Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Roguejim on Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:25 pm

I extricated this posting from the bowels of the now defunct Pascendi's Forum. It was an interesting posting by JAT, whom I hope will find this place.

05/28/10 at 03:00 PM

[QUOTE=Roguejim]JAT,
In your studies, have you come across Church teaching whereby an individual can be saved without explicit faith in the Trinity, Incarnation...?[/QUOTE]
Jim and Lionel,

I am unaware of any authoritative doctrines on either "fidem explicitam" or "fidem implicitam." But St. Thomas does use the term, which I will get to in a minute.

I think the terms are somewhat problematic because, as we all know, "faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him" (CCC 153). Doctrinal beliefs are therefore an exercise, activity or operation of faith. The Catechism puts it pretty well: "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit . . . Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit" (CCC 153-154).

Therefore it would seem more accurate to perhaps speak of faith as "in actu" or "in potentia" and, correspondingly, to speak about beliefs as "explicit" or "implicit." The distinction here is NOT between "actual faith" and "potential faith" but between "exercised faith" and "unexercised faith." Doctrinal beliefs are an exercise of faith through the intellect in a way that is similar to how sacramental worship is an exercise of faith through the body and how virtuous works are an exercise of faith through the will and how prayer is an exercise of faith through the heart.

To put it more precisely, by "explicit faith," I understand a fourfold operation of faith: intellectual (doctrine), religious (worship), ethical (morality) and spiritual (prayer). By "implicit faith," I understand a fourfold LACK of activity. A "faith" that somehow exists without leaving any evidence of its existence (!?).

Does all this make sense so far?

At the very least we can say that "fides in potentia" (unexercised or implicit faith) generally cannot save. Faith is like a language that once acquired easily atrophies and is forever lost after falling into disuse. This being said, I think everyone will admit that infants and those with severe mental disabilities can be saved by virtue of a "fides in potentia" (unexercised or implicit faith) received through Baptism.

The question then becomes can anyone else - people who have attained the use of reason - be saved by virtue of "fides in potentia"? This is a difficult question that, as far as I can tell, the Church hasn't yet addressed authoritatively. On the one hand, we don't want to deny God's freedom to give his gifts to whomever he darn well pleases, whenever he darn well pleases. On the other hand, we don't want to deny or obscure the role of man's freedom to participate in or obstruct the gift of salvation. The idea of a person having faith and having well-formed beliefs, but not having any of the beliefs that belong most basically and essentially to faith (e.g. God the Creator, Trinity, Incarnation, Paschal Mystery) seems, well, at least intellectually offensive even if not doctrinally erroneous.

Here's where I think St. Thomas has something very important to say, right in the heart of his reflections on the necessity of explicit faith: "Some kind of belief in the mystery of Christ's incarnation has always been necessary for everyone, but diversely so, according to the diversity of times and persons" (Sum. Theol. II-II, 2, 7 - mysterium incarnationis Christi aliqualiter oportuit omni tempore esse creditum apud omnes, diversimode tamen secundum diversitatem temporum et personarum).

The "some kind of belief in Christ" (St. Thomas) and the "invincible ignorance of Christ" (CCC) initially appear as contradictory theses, but on closer examination of the context of ST II-II, 2, 7 helps diminish this appearance at least a little: St. Thomas describes Adam's assertion about cleaving to his wife as proof that he had some sort of knowledge of the Incarnation, which is the cleaving of Christ and the Church! This shows that St. Thomas might be employing a much lower standard than CCC in determining "knowledge of Christ." The appearance of contradiction diminishes because the lower part of the conceptual circle of "the some kind of belief in Christ" in the parlance of St. Thomas may overlap the higher part of the conceptual circle of "ignorance of Christ" in the parlance of CCC. In other words, it might be possible for some individuals to simultanous meet CCC's criteria for "ignorant of Christ" and St. Thomas' criteria for "some kind of belief in Christ," if they believe in something corrollary of or synonymous with belief in Christ.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether a contradiction exists between CCC and St. Thomas. I can only continue on the supposition that there is no contradiction.

If no contradiction exists, "Seeking the truth and doing the will of God as it is known" (CCC 1260) is the precise "kind of belief in the mystery of Christ's incarnation" (ST II-II, 2, 7) that is necessary for the salvation of "the man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and His Church" (CCC 1260).

In conclusion, in giving a precise definition of the operation of faith (fides in actu, explicit faith) that is necessary for the salvation of the invincibly ignorant unbaptized non-Catholic (whether this person is hypothetical or real), the Catechism of the Catholic Church cannot be legitimately accused of advocating a theory of "salvation by implicit faith."

In other words, even if we accept the actual reality of an unbaptized, invincibly ignorant, really-sweet-guy of a non-Catholic, I think we would be quite correct in insisting that he is not saved by "implicit faith." I would argue that "implicit faith" (i.e. sanctifying grace divinely infused by baptism without any expression of belief, worship, morality and prayer) only saves babies and the very severely mentally disabled.

I hope this clears up more than it confuses. I look forward to reading and considering criticisms anyone may have of my argument. May God bless all of you.

Carl
avatar
Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:31 pm

Here is what Saint Thomas taught:

“Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: ‘Who hath believed our report?’ It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those WHO HAVE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT THE FAITH, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, WHICH CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT FAITH, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) ‘If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin’; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as “referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.” (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.10, A.1, emphasis mine)

“Granted that everyone is bound to believe something expli­citly, no untenable conclusion follows if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is nec­essary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direc­tion of natural reason in seek­ing good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspira­tion what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the Faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth)

avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:08 am

JAT (quoted by RogueJim) wrote:

I hope this clears up more than it confuses.

I say it doesn't.

I am thinking that the CCC is heretical is saying one can be saved "without knowing Christ." I do not wish to address the ramifications of that at present. In any event, I am also thinking that JAT's "overlap" between St.Thomas and the CCC - thereby meaning the CCC is not promoting the salvation "without knowing Christ" by the knowledge of Christ being capable of being "implicit" such as Adam's cling to his wife - is bogus, because as the very quote he lifts from St. Thomas indicates, the level of knowledge required depends upon the temporal context (time in which one lives and "knows") also: and St. Thomas himself taught that in these days, after the promulgation of the Gospel, all men must have explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation to be saved. Of course, JAT maintained that the Gospel is promulgated to one only when one hears it - a novel view that I, and most of the authority that I am aware of, rejects.

In any event, in these discussions with JAT and others, I refer to the Athanasian Creed. In every case I believe - I don't remember a single argument or attempt to avoid the point - my "opponent" did not address the argument for explicit faith in Christ and the Catholic faith from the AC. I believe JAT simply ignored the AC argument I made.

People quibble and "redefine" terms with regard to the Bull Cantate Domino - such as the definition of Jew and Pagan therein - but the AC corners them in no uncertain terms, and they simply ignore the "inconvenience" of addressing it.

I have not heard any dispute that the AC is infallible. I have not heard anyone offer any type of articulated evasion of its clear and straightforward infallible terms. We all know what it says, but I print it here again:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

The CE says this about the "damnatory" or "miniatory" clauses (no salvation without the Catholic faith) of the AC:

The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths. They are but the credal equivalent of Our Lord's words: "He that believeth not shall be condemned", and apply, as is evident, only to the culpable and wilful rejection of Christ's words and teachings. The absolute necessity of accepting the revealed word of God, under the stern penalties here threatened, is so intolerable to a powerful class in the Anglican church, that frequent attempts have been made to eliminate the Creed from the public services of that Church. The Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury has already affirmed that these clauses, in their prima facie meaning, go beyond what is warranted by Holy Scripture. In view of the words of Our Lord quoted above, there should be nothing startling in the statement of our duty to believe what we know is the testimony and teaching of Christ, nor in the serious sin we commit in wilfully refusing to accept it, nor, finally, in the punishments that will be inflicted on those who culpably persist in their sin. It is just this last that the damnatory clauses proclaim. From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundamental truths with which it deals, is all we need to know.

The CE simply asserts that is "evident" that this only applies to a culpable or willful rejection. No, it is not "evident." St. Thomas did not think it evident; St. Augustine did not think it "evident" - and they could see pretty well. The traditional teaching of the millenia is that faith, regardless of one's culpability in lacking it, is necessary to remove, for example, the taint of original sin, and that while one may not be guilty of not having this faith if one hasn't heard the gospel, the lack of the faith still prevents salvation to those who lack it, and who need it (as all do) for salvation. And, as St. Thomas and St. Augustine teach, in the age of the New Covenant, one must have explicit faith in Christ. The AC embodies this.

I have also argued that Trent pointed out this difference in the economy of faith since the promulgation of the gospel, and that indeed that is why the translation to justification since "cannot be effected" without baptism or the desire for the same, which "desire" must include explicit faith in Christ, otherwise there's no difference between those who, like Adam (as mentioned by JAT with his "implicit" faith in Christ in "clinging to his wife"), lived before the gospel promulgation, and those living now, since.

Council of Trent, Session VI

CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Any observations as to the application of the AC and the lack of the Catholic faith as only applying to the "culpable," or on the issue of the sufficiency of "implicit faith" in Christ, would be appreciated.

Please cite Magisterial authority for your points, thank you.




avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:02 pm

Let me see if I understand you correctly. It appears you are saying that it is a dogma of the faith that no one can be saved who does not explicitly believe, and does not “think rightly” of the Trinity; meaning one MUST know and think rightly of the Trinity, as an intrinsic necessity (without which salvation cannot be), precisely like this:

And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
And by “rightly”, the Athanasian Creed means this:

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Does the divine and Catholic Faith also include thinking “rightly” about the “filioque” in the Nicene Creed such that one cannot be saved without thinking “rightly” about this article of faith?

Is one’s profession of a general but explicit belief in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as well as belief in the Redemption sufficient for salvation? If so, please explain how one can think rightly of the Trinity and the Incarnation without an explicit profession and "right" understanding of all the articles of faith precisely as they are declared in the AC?

If your answer is that some articles may be implied in others, please cite Magisterial authority for your points, thank you.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:04 pm

Yes, one must think "rightly" of the Trinity. Yes, one must think "rightly" of the Incarnation. If one believes that God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who are yet One, I maintain they are thinking "rightly" about the Trinity? Do you want to argue they aren't?

You are arguing that they must have a greater level of specificity of explicit faith according to the Athanasian Creed. I hardly see how that derogates from my position that one must explicitly believe in the Trinity.

The point is, under your interpretation and and mine, one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, and must believe rightly. The right belief can have different levels of sophistication, but they must share right belief about the Trinity and the Incarnation. That's the point.

I do not see how, in any shape or form, your argument supports a position that an explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is not necessary - if it was intended to do that, which I assume it was, since the issue is whether explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is or is not necessary.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:31 pm

Tornpage,

It's been a little hectic ... bear with me. I'll get back to this when I can.

Columba, I haven't forgotten that I owe you a response on the other thread -- humour me a while longer.

Thx

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Guest on Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:33 pm

I'm with you Tornpage!!! Ever since I have become a "Feeneyite" it is almost impossible to discuss the things we do here, because most Catholics seem to believe that explicit Faith is not necessary. I mean if you can't even get to "believing in Christ" is necessary all the other things about Church membership can't even be addressed!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:57 pm

Mike,

We've been through this, and yet my observations/questions go unanswered:

"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.103, A.4)

"For children baptized before coming to the use of reason, afterwards when they come to perfect age, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith." (Summa Theologica II-II, q. 10, a. 12)

To deny an article of the Catholic Faith and/or profess something contrary to it is to sin mortally. It's that simple. One cannot labor in "invincible ignorance" of a truth of the Catholic Faith while at the same time professing something that is contrary to it.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:12 pm

Jehanne,

Poor MRyan is being beseiged . . . give him time.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:18 pm

I'm with you Tornpage!!! Ever since I have become a "Feeneyite" it is almost impossible to discuss the things we do here, because most Catholics seem to believe that explicit Faith is not necessary. I mean if you can't even get to "believing in Christ" is necessary all the other things about Church membership can't even be addressed!


Cowboy and I agree. Let us hold tight on the reins, Cowboy - I'm not sure what that means.

So you've become a Feeneyite?

I'm still waiting for Jehanne, who is about to become a Third Order something or other, to tell me whether I'm a Feeneyite for believing:

I believe one must hold the Catholic faith to be saved; that this may simply be a belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity (but I like to think explicitly conscious of Christ's Suffering and Passion also, but that may be included in the Incarnation - but either way I'll let that go), with the rest of the belief in all the necessary dogmas "implied"; that one may have an implied baptism of desire by virtue of one's explicit faith in Christ, and that such an implied baptism of desire would satisfy the necessity of baptism (which may be met through baptism of blood and baptism of desire - including a non-explicit desire for the sacrament, such as in baptism of repentance or of the Spirit); that it is impossible for someone who denies (simply disagrees with or asserts the contrary to) a dogma of the Catholic faith to have the Catholic faith necessary for salvation; and, as a matter of fact, God providentially arranges it so that the elect all receive baptism in water (I am not dogmatic about that, and accept the possibility that some are actually saved by baptism of desire, though I don't see any reason (or believe I am required by the Church) to maintain that it in fact happens).
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Guest on Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:06 pm

Karl Keating would call you one because he calls Gerry Matatics one and his position is pretty close to your LOL:


Matatics, who at his seminars used to distribute literature from the Saint Benedict Center, makes a tiny distinction between that group's position and his own and uses that distinction to claim that he is not really a Feeneyite. (If not, why distribute the most hardline Feeneyite literature?)

Unlike the Saint Benedict Center, he is open to the possibility that a catechumen who desires baptism but who dies before being baptized might be saved through what is commonly called "baptism of desire." But such a catechumen's salvation is not sure, says Matatics. It might be that he is not saved after all.

Anyone further removed from the Catholic Church would have even less hope--or no hope--of salvation. This would include not just the unbaptized but also Protestants. (Matatics has said in public that he expects his own parents to go to hell, because they remain Protestants.)

In Church history there cannot have been many cases of catechumens dying on the way to their baptisms. As a practical matter, therefore, Matatics's position reduces to the position of the Saint Benedict Center: Formal members of the Catholic Church are saved, and everyone else is lost.
The members of the Saint Benedict Center indisputably deserve the moniker "Feeneyite." In my opinion, Matatics does too. After all, there are Feeneyites who are more generous than he is in their interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church." He is midway along a narrow spectrum, but he is still on the spectrum.
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040127.asp

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:04 pm

Cowboy,

Matatics's position is pretty close to mine? We are measuring things in space, or on earth?
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  columba on Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:17 pm

Hmm.. I sway much towards believing in the miracles of grace that can take place (in that all important hour) the hour of death. Many of the saints have described it as the most important hour of ones life and many of our prayers include a call for assistance at this hour.
I would like to think (hope) that all the baptized gain this assistance according to their good will while in this life and even hope for those who have been baptized but been brought up in schismatic sects.
I believe/hope that much can be accomplished by the grace of God in that hour before the soul vacates the body. As for the unbaptized, maybe even they can receive the sacrament of initiation unknown to the members of the church militant but not necessarly to the rest of he church. But enogh of my musings.

Cowboy wrote:
...I mean if you can't even get to "believing in Christ" is necessary all the other things about Church membership can't even be addressed!

Good point cowboy. And Tornpage? I was a Feeneyite even before I heard of Fr Feeney. I was once accused of being a Feeneyite and I had to check out what the term meant. Very Happy

Tornpage wrote:
Matatics's position is pretty close to mine? We are measuring things in space, or on earth?

I listened to a sermon by an FSSP priest a while back and he forbade his congregation from reading or listening to anything produced by Gerry Matatics.
I have great respect for the mentioned priest but where should the censoring stop when the hierarchy of the Church no longer feels it appropriate to have a list of proscribed books?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:47 pm

tornpage wrote:Yes, one must think "rightly" of the Trinity. Yes, one must think "rightly" of the Incarnation. If one believes that God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who are yet One, I maintain they are thinking "rightly" about the Trinity? Do you want to argue they aren't?

You are arguing that they must have a greater level of specificity of explicit faith according to the Athanasian Creed. I hardly see how that derogates from my position that one must explicitly believe in the Trinity.

The point is, under your interpretation and and mine, one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, and must believe rightly. The right belief can have different levels of sophistication, but they must share right belief about the Trinity and the Incarnation. That's the point.

I do not see how, in any shape or form, your argument supports a position that an explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is not necessary - if it was intended to do that, which I assume it was, since the issue is whether explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is or is not necessary.
OK; not that this will have much relevancy to this discussion; but you know I believe that no one can be saved without divine and Catholic Faith (which I believe consists of explicit faith in our Lord, the Trinity and Redemption). Our Lord will provide each and every one of His elect with these truths – at the time of His choosing. My only beef is with your stated inclination to believe that the CCC is “heretical”. That’s just a bit rash. Not even Fr. Harrison goes that far.

Here, if I am not mistaken, is the alleged “heresy”; as expressed by Cardinal Journet:

The second attitude is that of the unbaptized child who awakes at one and the same time to the life of reason and to the life of faith, and turns to his last end with a profound aspiration which will count as Baptism by desire and will bring him to the heart of the Kingdom of God.[95] One grown to manhood in the forests, away from the company of men, and suddenly illumined by an inner inspiration showing him what to believe, would be in a similar position.[96] In these two cases, and others like them, the desire that saves these men, though it springs from a faith vitalized by charity, is not always accompanied by explicit knowledge of Baptism or of the Church, nor even perhaps of the Incarnation and the Trinity: the explicit content of faith then amounting to two points which, in the supereminent mystery of their riches, contain all the articles of the creed: namely that "God is, and rewards those who seek after Him" (Heb. xi. 6).
Please note that Cardinal Journet is saying “perhaps”. The Church simply leaves the possibility open without denying that the Blessed in heaven have an explicit faith in all the essential divine Mysteries. How and when they come to “believe rightly” in our Lord and the Redemption is the mystery the Church refuses to “dogmatize”, while affirming that no one can be saved without supernatural faith. I believe this is what Lumen Gentium 16 and the CCC are saying.

Your “thinking” that the CCC is heretical is an indictment against the Church for not being vigilant in condemning an alleged heresy that entered the Church around the 15th century and, by the early 20th century would be taught quite openly, and with Vatican approval, in the theology manuals, and, as can be argued, by Pope Pius IX and Lumen Gentium, and finally in the CCC.

Also problematic is your indirect indictment against St. Alphonsus Liguiori for not condemning this alleged “heresy”. Clearly this Doctor of the Church believed that the necessity of an explicit faith in our Lord and the essential Mysteries was the more “common opinion”; and that is exactly what he said. But nowhere did he condemn the opinion of other theologians who taught that under certain conditions, the explicit content of supernatural faith may amount to this: “God is, and rewards those who seek after Him" (Heb. xi. 6)” … and that these two articles may “contain all the articles of the creed”.

Since the teaching expressed in the CCC (that you think might be "heretical") is not settled dogmatically, it is reformable. As it is, it cannot prove harmful to the faith. But if you examine the so-called “heretical” passage in the CCC, it reads almost exactly like LG 16, where “interpretation” can vary - to be sure. The Church could in the future clarify what it means in the CCC by explaining that explicit faith in our Lord, as St. Thomas teaches, is and was at all times necessary for salvation, but, like before the Gospel, “explicit” faith may be hidden in the supernatural Faith of those to whom it has not been explicitly revealed. As I said, these truths must be revealed – how and when is the unsettled mystery.

St. Thomas:

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth." (STh II-II q. 2 a. 7 ad 3)
Yes, I know that St. Thomas is referring to those saved under the old dispensation, but the principle, as theologians suggest, may still be valid under the new dispensation.

My point in belaboring the point with the AC is this: You say that “right belief” can have different levels of sophistication. But the AC doesn’t mention anything about “levels of sophistication”, but only that one MUST believe rightly about each and every article, and explains what “rightly” means for each. So somewhere along the way you have been taught that there are certain articles of faith that are absolutely necessary for salvation (without which salvation cannot be), and other articles that may be implicit in the essential articles.

But even here you admit to disagreeing with the Angelic Doctor on the level of sophistication that would constitute “right belief” in the Incarnation since you disagree with St. Thomas when he says that belief in the Incarnation, the passion and so forth may be implicit in one’s faith in the Redemption. And it is not uncommon to respond by saying St. Thomas contradicted himself, or was being inconsistent. Really? Perhaps you don’t understand what he is saying when he teaches:

After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation”.
Compared to:

For the existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in God eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while belief in His providence includes all those things which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are the way to that happiness: and in this way, again, some of those articles which follow from these are contained in others: thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes belief in the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion and so forth. (Summa, II, II, Q. 1, Art 7)


Contradiction? I don’t think so. What one is “bound” to believe explicitly (observed and publicly proclaimed, such as the Incarnation) may be implicit in one’s faith in the Redemption, “which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation.”

What the Church has condemned is the notion that justifying Faith can be derived through natural motives, rather than by the supernatural faith and God revealing. Supernatural faith is belief in supernatural truths; with such belief being motivated by charity, for even the Devil believes, yet his belief is purely natural and rational.

And perhaps you will say that none of this matters because the “levels of sophistication” entails at the minimum an explicit belief in our Lord as Redeemer. But I think it does matter because it goes to the heart of the issue: Who is the final arbiter of what constitutes supernatural Faith (the essential articles of faith), and what essential articles of Faith may be implicit in others?

Did the Church bind God to what He must explicitly reveal to one of His elect through internal inspiration before he draws his last breath?

If she did, then God is so bound; but the Church seems to think that supernatural faith in God, and as a rewarder to those who seek Him, may be sufficient cause for God (the Trinity) to make His abode with a particular soul before the Mysteries are fully revealed in (or just before) the beatific vision.

I believe that God will reveal the essential Mysteries of our Lord to each of His elect before he draws his last breadth.

Problem is, I am not the magisterium.


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:34 pm

But even here you admit to disagreeing with the Angelic Doctor on the level of sophistication that would constitute “right belief” in the Incarnation since you disagree with St. Thomas when he says that belief in the Incarnation, the passion and so forth may be implicit in one’s faith in the Redemption.

My main goal in posting this topic was to elicit comment to help me in settling certain things in my mind, so I will largely leave the bulk of this without response, and let it contribute to that settling.

But I do want to respond to say I don't disagree with St. Thomas. He says that explicit faith was always necessary, but that it could be implied in one's faith in the Redemption under the old dispensation. Since I am talking now and of the beliefs of living men, when I say explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary I am talking about right now - so I have no problem with St. Thomas. And he agrees with me that it is necessary now.

So the "father" of the thought of these theologians disinherits them and calls them "bastards." Alright, that's a bit colorful and showing my emotion in my choice of analogy, but that's what he in effect does to their position.

Mike, you know what has happened. We have Cardinal Journet's unbaptized child with his "profound aspiration" turned into the "good faith" Muslim or Jew (with his covenant that has not been revoked!) who can actually be saved while denying Christ.

I'm glad you brought up St. Thomas, because I went to the Summa section on Faith, the Second Part of the Second Part, and it is Questions I and II that should be given attention. You quoted from Question I, Article 1, I believe. Well, in Article 7 of Question I St. Thomas says this:

Among these principles there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle, to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher states (Metaph. iv, text. 9)

You can imply something in something which doesn't contradict it, but you cannot imply something in what denies it. This is the absurdity of the Conciliar Church's theology. It's like politicians left politics and started spinning in the theological realm. In the words of JPII, quoting some Pontifical Commission or other: "Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior," and all the Christ denying Muslims and Jews, smile contentedly and say, "hey, he's got the part right about receiving salvation in our religions," and the Prots who deny the dogmas of Our Blessed Mother and her ongoing role in our salvation say, "hey, if the good faith Jews and Muslims are ok, we must be in real good shape."

Most of what all the big guns, even the popes, of the Conciliar Church give us this same kind of talk - I can't even really describe it, but it makes my stomach turn. I can't even bear to read them. You read their writings and you can smell it, that manner of speaking, full of "modern enlightenment."

I might not be a Feeneyite since I don't share the official line on the necessity of water baptism, but I sure do agree with Father Feeney's crusade, and wish he had pinned it on "explicit faith," and not staked his "revolt" against the impressive pedigree of baptism of desire.

Their is a very good reason why I chose the signature line I did: that's the true understanding of Hebrews 11:6 in the age of the Church. Yes, my opinion - backed by the infallible Athanasian Creed.

Thanks for your input, pal. I was especially looking forward to what you had to say on all this, and hoping for something unexpected from some other source.







avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:46 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

We've been through this, and yet my observations/questions go unanswered:
Cuts both ways. You have yet to respond to how any un-baptized soul who may or not be in a state of grace (baptism of desire) can be in a state of schism when there is NO objective evidence that he is or ever has been a baptized member of the Catholic Church. You simply ignore this little basic truth of what schism is -- and keep pounding the door.

Jehanne wrote:"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.103, A.4)

Are you suggesting that any false declaration, by deeds or by words, is a mortal sin, even if the one who makes the false profession does so out of ignorance? Did you even read Q. 103 in it’s entirely to learn the context of his statement about mortal sin?

The subject is “Whether since Christ's Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin?” and the general answer is no. But if you read each objection and each response by St. Thomas, you will see that you are the one “pounding the open door”. Immediately following your citation, St. Thomas says:

Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she "conceived and bore." In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, 16), who says: "It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation."
It should be obvious that in each example the one who sins mortally does not do so out of ignorance. In fact, there are times when the Church may allow exceptions to performing certain ceremonies despite their being abrogated by the new law:

Pope Benedict XIV, encyclical letter Ex Quo (1765):

61: The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.

63: … nevertheless the Church of Christ has the power of renewing the obligation to observe some of the old precepts for just and serious reasons, despite their abrogation by the new Law. However, precepts whose main function was to foreshadow the coming Messiah should not be restored, for example, circumcision and the sacrifice of animals…
Do you see where this is going? Just as there are lawful exceptions to observing some of the old precepts without sinning, there are valid reasons in the moral law which excuse one from sinning mortally … such as ignorance. This is basic stuff, Jehanne, what are you doing?

Jehanne wrote:"For children baptized before coming to the use of reason, afterwards when they come to perfect age, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith." (Summa Theologica II-II, q. 10, a. 12)
I’m sorry, but what is your point? Are you suggesting that what is detrimental to the Faith is, in each and every case, a mortal sin; even if it is not voluntary? It appears that is exactly what you are saying.

Jehanne wrote: To deny an article of the Catholic Faith and/or profess something contrary to it is to sin mortally. It's that simple. One cannot labor in "invincible ignorance" of a truth of the Catholic Faith while at the same time professing something that is contrary to it.
This is pretty simple to:

Yet unbelief is not sinful unless it be voluntary: wherefore the more voluntary it is, the more it is sinful. — Now it becomes voluntary by the fact that a man hates the truth that is proposed to him. — Wherefore it is evident that unbelief derives its sinfulness from hatred of God, whose truth is the object of faith; and hence just as a cause is greater than its effect, so hatred of God is a greater sin than unbelief.] (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 10, Q. 34, a. 2, ad 2)
Have you heard that somewhere before?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:14 am

Mike,

You're back to denying human free will again. As Saint Thomas taught us,

"Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls under apprehension, is 'being,' the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that 'the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time,' which is based on the notion of 'being' and 'notbeing': and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv, text. 9." (Summa Theologica, II II, q.94, a.2)

A Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. who denies Christ cannot be said to "believe" in him, just as a Protestant or Orthodox who denies Papal Primacy cannot be said to affirm it. As for catechumens being in canonical (hence, judicial) schism, such is, as you say, not possible. However, they, like everyone else, can deny the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and as we have seen from the Councils of Constance and Lateran V, explicit faith in the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation:

Condemned Error 41: It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches. (Council of Constance)

"Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam." (Fifth Lateran Council)

Note that Pope Leo X at the Lateran V Council reaffirmed Unam Sanctam as applying to "all the faithful of Christ," which would, of course, include catechumens.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:34 am

Mike,

A person who has heard the Good News and denies the divinity of Christ cannot have the Catholic faith necessary for salvation, and the question of mortal sin doesn't enter the picture.

St. Thomas:

“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, Who has believed our report? This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies. If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are not condemned for the sin of unbelief, but they are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith.” (Summa Theologica 2, 2, 10, 1)

If a person who hasn't heard the Gospel message (one of the ignorant) still bears a penalty that "cannot be forgiven without faith," the person who has heard it and who says "no, I don't believe that" is in at best, the same position, but I have to think it's worse, since they have heard and denied - don't you agree? And whether they sin mortally or willfully or not has nothing to do with their lack of the necessary faith, an absolutely necessary means, without which, the presence or lack of fault notwithstanding, the end cannot be achieved.

Implied faith grows out of the idea that it has within it the seeds of a further progression. When you assert the contrary to a proposition of the faith, the fundamental principle which served to link the implicit faith to the higher progression is negated: the bridge is blown up. Again, St. Thomas:

Among these principles there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle, to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher states (Metaph. iv, text. 9)

I believe it's called the law of contradiction.

The ignorant are not asserting something contrary to truth, and nonetheless their lack of the Catholic faith prevents entrance to the Beatific vision. A fortiori . . .

You can say the last point is disputed. You believe it, and I believe it; we are free to assert it. There is, at the least, abundant support in Scripture and the teachings of the Magisterium, and the greatest doctors of the Church, for it. I think the contrary position is false and actually cannot be held because it contradicts what cannot be contradicted. But, as with you, I am not the Magisterium.

But it's the view that makes sense. And it's abandonment says a lot. Since I am free to say "no" to the contrary view, I will. I'm struggling as to whether it's heresy or not. That judgment, of course, would be mine and mine alone, and I would be responsible for it - I think even for failing to act as if it were heresy if I thought it was and didn't.

It seems to me that a lot of Feeneyites, like SSPXers in a different sphere, fail to deal with the logical consequences of their positions. Take Mr. Adam Miller. He calls the baptism of desire view heresy, takes the strict view on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and yet accepts the Conciliar Church, which teaches these things universally as part of the Ordinary Magisterium, as the True Church - which just happens to teach heresy.

Right.

No one likes the boat rocked too much; rock it just enough to make things exciting, I guess.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:26 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You're back to denying human free will again. As Saint Thomas taught us,

I am not denying free will and both you and Tornpage are being quite selective with your arguments.

Let’s cut right to the chase. Both of you are saying that a sincere Orthodox Christian who does not believe that the Pope has Primacy of Jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that the Pope is not personally infallible, cannot be saved because he cannot at the same time profess his Faith in the essential articles of Faith, while denying the revealed truth of the supreme Primacy of the Pope.

The argument goes that since it is “necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches”, culpability (sin) is irrelevant; the Orthodox know of the revealed truth of Petrine Primacy and without the profession of the true faith, whole and entire, even by those who enjoy Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments, but are separated from the Church of Rome by happenstance of birth and a schism that occurred over a millennium ago, sanctification and salvation are impossible … period.

If you want to discuss the ignorant Muslim or Jew; fine; but let’s first resolve this little problem of consistency.

You both know that the Church teaches that certain of the Orthodox may in fact be in a state of grace, and even allows for their reception of the Eucharist by a Catholic minister under certain conditions.

So tell me now if this is the same heretical Church that printed the heresy in the CCC, or is this the true Church of Christ?

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:51 am

Both of you are saying that a sincere Orthodox Christian who does not believe that the Pope has Primacy of Jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that the Pope is not personally infallible, cannot be saved because he cannot at the same time profess his Faith in the essential articles of Faith, while denying the revealed truth of the supreme Primacy of the Pope.

Mike, I never argued that. If you want to say it's a consequence of my argument, say that. But I never argued that.

If we can't be clear about the positions, we can't discuss them.

As to my question: can a person both affirm faith in Christ at the same time that they deny his divinity?

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:53 am

Mike,

The Church does not teach that one may deny Papal Primacy and remain in a state of grace:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/canon-844-betrayal-of-catholic-faith.html

avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:07 am

but are separated from the Church of Rome by happenstance of birth and a schism that occurred over a millennium ago, sanctification and salvation are impossible … period.

Who controls the "happenstance"? If not a sparrow falls to the ground without Our Father's leave, this fact if anything is a negative indicator as to their salvation.

I would say, unless they renounce their error, no, salvation is impossible if they are aware of the dogma and deny it. BTW, I believe it is possible for them to renounce their error without a visible manifestation.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:14 am

tornpage wrote:
Both of you are saying that a sincere Orthodox Christian who does not believe that the Pope has Primacy of Jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that the Pope is not personally infallible, cannot be saved because he cannot at the same time profess his Faith in the essential articles of Faith, while denying the revealed truth of the supreme Primacy of the Pope.

Mike, I never argued that. If you want to say it's a consequence of my argument, say that. But I never argued that.

If we can't be clear about the positions, we can't discuss them.

As to my question: can a person both affirm faith in Christ at the same time that they deny his divinity?

As I said; first things first. You say you never argued the case of the Orthodox Christian, I say you did. Let's review what you said and you can tell me where I went wrong:

... the person who has heard it [the Gospel] And who says "no, I don't believe that" is in at best, the same position ["still bears a penalty that 'cannot be forgiven without faith,"], but I have to think it's worse, since they have heard and denied - don't you agree? And whether they sin mortally or willfully or not has nothing to do with their lack of the necessary faith, an absolutely necessary means, without which, the presence or lack of fault notwithstanding, the end cannot be achieved.
Now explain to me how an Orthodox Christian who has received the Gospel, to include the divinely revealed truth of supreme Papal Primacy, is not "the person who has heard it [the Gospel] And who says 'no, I don't believe that'" and "still bears a penalty that 'cannot be forgiven without faith".

Thanks

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:16 am

Mike,

As to your other question: does the True Church permit Orthodox to receive communion under certain circumstances?

I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that, simply because I don't know if it's divine law that only Catholics may receive the sacraments in a Catholic Church. It seems - at least Jehanne's blog article states this - the Church used to require a renunciation of error before one could receive under the 1917 Code.

I don't know if that's only disciplinary or not.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:17 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

The Church does not teach that one may deny Papal Primacy and remain in a state of grace:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/canon-844-betrayal-of-catholic-faith.html

Jehanne,

I am not going to read your blog. If you have something to say in rebuttal, say it here, and answer my question.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:19 am

... the person who has heard it [the Gospel] And who says "no, I don't believe that" is in at best, the same position ["still bears a penalty that 'cannot be forgiven without faith,"], but I have to think it's worse, since they have heard and denied - don't you agree? And whether they sin mortally or willfully or not has nothing to do with their lack of the necessary faith, an absolutely necessary means, without which, the presence or lack of fault notwithstanding, the end cannot be achieved.

Please, let's get beyond this Mickey Mouse stuff.

You proved my point. I didn't say "an Orthodox person who rejects the Papal Primacy . . . " If I said that, why don't you highlight it in the quote.

As I said, "if you're arguing that that's a logical consequence of my argument, say that."

Forget it; I"ll say it for you. MRyan is arguing that that is a necessary and logical extension of my argument.

Now let me consider that.

You may think this a small point, but I consider it necessary to proceeding.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:23 am

tornpage wrote:

Forget it; I"ll say it for you. MRyan is arguing that that is a necessary and logical extension of my argument.

Now let me consider that.

You may think this a small point, but I consider it necessary to proceeding.
Of course its a necessary and logical extension of your argument, and I don't know why you are quibbling as if I misrepresented your argument; I did not.

May we proceed?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:25 am

Mike,

Now explain to me how an Orthodox Christian who has received the Gospel, to include the divinely revealed truth of supreme Papal Primacy, is not "the person who has heard it [the Gospel] And who says 'no, I don't believe that'" and "still bears a penalty that 'cannot be forgiven without faith".

Ooops. I already answered the question anyway:

I would say, unless they renounce their error, no, salvation is impossible if they are aware of the dogma and deny it. BTW, I believe it is possible for them to renounce their error without a visible manifestation.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:28 am

Of course its a necessary and logical extension of your argument, and I don't know why you are quibbling as if I misrepresented your argument; I did not.

I'm not quibbling.

If I said "liars don't go to heaven," and you then said "Joe Blow is a liar, and tornpage says he's not going to heaven - I think that example shows that it matters greatly what exactly tornpage said.


Last edited by tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:30 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:29 am

Mike,

Are you going to answer my question next?

As to my question: can a person both affirm faith in Christ at the same time that they deny his divinity?

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:07 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Mike,

The Church does not teach that one may deny Papal Primacy and remain in a state of grace:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/canon-844-betrayal-of-catholic-faith.html

Jehanne,

I am not going to read your blog. If you have something to say in rebuttal, say it here, and answer my question.

"if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema." (First Vatican Council, Chapter 1, Canon 1)

"if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (First Vatican Council, Chapter 2, Canon 5)

"if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema." (First Vatican Council, Chapter 3, Canon 9)

According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:27 pm

tornpage wrote:
Of course its a necessary and logical extension of your argument, and I don't know why you are quibbling as if I misrepresented your argument; I did not.

I'm not quibbling.

If I said "liars don't go to heaven," and you then said "Joe Blow is a liar, and tornpage says he's not going to heaven - I think that example shows that it matters greatly what exactly tornpage said.
Of course you’re “quibbling”, you’re one of the master quibblers (second only to me).

You must admit that this whole “Mickey Mouse” stuff is quite comical. First you take exception to what you admit is “a necessary and logical extension” to your argument (for you and Jehanne were making the same fundamental argument) because I combined them for the sake of expediency into a relevant example to make a fundamental point critical to this discussion. And now you want to “quibble” with me by suggesting that my “necessary and logical extension of your argument” was presumptuous in that it may have been a logical fallacy, when you admit that it is not a logical fallacy. In fact, you proved the veracity of my “necessary and logical extension of your argument” when you replied:

I would say, unless they renounce their error, no, salvation is impossible if they are aware of the dogma and deny it.
The Micky Mouse quibbling case is closed, but this debate is far from over. That is not what the Church teaches. To be "aware" and to "know" may be two different things. Obviously, any one who knows the truth and rejects it rejects the Faith.

Objectively, we may say that they are the same if there is no evidence of true conversion and full communion; but subjectively, inculpable and invincible ignorance may excuse in certain circumstances; and yes, it is still possible to posses supernatural faith. If I am not mistaken, that's what the Church teaches.

Mike,

Are you going to answer my question next?
As to my question: can a person both affirm faith in Christ at the same time that they deny his divinity?
Not yet.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:53 pm

Objectively, we may say that they are the same if there is no evidence of true conversion and full communion; but subjectively, inculpable and invincible ignorance may excuse in certain circumstances; and yes, it is still possible to posses supernatural faith.

No, not where even ignorance is "negatively considered," as St. Thomas would say. It fails to provide what is necessary, fault aside. A denial after being aware goes beyond ignorance. Again, a fortiori . . .

Add to that the issue of "publicity," and the problem gets worse. Even if someone had the Catholic faith and then espoused a material heresy publicly by giving external manifestation to it by action or word they would lose it according to the "common opinion" according to Van Nort:

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership.

The Jew or Muslim never had it to begin with. A fortiori . . .
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:57 pm

MRyan wrote:That is not what the Church teaches. To be "aware" and to "know" may be two different things. Obviously, any one who knows the truth and rejects it rejects the Faith.

This is all a bunch of Freudian psychobabble, which no Western Court would ever accept. "Ignorantia juris non excusat" ("ignorance of the law does not excuse") -- such is the teaching of Saint Thomas and the infallible teaching of the Ordinary, Universal Magisterium of the Church. Ignorance may diminish the sin, but it does not excuse it.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:33 pm

Here is some "Freudian psychobabble" from St. Augustine:

"The Apostle Paul has said: 'A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself.' (Titus 3:10-11) But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction." (Letters 43,1)

And of course, this is precisely the "Freudian psychobabble" of the Church, VCII, (particularly Lumen Gentium), Dominus Iesus, etc., etc.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:39 pm

What a wonderful quote! I agree with it wholeheartedly!! Do you think that the various Inquisitions were unjust? I don't. Indeed, I think that burning obstinate, unrepentant heretics at the stake was the supreme act of mercy. Indeed,

"we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction."

So, yes, indeed, let us strive to correct the Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics. And, I agree with the "spirit of Vatican II" that it is better to use a carrot than a stick. On the other hand, we "Feeneyites" will continue "to call a spade, a spade."
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:09 pm

tornpage wrote:
Objectively, we may say that they are the same if there is no evidence of true conversion and full communion; but subjectively, inculpable and invincible ignorance may excuse in certain circumstances; and yes, it is still possible to posses supernatural faith.

No, not where even ignorance is "negatively considered," as St. Thomas would say. It fails to provide what is necessary, fault aside. A denial after being aware goes beyond ignorance. Again, a fortiori . . .
You seem to assume that St. Thomas teaches that the supernatural Faith must include truths such as the Incarnation since they are are absolutely necessary for salvation as intrinsic necessities of means (without which salvation cannot be), but there a couple of things to consider:

1. St. Thomas does not believe that it is necessary by an absolute necessity, or he never would have taught that one may be sanctified (justified) before an explicit knowledge of Christ (e.g., certain "ignorant" children who reach the age of reason and turn their wills to God; and Cornelius)
2. It would appear that he holds to a necessity of infallibility, because he believes God wills that after the promulgation of the Gospel, every man who dies in a state of grace, also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ.

As our old friend Ludovicus wrote: "From the foregoing we can gather that when St. Thomas says explicit faith is necessary for salvation, he is using an extended sense of necessary, and not what people normally mean when they say that explicit faith is necessary for salvation."

"This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting."Sixth Session, Chapter VII)

tornpage wrote:Add to that the issue of "publicity," and the problem gets worse. Even if someone had the Catholic faith and then espoused a material heresy publicly by giving external manifestation to it by action or word they would lose it according to the "common opinion" according to Van Nort:

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership.

The Jew or Muslim never had it to begin with. A fortiori . . .
You're mixing apples and oranges. Van Noort's point has nothing to do with the possibility of sanctification and the invisible bonds of faith and charity that may exist even with the excommunicated. He is arguing solely from the point of ecclesiastical LAW.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:20 pm

From my blog:

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (On Catechesis), 1754, #1, 4: "We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even of those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently, they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments. [...] school-masters and mistresses should teach Christian doctrine; that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved."

"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.103, A.4 )

"If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is the result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief." (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.10, A.1. )

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, Q.14, A.11. )

"After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (Question 1, Article 8 ). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office." (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, A.7 )

"It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: 'Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'" (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, A.8 )

"Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people." (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, A.8 )

The Athanasian Creed, infallibly declared at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed again at the Council of Trent:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session. 6, Chapter. 3, ex cathedra: "But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated."

In 1703 during the reign of Pope Clement XI when the missionary effort to the Amerindians was at its height, the Holy Office responded to an inquiry from the Bishop of Quebec: "Question. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing according to this remark of the Apostle: 'He that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder' (Heb. 11:16), from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ. Response. 'A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.'" (Denzinger. 2380).

To an additional query the Holy Office responded, "that even an adult Indian at the point of death, must make an act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation before he could be baptized." (Denzinger. 2381)

"We also learn from Christ and his Church, that the explicit faith in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of the Son of God is also required as a necessary means of salvation." (Father Muller, The Catholic Dogma, page 10)

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

"It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."


Last edited by Jehanne on Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:21 pm

Jehanne wrote:Indeed, I think that burning obstinate, unrepentant heretics at the stake was the supreme act of mercy.
I don't think such "acts of mercy" would be entirely appropriate for these times, though perhaps we could get a special dispensation to have a roast for certain members of this forum.

HA!!!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:25 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Indeed, I think that burning obstinate, unrepentant heretics at the stake was the supreme act of mercy.
I don't think such "acts of mercy" would be entirely appropriate for these times, though perhaps we could get a special dispensation to have a roast for certain members of this forum.

HA!!!

The judgments of the Inquisitions were judicial sentences and punishments. Many, perhaps, will regret living during "these times." Time will, of course, tell.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:14 am

Mike,

I am familiar with the argument that you make, which seems to be drawn from one of Ludovicus's arguments on his blog: http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/st-thomas-aquinas-on-salvation-by.html

It's an interesting argument, but I think it has some holes we can talk about if you want to, though I think that would be best in a separate thread, and I'll tell you why.

Lud ends his discussion thus:

This comparison is very helpful when looking at the necessity of explicit faith for salvation. Obviously St. Thomas does not believe that it is necessary by an absolute necessity, both because men before Christ were saved without it, and also because men after Christ can be justified, and made fit for heaven without it. However, he seems to hold a necessity of infallibility, insofar as God intends that after the advent of Christ, every man who dies justified also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ.

From the foregoing we can gather that when St. Thomas says explicit faith is necessary for salvation, he is using an extended sense of necessary, and not what people normally mean when they say that explicit faith is necessary for salvation.

Necessity of "infallibility" (not quite sure what that means, but it sounds like it would be supportive of my argument), "extended sense of necessity" - it doesn't really matter.

The point is, as far as St. Thomas's thought goes:

God intends that after the advent of Christ, every man who dies justified also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ.

That is essentially my argument: no man is saved [i.e., dies justified] without explicit faith in Christ in this, our Gospel age. St. Thomas agrees with me.

I do not want to waste time arguing over whether explicit faith is denominated an absolute necessity of means, a "necessity of infallibilty," or what not. I hope you agree and see what is essential here.

The bottom line: if St. Thomas and I are right, no man dies justified - is saved - who dies "without knowing Christ" [the Compendium of the Catechism] or "even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior" (JPII).

Capisce?






avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:28 am

You're mixing apples and oranges. Van Noort's point has nothing to do with the possibility of sanctification and the invisible bonds of faith and charity that may exist even with the excommunicated. He is arguing solely from the point of ecclesiastical LAW.

That appears to be a valid point in some sense (not quite sure), and if it is necessary to the argument, obviously it will have to be addressed in some detail. But the point of Van Nort is the loss of sanctification, not its initiation.

I could see its possible relevance as to a Prot or the Orthodox, who are baptized and have an explicit faith in Christ - when baptized as a child they would have become members. It would not be relevant to a Jew or a Muslim, for example, who were never members.

But as to the Prot or Orthodox who were members by baptism, I think it applies, whether you call it "ecclesial" law or not. When they by exterior act or word reject a Catholic dogma, that membership they had is lost, ignorance or culpability aside. They have lost the necessary faith.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:55 am

tornpage wrote:
You're mixing apples and oranges. Van Noort's point has nothing to do with the possibility of sanctification and the invisible bonds of faith and charity that may exist even with the excommunicated. He is arguing solely from the point of ecclesiastical LAW.

That appears to be a valid point in some sense (not quite sure), and if it is necessary to the argument, obviously it will have to be addressed in some detail. But the point of Van Nort is the loss of sanctification, not its initiation.
No, that is not the point. The point is the loss off good juridical standing in the Church; loss of "membership". This has nothing to do with some assumed loss of sanctification, unless the separation was due to apostasy, heresy or declared schism.

tornpage wrote:I could see its possible relevance as to a Prot or the Orthodox, who are baptized and have an explicit faith in Christ - when baptized as a child they would have become members. It would not be relevant to a Jew or a Muslim, for example, who were never members.
Granted.

tornpage wrote:But as to the Prot or Orthodox who were members by baptism, I think it applies, whether you call it "ecclesial" law or not. When they by exterior act or word reject a Catholic dogma, that membership they had is lost, ignorance or culpability aside. They have lost the necessary faith.
Objectively, yes. Of course, the Church is emphasizing subjective dispositions (perhaps evidenced by their piety and good-will; but by no means "certain") and one's orientation towards God to do His will in all things.

I think St. Augustine made this point in the citation I provided yesterday (the one Jehanne was so enthusiastic about because he thought it justified burning heretics at the stake, even though it refuted the very argument he seems to have forgotten he made).
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:25 am

“According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), 'to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted.' A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his 'spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord.' Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord’s command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (q. 10, a. 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q. 11, a. 3, ad 3)
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:00 am

Jehanne wrote:“According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), 'to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted.' A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his 'spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord.' Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord’s command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (q. 10, a. 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q. 11, a. 3, ad 3)
Quite so, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject matter and my particular arguments. Was this even directed at me?

When you are trying to make a point, why don't you just make the point by explaining the relevancy of your citation to a particular discussion.

Is this one of your dogmas by inference arguments?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Jehanne on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:09 am

No, my point is that people can make choices to believe in propositions that are false, and that the Catholic Church, for over 1500 years, could, through canonical proceedings, assess the interior state of a person's mind, much in the same way that modern courts use evidence to establish "hate crimes." In doing this, the Courts of Inquisitions could declare an individual to be a heretic, give that person a chance to recant and abjure his/her errors, and if such fails, abandon that individual to secular justice for execution.

Some baptized individuals are heretics. We know this to be so because the historical fact is that Catholic societies burned around 80,000 or so of these individuals over the course of 1,000 years.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:51 am

Hey guys, gotta run out for a while, but will return eventually (I always do).

Its nice to see this level of activity on the forum - good discussions!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:42 am

My signature line has what I think is an important statement as to the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation from the original 1582 Rheims New Testament (especially being a gloss on Hebrews 11:6, the verse used by those who argue for an "implicit faith" in Christ being sufficient). The Haydock commentary (on Romans 3:20 et seq.) is even more beautiful and eloquent, and also signals the necessity of "faith in Christ" after Christ's advent for salvation:

Now, at the coming of Christ, the justice of God, that is, the justice by which he made others just, and justified them, cannot be had without faith in Christ, and by the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, whom God hath proposed to all, both Gentiles and Jews, as a sacrifice of[3] propitiation for the sins of all mankind, by faith in his blood; that is, by believing in him, who shed his blood and died for us on the cross.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  tornpage on Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:47 am

Now, at the coming of Christ, the justice of God, that is, the justice by which he made others just, and justified them, cannot be had without faith in Christ, and by the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, whom God hath proposed to all, both Gentiles and Jews, as a sacrifice of[3] propitiation for the sins of all mankind, by faith in his blood; that is, by believing in him, who shed his blood and died for us on the cross.

I want to make the same observation as to the point made in the Haydock commentary here that I make with regard to the Council of Trent, where it says that, since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without . . .

To the proponents of "implicit faith" being salvific now I say if that is the case the distinction made by the Haydock commentary is a false and meaningless distinction, just like the distinction made by the Council of Trent regarding how justification is effected since the promulgation of the Gospel.

I believe St. Thomas said that faith in Christ was always necessary for salvation, but that it could be implicit before the promulgation of the Gospel. If the "now" of the Haydock commentary, and the "since the promulgation of the Gospel" of Trent means anything, I say that implicit faith, now, since the advent of Christ and the promulgation of the Gospel, is no longer sufficient, and that explicit faith is necessary.



avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  columba on Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:42 pm

Tornpage wrote:
I believe St. Thomas said that faith in Christ was always necessary for salvation, but that it could be implicit before the promulgation of the Gospel. If the "now" of the Haydock commentary, and the "since the promulgation of the Gospel" of Trent means anything, I say that implicit faith, now, since the advent of Christ and the promulgation of the Gospel, is no longer sufficient, and that explicit faith is necessary.

I agree for the simple reason that it don't make sense any other way.
All the holy men of Old Testament times would have had explicit faith in Christ if they had lived A.D. otherwise it could not be said that they had implicit faith.

One might ask, What of those who have yet to hear the Gospel proclaimed? Would implicit faith be enough for them?
My answer would be (based on accounts in Acts and actual events since) that God will provide (even miraculously) a messenger of the Gospel for all the predestined.

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Explicit/Implicit Faith according to JAT

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum