer to secular men than religious men is misleading.
It is certainly true that Christ came to call sinners; just as God is glorified greatly in the exercise of his mercy towards us sinners. Further, external religious practices do not, in themselves, compel God to be close to the religious man.
However, as discussed above, the purpose of the Church is to unite men to Christ himself, enabling them to share in his divine life by grace. The Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, is the means by which souls are brought into communion with him. A soul in the state of grace, animated by faith and charity, is living the life of Christ himself, and has the Holy Trinity dwelling within him. Salvation is ultimately the consummation of this very union between Christ and the members of his body.
This bond between Christ and his Church (and its members) is so intimate that when he confronted Saul on the road to Damascus, he identified himself with the Christians Saul was persecuting. This unity explains why Lateran IV, in defining that outside the Church there is no salvation, immediately connects this truth with the Holy Eucharist—through which Christ’s sacrifice is made present and applied to the faithful.
However, in one of the articles consulted, Aveline appears more focused on the natural body of humanity than the Mystical Body of Christ. He seems to prioritize the unity of humanity as a whole over the supernatural unity of the Church, and treats the natural body of men as the foundation for understanding the supernatural. This error flows directly from his approval of de Lubac’s naturalistic distortion of the Church’s mission:
Without attributing to religious institutions such a function, de Lubac established that the ‘others’ are not radically foreign to the salvation that the Church must nonetheless announce to them. Not because they implicitly possess what the Church confesses explicitly, but because, as members of the one body of humanity, called entirely to salvation, they already maintain, with the ecclesial body that is its sacrament, vital exchanges by which the Holy Spirit makes the body of Christ grow.
‘Providentially indispensable to the building of the Body of Christ, the ‘infidels’ must benefit in their own way from the vital exchanges of this body. By an extension of the dogma of the communion of saints, it thus seems just to think that, although they are not themselves placed in the normal conditions of salvation, they may still attain this salvation by virtue of the mysterious bonds that unite them to the faithful. In short, they may be saved because they are an integral part of the humanity that will be saved.’ [De Lubac]
This is the reason, de Lubac explains, that if not all are members of the visible Church, all will nonetheless be saved by the Church. This is how he understands the truth of the axiom “Outside the Church, no salvation.” It is a praxeological truth, because the catholicity that marks the Church remains a requirement for it and it cannot claim it without fulfilling the task: being ‘in the Church’ is not enough to live ‘from the Church’![43]
In this text, Aveline does not present the Church as one religion among many—but neither does he present her uniqueness in an orthodox manner. Instead, his treatment of the Church’s unique status results in presenting her as a meta-religion, which transcends and envelops false religions rather than opposing them. All humanity, in his view, engages in “vital exchanges” with the Church, regardless of belief.
This problematizing approach redefines orthodoxy. In places, Aveline’s language resembles traditional distinctions between the Church and other religions; but in substance, this serves to advance an entirely different framework.
Having established the meaning of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, we can now consider the status of false religions and the “positive role” which Aveline assigns to them.
False religions: Not salvific, but dangerous—even in their ‘good elements’
Catholic doctrine rejects the idea that false religions are means of salvation. While it is true that certain aspects of these religions may, per accidens, serve as stepping stones toward the truth, the reality remains that both false religions and their so-called good elements are ultimately obstacles to salvation.
Paradoxically, the more good elements a false religion contains, the more dangerous it may become—precisely because these elements serve to entrench adherents in error.
This is particularly true of what non-Catholic “Christian” groups have retained from the Church. As a patristic text attributed to St. Ambrose, quoted by Pope Leo XIII, warns:
But those who share many things in common with us can easily mislead innocent minds, devoted solely to God, through deceitful association, defending their own corrupt beliefs by appealing to our good ones.
For nothing is more dangerous than these heretics, who seem to proceed correctly in all things, but with a single word, like a drop of poison, corrupt the pure and simple faith of the Lord, and, through it, the apostolic tradition.[44]
In 1761, Pope Clement XIII made a similar point, namely that the supposed “good elements” in false religions serve as bait and cover for roads that lead to death:
[D]iabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.[45]
Fr. Henry James Coleridge likewise observed that the “good elements” in heathen religions are “skillfully used by the authors of evil to disguise their own work for the delusion of men.”[46]
St Bede “The Venerable” explained how even the sacraments, when received outside the Church, bring destruction rather than benefit:
The fact that the floodwater does not save, but kills those situated outside the ark prefigures without the least doubt that every heretic, though he possess the sacrament of baptism, is not plunged into hell by other waters than by the very waters that lift the ark to heaven.[47]
St. Augustine adds that it is in the Catholic Church “alone in which [baptism] exists for salvation.”[48] Participation in the rites of a non-Catholic community, as Fr. Gaudron explains, “is of itself, by its very nature, an act of assent to the faith of this community. Thus even baptism becomes, in these cases, sinful and an occasion of scandal.”[49] Of course, once someone enters the Catholic Church, the obstacle to baptismal grace is removed.
Regarding those who do not even profess to worship Christ, the teaching of Holy Scripture and the Church is clear:
[A]ll the gods of the Gentiles are devils. (Psalm 95.5)
I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. (John 14.6)
Neither is there salvation in any other [than Jesus Christ]. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4.12)
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. (1 John 2.23)
Many more such texts affirm this doctrine. In addition, Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors contains the following two errors:
- Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
- Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.[50]
Pope Pius XI, in Mortalium Animos, condemns the idea that all religions are “more or less good and praiseworthy,” since they supposedly express man’s innate sense of God:
Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.[51]
It is difficult to see how this differs from Aveline’s claim that God wills religious plurality in a positive sense and that false religions play a “positive role […] in the general economy of salvation”—even if only “as socio-cultural realities.” Pius XI explicitly categorizes such a view as apostasy:
Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.[52]
‘Relativizing Christianity’: Aveline’s caricature of ‘the supernaturalist conception’
In a 2006 paper, Aveline discussed to the supposed need to “relativize Christianity.”
He refers approvingly referenced a lecture by the liberal Protestant Ernst Troeltsch, in which the latter dismissed what he called “the supernaturalist conception” of Christianity’s absolute status:
Christianity is the absolute religion because God Himself willed it to be so: through a supernatural revelation, He founded Christianity, isolating it from the rest of history.[53]
Aveline treats this statement as simplistic, and implies that it is untenable.
He argues that this “supernaturalist definition” must be reinterpreted through the lens of historical science:
[T]his strategy of withdrawal [of the Church from history] cannot withstand the methodological demands of historical science.[54]
He presents this as an untenable position; arguing that Christian theology “must become aware of the relativity of Christianity as a historical phenomenon and theologically face the challenge it presents.”[55]
All this is simply the Catholic doctrine on the matter—albeit with mixed with the caricature of God “isolating it from the rest of history.” But the so-called “supernaturalist conception” of Christianity does not necessarily isolate it from history, as if there could have been no link between Christianity’s concrete development and the religious context of mankind.
The caricature he presents is indeed untenable position, because the Church clearly has had such interactions with other religions throughout history. But this untenable position is not entailed by the traditional understanding of the supernatural origins of Christianity.
Aveline frames all this as a response to an allegedly unresolved crisis:
[T]he challenge posed by historical science to a theology too accustomed to affirming the absolute nature of Christianity without sufficiently acknowledging the relativity and historical conditioning of all human institutions and enterprises, including religions, and among them, Christianity.[56]
Once this “relativity” has been asserted, Aveline proceeds to recast fundamental theological questions:
Having recognized the historical relativity of Christianity, we now ask what is specific to the Christian faith: what characterizes its own understanding of the universal dimension of the message that underpins it? In what way is it ‘catholic,’ in the broadest sense of the term, beyond confessional differences? How can it account for the role that religions play in the divine plan of salvation?[57]
Once again, these ideas and questions have taken us very far from the traditional understanding of faith, divine revelation, and the necessity of the Church for salvation.
Conclusion: The first step in Aveline’s project complete
Having considered the traditional Catholic teaching and theology on these matters, let us return to the point with which we started:
The Catholic Church first recognizes the possibility of a positive role for other religions, as socio-cultural realities, in the general economy of salvation. This excludes an exclusivist position, which, on the basis of a narrow ecclesiocentrism, would deny non-Christian religions any salvific or revelatory value, relying on a hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation of the ancient Patristic adage: ‘Outside the Church, no salvation.’[58]
In light of the above, we can see this for what it is. What we have witnessed is not a misunderstanding of doctrine, but its deliberate problematization—the treatment of defined truths as if they were negotiable questions. It is a dismissive misrepresentation of dogma, the redefinition of supernatural faith and the role of the Church, and the subordination of revelation to history—all of it appears here, summarized in this single paragraph. The paragraph encapsulates Aveline’s method perfectly: dogma is not denied, but problematized—and thus dissolved.
This is the first act in a theological drama that seeks to dissolve the Catholic religion from within.
The next act is to extend this inversion to Christ himself—by redefining his unique mediation as something diffused through every religion.
But Aveline does not stop here. If other religions are to be construed as having a role in salvation, their adherents must also be construed as being somehow related to Christ—and, by extension, that Christ’s mediation must be reimagined to accommodate them. In Part II, we will examine how Aveline expands this logic—recasting Christ’s unique mediation to include false religions, and redefining the Church’s missionary mandate as one of dialogue rather than conversion.
As we shall see, this is irreconcilable with the truths of the Catholic faith.
If Aveline really is Francis’ ‘favorite’ to succeed him—and if LifeSiteNews’ Vatican sources are correct that Aveline “will be the next pope,” then the stakes could not be higher.
References
| ↑1 | https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/jean-marc-aveline/ |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | https://zenit.org/2025/04/03/a-papable-new-leader-of-the-french-episcopate/ |
| ↑3 | Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘Évolution des problématiques en théologie des religions’, in Recherches de Science Religieuse, 2006/4 Tome 94, pp. 496-522. |
| ↑4 | Aveline, 2006. The following text forms the subject of this first part: “The Catholic Church first recognises the possibility of a positive role for other religions, as socio-cultural realities, in the general economy of salvation. This excludes an exclusivist position, which, on the basis of a narrow ecclesiocentrism, would deny non-Christian religions any salvific or revelatory value, relying on a hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation of the ancient Patristic adage: ‘Outside the Church, no salvation.’” L’Église catholique reconnaît tout d’abord la possibilité d’un rôle positif des autres religions, en tant que réalités socio-culturelles, dans l’économie générale du salut. Par là se trouve écartée une position exclusiviste qui, au nom d’un ecclésiocentrisme étroit, refuserait aux religions nonchrétiennes toute valeur salvatrice et révélatrice, en s’appuyant sur une interprétation durcie, et donc faussée, de l’antique adage patristique : « hors de l’Église, point de salut » |
| ↑5 | Aveline 2006. He writes of: “… the uniqueness and universality of the christic mediation in the general economy of salvation. Jesus Christ is ‘the only mediator of salvation” (1 Tim 2:5) and ‘there is no salvation outside of him, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:11-12).”However, Aveline draws from this that other religions can indeed have a salvific value, so long as it is construed as being through Christ: “[I]t is only through their relation to Christ that the religions hold, in the eyes of Christians, their positive value in the order of salvation.”… l’unicité et l’universalité de la médiation christique dans l’économie générale du salut. Jésus le Christ est « l’unique médiateur du salut » (1Tm 2,5) et « il n’y a aucun salut ailleurs qu’en lui, car il n’y a sous le ciel aucun autre nom offert aux hommes qui soit nécessaire à notre salut » (Ac 4,11-12). En conséquence, ce n’est que de leurs relations au Christ que les religions détiennent, aux yeux des chrétiens, leur valeur positive dans l’ordre du salut… At this point, he claims: “In this way, a relativist position is excluded, which would hold that all religions can lead to salvation in a way completely independent of the concrete history of salvation accomplished in Jesus Christ.” However, this is a false antithesis, by which Aveline claims to oppose a particular error as unorthodox, but does so by using an alternative that is not in itself orthodox. In fact, the proposed alternative is simply a disguised or mitigated version of the same error. This fallacy is often used as a rhetorical strategy in his problematization method, and maintains a veneer of orthodoxy while promoting heterodox ideas under a different guise. In this particular case, he presents his position as if it were the antithesis of religious relativism, reframing the question “Can all religions lead to salvation?” to “Can all religions lead to salvation independently of Christ?”. The position he promotes still grants a positive salvific role to false religions, albeit in a more sophisticated and apparently orthodox. |
| ↑6 | Aveline 2006. The Church’s mission, as ‘the universal sacrament of salvation’ brought by Christ, has itself a dialogical foundation,” such that “the Church is obliged to engage in an authentic ‘dialogue of salvation with every person, including (but not exclusively) with believers of other religions. … la mission de l’Église, en tant que « sacrement universel du salut » apporté par le Christ, a elle-même un fondement dialogal. C’est parce que Dieu, dans sa révélation, a pris l’initiative, comme le disait Paul VI, d’instaurer avec l’humanité un « dialogue », que l’Église est tenue d’engager avec tout homme, y compris (mais pas exclusivement) avec les croyants d’autres religions, un authentique « dialogue de salut ». |
| ↑7 | It is of course legitimate to “raise questions about x to answer them,” and it is not always wrong to raise enquiries into topics which previously had been treated uncontroversially. However, there is a vexatious form of “problematization”, described (approvingly) by Mark Bauerlein:
This is a reflection of Parente’s description of modernism, namely “a pretense of elevating and saving the Christian religion.” Bauerlein continues:
This in turn recalls Pope St Pius X’s emphasis on how the methods of the modernists both presume and lead to agnosticism. Bauerlein also describes “problematizers” as “shrewd questioners of sedimented values and customary practices.” (112). Cf. pp 109-113 of Mark Bauerlein, Literary Criticism: An Autopsy, 1997. Available here: https://archive.org/details/literary-criticism-an-autopsy-university-of-pennsylvania-press-1997/Literary%20Criticism%20An%20AutopsyUniversity%20of%20Pennsylvania%20Press%201997/page/109/mode/1up |
| ↑8 | Pietro Parente, “Modernism”, 190-1, in Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee 1951. |
| ↑9, ↑52 | Ibid. |
| ↑10 | Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘L’enjeu christologique en théologie des religions : Le débat Tillich – Troeltsch’ in Recherches de Science Religieuse, 2008/4 Tome 96, pp. 591-598. Our translation. Available here. |
| ↑11 | Quoted in Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘Évolution des problématiques en théologie des religions’, in Recherches de Science Religieuse, 2006/4 Tome 94, pp. 496-522.
Cardinal Ratzinger, The New People of God, originally published as Das neue Volk Gottes: Entwürfe zur Ekklesiologie in 1969. This work does not seem to have been published in English. |
| ↑12 | A document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, 3-5 February 2019. |
| ↑13 | Aveline, 2006. … du renouvellement de l’intelligence de la foi à partir non seulement de la prise en considération de la pluralité religieuse mais aussi des questions spécifiques que chaque religion adresse à la théologie chrétienne… |
| ↑14 | Aveline, 2006. En distinguant schématiquement trois défis, celui d’une nécessaire prise de conscience de la relativité du christianisme dans l’histoire des religions… |
| ↑15 | Nathalie Courtial, ‘Catholiques et musulmans ont “beaucoup de choses en commun”, rencontre entre évêques et imam à la mosquée’, l’Éveil, 6 February 2019. Available at https://www.leveil.fr/puy-en-velay-43000/actualites/catholiques-et-musulmans-ont-beaucoup-de-choses-en-commun-rencontre-entre-eveques-et-imam-a-la-mosquee_13129039/ [L]e point le plus important pour moi, ce sont ces relations d’amitié. Au fond, toute personne, qu’elle soit croyante ou pas, on est tous des hommes et des femmes qui vivont une vie humaine avec toutes les questions qu’elle soulève. On peut avoir des théories dans la tête, balancer des versets du Coran contre des versets de la Bible, on reste confronté aux mêmes questions, un jour ou l’autre : qu’est-ce la vie ? Qu’y a-t-il après ? Comment trouver le bonheur ? Pourquoi la souffrance existe ? Les religions, au fond, sont des façons pour les hommes et les femmes de chercher des réponses à ces grandes questions simples de l’existence. Il vaut mieux une religion qui vous aide, qui ne vous donne pas des réponses à des questions que vous ne vous posez pas mais qui vous aide à faire en vérité l’expérience de la vie, c’est ça le plus important.” |
| ↑16 | “Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.” N. 26. https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html |
| ↑17 | Aveline, 2006. |
| ↑18 | Aveline 2006. See above for the French. |
| ↑19 | https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm |
| ↑20 | https://www.papalencyclicals.net//councils/ecum17.htm |
| ↑21 | https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm |
| ↑22 | Humani Generis n. 27. |
| ↑23 | Aveline, 2006. En recueillant l’héritage patristique, de Lubac a montré que le jugement nuancé des Pères sur les religions païennes devait se traduire aujourd’hui par un patient et rigoureux travail de discernement, concernant chaque religion pour elle-même, au-delà de la pure séduction ou du simple refus. |
| ↑24 | This passage is a theological reflection on the story of Rahab, the harlot of Jericho, who sheltered the Israelite spies and secured salvation for herself and her household by placing a scarlet cord in her window as a sign. The text interprets Rahab’s actions as prefiguring the necessity of faith in the blood of Christ for salvation. It emphasises that just as those within Rahab’s house were spared from destruction, so too is salvation found only within the Church, outside of which none can be saved—whether they go out from her house, or never entered it in the first place. But let us consider what that wise harlot [Rahab] did with the spies. She gives them counsel that is mystical and heavenly, having nothing of the earthly.
There was no other sign to be received but the scarlet one, which bore the form of blood. For she knew that there was no salvation for anyone except in the blood of Christ. This command is also given to her who was once a harlot: “All,” she says, “who shall be found in my house shall be saved. But whoever goes forth from the house, we are free from this oath of yours.” If, therefore, anyone wishes to be saved, let him come into this house of hers who was once a harlot. Even if someone from that people desires to be saved, let him come to this house, that he may obtain salvation; let him come to this house, in which the blood of Christ is set as a sign of redemption. For among those who said: “His blood be upon us and upon our children,” the blood of Christ is unto condemnation. For Jesus had been set for the fall and the resurrection of many, and therefore, to those who oppose His sign, His blood becomes a cause of punishment, but to those who believe, a cause of salvation. Let no one then persuade himself otherwise, let no one deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved. For if anyone goes forth from it, he himself becomes guilty of his own death. This blood is a sign, for it is purification, which is established through blood. But as for this sign which hangs in the window, I judge it to signify that the window is that by which light illumines the house, and through which we do not receive the whole, but only as much light as suffices for our eyes and sight. Since, therefore, the Incarnation of the Saviour did not present to us the full and entire vision of the Divinity, but, as it were, through a window, made us behold the light of the Divinity through His Incarnation, for this reason, it seems to me that the sign of salvation was given through the window: by which sign may all attain salvation, who shall be found in His house, which once was that of a harlot, cleansed in water and the Holy Ghost, and in the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. In due course, Jericho and its inhabitants were utterly destroyed, saving only Rahab and her family. In Iesu Nave homiliae, available here. |
| ↑25 | Full text of St. Cyprian: Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. (Matthew 12:30) (Unity of the Catholic Church) |
| ↑26 | St. Augustine continues:One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church. |
| ↑27 | De fide ad Petrum ch. 37, available here. |
| ↑28 | The so-called “Letter to the Archbishop of Boston” (1949)—the status of which is outside this piece—affirms this necessity of supernatural faith. While it discusses the idea of some persons being united to the by implicit desire, it also affirms the following: But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith […] While many wish to focus on the idea of being united to the Church by virtue of a merely implicit desire, few have taken sufficient cognizance of the implications of this comment. |
| ↑29 | Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Summo Iugiter Studio, 1832, n. 5. |
| ↑30 | https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/martin-luthers-definition-faith |
| ↑31 | Denzinger Hunnermann n. 2123. Error n. 23, Condemned Propositions of the ‘Laxists’, Holy Office under Innocent XI.
|
| ↑32 | Penny Catechism q. 9. |
| ↑33 | Cf. Marín-Sola, ‘The Church’s authority is indispensable for every act of divine faith’ |
| ↑34 | Cf. Marín-Sola, above. |
| ↑35 | Aveline, 2006. These appear to be Aveline’s own words, even if he is paraphrasing Geffré. Si la foi est fondamentalement un acte d’interprétation, conjuguant une herméneutique de la Parole de Dieu et une herméneutique de l’existence humaine, et si la situation de pluralité religieuse et de brassage des croyances est devenue une composante constitutive de l’existence humaine aujourd’hui, alors une théologie se voulant herméneutique doit s’engager dans un long et patient travail d’interprétation de la dimension religieuse de l’existence humaine, dimension qui s’exprime à travers les symboles, les mythes et les rites des différentes religions. |
| ↑36 | Aveline 2006. From this, he deduces the necessity of a true “paradigm shift” in theology. Acknowledging the transition from a “theology of the salvation of the infidels”, where one questioned the conditions for the possibility of access to salvation for those who do not confess Christ and do not belong explicitly to the institutional Church, to a “theology of religions” whose goal is to determine the role that religions, as socio-cultural realities, can potentially play in God’s plan of salvation, he proposes moving toward an interreligious theology… Il en déduit la nécessité d’un véritable « changement de paradigme » en théologie. Prenant acte du passage d’une « théologie du salut des infidèles », où l’on s’interrogeait sur les conditions de possibilité d’accès au salut pour les personnes qui ne confessent pas le Christ et n’appartiennent pas explicitement à l’Église institutionnelle, à une « théologie des religions » dont l’objectif est de déterminer le rôle que peuvent éventuellement jouer les religions, en tant que réalités socioculturelles, dans le plan divin de salut, il propose d’aller vers une théologie interreligieuse |
| ↑37 | Aveline, 2006 … l’attitude que des croyants, au nom de leur foi … |
| ↑38 | Aveline, 2006 … par le signe de leurs fois respectives… |
| ↑39 | Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘Les enjeux actuels des relations entre juifs et chrétiens,’ Études 2010/10 Tome 413, p 355-366. Available here. … nos fidélités respectives à des normes de foi différentes… |
| ↑40 | Aveline 2010. … le judaïsme, le christianisme et l’islam, en quête de nouvelles formulations de leurs fois… |
| ↑41 | Aveline 2006. … l’Église n’est pas tout à fait réductible à ce que l’on entend d’ordinaire par le mot de religion. Et c’est bien ce qui la rend mal à l’aise dans les formes que prend quelquefois aujourd’hui le « dialogue interreligieux » |
| ↑42 | Aveline 2006. Elle sait que, selon son Évangile, Dieu n’est pas plus proche de l’homme religieux que de l’homme séculier! |
| ↑43 | Aveline 2006. Sans aller jusqu’à conférer aux institutions religieuses une telle fonction, de Lubac a établi que les « autres » ne sont pas radicalement étrangers au salut que l’Église doit cependant leur annoncer. Non pas parce qu’ils posséderaient à l’état implicite ce que l’Église confesserait de façon explicite, mais parce que, membres du corps unique de l’humanité, appelé tout entier au salut, ils entretiennent déjà, avec le corps ecclésial qui en est le sacrement, des échanges vitaux par lesquels l’Esprit Saint fait croître le corps du Christ. « Providentiellement indispensables à l’édification du Corps du Christ, les « infidèles » doivent bénéficier à leur manière des échanges vitaux de ce corps. Par une extension du dogme de la communion des saints, il semble donc juste de penser que, bien qu’ils ne soient pas eux-mêmes placés dans les conditions normales du salut, ils pourront néanmoins obtenir ce salut en vertu des liens mystérieux qui les unissent aux fidèles. Bref, ils pourront être sauvés parce qu’ils font partie intégrante de l’humanité qui sera sauvée. » C’est la raison pour laquelle, explique de Lubac, si tous ne sont pas membres de l’Église visible, tous seront cependant sauvés par l’Église. C’est ainsi qu’il comprend la vérité de l’axiome « Hors de l’Église, pas de salut ». Il s’agit d’une vérité praxéologique, puisque la catholicité qui est la marque de l’Église reste pour elle une exigence et qu’elle ne saurait y prétendre sans en accomplir la tâche : être « in ecclesia » ne suffit pas pour vivre « de ecclesia » ! |
| ↑44 | Italics from Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896 n. 9. Text from Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos, Caput Primum. Our translation. |
| ↑45 | In Dominico Agro, 1761. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem13/c13indom.htm |
| ↑46 | https://www.fathercoleridge.org/p/three-elements |
| ↑47 | PL, 93, 60; taken from The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, Fr. Matthias Gaudron. |
| ↑48 | Ad cres., Bk. 1, ch. 29. Gaudron, ibid. |
| ↑49 | Gaudron, Ibid. |
| ↑50 | https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm |
| ↑51 | https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html |
| ↑53 | Aveline 2006. Selon la conception supranaturaliste, le christianisme est la religion absolue parce que Dieu lui-même l’a voulu ainsi : au moyen d’une révélation surnaturelle, il a fondé le christianisme en l’isolant du reste de l’histoire. |
| ↑54 | Aveline 2006. Cette stratégie de retrait ne peut cependant tenir face aux exigences méthodologiques de la science historique. |
| ↑55 | Aveline 2006. Il lui faut en effet : 1. prendre conscience de la relativité du christianisme en tant que phénomène historique et en relever théologiquement le défi … |
| ↑56 | Aveline 2006. … le défi lancé par la science historique à une théologie trop habituée à affirmer le caractère absolu du christianisme sans prendre suffisamment la mesure de la relativité et du conditionnement historique de toutes les institutions et entreprises humaines, y compris les religions et parmi elles le christianisme. |
| ↑57 | Aveline 2006. |
| ↑58 | Aveline 2006. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.