Has the Modern Church Blunted the Sharp Edge of the Gospel?

Church Teaching as a Living Organism

"Traditionalist" and "conservative" dissenters against recent Church teaching--that is, the teaching of the Church since Vatican II and especially Pope Francis's recent teaching--often claim that there are contradictions between the old and the new teaching.  If this is true, is this a problem?  Well, some Church teaching is intended as definitive and unchangeable, while other teaching is intended as reliable, but not necessarily as the definitive final word or as unchangeable.  A contradiction between an older non-definitive teaching and a newer non-definitive teaching is not necessarily a problem, because, by definition, non-definitive teaching can potentially change in various circumstances (new information comes to light, the Church gains a more advanced awareness of the implications of some idea, etc.).

A contradiction between an older definitive teaching and a newer definitive or non-definitive teaching, however, would be a serious problem for Catholic epistemology, because the Church guarantees the reliability of the Church's teaching.  (See here for a full explanation and case for this.)  She may sometimes teach us a provisional answer to a question that is subsequently replaced by a better or more complete answer, but she cannot require us to accept a position that we ought, in fact, to reject, which would be the case if newer binding, authoritative teaching contradicted older definitive teaching.  Traditionalist and conservative critics of newer teaching often allege contradictions between newer and older teachings, and this sometimes leads them to advocate a rebellion against more recent Church teaching that cannot be justified in a Catholic context.

But the critics cannot make good their claims of contradiction.  If examined carefully and thoroughly, it can be seen that all the teachings that can indeed appear contradictory on a surface reading (especially when one is encouraged by the arguments of critics trying to show contradictions) are not actually contradictory.  There is often a difference in tone or in emphasis.  There is sometimes a more nuanced or more developed teaching in contrast to an older, less nuanced and less developed teaching.  The doctrine of the Church is that the revelation of God has been deposited with the Church, and that deposit has not changed or been added to since the time of the apostles.  However, the Church, like an individual, grows over time in her awareness of the full meaning of what she has been given.  And the Holy Spirit guides her as she applies the one deposit of faith to very different circumstances she finds herself in in the world.  This means that while the fundamental truths of the faith are unchanging, the explications of all the implications of these truths, and the applications of them in the life of the Church, are constantly in flux, guided by the Holy Spirit.  Church teaching is thus like a living organism, which, while maintaining its fundamental foundation and plan all through its life, goes through many changes as it grows and develops and responds to its environment.  (See Dei Verbum, especially Chapter II, for the Church's own articulation of all of this.)  It is this reality that accounts for apparent discrepancies between older and newer teachings in the Church.  Seeing older and newer Church teaching as contradictory is analogous to a person who, not knowing the life cycle of some particular organism, mistakenly assigns an adult specimen and an immature specimen of that organism to different species.  More understanding of the nature of the species would clear up what is an understandable mistake based on more superficial appearances.

The classic expression of this idea of Church teaching as a living organism that develops and adapts is found in the Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins, who wrote way back in the 5th century:

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled. 

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits. 

[57.] For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result — there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind — wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.  (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, #55-57, hyperlinks removed. Translated by C.A. Heurtley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.] Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm>)

Erick Ybarra Claims a Contradiction

Does the newer teaching of the Church contradict the older teaching of the Church regarding the salvation and the spiritual condition of non-Christians?  Erick Ybarra, a conservative critic of some of the Church's recent teachings, in a recent article, claims that it does.

Here is how he describes the modern teaching of the Church on this subject (hyperlinks in original):

The spirit of Assisi is the mentality which sees the one true God as fully revealed in the content of divine revelation as given by the Law, the Prophets, the Writings, and finally through Jesus Christ and His holy Apostles, but that God being He “who fills all” is revealed and manifested in partial ways in even the religious bodies who are not attendant to the Christian faith, and as a result, sees the one true religion, Catholicism, which has the full content of God’s revelation, and then a myriad of participations in that revelation in just about everyone and everything. Consequently, there is already this “partial communion” between all things, literally, and the Catholic Church. There is an interconnectedness, albeit imperfect, between the Christian faith as taught by the Catholic Church, and all the other religions of the world. Further, this entails that we should not think in terms of “right” versus “wrong” or “saved” versus “lost” or “you are in” versus “you are out”, but rather there is the fullness and the varied and pluralistic participations in the fullness. As many readers of mine are aware, Pope Francis even indicated that even atheists can be saved (went so far as to tell a young child his unbelieving father can be prayed to for intercession) . Bishop Robert Barron, even, who is also somehow considered to be a “conservative” voice in modern Catholicism (perhaps, relative to today’s rampant liberalism) is happy to expound on how, commensurate with the 2nd Vatican Council, the many non-Christian religions can partake of Christ, even stating atheists of “good will” who following their “conscience” can be saved.

Here is how the Church herself has described her own modern teaching on this subject:

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. (Lumen Gentium #16, found on the Vatican website--footnotes removed) 

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.  For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”. . . .  

. . . However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship” which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. 

Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God, and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”. Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.

22.  With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. (Dominus Iesus, section VI, found on the Vatican website--footnotes removed)

So the basic idea is this:  God has accomplished salvation solely through Christ, and only those who are part of his redeemed people (the Church) can be saved.  However, there are those who, by grace, are seeking to follow God and yet who, through no fault of their own, are cut off from being part of the Church (they have not heard the gospel, etc.).  These can be saved, but their salvation is only through Christ and his Church, as they are connected to them by means of grace and their implicit faith.

Mr. Ybarra believes that this teaching of the Church is contrary to Scripture.  Here is how he explains this:

Although these powerful witnesses have, again and again, testified that this is perfectly consistent with the Christian faith, none of them have sufficiently demonstrated how. On the contrary, we are given every indication that they have departed from the “spirit of the Apostles”. When in Ephesus, St. Paul converted many pagans to Christ. In one instance, St. Luke records how the Gentile converts of Ephesus gathered up their books of magic together and “burned them in the sight of all” (Acts 19:19). So much for integration with their many “elements of sanctification” in their former beliefs and practices. In another event where St. Paul had performed a healing miracle, the people who saw this began to worship him saying, “the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men”! (Acts 14:11). See how St. Luke records the response of St. Paul and St. Barnabas: 

“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, ‘Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them'” (ibid 14-16)

Mr. Ybarra notes that some have appealed to St. Paul's speech in Acts 17 to justify the modern attitude towards religious dialogue, but he points out that St. Paul called his hearers to repentance, as he says the modern teachers don't do.

In the many lectures by Catholic theologians since the 1960s, there has been this tendency to see in this passage a sort of justification for long-term dialogue with non-Christians, and even a certain kind of admission that non-Christian worshipers can be truly worshiping God in a way known to them as anti-Christian, but somehow Christ doing all the redemptive providing in the background. But notice that it is within the same public address that Paul nails down the binding law of faith and repentance on the people of Athens? And what is his rationale? The coming judgment. If only those Catholic clergy and theologians who love to cite Acts 17 for this elaborate reorientation of evangelism and dialogue would finish their addresses to non-Christians in the same way St. Paul did, then I think we’d have avoided the practical indifferentism that comes along with this emphasis. And it is this practical indifferentism that has come about since the 2nd Vatican Council, but particularly with the Pontificate of Pope Francis, who even stretches the notions already pushed by St John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Mr. Ybara goes on:

Notice how when certain Jews disbelieved the preaching of St. Paul, the latter reacted in a manner which is “unfitting” of today’s Catholic theologian: 

““It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46) 

Do you see how St. Paul instantly judged those who disbelieved the message? In today’s Catholic Church,  if it were anyone else besides an Apostle, they would be chastised for using such offensive and derogatory (and anti-semitic) language. And yet, it is precisely St. Paul who can say of the Israelites: 

“ Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.  For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom 10:1-2) 

And lest this is interpreted as somehow possible to be already so in the mind of St. Paul, he writes further down: 

” Because of unbelief they were broken off” (Rom 11:20) 

By today’s standards, St. Paul jumped the gun and judged on a matter that was outside of his capacity. We longer have the capacity to stand up and say the things which St. Paul did. What is that an indication of? Authentic development of doctrine? I can’t think of how anyone would even begin to defend that. 

Therefore, what is missing is the full expectation of doom and everlasting destruction for the person who does not respond with repentance and belief at the announcement of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But Is There Really a Contradiction?

So in what way does the teaching of Scripture contradict modern Catholic teaching?  What do we learn from these quotations from the Scriptures?

“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, ‘Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them'”

This passage of Scripture teaches us that idolatry is a great evil, and specifically that the worship of the Greek gods is a great evil.  And it teaches us that, at least in some cases, a good way to respond to it is to dramatically lament it and exhort people to turn away from it.  Does modern Catholic teaching deny any of this?  No.  Modern Catholic teaching does tend to emphasize the positive things found in other religions (Acts 17) and encourage Catholics to try to call attention to those things in dialogue, but it also teaches that there is great evil in false religion.

Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.  (Dominus Iesus) 

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.  (Lumen Gentium) 

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #843-844, found on the Vatican website--footnotes removed)

So, according to the Church, despite any good that can be found in other religions, despite any grace that might be working in the hearts of people of other religions, despite any connections that might legitimately be made between Christianity and other religions, other religions, insofar as they depart from Christian truth, still "depend on superstitions or other errors."  Oftentimes, members of these false religions are "deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator."  Other religions display the "limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them."  Are these statements not expressions of precisely the same principles we see exhibited in the Scriptural quotations Mr. Ybarra provides?  It does not appear that the modern Church has abandoned these ideas.

However, Mr. Ybarra has a point that ought to be acknowledged.  There is indeed a marked difference in tone between many portions of Scripture and the modern Catholic Church when this subject is addressed.  Modern Church teaching contains far more detailed nuance with regard to its evaluation of other religions and the people of other religions, and its tone is far more positive overall as it puts much greater emphasis on the positive aspects of other religions and other religious people.  Is this a contradiction of the "spirit of the apostles"?  Or, as the Church claims, do we have here an example of the Spirit guiding the Church to take the very same principles found in Scripture and to apply them in new ways to the very unique circumstances of our times?  Scripture teaches us that non-Christian religions contain error and evil, and that people ought to turn from them to the true and living God.  Scripture also teaches us that all human beings, including people of other religions, are made in the image of God and so deserve love and respect.  Love and respect include a willingness to avoid oversimplifying the other person, to listen to that person, to be careful to understand the complexity and nuances involved in the life and thinking of the other person.  Could it be that the modern Church is attempting to integrate and apply all of these Scriptural principles in a way appropriate to our own time?

Could it be that our world has changed between the time of the apostles and modern times?  Could it be that the culture of the modern westernized world is not the same in all respects as that of the ancient Roman Empire?  Could it be that the Church has had two thousand years to reflect on what Scripture has to say to us about other religions, people of other religions, people in general, how to interact with people, etc.?  Could it be that the differences in emphasis and tone are not signs of unfaithfulness to the original gospel but are rather examples of how the living organism of Church teaching grows through the centuries and is adapted to different times and places?  Why should we think that God wants us to imitate the exact tone of the apostles in the Book of Acts, instead of trying to live out the gospel preached by the apostles in a way appropriate to the growth of the Church through the ages and the peculiar cultural circumstances of our own times?

Jesus never taught, so far as we have any record of, that Gentiles could join the Church without being circumcised.  The Old Testament never addressed that subject.  The earliest Church did not hold that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.  It took them some time even to believe that Gentiles should have the gospel preached to them.  But after a time, they were confronted with these questions, and they had to wrestle with them.  The result of this wrestling was the conclusion of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where the Church concluded that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.  No doubt this was an unexpected (and unwelcome) conclusion to many.  It struck an attitude towards Gentiles which, while it could be traced to principles in the Old Testament and to Jesus, could not find literal or explicit precedent in either, nor was it exactly the same as the approach taken by the Church prior to the council.  Did the Church, in the Jerusalem Council, abandon the earlier faith or corrupt it?  Or did the Spirit guide the Church to reflect more fully on the deposit of revelation given to her, leading her to alter her attitude and approach in order to apply the principles of Scripture and of Christ in a new way in order to address questions she hadn't really considered before?  Well, one could go either way, in terms of bare logic and consistency.  One's attitude towards the Jerusalem Council will be determined by one's attitude towards the authority and reliability of the Church's Magisterium.

And of course it is the same here.  Do we trust God's guidance of the Church through the Spirit?  Do we trust enough to consider that God is smarter than we are, and that he knows how to guide the Church into new questions and new territory through the ages, so that the teaching of the Church grows and is applied in appropriate ways, even when those ways are ways we could not have predicted and which are different than we might have guessed?  There is no contradiction here.  There is nothing for our reason to complain about and to use as proof that something is wrong.  But we naturally chafe at the different tone and emphasis, and we feel that something is wrong.  But what is more reliable?  Reason and the Church, or our inadequately-examined feelings and impressions?

Let's look at some of the other passages Mr. Ybarra alleges to be contradictory, at least "in spirit", to modern teaching.

In one instance, St. Luke records how the Gentile converts of Ephesus gathered up their books of magic together and “burned them in the sight of all” (Acts 19:19). So much for integration with their many “elements of sanctification” in their former beliefs and practices.

Does this event recorded by St. Luke contradict the idea that other religions sometimes have "elements of sanctification" in them?  No.  What this passage of Scripture clearly teaches is that magic is offensive to God and should be shunned, and that, at least in some cases, those who have formerly practiced magic might make an end of doing so by making a dramatic statement repudiating their former practices.  Modern Catholic teaching says nothing against this.

Here is modern Catholic teaching regarding magic, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.  (CCC #2117)

I don't get the impression from this that magic is now considered OK, or that the previous Scriptural condemnations of magic have been revoked.  But, yes, modern Church teaching would emphasize to us perhaps that people who might "practice magic" might be in very different places spiritually, depending on what they know, how much their will is involved, their cultural and personal background, etc.  This reflects nuances the Church has honed over the centuries and in modern times, but it doesn't contradict anything Scripture teaches.

““It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46) 

Do you see how St. Paul instantly judged those who disbelieved the message? In today’s Catholic Church,  if it were anyone else besides an Apostle, they would be chastised for using such offensive and derogatory (and anti-semitic) language. And yet, it is precisely St. Paul who can say of the Israelites: 

“ Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.  For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom 10:1-2) 

And lest this is interpreted as somehow possible to be already so in the mind of St. Paul, he writes further down: 

” Because of unbelief they were broken off” (Rom 11:20) 

By today’s standards, St. Paul jumped the gun and judged on a matter that was outside of his capacity. We longer have the capacity to stand up and say the things which St. Paul did. What is that an indication of? Authentic development of doctrine? I can’t think of how anyone would even begin to defend that. 

What do we learn from these Scripture passages?  St. Paul does indeed seem to judge the Jews in Rome harshly for rejecting his message.  Could it be that, in this particular situation, St. Paul knew the Jews had sufficient evidence to make their rejection of the gospel culpable, and he spoke to them accordingly?  Does this necessarily imply that every individual Jew in that synagogue at that time who didn't immediately embrace the gospel was in exactly the same spiritual condition?  Do we know that it didn't happen that, after St. Paul spoken on this occasion, a couple of Jews came up to him and said, "We really want to do the right thing here, but we are not yet convinced that Jesus is the Messiah.  There are some problems and objections we still have that are an obstacle to us accepting that idea.  Could we talk about them further?"  Do we know that, if this had happened, Paul would have said, "Get away from me, you unbelievers!  There is nothing more to discuss!"  Perhaps he would have spoken to them more gently, as they evidenced a different spirit from the majority in the synagogue.  Perhaps Paul's response to the majority was partly based on the specifics of how these Jews responded to him--not as genuinely confused but sincere God-seekers, but as those who were set in their ways and didn't want to hear the truth.  Do we know that all Jews in the entire world who didn't accept the gospel at that time were in exactly the same boat?  We might think that all error is culpable, but then we run across an Apollos (Acts 18), or those followers of John the Baptist (Acts 19).  In the first century, there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's miracles, and the miracles of the apostles.  Could it be that the majority of the Jews of those days did have enough evidence to make them culpable for their refusal to accept Christ, and yet this doesn't necessarily imply that all people in all the world, in any circumstances, who don't immediately accept the gospel upon hearing it for the first time should be condemned as fully culpable and on their way to hell?  Does this text actually warrant us to draw that conclusion as a firm certainty, even in the face of the Spirit-guided teaching of the Church leading us otherwise?

The Scriptures teach us that the gospel of Christ is our salvation.  They teach that all people should accept the gospel, and that rejection of the gospel brings damnation.  They condemn the rejection of the gospel as a great evil.  Does the modern Church disagree?  No.  The Church today teaches all these things just as she did then.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: 

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: 

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."  (CCC #846-848, found on the Vatican website--indentation of quotations and footnotes removed)

Notice that the Church adds the nuance that there are people who have not, outwardly at least, accepted the gospel or come into the Church but who are not therefore damned because they are following the truth insofar as they know it.  These people are not truly rejecting either the gospel or the Church.  They are kept from both by factors outside of their control, and their spiritual condition is such that if they came to understand their need to become Christians or to join the Church they would do so.  Do the Scriptures deny this nuance?  No.  But they also do not emphasize it.  Why not?  Again, there may be all sorts of reasons.  It is not our place to condemn the teaching of the modern Church on the basis of our own private interpretation of an argument from silence.  Again, we are in many ways in a very different situation than the apostles were in in the Roman Empire of the first century.  Their culture was pre-Christian; ours is post-Christian to an increasing extent.  In some ways, I think it can be argued that the people of our culture have significantly greater barriers to their understanding of the Christian message than did many people of the first century, due to the attitude of many that they already know all about Christianity (even when they really don't), to the anti-Christian and even anti-rational Agnostic philosophical ideas current today that tend to deter the mind from being able to process truth claims, and to many other factors that might be mentioned.  Perhaps our world today needs a different approach than that which made the most sense in the first century.  Also, again, we cannot ignore the Church's doctrinal development over the centuries.  The apostles preached the gospel as necessary for salvation and they condemned its rejection.  The apostolic preaching recorded in Scripture tends to focus on the objective aspects of all of this and not so much on the subjective nuances that might be encountered in various individuals.  Perhaps the Church's appreciation of some of these nuances has grown through experience over the centuries, so that her approach to presenting the faith now has a more holistic character than it did in the times of the apostles.  Not that something fundamentally new has been added, but that the maturer preaching of the Church naturally and appropriately reflects the greater maturity brought about by her experience through the years.  We know this is the case in all sorts of areas.  The Church's dogmatic teaching has grown dramatically in explication and nuance since the first century.  She has learned to appropriate and develop philosophical systems (think St. Thomas Aquinas) that greatly enrich her understanding but which were hardly dreamt of in the first century.  Her understanding of the role of Mary and the saints and how we interact with them has grown over the centuries.  The Church has been enriched in so many areas through her experience, guided by the Holy Spirit.  Why not here also?

Protestants often accuse Catholics of contradicting Scripture by their teaching regarding the sinlessness of Mary.  "The Bible clearly says all have sinned," they argue.  "It nowhere says that Mary didn't."  Catholics respond (see here for an example of this argument) by pointing out that the Scripture's statements on this subject are general and do not necessarily imply that there is no exception to the rule for Mary due to her special circumstances in connection with the grace of Christ.  Scripture didn't address the specifics of Mary's case simply because these weren't a focus of thought, discussion, and preaching in the first century.  Over time, the Church developed her theology in this area, unpacking the implications of principles embedded in Scripture, Tradition, and her own historical experience.  Likewise, we find Scripture making strong and sweeping generalizations about those who reject Christ.  But are those texts meant to say that all people who have not yet accepted Christ are always in exactly the same spiritual condition?  Or is that a point the text simply doesn't address (or at least doesn't address as much), as the Scripture does not address the sinlessness of Mary?  Should we argue from general statements combined with silence to warrant the more specific conclusions in either case, and then accuse Catholic teaching of deceiving us when it shows us a different way?

Mr. Ybarra complains that we cannot speak now as St. Paul spoke then, that if we tried to do so we would be chastised.  But why should it be acceptable for us to speak now the same way it was acceptable to speak in the first century?  If Catholic theologians said today some of the things the pre-Nicene Fathers said about the Trinity, they would be censured, because orthodox Trinitarian language has been honed through the centuries.  We should not speak exactly like Christians of the first century, precisely because we are not Christians of the first century.  We are Christians of the twenty-first century.  And yet, is it the case that we cannot now speak boldly in response to error?  The quotations I provided above from various Church documents on the errors and evils of false religion use some pretty strong language.  I am not aware that the Church has forbidden all use of strong language.  Again, yes, there is certainly an encouragement for us to be more nuanced and positive, but the Church had not told us that every individual Christian in any kind of situation must speak exactly the same way.  Some situations, some conversations, may call for a gentler approach; other conversations may call for a stronger approach.  The Church doesn't tell us we must act like robots, never adapting our attitude or manner to the specifics of specific circumstances.  Lastly, we must remember to distinguish what the Church has authoritatively taught from tendencies of individual Catholic teachers.  It may be that some modern Catholic teachers have gone too far in emphasizing dialogue over confronting error.  The Church does not require us to imitate all the fads present or prevalent in the modern Church or in some segments of it.  We are not even required to follow all the personal tendencies or preferences of the bishops or of the Pope, when these are not presented to us as things intended to be binding on us.  We should follow the authoritative teachings of the Church, we should be influenced by the suggestions and encouragements of the Church, but within that we should also be our own persons and approach things in a way suitable to our own circumstances, personalities, and areas of focus, and we should not only pay attention to the teaching of the Church but we should use wisdom in living out that teaching in the context of the specific circumstances we find ourselves in.  This is going to result in some significant diversity in terms of tone, manner, emphasis, etc., for different people, and at different times and different places.  The Church certainly does not forbid such legitimate diversity.  But we must exercise such diversity not in conflict with, but in submission to, the teaching of the Church.

There are no doubt innumerable factors which influenced the apostles to say just what they said and to do just what they did.  In our day, likewise, many factors influence what we should do.  It is very dangerous for us to ignore the guidance of the Church in the application of Scripture (or earlier Church teaching) to our modern times, trying to make a one-to-one correspondence according to our own private interpretative efforts.  This is the same spirit that motivated the Protestant Reformation and has led to innumerable errors that all Catholics recognize as such.  Catholics know very well that God did not intend for us to interpret and apply Scripture or Tradition in contradiction to the teaching and guidance of the Church, but on the contrary within the context of that teaching and guidance.  If we do things our way and throw out God's way, why should we be surprised if we get led astray?  If a contradiction could truly be proved to reason, well, that would be a real objective problem.  But if it's simply a matter of private interpreters trying to make inferences from the "spirit of the text" or the "spirit of the earlier Tradition" to evaluate the "spirit of modern teaching" while ignoring the guidance of the Church, that's a very different matter.  But that's what we have here.  The solution is to abandon our semi-Protestant attitude and to adopt a fully and coherently Catholic approach to our reading of the Church's teachings.

For more on the subject of the salvation of non-Catholics, showing the consistency and continuity of past and present Church teaching, see here, here, and here.  For a couple of other examples of areas where conservative critics allege the modern Church to have contradicted earlier teachings--religious freedom and the death penalty-- see here and here.  Sometimes the best way to disprove claims of contradiction is simply to weave multiple teachings together into a coherent whole.  If this can be done, then the teachings can't be contradictory, for contradictory teachings cannot create a coherent whole.

Published on the feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus

ADDENDUM 5/18/20:  One other thing to add into the mix above.  My own reading of biblical eschatology suggests that the period of the "millennium" described in the Book of Revelation may refer to the period of "Christendom"--when God brought about the spread of the gospel in such a powerful way that the whole Roman Empire became Christian along with Western society in general.  As the gospel was preached to the nations by the early Church, God bound Satan, who had been deceiving the nations, so that the nations would be able to receive the light of the gospel.  Thus, we see the great missionary successes of those days.  But I have my suspicions that, over the past few hundred years (since about the time of the Protestant Reformation), we may be experiencing the time described in the Book of Revelation to come at the end of the thousand years, when Satan is released to deceive the nations once more.  Christendom has fallen.  The previous Western world that embraced Christ in those early centuries has become hardened against orthodoxy Christianity in many ways.  Just as before the preaching of the gospel by the early Church, St. Paul (in Acts 17:30) describes how God "winked" at the ignorance of the Gentiles as they were under a kind of veil of confusion, so it may be in these days that that veil has returned in some ways.  This may involve a kind of hardening of heart for many, but also along with it may have come a kind of cultural confusion that makes it hard even for people who, by grace, are seeking what is good and true to find the fullness of truth in the Church and her teaching.  The gospel doesn't penetrate as easily as it once did, in this "post-Christian" era.

There's a lot of nuance that could be fleshed out here.  I bring this up simply to add yet another factor to why the Church's attitude towards the unbelieving world may seem a bit different from that of the Church in earlier centuries.  There may be deeper reasons in God's plan of history behind why our modern world is the way it is and why it is different in some ways from how things have been in previous centuries.  The Spirit helps guide the Church to preach the gospel effectively in our own times.  Just something more to consider!

ADDENDUM 1/29/22:  We must also keep in mind that we have to consider the authorial intention when interpreting Scripture.  Scripture is without error, but only in those things that the authors of Scripture actually intend to affirm or teach.  "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" (CCC #107, quoting Dei Verbum #11).

Discerning the authorial intention depends on interpreting Scripture in its full context--the immediate context of the passage, the context of the rest of the book the passage occurs in, the entirety of Scripture, the full Tradition of the Church, and, indeed, everything we know from both reason and revelation.  Sometimes the authorial intention is evident within the text itself, but sometimes it must be inferred by ruling out interpretations that would put the text in conflict with other known truths.  For example, if a passage of Scripture appears to be historical in character, we should default to reading it in a straightforwardly historical way, but we should consider alternative interpretations if we have conclusive reason to believe the historical reading cannot be correct.  Pope Leo XIII addressed this point of Scriptural interpretation in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus (section 15), where he exhorts biblical interpreters to carefully observe “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.” That is, we should assume a straightforward interpretation when we can, but we are not necessarily locked into this if we have good reason to question it in specific cases.

The relevance of this for our current topic is that when we encounter the biblical authors making comments about the wickedness of those who reject the gospel or practice other objectively sinful activities, we have to ask what the authors are intending to assert as reliable teaching binding upon all.  Some, like Mr. Ybarra in his article discussed above, tend to interpret "harsh" or "judgmental" language about people found in Scripture as if it presents a doctrinal teaching at odds with modern Church teaching regarding possible mitigations of culpability for those engaged in objectively unethical acts or those with incorrect theological beliefs.  But, in addition to all the questions, qualifications, nuances, and observations I have made throughout this article, we must also ask whether a particular author intends for his judgments regarding the motives of particular people to be taken as authoritative doctrinal assertions binding on his hearers, or whether he is simply evaluating objective acts in accordance with certain assumptions regarding the subjective culpability of the people he is talking about without necessarily intending those assumptions to be a part of his binding teaching.

In earlier periods in Church history, the tendency was for most Catholics--including bishops and Popes--to assume bad motives in those who held heretical teachings, engaged in schismatic behavior, followed certain immoral practices, etc., and so their teaching about heretics and schismatics and "immoral people" tended to lump objective evaluations of opinions and actions in with subjective assumptions regarding the spiritual or moral condition of those holding such opinions or engaging in such actions.  In more recent times, however, Church members and leaders have tended to see the conditions of people as potentially more complex and so have come to be slower to assume bad motives based on opinions and actions.  This shift in assumptions and attitude does not imply a contradiction between earlier and later Church teaching, because assumptions made about the subjective culpability of various people were not necessarily intended to be taken as definitive doctrine.  Even though it may not have been clearly or explicitly distinguished at the time, there was a distinction between objective evaluations of opinions and actions, as well as teaching about the state of those who engage in such actions willfully and knowingly, and assumptions regarding the subjective culpability of particular individuals or groups.  We must consider that the same thing might be said of the teaching found in Scripture.  Not every assumption made by an author in the course of his teaching needs to be considered a part of the definitive doctrine he is meaning to assert.  Some assumptions might be intended as authoritative but as non-definitive, subject to change based on further information, and some of them might not be intended as authoritative or binding at all.  We must always follow the Catholic rule and interpret Scripture in the context of, and not in conflict with, the living Tradition of the Church and the interpretations of the Magisterium.  It is a failure to do this which causes problems for people like Mr. Ybarra, who, feeling compelled to read Scripture in particular ways based on their own methods of interpretation and putting too little trust in the teaching of the Church, end up landing on interpretations that put them at odds with current Magisterial teaching.

ADDENDUM 3/28/24:  We should also note that, in addition to Scripture's criticism of various religious practices and individuals, there are also more positive elements.  We can think, for example, of the difference in tone that St. Paul used when preaching to pagan philosophers at the Aereopagus than he used in other circumstances where a stronger, more critical tone was adopted (Acts 17:15-34).  We can think of the depiction of the rabbi Gamaliel in Acts 5:34-40.  We can think of the scribe in Acts 12:32-34 who is presented in a positive light and to whom Jesus says he is not far from the Kingdom of God.  We can think of the contrast between God's harsh judgment of Nadab and Abihu in Numbers 10:1-3 and his leniency with the erroneous practices of the Israelites in 2 Chronicles 30:15-20, which seem to be due at least partly to the different attitudes of their hearts on the different occasions - and all the other occasions of God's different responses to people and their acts throughout Scripture in different circumstances.  I already mentioned in the article the examples of Apollos (Acts 18) and the followers of John the Baptist (Acts 19).  Scripture presents us with a lot of data which must be synthesized and applied with prudence to various circumstances and scenarios, and we must do this with the help of the Church's living Magisterium.