The Salvation of Atheists and Catholic Dogmatic Theology by Dr Stephen Bullivant

Pg 48. Says baptism of desire is a new development, a new way of understanding tradition.

Here are a few words from the book...

Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-5), the Catholic Church has formally declared the possibility of salvation for atheists: 'those who, without fault, have not yet arrived at an express recognition of God' (Lumen Gentium 16). However, in the very same docuмent, the Council also reiterates the traditional doctrine of the necessity of faith, baptism, and the mediation of Church in order for someone to be saved (Lumen Gentium 14). This monograph explores how these two seemingly contradictory claims may satisfactorily be reconciled. Specifically, it asks - and ultimately answers - the question: How, within the parameters of Catholic dogmatic theology, is it possible for an atheist to be saved? As the first full-length study of this topic since Vatican II, the book discusses crucial foundational issues - the understanding of 'atheist' in Catholic theology; the developing views on both unbelief, and the salvation of non-Christians, in the decades preceding the Council - before tackling the conciliar teaching itself. Considerable attention is then given to the classic solution of imputing an 'implicit' faith to righteous atheists, best known from Karl Rahner's theory of 'anonymous Christians' (though the basic idea was advocated by many other major figures, including Ratzinger, Schillebeeckx, de Lubac, Balthasar, and Küng). After discussing Rahner's specific proposals in detail, this kind of approach is however shown to be untenable. In its place, a new way of understanding Vatican II's optimism for atheists is developed in detail, in light of scripture, tradition, and magisterium. This draws principally on Christ's descent into Hell, a renewed understanding of invincible ignorance, and a literal interpretation of Matthew 25.

My responses in bold
Lets start at the beginning:
'Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-5), the Catholic Church has formally declared the possibility of salvation for atheists: 'those who, without fault, have not yet arrived at an express recognition of God' (Lumen Gentium 16). However, in the very same docuмent, the Council also reiterates the traditional doctrine of the necessity of faith, baptism, and the mediation of Church in order for someone to be saved (Lumen Gentium 14)'.

Houston, we have a contradiction. So, what will these modernists do? No problem. They will hermeneutic of continuity it to death. We already know that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. But the Church has also spoken on those who have not arrived at an express recognition of Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “Now we consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed)."

Lets look at the second sentence again:
However, in the very same docuмent, the Council also reiterates the traditional doctrine of the necessity of faith, baptism, and the mediation of Church in order for someone to be saved (Lumen Gentium 14). This monograph explores how these two seemingly contradictory claims may satisfactorily be reconciled."

'Seemingly contradictory claims?' First of all, they aren't seemingly contradictory. They are totally contradictory, even as the 'however' above indicates. Now lets look at the word 'claims'. The necessity of faith and baptism for salvation is not a claim. The conditions for baptism and entry into the Church are Catholic teaching. Only salvation for atheists is a claim. Baptism isn't the problem. Baptism of desire is, because it will be the catalyst for how atheists (et al) can now be saved. Atheists only need to desire and believe something, what exactly, is not clear, for they quote VII Lumen Gentium:

'those who, without fault...'

Who is without fault? Scripture says all have sinned Romans 3:23.

'..have not yet arrived at an express recognition of God'.

The Church teaches about such people:
"Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: ‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.’ (Mk 16:16),” (CCC 183).
“Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself," (CCC 1814).
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation,” (CCC 846)

Let's continue with the next sentence:

'Specifically, it asks - and ultimately answers - the question: How, within the parameters of Catholic dogmatic theology, is it possible for an atheist to be saved?'

OK, stop the presses. It is a common understanding that the guy who frames the questions, wins the argument. Oh, and here they go framing an impossibility phrased in a way to suggest a fix is possible. What dishonesty! Does it matter that atheists, by definition, reject God? Atheists have to convert, believe and be baptized like everybody else. This kind of game mirrors the Pope Francis nonsense when he says the Church must take into account circuмstances to allow communion for the divorced and remarried. Pope Francis admits finding a solution is difficult, but depending on the persons and circuмstances, for proper growth, communion for divorced and remarried must be considered possible. We know this is a lie! It cannot be done. These suggestive and sinful overtures to exceed the line firmly drawn by the Church are despicable attempts to cast doubt on the Church's teachings. Modernists love to square a circle, but they positively foam at the opportunity to reconcile world view with Church teachings. Processing everything through phenomenology makes it possible to trump traditional teachings with more 'enlightened' teachings than Catholic doctrines themselves. Phenomenology is the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being and an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience. In other words, the consciousness and understanding of a person along with his perceived experiences have an impact on how he receives Church teaching, which means, the teachings are subject to change according to individual experience and interpretations. We won't dig too deep here, but with the seeming power to change Catholic doctrine, it should be patently obvious this approach to Church teaching must be avoided at all costs. Recognizing all the nuances of this subtle army of words as it dismantles the Faith is a far more difficult task.
Let's continue with the next sentence:

'As the first full-length study of this topic since Vatican II, the book discusses crucial foundational issues - the understanding of 'atheist' in Catholic theology; the developing views on both unbelief, and the salvation of non-Christians, in the decades preceding the Council - before tackling the conciliar teaching itself.'

'...study...since Vatican II'. So what? VII was a pastoral council at best, and questionable in its ambiguity, not to mention downright heretical when it says “Muslims...together with us they adore the one, merciful God.” VII is a reasonable foundation for discernment on the subject? Ridiculous. But the next sentence wants to know what 'atheist' means, both in tradition and in the conciliar church, and proceeds to talk about 'developing' ideas to blend water and oil. Sorry guys, we already know that game. Developing? Views? More hermeneutics of continuity? What does the darkness have to do with light? This can't be about the truth. There is no development of truth when the intent to obscure incompatibilities in order to pave over lies and change doctrine is the goal. The minute they ask, what does atheist mean? They may as well have asked, what is 'is'? They are a bunch of Pilates crying, "What is truth? In imitation of Christ, a discerning Catholic will answer with silence such a contrary question.  

But let us continue with the next sentence.

'Considerable attention is then given to the classic solution of imputing an 'implicit' faith to righteous atheists, best known from Karl Rahner's theory of 'anonymous Christians' (though the basic idea was advocated by many other major figures, including Ratzinger, Schillebeeckx, de Lubac, Balthasar, and Küng).

Where to start? Imputing an implicit faith to righteous atheists? Please. Firstly, no one can impute faith, implicit or otherwise and neither does there exist a classic solution for doing it. Secondly, there are no righteous atheists. Thirdly, imputing implicit faith to righteous atheists is one epic oxymoron. How can you paste even a little faith on an atheist and expect it to stick? An atheist rejects God. Without faith in God, it is impossible to please God or thereby be saved. Here is another attempt to frame the question that will be the ruin of anyone who tries to answer it. It is a contradiction in terms without resolution or rather, erroneous resolution. Additional adjectives, sophistries, what ifs and term bending will not change this fact. Atheists reject God as sure as divorced and remarried are forbidden to receive communion. Playing around with the pieces trying to make square pegs fit round holes is the objective goal of modernists. And now, here come the parade of naked emperors. They actually cite as 'major figures' a list of men whose names are synonymous with modernism and error. Then they mention the heretical book, The Anonymous Christian. This book was the popular summation of the doctrines of these same 'major figures', so now its a suggested source? Are they implying that 'major figures' such as these men or their books are synonymous with authentic Catholics, let alone be trusted to interpret anything?

Now, the clincher!
'After discussing Rahner's specific proposals in detail, this kind of approach is however shown to be untenable'.

Whew! Are they going to debunk this ridiculous notion of reconciling the irreconcilable?
No!
The next sentence explains:
'In its place, a new way of understanding Vatican II's optimism for atheists is developed in detail, in light of scripture, tradition, and magisterium'.

A new understanding? Of Vatican II's optimism for atheists? Is developed in detail? In light of scripture, tradition and magisterium? Heaven help us. The new understanding is the exact same understanding that the Church condemns: New. Modernism. New words, new ambiguities and more phenomenal twists are soon to follow. So Vatican II, once new, (which Catholic Tradition in part has already condemned) is renewed again! Only this time, in super detail! At last. It took some wordsmithing, a brand new label and lots of stuffing, but they finally (sort of) squared that wily circle.
Finally,

'This draws principally on Christ's descent into Hell, a renewed understanding of invincible ignorance, and a literal interpretation of Matthew 25'.

There's a new understanding of invincible ignorance? How long will this last? Until the next new understanding comes along? And what about a literal interpretation of Matthew 25? Do modernists ever literally interpret anything at all? If they do, that's really new! One can only imagine what they'll say about Matthew 25 (parable of the 10 virgins). Only the most guarded and saintly imaginations dare approach the inevitable outcome of such an exercise.