Michael,
It has been a couple of months since I last wrote on alien life. Previously the main issue was that of the Incarnation: would God be required to have another Incarnation in order to save another fallen intelligent lifeform? You previously stated you did not think the one Incarnation of the Logos would be beneficial for any other species. I wrote an answer to that objection where I stated why I believe one Incarnation of God could have a cosmic effect, which would save not only humanity, but would be able to save any fallen entity in the cosmos. Now I am ready to return to this discussion, and deal with some of the objections you have provided to my answer. As with the last letter, your words will be put in bold-face. Sometimes, I have had to quote my last letter to you in order to put everything in context. When I do so, the quote will be found in italics. As I indicated to you previously, this letter will be my last letter in discussion of alien soteriology: my next letter will deal with my own reasoning behind my belief in alien life.
The first topic I want to bring about for discussion from your response is our different understandings of creation. I think there is a great deal of presupposition on both sides, but I am not entirely sure you see the elements underlying both positions. Previously, I indicated that I saw in your belief an element of dualism. I indicated that your position seemed to indicate that there was something in creation which would be replaced through obliteration. You objected to this interpretation of what you wrote.
"I was talking about the redemption of the fallen universe which would take place NOT for the sake of the universe itself but for the sake of man. To expand on this: In the account of Genesis, God creates the world and the 'garden' as the home of man. He is to subdue it; he does so by 'naming' the creations around him: a sign of his difference from his surroundings not only by degree but by kind also. Man sins and messes up the garden. A promise of redemption is made (picked up and amplified and 'seen' in its fulfillment in John's Revelation as the 'new heaven and the new earth'). God didn't create the garden empty for its own sake but as a welcoming place for man; it follows (protology recapitulating eschatology!), that it won't be redeemed empty either but only as it relates to man. We will not be transposed into eternal life out of context; our works will follow us into eternity (Rev. 14:3). This doesn't deny the intrinsic goodness of creation; it only puts its final destiny (of transfiguration and transformation* not obliteration) in perspective and in relation to man himself. In this regard, I welcome the patristic quotes about 'pan-unity' and the mediating role of man vis-a-vis creation; they support what I meant to say. "
You reply has much which needs to be discussed. To start, I will state that we both agree that it is through man that creation will be transformed. This is highly important. If you can understand the mediating role of man on the earth, then there would be no confusion for how man can also have such a role, not only in relation to the creatures of earth, but also in relation to any which could be found in the cosmos. This role would not only serve lesser creatures, but will also serve those which we would see as being higher than man (for example, angels). What do I mean by calling such entities higher? It is that ontologically they are more like God and are closer to being like God. Even though their ontological being is currently higher than man, man and angel serve each other. We can see in the stories of Genesis several encounters of men with angels. In them the angels are beings which are more powerful and knowledgeable than man. Nonetheless, these angels also served men, and provided their assistance to man. This could be questioned: Should not man, who is inferior in the hierarchy of being, be the servant of the angels? Yet in these stories, we see that men do serve the angels and pay reverence to them. We must look at this deeper. A king is of higher authority than the people he rules over, nonetheless he is also said to be the servant of the people he rules. He is the head of the government for the sake of the people he rules: he is thus both servant and authority, just like we see with angels in Scripture.
Having somewhat gone on a tangent, I will now go deeper into your own comments. It is true that the earth and its inhabitants were made ready for the coming of man as a place of habitation for man and that man is given authority over all the earth. With this, we must now ask a question: does man have any significance, any value internal to himself? If the answer is yes, then that which he has been given authority over must also have internal significance and worth of its own. The world is more then just the habitation of man. It has value and worth of its own. Man has been given governorship over something of value: he has not given authority over nothingness, but has been given authority over something of value which in itself makes the authority given to man itself of value. Man's role as mediator to the world, as you also admit, demonstrates that the world has its own value beyond the sake of man, just as man's value goes beyond just his serviceability to higher powers. There is something of intrinsic value in man, which God has given to man that makes man worth guidance by angels (though we will, it is true, become superior to the angels). The angels have been given stewardship over man. They are the guides and directors of man's progress. They have been given this authority over man, this leadership over man, so that man can achieve his true worth. If we will be made of more worth than our teachers and guides (the angelic realm), then surely the mediatorship of man in creation must itself have some value besides just the stewardship of his home. Just as man can be raised above his initial mode of existence, the rest of creation itself can be raised in its mode of existence to something of even greater worth and value. It is for this reason that creation will not be obliterated, but will be transfigured even as man is transfigured through Christ our Lord.
I do not think this is the full answer which needs to be given. There is something deeper which underlies all of creation, which connects all of creation together, which gives all of creation together its own value even as each part of creation has its own value. Man can be said to be the center of creation because of his role as the bridge between creation and Creator: this however, does not make man to be the only element of creation with value. We must look, as best we can, at the act of creation itself and ask some questions about it. Through these questions, we can hope to be directed to some answers, which will then lead us to a greater understanding of creation itself. It is through this process I believe we can determine some way of looking at your comments, and providing a way out of the conclusion you would have. The primary question which needs to be addressed, which continues to be addressed, is this: does creation have value only for the sake of man, or does it have value beyond what it gives to man?
To look for an answer to this question one must look at the action of creation. We know in Christian theology creation is said to be ex nihlo, that is, out of nothing. But I think this statement when left by itself seems to provide an inaccurate understanding. It is not incorrect, but what is generally considered to be its meaning is often incorrect. What is commonly held to be the meaning behind this term? God created the universe on no previous foundation: something new was made which did not have any previous existence. Is this true? Father Sergius Bulgakov understood the difficulty of this position:
For as soon as we admit that the principle of creation is something new to God himself,. we must recognize a certain incompleteness in God without creation. This inevitably forces us to the further conclusion that the creation of the world is, in some sense, a sort of self-revelation for God himself. Let us make this assumption that with creation something new emerges in God, which did not exist before. But this in turn cuts at the very roots of God's absoluteness and self-sufficiency, and denies the fullness of divine life within him. (Bulgakov, Sophia, The Wisdom of God p. 63: Lindisfarne Press, 1993).
If creation implies the making of something without previous existence, of something totally new, this implies that God is contingent and mutable. If God was contingent and mutable, however, God would not be God. What are we to make with the idea of creation? If it is not some new principle, it must be a mode of existence for an eternal principle within God's own being. Vladimir Solovyov put the answer in no ambiguous terms. "Unless we repudiate the very notion of Godhead, we cannot admit outside of God any existence in itself, real and positive. What is outside Godhead can therefore only be the Divine transposed or reserved." (Solovyov, Russia and the Universal Church, p. 161: Geoffrey Bliss, 1948). Father Bulgakov wrote this answer: "God creates the world, as it were, out of himself, out of the abundance of his own resources. Nothing new is introduced for God by the life of the world of creatures. That world only receives, according to the mode proper to it, the divine principle of life. Its being is only a reflection and a mirror of the world of God." (Sophia, The Wisdom of God p. 63-4).
What is it that both Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and Vladimir Solovyov implied? Creation must itself be eternally grounded in God. Out of God's internal life is given the life and existence of creation, it is the "transposition" of what is inside God to a mode of existence where it is given a life of its own. This position is that of many Church Fathers: for example, St. Maximos the Confessor when he stated that the logoi of creation are one in the Logos. By this, St. Maximos has grounded the existence, the universals of creation, within the Logos, and the Logos is God. By this we have one part of our answer: the value of creation is itself the value of the divine. Not only is man divine, but all of creation is divine, and all of creation can be said to share in the image of God. We still have not answered the question of what is meant by stating creation is ex nihlo. What does the Church then mean if it has established that it is within the Godhead that creation subsists eternally? Are we to say that the Godhead is thus itself, nothing? By no means! The whole discussion of creation ex nihlo was, as with this discussion, a refutation of dualism. Dualism teaches that there is something outside of God, by which God has no full control over and it is an equal to God. This teaching has been seen throughout the centuries in many forms, but one common form states that matter is this second principle of reality alongside the Divine. Creation ex nihlo on the other hand states that God created matter, not from some previous eternal substance, but out of no other substance, and thus it is ex nihlo that creation is had, it is out of nothing-- literally nothing, and without God, creation has no real substance, no real existence. Creation is founded upon God, and subsists in God, and is eternally with God. This is precisely Fr. Bulgakov's understanding of creation as well: "What does this expression [out of nothing] mean? It marks in the first place that the fact that no other principle of creation exists outside of God or apart from God. [...] Therefore the creature is distinct from the deity itself not in respect of the source of its being, but only in respect of the particular mode of its reception of that being." (Sophia, the Wisdom of God p. 61).
This long discussion of creation has at its root the revelation of some importance: all of creation has the value of being in the image of God, in the various forms of participation they have in God for their existence. To say that the objects of creation exist solely for the enjoyment of man, I think, does not do creation justice. This also brings us back to the question of pan-unity. If we see all of creation as having value in its particulars separated from each other, what more can we see when they are integrated together as one! I do not see how you can see pan-unity as not answering the question of the salvation of any non-terrestrial fallen being. If all of creation is seen as united as one, and has the divinity as its principle of existence, how can only one aspect of that pan-unity, man, gain in its mode of existence while everything else in creation does not gain anything?
I think the answer to this confusion lies further in your response. When I discussed the reality of universals, and how the universals which man shares, are shared by other entities other than man, you reaction showed a lack of understanding on this matter, about how universals are contained in others universals, and how they are joined together. I am sure you are not alone in this confusion. It stems from a lack of understanding of universals in modern times. To make this all clear I must first indicate the words I used that you responded to and then discuss your response.
By saying God became man we must understand that God not only became man-- but He also became animal. In saying this, we can substitute "animal" for man, and say, "God became an animal, so that animals can be saved." ... We can continue an examination this way and find, since we are animals, we also contain within ourselves that kind of nature which is universal to all kinds of life, which would include other orders of life: fungi, plants, and all other kinds.
The logical conclusion would the be, "God became a fungus, so that fungi can be saved"? But why stop there? We ought to push it to the limit (at this time as far as science knows) and claim: "God became a quark, so that quarks can be saved." I think I like my approach better on this: the 'apparatus' of the universe as home of man will be saved because of a 'pan-unity' (to use your word) that suffices to be understood a relational at some level. That man is an animal also because he has a body, I will not deny. And that God by becoming man, also took on an animality fitting to our nature is also true. But that is just the point: God became an animal, in so far as animality is a part of being a man also. There are other aspects to animality which we do not share with other beasts. To follow the reasoning down to fungi, plants, quarks doesn't appeal to me.
The argument I made did not say that God became a fungus. Instead, what I said is that in the Incarnation God undertook several universals, many of them both man and fungi share. With this fungi are affected by the Incarnation just as all men are affected by God partaking of the universal nature of man which all men share in (that is, of the nature which can be called: Humanity). By becoming man, the Creator became Creature, and thus the most universal nature of all the natures God assumed would be that of Creature (that is, the universal nature of creation is: Creature). Since fungi are participants in the universal nature, Creature, then fungi are affected and brought into the divinity through the Incarnation just like man. When you bring this discussion down to the level of quarks, you are correct: quarks too, as with all levels of matter, by being part of creation share in the nature of "Creature" and would this join together with man in sharing in the divinity given to all of creation through the Incarnation. The mode of the Incarnation is man: that is, by becoming man, the Creator assumed more than the nature of Humanity, but whatever the nature of humanity itself partakes. This would ultimately lead to the nature "Creature." Humanity is a species in "Creature" even as "fungi" and "quarks" are species of "Creature".
This might not be too clear, and so I must bring this discussion down to a tolerable level. In reality it is an old debate: it is indeed the foundational question of the first general Council of the Church (The Council of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles). It is at this Council the Church can be said to have become Universal (Catholic). At the Council, it was a version of this question which was examined. It is at this Council that the understanding of the Incarnation became broad. What was the question at the Council? Do converts to the Christian faith have to become a Jew to partake of the benefits of the Incarnation? There were two sides of the question: those who said a convert had to become a Jew, and those who said that the faith is more universal, that the graces offered in the Incarnation are not limited to being given to Jews. But why was this a question at all? Let us look at the Incarnation.
Jesus, God Incarnate, was a Jew. We can say that soteriology initially looked like this: "God became a Jew, so that Jews can be saved." But is this even the least abstract observation which can be made? No, we could restrict the understanding even further: for example, "God became a king in the house of David, so that kings in the house of David could be saved." You see, even without the discussion of aliens, there are several universals which were assumed by God in the Incarnation. The initial understanding of the Incarnation by the Apostles was connected to these less-broad universals: Christ being a Jew, they saw the mission of the messiah was for the sake of the Jews alone. However, God would not allow this to last, and had the issue brought forth into the Church. St. Cornelius was the first Gentile convert to the faith, and divine revelation was given to St. Peter which helped him to understand that this was the intention of God. In the history of humanity, to act upon the revelation and intentions of God often required a later examination of what has occurred. The conversion of St. Cornelius thus led to one of the first developments within the Church itself: the understanding of the Catholicity of the Incarnation. This can be thought about in the following manner: since a Jew is a man then by God becoming a Jew, God became man. If God became man, then God partook of the universal nature Humanity so that all men can be saved. This was brought out to the content of understanding at the Council of Jerusalem and from there the Church truly began its Catholic mission.
If the understanding of the Church is correct, and that the participation of a lesser universal nature, "Jew", which itself participates in a greater universal nature, "Humanity" allows for that greater universal nature to be used for the understanding of the ability of the Incarnation to save all men, then we must understand that this "abstraction" and broadening of the effects of the Incarnation must follow the same route all the way through ALL abstractions and universals which a "Jew" participates in. Though this can be a very long discussion, I will provide a simple quick map which I provided in my earlier discussion. I will now include what I have provided in this discussion, to show by analogy how this Catholic nature of the Incarnation does affect all of creation:
God became a King in the House of David, so that Kings in the House of David could be saved. Since a King in the House of David is a Jew, that is, the universal "King in the House of David", is a species of the universal, "Jew", then God became a Jew so that Jews can be saved. Now a Jew is itself a universal which participates in another universal: Humanity. So through this, we understand that God became man so that man can be saved. However, what is man, but a species of animal? Hence, as a man, God also became an animal, and thus assumed that universal nature, and so God became an animal so that animals can be saved. However, what is an animal, but a member of the universal, "Creature" (in the technical sense, that is, something that is a part of creation). Hence, by becoming an animal, God assumed the nature "Creature", and thus all that share in the universal, "Creature" can be saved. Thus, it can be said, God became a King in the House of David so that ALL creatures can be saved.
Now, as I said above, I think part of the problem of discussing this has been the inability of most modern men to understand universals. To say that God assumed a universal nature, does not say that all particulars of that universal nature must itself been what God became: but instead, that all particulars in that universal nature share in the universal nature which God assumed. God by becoming a King in the House of David, He did not become Incarnate as Solomon: but instead, Solomon shares in that universal which God assumed. By becoming man, God did not become Socrates, but Socrates shares in that same human nature which Christ assumed. By becoming animal, God did not become "a deer", but all deer share in the nature, animal, which God did assume and are thus affected, even as Socrates is affected by the change of mode in human nature. The same will be said of fungi in relation to life: this was not an implication that God became fungi, but that fungi shared in the universal nature of "life" even as Solomon and Socrates share in the natures of "King in the House of David" and "Humanity" respectively. However, what is going on, what are universals? I hope I have provided by example a way for you to understand what universals themselves are. But to make it even more clear, I shall elaborate on this.
A universal is some common unity shared by particulars which partake of that shared quality. This is the Platonic "idea" or "form" which has been discussed by Plato and his followers. It is not a mere mental construct, but it is something which has a reality of its own, and it in fact more real than the particulars which represents it. It is the essence shared by individual participants. For example, it is the essence "Book" which all books partake, or the essence "Chair" which all chairs partake. That it has a reality of its own must be assumed by Christian theology to make any sense out of Christology and Trinitarian theology. St. Anselm realized this, and in his works against Roscelin he points this out:
"Therefore, those contemporary logicians (rather, the heretical logicians) who consider universal essences to be merely vocal emanations [that is, just logical constructs without any reality behind them], and who can understand colours only as material substances, and human wisdom only as the soul, should be altogether brushed aside from the discussion of spiritual questions. [...] For in what way can those who do not yet understand how several specifically human beings are one human being understand in the most hidden and highest nature how several persons, each of whom is complete God, are one God? [...] Lastly, those who cannot understand anything to be a human being unless an individual will in no way understand a human being other than a human person. For every individual human being is a person. Therefore, how will they understand that the human being assumed by the Word is not a person, that is, that another nature, not another person, has been assumed?" (St. Anselm, On the Incarnation of the Word 1, from St. Anselm the Major Works, Oxford press, p. 237-8, trans. Richard Regan).
St. Anselm's main argument follows this way: if universals are not a part of reality, than what Christ assumed could not be an essence, but would thus have to be a particular, or person. If it was a particular, and not another nature that was assumed, then we would have to approve the Nestorians. Since that is not the Catholic faith, those who would deny the reality of universal essences would thus have to be seen to be in error, and that essences then would have to be possessors of reality.
Thus with this discussion we see that God has assumed the status of "creature", and in doing so, affects all creatures. Non-human rational species would be within the bounds of the Incarnation, and so there would not be the need for multiple Incarnations.
This is no solution. You are subsuming these non-human rational species under the over-arching category of homo sapiens, like the animals and fungi and quarks. They deserve better: they need to be saved on their own terms.
I think what I have said in this letter have answered this objection, but I will repeat partly my previous conclusions in relation to this. You state that if Christ saves any other species, by becoming man, that this is not good enough for that species, but there is rather the need of salvation in their own terms. I am not entirely sure what you mean here, but I think we can look at this, not in the over-extending arch of non-terrestrial life, but within the framework of human life. We could say the same in relation to the Jew/Gentile debate; God became a Jew, and thus the Jews are saved; for the Gentiles, they deserve better than being offered salvation through the work of a Jew: they need to be saved in their own terms. If your objection works for the extended arch of salvation offered throughout all of creation, it would also work within the framework of this universal which Christ assumed (that of Jew). But since Christian theology has already dismissed this, than your objection fails on the smaller level, how could it still work in the extended arch? I do not think it would, for it would have to apply to all applications of universals, if it is to apply to any. Since it does not within the framework of Jew/Gentile, we would be able to figure out it will not work in the higher level of universals.
It appears you would place these creatures on a lower rung in the hierarchical vision of Pseudo-Dionysius with man at the top of the mediating role. In what sense are these creatures 'lower' than us? Do they churn out less sophisticated mathematics and science and theology than we do?
I do not think you fully grasp what I previously stated. On the hierarchical rung of Pseudo-Dionysius, we know angels are placed higher than man. Yet, through the mediatorship of Christ in the universe by becoming man, man has been placed on top of another hierarchical rung: the rung of the new creation, the rung of the restored universe. Angels will be brought into the new creation, of course, and will share in the graces of God to all of creation through the Incarnation, not as directly as they have previously experienced, but through man. Does this mean that angels are "lower" than us intellectually? To the contrary, they are still far surpassing us in intellect, for they are pure intellect: and as such, they would be able to spurn out greater mathematics, science and theology than us, even though in the hierarchy of the new creation, we are higher than they. By establishing this fact, we can now look at any other creature in the cosmos, and we would not have to say that they are inferior to us in power, intellect or will: for we know angels are higher than man in these regions. They could be indeed, like angels, sent over to man to rule and guide man, despite man's objections; they could come and bring superior science, which will make even the greatest scientific dreams of man look like child's play. This will not diminish man's role in the universe, and what role is it? It is that of a special priesthood over all creation, bringing it together as one as an offering, as a sacrifice to God, who will accept this sacrifice and make it blessed and one with Him.
I have now I believe offered up a reasonable answer to your objections, but I want to now bring it all together. I will also leave this level of the discussion with some mystery. The main argument so far has been a discussion of whether Christ could save aliens by the means of one Incarnation. If he can not, then it would seem that God would have to have multiple Incarnations, and multiple ways of saving a multitude of races in the cosmos (if they exist). This seems absurd to many, including myself. One Incarnation and death for God seems to itself bring about a great mystery, even a great scandal, to the Godhead, though Christian theology does try to cope with this and explain the best it can To have to do this for each race in the cosmos (if a multitude exists), would bring that one problem into a greater context, and one which would be even harder for theology to cope with. This is precisely why several thinkers, after the Copernican revolution, saw the possibility of a plurality of worlds objected to this plurality (most notably, the leading disciple of Luther, Philip Melancthan). However, there have been many who have looked at this question and see no threat to the idea of only one Incarnation. Some have suggested, for example, that since God is infinite, that the death of God would have infinite grace provided. If grace is infinite, how could one say that there would be some species existent in the universe which could not gain from this infinite release of grace?
To reiterate my answer to the question, I will briefly summarize all the points I have made so far: all of creation is united in the quality of being created. It is seen to rest on this single principle which unites it all together. If God enters into creation and assumes the nature of one part of creation, then all of creation will be united in the assumption and will be transfigured by God. By partaking of one nature in creation, God partakes of the most universal nature of creation, which is: the universal "Creature" (there are other uncreated universals-- the uncreated energies of God-- which are higher, greater than the universal "Creature", but "Creature" is the highest, broadest universal in the chain of being of creation). If non-terrestrial species exist, they will be able to attain salvation and deification in Christ through their unity with the rest of creation. They will be lifted with the fulcrum of such a lift being man. Thus, with one Incarnation, God enables all of creation to join into the interior life of the Trinity, even as man is brought into that position through the Incarnation. This truly satisfies, I would think, any soteriological objection.
However one answers the question of soteriology, there are still other questions which will be left for later reflection. The primary question would be this: how would this grace, either through the pan-unity method I have suggested, or the infinite-grace release suggestion, by applied to non-terrestrial species? The answer to this, however, is similar to another question: how did pagans, who had no contact with Christianity, gain graces from the death of Christ so that their salvation would be possible? God would not limit salvation to only those who had direct, material, physical contact with the Church: he came to save the world, or all of creation, not just a part of it. An example of this question would be that of the fate of an American Indian. In all intents and purposes, the Indians might as well have been on another world until they were discovered by Christendom. Though the answering of this question (that of the application of the grace) is not the focus of this discussion, it is an important question. Because of its importance, I previously discussed the role of the Earth as being a cosmic Holy Grail in my previous letter, and now I will bring another quick discussion which I think will bear some light to this question. The source of my initial investigation into this topic is that of Peter Lombard's Sentences. This work was the major theological handbook used during the middle to late scholastic era. Chief scholastic theologians reflected upon its teachings and wrote commentaries on it while working for their doctorate in theology. Because of this connection to scholasticism and medieval theology, its reflections bear to mind important points which should be considered.
Book IV Distinction I of the Sentences deals with the Sacraments of the Church. As we both know, the Sacraments are the key focal point in the application of the special graces given by the Church to individuals and the community as a whole. The initial Christian sacrament is Baptism, whereby the individual is joined into the Christian community and receives the grace of the remission of all sins. It makes one a new creation, and provides with it special graces which will help provide strength in preserving the new character placed upon the individual. However, Peter Lombard realized that Baptism was itself the fulfillment of an Old Testament Sacrament, that is, of Circumcision. In the Sentences, Peter wrote:
Nevertheless there was among them [the Jews] a certain sacrament, namely, circumcision, conferring the same remedy against sin which baptism now does. [...] through circumcision, from the time of its institution, the remission of original and actual sin for young and old was offered by God, just as now it is given in baptism (Chapter VII of Book IV Distinction I, in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham. Ed. Eugene R. Fairweather, The Library of Christian Classics: Icthus Edition, The Westminster Press: 1986).
Here, Peter Lombard indicates that the Jews were given a means of grace, a means of salvation, through their practice of circumcision. Here we begin to see something interesting which has long been forgotten: the Christian Church has long recognized that the grace of Christ was active in pre-Christian times, enabling those who lived in such a time and place to receive remission of even original sin, so that they can achieve salvation. Peter Lombard does not stop with the Jews, when discussing the remission of sins in the pre-Christian times. He realizes that there was a time when there was no circumcision, and that God also offered salvation not only to the Jews, but to all peoples throughout the world. So, he knew there would have to be offered an explanation for their ability to gain salvation. What does he offer for them, and for women (who were unable to be circumcised)?
Women, indeed, were justified through faith and good works, either their own, if they were adults, or those of their parents if they were children. Those children who were before the circumcision were justified in the faith of their parents, while parents were justified by the virtue of sacrifices, that is, by what they understood spiritually in those sacrifices. (The Sentences, Book IV Distinction I Chapter VIII).
St. Gregory the Great's Commentary of Job IV: 3 was the major influence for this interpretation of Peter Lombard. He thus quoted St. Gregory, who wrote: "What the water of baptism has the power to do among us was done among the ancients in various ways: for children by faith alone, for adults by the virtue of sacrifice, and for those who sprang from the descendents of Abraham by the mystery of circumcision." (quoted in the Sentences, Book IV Distinction I Chapter VIII). Here, we have in one of the central works of Catholic theology, the discussion of salvation of the pre-Christians. In it Peter Lombard shows that he believed there was an ability for the remission of sins in the pre-Christian era. Certainly we must realize that this is so by an application of the power of the Incarnation, which would be a power which is trans-temporal and affects time in all directions (hence the Theotokos was able to be purified in her conception, by the grace of Christ offered in the Cross). If we can find that in pre-Christian times, an application of God's grace can be seen to be offered to both the Jew and the Gentile (through circumcision and sacrifice), then certainly we can see in a trans-spatial way, Christ offers such graces across the cosmos, even if the immediate presence of the Church is not visible. Does this mean that the Sacraments in the Church are superfluous, or redundant? Peter Lombard answers that question: no. For example, on the discussion of circumcision and baptism, Peter Lombard wrote:
Furthermore, circumcision was changed through baptism, for the sacrament of baptism is more complete and perfect because it bears a fuller grace. For the former, sins are put away only, but neither grace assisting to good works nor the possession of virtues nor their increase is offered, while in baptism not only are sins abolished, but also assisting grace is conferred and virtues are increased. (The Sentences, Book IV, Distinction I Chapter IX).
The pre-Christian sacraments which Christ offered to those who lived before Pentecost enabled the remission of sins. They did not provide the full graces offered in baptism (that of perseverance through temptation), nor that of the Eucharist (which ties the community of the Church together into the common goal of deification), nor in the other Sacraments offered in the Church for the strengthening of the Christian soul or the continuation of the priesthood within the Church. We can see, in the pre-Christian era, that an inferior form of several sacraments were nonetheless present: remission of sins, marriage, the priesthood, with the priesthood there were mysteries which joined the faithful together, and there was even healing and last rites. These forms enabled man to continue on and gain in strength, while the Church has received the fulfillment of these sacraments and offers even more to its members, the greatest of which is the Eucharist. Though this is only a simple reflection, and a means of meditation on this topic, I do not profess that this is a complete answer on the application given of Christ to alien races before their contact with humanity. I am sure, if and when we would enter into contact with these species, we would be able to learn more about their existence. This will enable us to know more about the answer to this question. Nonetheless, as with the whole entire alien discussion, it is something worthy of reflection before contact, so that we can have an initial idea of where religious dialogue should begin.
I hope this helps you understand further the details of soteriology and how it would affect non-terrestrial creatures. I may have added another element, another further mystery into the equation, but I have also I hope provided an initial direction to go in answering this mystery. As to the mystery of the Incarnation, which is the key cause of your concern, I hope I have provided clarification and strengthened my position. I will next, as I have offered before, deal with my own reasoning behind why I believe aliens do exist. This will be for another letter, another day.
In Christ,
Henry