Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Jehanne is emphasizing "communicated" in the Trent quote. No one to whom Christ "communicates" the merits of His Passion is in the dark about His Passion - you know, is one of those described as "without knowing" or "without recognizing" Christ.

Jehanne makes perfect sense to me here.

What is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied. Nowhere does Trent say this and St. Thomas Aquinas specifically refutes this assertion by insisting that the pagan child in the woods who reaches the age of reason can be justified without an explicit faith in our Lord. He also teaches that Cornelius was justified by His faith in God without an explicit faith in our Lord, and before his Baptism.

Are you ready to follow the St. Benedict Center doctrine that says in effect: "that particular form of sanctifying grace under the law of grace (since the promulgation of the Gospel) is NOT a true justification because it cannot make one a true heir to the kingdom until it finds it fulfillment in Baptism and an act of explicit faith" road?

It appears that way.

Our Lord will apply the merit of His redemption to whomever He so chooses, and if He applies His merit and abides in a faith-filled soul whose Love of God and resolute desire to do His will is good enough for our Lord in certain circumstances, it is good enough for me - because the Church says so.

Are you ready to follow the St. Benedict Center doctrine that says in effect: "that particular form of sanctifying grace under the law of grace (since the promulgation of the Gospel) is NOT a true justification because it cannot make one a true heir to the kingdom until it finds it fulfillment in Baptism and an act of explicit faith" road?

It appears that way

This follows a quote where I say I understood Jehanne's point. You are getting the above from my saying I understood Jehanne's statement? If not, why do you quote it?

because the Church says so.

Where?

Are you ready to follow the St. Benedict Center doctrine that says in effect: "that particular form of sanctifying grace under the law of grace (since the promulgation of the Gospel) is NOT a true justification because it cannot make one a true heir to the kingdom until it finds it fulfillment in Baptism and an act of explicit faith" road?

It appears that way

No. I am saying that no one is saved without explicit faith in Christ and baptism. That of necessity means that I do not believe anyone dies in a state of justification without explicit faith and baptism.

I do not believe Trent Session VI, Chapter IV says that one can be justified without explicit faith in Christ.

Tornpage,

Jehanne said that the Catholic Church (along with certain Doctors and theologians) may not understand the Athanasian Creed because:

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."

You said:

Jehanne is emphasizing "communicated" in the Trent quote. No one to whom Christ "communicates" the merits of His Passion is in the dark about His Passion - you know, is one of those described as "without knowing" or "without recognizing" Christ.

Jehanne makes perfect sense to me here.

But that is really troubling because Jeahnne seems to want to emphasize “communicated” in the sense of communicating a truth, rather than in its true sense as the application or bestowal of the merit of Christ’s passion in sanctifying grace (through Christ); by which the justified are re-born and translated into the kingdom. That is precisely what Sess. 6, Ch. 3 is “communicating”; so I don’t see the connection between this dogmatic declaration and your assertion that:

“No one to whom Christ "communicates" the merits of His Passion is in the dark about His Passion - you know, is one of those described as "without knowing" or "without recognizing" Christ.

I can't follow Jehanne, and Ch. 3 does not say what you allege; but hold that thought; I need a clarification to your response to the following question:

“Are you ready to follow the St. Benedict Center doctrine that says in effect: 'that particular form of sanctifying grace under the law of grace (since the promulgation of the Gospel) is NOT a true justification because it cannot make one a true heir to the kingdom until it finds it fulfillment in Baptism and an act of explicit faith'?"

Your reply:

I am saying that no one is saved without explicit faith in Christ and baptism. That of necessity means that I do not believe anyone dies in a state of justification without explicit faith and baptism.

Wait, I’m confused. Are you saying that it is possible to be justified without an explicit faith in our Lord (e.g., the pagan child who reaches the age of reason, or Cornelius), but that this form of justification under the law of grace cannot communicate the merit of Christ’s Passion until an act of explicit faith and the reception of Baptism - which must be realized before death - or there is no true justification - and never was if death occurs without benefit of these two "essentials"?

If so, isn’t this the same as saying that this “unfilled” form of justification is not a “true” justification under the law of grace because it cannot truly translate a soul into the Kingdom (as a true heir to the kingdom)?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up – as it is, I’m having a hard time following what appears to be a contradiction, or at least an inconsistency.

Tornpage wrote:

I do not believe Trent Session VI, Chapter IV says that one can be justified without explicit faith in Christ.

Then it must say that one can only be justified with an explicit faith in Christ. Perhaps you can show us where it says this?

Wait, I’m confused. Are you saying that it is possible to be justified without an explicit faith in our Lord . . .

Yes, you are confused.

I said:

I do not believe Trent Session VI, Chapter IV says that one can be justified without explicit faith in Christ.

The only means of justification after the promulgation of the Gospel are those indicated in Session VI, Chapter IV.

Then it must say that one can only be justified with an explicit faith in Christ. Perhaps you can show us where it says this?

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.

Mike,

When are you going go start answering some of my questions?

For starters:

what is disputed is that this “necessity of infallibility” is itself infallible, such that the Church would fall into error (heresy) by denying an article of faith if she taught (as she does) that in certain circumstances one may be justified and saved through that faith without which it “is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.

”


Are you saying the Church taught against the "common opinion" of the theologians that explicit faith was necessary? How could an opinion against the Church's opinion be "common"?

And also, again, where does the Church teach this - assuming you are saying that she teaches justification without explicit faith in Christ after the promulgation of the Gospel?

LOL I like this! War of the " Titans" Tornpage and MRyan LOL

Re: Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?
MRyan on Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:17 pm

.Lionel,

I have never found your “de facto, de jure” arguments entirely convincing because, it seems to me, they miss the mark by overstating certain principles that can be applied to almost any doctrine on faith and morals.

For example, we can say that at least some Baptized members of this forum will be saved (we pray all will be saved); but, since particular cases of salvation cannot be known de facto to anyone other than God, salvation can only be KNOWN de jure. In other words, we can only say de jure (practically speaking) that some members will be saved de facto. But we can also say the same for some non-Catholic members of this forum.

What we cannot say is that any one individual WILL be or HAS been saved (de facto), unless it is revealed as a dogmatic fact (i.e., canonization). That one appears to have died in the good graces of the Church cannot be known de facto.

Let me give you one more example. It is a dogma of the faith that no one can be saved, not even the Baptized, without the gift of final persevering grace. This is de facto, no exceptions. What you say about baptism of desire can be applied here: “They must realize that [final perseverance] can never be known de facto and since it is dejure, known only to God”.

Why you seem to believe the case is different (de jure) for those who may be saved by baptism of desire vs someone who dies as a formal member of the Church (de facto) is puzzling; but suggests to me that by making such a misleading distinction you are calling into question the Church’s authentic magisterial teaching that ASSURES us that someone who dies without having recourse to the sacrament through no fault of their own WILL be saved (de facto) provided they possess the requisite faith, charity and intention (and persevere).

What you seem to be saying is that it is the teaching itself which is called into question as if it is a “practical” de jure teaching that may or not be true, when in fact it is true de facto by the authority of the ecclesia docens, and the Church expects us to accept it as true; Feeneyite objections notwithstanding, and regardless of whether we can know de facto that any one individual died in a state of grace (we can't).

What Feeneites have done is to elevate the sacrament of baptism to a de facto condition for salvation in the same way that persevering grace is absolutely necessary for salvation. While your misapplied principles and Jehanne’s “null sets” (there is no difference) may be laudable in that they seeks to reconcile the Feeneyite doctrine with the Church’s teaching on baptism of desire, they avoid the larger doctrinal issue, which, as the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center tells us, is this:

Feeneyism denies the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire by stating quite clearly that the justification defined by Trent (by “the desire thereof”) is not a true justification in that it cannot translate anyone into a true heir to the Kingdom without water baptism.

This is the heart of the matter; and as soon as friend and foe alike realizes this, we are just spinning our wheels with de jure explanations.
.
MRyan

Mryan

they miss the mark by overstating certain principles that can be applied to almost any doctrine on faith and morals.

I am applying it in the sense of philosophy and simple reasoning and not theology.
We all agree that none of us knows any specific case of the baptism of desire in the present times. De facto we do not know any case.

De facto and dejure are secular words found in secular dictionaries.

It's simple. We don't know any de facto case.

Feeneyism denies the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire by stating quite clearly that the justification defined by Trent (by “the desire thereof”) is not a true justification in that it cannot translate anyone into a true heir to the Kingdom without water baptism

.

De jure in principle the salvific efficiacy of the baptism of desire is denied , to rephrase what you have said, in hypothetical cases and this is what is accepted in principle as a concept.
De facto we do not know any such case.

So on the main issue we agree :
1. Every one needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation and 2. We accept dejure, in principle, that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire, followed by the baptism of water. De facto we do not know any particular case.
In Christ
Lionel

MRyan says
No, the St. Benedict Center says there is no baptism of desire in the sense that there is no salvific baptism of desire …

They have a definition of the baptism of desire which mentions two conditions, that I remember off hand.
1. Charity and the 2. Desire.

So they ackowledge that in certain cases and in certain circumstances there could be an exceptional person with that charity and desire, the right conditions for God to act and to take the next step to save him.

So there is a baptism of desire according to the St.Benedict Center and its conditions are accepted in principle.

Mike some of these quotes are from the following article.

FR. FRANCESCO GIORDANO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

The Italian diocesan priest Fr. Francesco Giordano studying at the Holy Cross University, Rome and working for his doctorate on the subject extra ecclesiam nulla salus says he affirms the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.The ex cathedra dogma says all non Catholics, specifying, Jews, Protestants and Orthodox Christians needing to formally enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, which has fire.

One can affirm Cantate Domino which indicates everyone with no exception, de facto needs to enter the Church and, at the same time believe de jure; in principle, a non Catholic can be saved implicitly (baptism of desire etc) and it would be known only to God.

However Fr. Giordano’s position on 1) Fr. Leonard Feeney and 2) Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II is not clear. He seems to contradict the dogma on these two points. Though, he told me at the Church Santa Maria di Nazareth, Boccea, Rome that he affirms Cantate Domino.


Fr. Giordano, who has studied at the University of Chicago, is a young priest fluent in English and Italian. He received his Licentiate from the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome and the subject of his thesis there was outside the church there is no salvation.

Like St. Thomas Aquinas if one uses the defacto-dejure analysis it is possible to hold the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma and also affirm the baptism of desire (Council of Trent) and so not be considered a heretic. It does not have to be an either-or position i.e. the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the baptism of desire.


Fr. Giordano believes Cantate Domino is compatible with Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Magisterial documents.

Here is Cantate Domino.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” -Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org

St. Thomas Aquinas affirms the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church." (Summa Theologica)

St. Thomas also says that there can be the man in the forest in invincible ignorance.

De Veritate, 14. : “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

St. Thomas Aquinas is saying:

1. So de facto everyone on earth needs to enter the Church for salvation an there are no exceptions.De jure (in principle) there can be a person in invincible ignorance who can be saved.

Here we have no contradiction of the Principle of Non Contradiction.

2. St. Thomas Aquinas is saying for others :

De facto everyone on earth needs to enter the Church for salvation but there are de facto exceptions that we can know of (invincible ignorance etc). So everyone needs to enter the Church except for ….

This is a contradiction of the Principle of Non Contradiction and irrational (defacto-defacto) .It is the political position of the secular media and the Angelicum, Gregorian and Opus Dei University in Rome.

Fr. Giordano agrees with the first (1) interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However is he free to express it in his doctorate?

It would mean Lumen Gentium 16 does not say that we know of cases of non Catholics saved in the present times in invincible ignorance. If the Lumen Gentium text does not make this claim and rationally we cannot know any such case, then Vatican Council II does not contradict Cantate Domino - and we are back to the centuries-old interpretation.

Would the Opus Dei University accept this doctoral thesis?

We do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire (baptism of desire). We don’t know any specific case. So we can accept baptism of desire and invincible ignorance only in principle. We can know it only as a concept.

We can never know any such case in reality. We cannot meet someone who has been saved with baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. So it is never de facto; real, as is the baptism of water. The baptism of water is repeatable and visible. It is de facto.

So when we refer to the baptism of desire it is always de jure (in principle, acceptable). It can never be known in reality.

If it is not de facto to us it does not contradict Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)

So de facto Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are needed for all for salvation, with no exception.

While de jure, in principle, there can be persons known to God only who can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance (in the manner known to God).

So affirming the baptism of desire etc does not conflict with the interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus according to Fr. Leonard Feeney. Fr.Leonard Feeney taught de facto everyone with no exception needed to enter the Church for salvation and de facto or de jure we do not know any case of the baptism of desire.

There is no de facto or de jure baptism of desire (implicit salvation) that we can know of as humans.

It is never de facto and so never in conflict with the dogma.

There can be a baptism of desire de facto known to God but it can never be defacto for us.

So the baptism of desire can never be known de facto and can only be accepted in principle I repeat. Since it can never be defacto known to us it does not oppose the dogmatic teaching. Since one accepts it in principle; as a possibility, one cannot be called a heretic. I cannot be called a heretic for rejecting the baptism of desire. I do not. I accept it in principle as a possibility known de facto only to God.Neither can I be called a heretic for affirming Cantate Domino. Since it refers to de facto everyone needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water the same as Ad Gentes 7 and it is not in conflict with the Council of Trent's reference to the baptism of desire(implicit and dejure).

Since one is defacto and the other de jure it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction as would a defacto-defacto irrational analysis.

We cannot know any case of implicit salvation i.e. baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, good conscience, partial communion with the Church as it is never de facto known to us. So it is not opposed to the dogma which indicates everyone needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation. The dogma says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal, de facto member of the Church for salvation. Everyone de facto needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

Probably if Fr.Giordanao knew the truth on this subject and wrote it in his thesis , the Angelicum would not permit him to receive a Licentiate. They would not even approve the subject for ‘research’. At the Opus Dei University Fr. Francesco has chosen a seemingly harmless aspect of outside the Church the church there is no salvation. He will focus on a specific time period of the dogma and with reference to St. Thomas Aquinas.

Imagine him telling the professor at the Angelicum that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. The Letter referred to the ‘dogma’. The text of the dogma, Cantate Domino above, has the same message as Fr. Leonard Feeney; the Church teaches ‘infallibly’ that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. So how could Fr. Leonard Feeney could be excommunicated for heresy as the media and the Angelicum claim? Would they allow him to continue ?

Imagine him telling the professor at the Angelicum that there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.

Even now at the Holy Cross University can he challenge his professors to point out any text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino?

Similar errors as at the Angelicum are also being taught at the Opus Dei University. He could have to provide ‘research’ which is politically acceptable.
A common error at the Catholic Universities and traditionalist priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX),supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney and sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery are:

They say there is no baptism of desire. They are correct there is no known case of a person saved with the baptism of desire. De facto in reality we don’t know any such case. So in this sense the vague phrase’ there is no baptism of desire’ is correct.

However in its nature, the baptism of desire can never be defacto for us. In its very nature, since it is known only to God; there is no de facto d baptism of desire for us.

It is only de facto for God and for us humans a concept, a possibility, acceptable in principle (de jure).

So the Most Holy Family Monastery(sedevacantist websites) reject the baptism of desire since they assume it is de facto and so contradicts the dogma Cantate Domini.

It would be contrary to the principle of Non Contradiction for the sedevacantist websites’s Dimond Brothers to accept a baptism of desire, which is, defacto for them. They must realize that the baptism of desire can never be known de facto and since it is dejure, known only to God, it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. So I can affirm Cantate Domino and also the baptism of desire (de jure, a possibility). This is not heresy as the sedevacantist websites would claim, since in principle I accept the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire.

How does the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate at Boccea, where Fr. Francesco lives, respond to this issue? Fr. Francesco offers the Tridentine Mass at the Church there and often hears Confession.

The Parish Priest is Fr. Settimo Manelli FFI (Tel: 06-6156091 06-6156091 E-mail: santamariadinazareth@gmail.com ).I have been sending some of these posts on this blog, to Fr.Settimo and to Fr. John Francesco FFI, an American priest of the community who also lives at Boccea. Here there are some 30 Friars many of whom study Philosophy at the seminary in Boccea.They are taught by Fr. John Francesco and the other FFI priests. I would like them to answer these four questions about the Catholic Faith.

1. Do they hold to the ‘teachings ‘of the Church according to the media (New York Times, Boston Globe, Reuters etc) or according to Magisterial texts, on the subject of extra eccleisam nulla salus?

2. Do they interpret Vatican Council II and Fr. Leonard Feeney as an exception to Cantate Domino or do they see Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949, affirming Cantate Domino?

3. There can be no Tridentine Rite Mass without extra eccleisam nulla salus. To reject an ex cathedra dogma, in the name of Vatican Council II or whatever is heresy. It’s a mortal sin ?

4. Can we personally know cases of non Catholics saved in the present times with a good conscience, the Word of God, in partial communion with the Church etc?

Fr. Francesco Giordano who lives with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate at Boccea affirms Cantate Domino and the baptism of desire. So he cannot be called a heretic. This has been a sad controversy in the Church. He affirms Cantate Domino and Vatican Council II. I am sure other priests will also follow him.
-Lionel Andrades

tornpage wrote:

MRyan wrote: Wait, I’m confused. Are you saying that it is possible to be justified without an explicit faith in our Lord . . .

Yes, you are confused.

I said:

I do not believe Trent Session VI, Chapter IV says that one can be justified without explicit faith in Christ.

The only means of justification after the promulgation of the Gospel are those indicated in Session VI, Chapter IV.

MRyan wrote: Then it must say that one can only be justified with an explicit faith in Christ. Perhaps you can show us where it says this?

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.

If am confused, it is because I am having a hard time following the consistency of your arguments since 1), Session VI, Chapter IV does not say that an explicit faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for Justification through Christ; and 2), You seem to want to ignore St. Thomas and his specific teaching on justification for the pagan child who reaches the age of reason, and Cornelius; both of whom are/was translated to a state of justification as a son of God and heir to the kingdom with only an implicit faith in our Lord, even if, as St. Thomas taught, God would not fail to provide for the fullness of truth by revealing the essential mysteries of our Lord, even by internal inspiration.

Since you say that no one (adult) can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ¸ I can only assume that you reject his teaching where St. Thomas refutes this assertion. And if that is correct, I can only wonder why you are so selective in your adherence to St. Thomas, while rashly elevating his “necessity of infallibility” to some “infallible” precept of intrinsic necessity, at least it appears to me.

Why else would you accuse the Church of "error" as if she is opposed to her own Creed?

So perhaps you can indulge this confused old man and explain where the confusion lies, with you, with St. Thomas, or with me? Obviously, St. Thomas does not agree with you when you say that the “desire” in baptism of desire “must include explicit faith in Christ, otherwise there's no difference between those who, like Adam … lived before the gospel promulgation, and those living now, since.”

The essential difference of course, as St. Thomas understood, lies in the fact of the Redemption itself, not necessarily in his well-grounded opinion that once the Redemption was revealed, all men are bound to an explicit faith. Even in the pre-Gospel era, some men had an explicit faith; with the numbers increasing the closer they were to the revelation of the Gospel. However, by the very fact that there are souls (since the promulgation) who are in invincible ignorance of the mysteries of Christ does not mean, as St. Thomas also understood, that one must necessarily possess an explicit Faith in order to be justified by faith (Heb. 11/6); but only that these mysteries would eventually be revealed prior to death (of the elect).

I’ll answer your question about the “common opinion”, shortly.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:I know, I know; “Thank goodness the Holy Ghost shut down the Council before an attempt was made to incorporate this heresy into the dogmatic texts!”

And this is always followed by the story of St. Anthony Mary Claret who suffered a stroke at the Council for having to listen to the errors of the liberals assembled therein. Actually, as Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira writes (from his Saint of the Day):

Seeing many liberal Bishops opposing the matter of Papal Infallibility that was being discussed, he [St. Anthony Mary Claret] became indignant and strongly censured them in a speech. Hearing the errors being spoken on this topic, he was so overcome with indignation that the blood rushed to his head and he suffered a stroke from which he never recovered. He died some months later.

Oh, Papal Infallibility and those “liberal” inopportunists. Well, that’s close enough to justify painting a wide swath with the old “modernist” brush.

What?!! There were bishops who did not believe in Papal Infallibility? So, that proves that Papal Infallibility is false, right? You can "quote mine" schemas, bishops, and theologians from any Church Council to justify any position that you want to hold. Can you find any Bishop at Vatican I who believed in explicit faith?

Jehanne, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that the point was lost on you. The point is that those who have tried to paint the “inopportunists” with the same “modernist” brush of the “salvation liberals” missed the mark; for the prevailing mind of the Council’s (VC1) non-rigorist interpretation of justifying faith (as it was reflected in the statement of Commission De Fide) had nothing to do with the mind of the “inopportunists” who opposed defining papal infallibility (many of whom could hardly be called “liberal” and were actually “rigorist” to a fault by insisting that the historical record did not support a tradition of personal papal infallibility … meaning they rejected any “implicit” recognition of the dogma).

For example, anyone who tries to paint the great defender of papal infallibility, Cardinal Manning, as a “salvation liberal” because he endorsed the works of Fr. Scheeben and the classic late 19th century theology manual based on his Dogmatik, paints with the same "liberal" brush both the defenders of traditional orthodoxy and “inopportunists”.

I can find many Bishops at Vatican I who believed in explicit faith; in fact all of them believed in explicit faith; but many of them, as we know, also believed that faith in our Lord could be implied in one’s supernatural faith in God, as the theology manuals taught, and as Pope Pius IX strongly suggested.

Of course, the theory (a conspiracy, for sure!) that has Pope Pius IX being unduly influenced by the "salvation liberal" and close adviser, Cardinal Perroni, always gets some traction when one realizes that the evidence weighs heavily in favor of Pope Pius IX accepting the "implicit faith" doctrine.

Jehanne wrote:
Was Father Muller wrong when he wrote these words (in 1888) after Vatican 1:

"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)

That depends on if his interpretation of “necessary means of salvation”. Baptism is also a necessary means of salvation, but its essential fruit can, under certain conditions, be “communicated” by faith, perfect charity and desire when the sacrament is prevented by some unforeseen necessity. In the same way, supernatural faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, and under certain conditions, the essential belief in our Lord may be implicit in one’s supernatural Faith in God, Who, “in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6) [Ad Gentes]; “for he that cometh to God [to serve Him] must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him."

Btw, Fr. Mueller (who taught both baptism of blood and baptism of desire) also taught that the invincibly ignorant can be saved through an invisible and virtual incorporation, and that supernatural Faith (in the essential Mysteries of our Lord) can be revealed via internal inspiration at the moment of death.

Now how is this so far removed from an implicit faith that does not result an act of conscious explicit faith in our Lord? Does the soul who receives an internal inspiration at the moment of death make an act of explicit faith that can be known to anyone? Doesn’t the act of “explicit faith” suggest a conscious belief? If that same faith manifests itself unconsciously as a soul passes into death¸ it doesn’t count as “right belief” in our Lord because it cannot result in an act of explicit faith (an external manifestation)?

Sometimes I think these arguments are not much different than arguing over how many angels can stand on the tip of a pin. The Church is simply saying that sometimes, God will save a soul who cannot make an act of explicit faith in our Lord (if God withholds this revelation prior to the death of someone who has been translated to justice through a supernatural faith and charity, He has a reason); but that does not mean that this same soul will not come to an explicit faith before his particular judgment and entrance into eternal beatitude. We are infallibly certain that every soul in heaven enjoys the fullness of the truth.

Since you say that no one (adult) can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ¸ I can only assume that you reject his teaching where St. Thomas refutes this assertion.

You have not established that St. Thomas refutes the assertion.

More importantly, it doesn't matter. I could be wrong in my reading of Session VI, Chapter IV, and it wouldn't matter to my argument that no one is saved without explicit faith in Christ in the Gospel age, which is a position St. Thomas and I share. Even Lud describes St. Thomas's position on explicit faith in Christ as being that it is necessary for salvation.

Hey, you can call it whatever you want - I do like "necessity of infallibility," since the elect's accession to efficacious grace is also a "necessity of infallibility" - as long as you call it "necessary."

You want to keep focusing on Cornelius (and it is by no means clear that he was justified without faith in Christ, whatever St. Thomas thought) and this "pagan child," whom St. Thomas merely used as an example that one could not, after coming to the use of reason, have venial sin without also having mortal sin. You're probably doggedly holding onto this example because it is the linchpin to some argument in the offing, I don't know. But what I do know is that the man that believed (according to you, and I guess Lud) Cornelius and the pagan child were justified without explicit faith in Christ also believed they could not be saved without explicit faith in Christ - and that is the essential point, once again.

However, by the very fact that there are souls (since the promulgation) who are in invincible ignorance of the mysteries of Christ does not mean, as St. Thomas also understood, that one must necessarily possess an explicit Faith in order to be justified by faith (Heb. 11/6); but only that these mysteries would eventually be revealed prior to death (of the elect).

Do you really what me to bring up the quote where St. Thomas says that the invincibly ignorant native or pagan (why don't we go with that in light of this "pagan" child) who did not have the gospel preached to him would receive the revelation of what was "necessary" via the medium of an angel, or preacher, or internal inspiration by the Holy Ghost Himself? No, you don't.

Or how about the quote where the invincibly ignorant pagan who did not have the opportunity of believing the gospel because it was not preached to him would, despite his lack of fault under those circumstances, still be denied the Beatific Vision because he lacked what only "faith" could remove, and would still therefore be barred from Paradise by sin? And doesn't that blow away you and Lud's argument about the "pagan" child would be saved if he died in his "justified" state without explicit faith (which you must be saying, otherwise it's irrelevant)

And you also don't need me to pull up the section from the Summa where St. Thomas says explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is "necessary."

So you have St. Thomas believing that explicit knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation was "necessary," and that God would ensure that the "ignorant native" came to knowledge of all that was "necessary" if he were to be saved by faith. You also have him saying that the invincibly ignorant pagan who didn't hear the gospel preached would still be damned by his lack of faith.

So . . . what is your point about the "invincibly ignorant pagan" again? And how does that point help you?

MRyan doesn't need me to post this, but it's helpful to have it up here anyway:

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Objection: It seems that man is not bound to believe anything explicitly. For no man is bound to do what is not in his power. Now it is not in man's power to believe a thing explicitly, for it is written (Rom. x. 14, 15): How shall they believe Him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent? Therefore man is not bound to believe anything explicitly. Reply: As regards the primary points or articles of the faith [such as on the Trinity and Incarnation], man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith [i.e., absolutely]; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is ready to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith. If we understand those things alone to be in a man's power, which we can do without the help of grace, then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and our neighbour, and likewise to believe the articles of faith. But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help to whomsoever it is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original sin, as Augustine states (De Corr. et Grat. v., vi.).” (Summa Theologica Second Part of the Second Part, Question 2, article 5)

The last sentence also shows how these things tie together, and how the elect's arrival at explicit faith links up with God's greater love for the elect, His gratuitous gift.

Two other pertinent passages from the masters:

St. Thomas Aquinas: “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)

St. Augustine

“If, according to the word of truth, no one is delivered from the condemnation which was incurred through Adam except through faith in Jesus Christ, and yet from this condemnation they shall not deliver themselves who shall be able to say that they have not heard the gospel of Christ, on the ground that ‘faith cometh by hearing,’ how much less shall they deliver themselves who shall say, “We have not received perseverance!” For the excuse of those who say, “We have not received hearing,” seems more equitable than that of those who say, “We have not received perseverance;” since it may be said, O man, in that which thou hadst heard and kept, in that thou mightest persevere if thou wouldest; but in no wise can it be said, That which thou hadst not heard thou mightest believe if thou wouldest. And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, and those who, having heard the gospel, have refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe on Him - since He Himself says, ‘No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father,’ - and those who by their tender age were unable to believe, but might be absolved from original sin by the sole laver of regeneration, and yet have not received this laver, and have perished in death: are not made to differ from that lump which it is plain is condemned, as all go from one into condemnation. Some are made to differ, however, not by their own merits, but by the grace of the Mediator; that is to say, they are justified freely in the blood of the second Adam.” (On Correction and Grace 11-12)

(From the retired theology professor)

"Dear Mr. Rogue,

Thanks.

I find pretty superficial the claim that my position implicitly denies God's omnipotence, and therefore, his existence. I'm not suggesting for a moment that because of "geographical" difficulties God was incapable or powerless for many centuries to get baptism to all those millions of American and African (etc.) natives. It is not a question of what God could or couldn't do, but rather, of what He did or didn't do. I am just noting the historical fact that he didn't make sacramental baptism available to all those millions until missionaries reached their countries and continents - often well over a millennium after the Law of Christ was promulgated. Therefore (if there is no baptism of desire) God did not will the salvation of any of those countless millions before missionaries arrived. And that, I am saying makes a sick joke or caricature of the biblical and Church teaching that God wills to save all men from the fires of hell, and so gives all of them the graces and means sufficient to escape that fate.

It would be like a school athletic coach who says, "I really, truly, want everyone in the class to be able to make it over this high-jump bar. If you guys train hard, with my help, you should all be able to accomplish this task by the end of the semester!" And then he sets the bar at 8 feet high. Not one in a million athletes could make that height no matter how long or hard they trained. Would anyone take this coach seriously?

I don't understand how you can say we "don't know" that these individuals weren't baptized. It's a known historical fact that that only Christians carry out Christian baptism, and it's equally well established historically that no Christian missionaries arrived in these lands for many centuries after Christ. So what I'm saying is a plain matter of history.

As regards the leniency of the CDF in allowing reconciliation of "Feeneyite" groups, two things need to be said.

First, you can't deduce the magisterial binding force of a given doctrine, or the lack thereof, from mere practical decisions made by a Roman Congregation. These decidedly non-infallible practical decisions may sometimes be too severe, or sometimes too slack and indulgent. The enforcement of church discipline can vary widely in its consistency and fairness, unfortunately, at all levels of the Church. What matters for purposes of deciding doctrine is what the relevant magisterial documents themselves say. And certainly no magisterial document has ever come out of Rome saying Catholics are free to deny baptism of desire and blood. On the contrary, as I said in my previous email, all the papally approved catechisms have included baptism of desire and baptism of blood as points of Catholic teaching that all the faithful are expected to assent to.

Second, it may be, for all we know, that the reconciliation granted by Rome to various St. Benedict Center communities is conditional upon their not taking a firm stance against baptism of desire and baptism of blood. For Fr. Feeney himself didn't take a firm or hard-line position against the reality of these emergency substitutes for sacramental baptism. According to his disciple and biographer, the late Bro. Thomas Mary Sennott,

"If a reporter had asked, 'What would you do if the Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before the reception of
Baptism, could be saved?' Father Feeney, I am sure, would have answered, 'I would submit immediately.' Father Feeney always considered
his position on Baptism of Desire an opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, but only an opinion. That is why he sent
copies of Bread of Life in which the following lecture 'The Waters of Salvation' is contained, to the Holy Father and to every Cardinal; he was
submitting his opinion to the judgment of the Church" (The Fought the Good Fight, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia, CA, 1987, p. 377.)

I don't know whether Fr. Feeney ever thought to take into account the Roman Catechism of St Pius V, and/or the Catechism of St. Pius X. Of course, he died long before the Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated. Maybe (who knows?) he would have renounced his opinion against baptism of desire on the cumulative authority of all three Catechisms I mentioned in my previous email.

Blessings,

Roguejim wrote:I don't understand how you can say we "don't know" that these individuals weren't baptized. It's a known historical fact that that only Christians carry out Christian baptism, and it's equally well established historically that no Christian missionaries arrived in these lands for many centuries after Christ. So what I'm saying is a plain matter of history.

This statement is false. As "anyone whatsoever" (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can validly baptize, anyone under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can validly baptize another; for an infant, of course, a valid Baptism is always a fruitful one. It's a "minor miracle," Jim; if you profess that Christ walked on water, then He could certainly reveal to someone, even a pagan in pre-Columbian North America, Africa, Australia, etc. how to validly baptize another. The St. Benedict Center has collected some of these examples, by the way.

As for angles baptizing, I do not know; they did other things, of course -- the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin, the comforting of our Lord in the garden, rolling the stone away and then sitting on it, etc.

Dear Mr. Rogue,

Thanks.

I find pretty superficial the claim that my position implicitly denies God's omnipotence, and therefore, his existence. I'm not suggesting for a moment that because of "geographical" difficulties God was incapable or powerless for many centuries to get baptism to all those millions of American and African (etc.) natives. It is not a question of what God could or couldn't do, but rather, of what He did or didn't do. I am just noting the historical fact that he didn't make sacramental baptism available to all those millions until missionaries reached their countries and continents - often well over a millennium after the Law of Christ was promulgated. Therefore (if there is no baptism of desire) God did not will the salvation of any of those countless millions before missionaries arrived. And that, I am saying makes a sick joke or caricature of the biblical and Church teaching that God wills to save all men from the fires of hell, and so gives all of them the graces and means sufficient to escape that fate.

Regarding those millions who hadn't received the Gospel, is it not a presumption to believe that many of these were most likely saved when in fact (as correctly stated) we do not know what God did or what God did not do?
To add to this, even if we were to assume that Baptism of desire actually does happen, it is (even among the majority of those who believe this) confined to those who are under instruction in the faith but die before they can receive the sacrament.
I agree that God does will the salvation of all and gives each one sufficient grace to achieve this but even so, many are lost by their own free will choices; like snowflakes falling into hell as the seers of Fatima put it. This is not my mere opinion but the common understanding of the Church doctors and scholars throughout the centuries and deduced even from Our Lords own teaching. This by no means makes a sick joke of what the Church believes regarding the salvific will of God; rather it shows more clearly the stubborn will of man in rejecting the remedies supplied by Gods mercy. Who is to say that those countless millions had no culpability in the matter of the Gospel not reaching them? We know from scripture and the teachings of the Church fathers that God can permit ungodly generations to be led astray by false teachers. How many of these peoples may have murdered the missionaries that were sent we can never tell.

It would be like a school athletic coach who says, "I really, truly, want everyone in the class to be able to make it over this high-jump bar. If you guys train hard, with my help, you should all be able to accomplish this task by the end of the semester!" And then he sets the bar at 8 feet high. Not one in a million athletes could make that height no matter how long or hard they trained. Would anyone take this coach seriously?

Of course no one would take this coach seriously. But the above analogy fails to take into account the possibility that the majority of the students may not even want to make an attempt at jumping a 2 feet bar; thus the instructor is blamed for the laziness of his students even though he tried everything possible to help them. To blame God for the people who were left to search in ignorance is to presume that God has a duty (in justice) to save all men and that the default position is that all men deserve heaven by right. If God condemned us all to hell He would still no less be acting justly. No matter what height God sets the bar it's always much lower than we deserve.

I don't understand how you can say we "don't know" that these individuals weren't baptized. It's a known historical fact that that only Christians carry out Christian baptism, and it's equally well established historically that no Christian missionaries arrived in these lands for many centuries after Christ. So what I'm saying is a plain matter of history.

This statement is most likely true but would not rule out miraculous intervention by God in bringing worthy souls (if there be any) to salvation.

The speculation concerning what Fr Feeney may or may not have accepted I will leave to the better informed Feeneyites on the forum.

Jim, some thoughts for the "retired theology professor."

Salvation, which depends upon supernatural faith and final perseverance, is a gratuitous gift from God. It is “due’ or owed to no man. Which is why the fact that God bestows it upon some and not others does not offend justice. As St. Thomas said, ““[i]n things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases – provided he deprives nobody of his due – without any infringement of justice” (Summa, Ia, q.23, a.5 ad 3um).

Under your scheme some men are given a chance at Paradise, the adults in those pagan lands who reach maturity and can avail themselves of baptism of desire, and others no chance at all, the infants who do not live long enough for that chance. It would appear that those infants are therefore deprived of “their due,” the chance that others have. If you tell me that is not what you are saying is due, then your whole argument for the existence of baptism of desire falls apart, since it is premised on the necessity, according to justice, of providing a chance for salvation to all men, since God wills the salvation of all (1 Timothy 2:4), your smooth attempt to qualify God's will for the salvation of all men to a will to save them "from the fires of hell" notwithstanding.

It is therefore your scheme which infringes justice by depriving a group of men (the infants in those lands who die before maturity) of their "due," the chance at salvation which you say God wills that all men have.

But this is a failing that others fall to. For example. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, in his book Predestination, says, "[w]hat is due to each one, what God refuses to nobody, is sufficient grace for salvation" (page 204-05). This is manifestly false, since infants who die without baptism do not receive this due.

Thinking about those infants who die before maturity in lands where they have no opportunity for baptism puts this matter in its proper light. We may conclude, historically and factually, that many infants died under such circumstances. Is the deprivation of the possibility of the only remedy that could obtain for them the Beatific Vision (Council of Florence) less “unjust” than the injustice that would result to adults in those lands if baptism of desire didn't exist?

If you think it is, please explain to me how? How is it “fair” or “just” for God to permit human souls to be conceived, born and die in infancy in lands where they will not have access to baptism, their sole remedy and only means to Paradise, as long as he gives those who come to maturity in those same lands the possibility of salvation without baptism by way of baptism of desire? Explain this type of “justice” to me if you can.

The fact is the human objection to millions living and dying in lands where the Gospel is not heard and baptism is unavailable is just that, a human objection that flies in the face of the truths of God’s Revelation, such as the gratuity of His election of some to salvation. In light of those truths, there is nothing “unjust” about the fact that God may bring forth His elect in certain geographical locations as opposed to others, and that he may provide the remedy (baptism) only in certain locations: "[i]n things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases – provided he deprives nobody of his due – without any infringement of justice." If He can give more or less without infringing justice, He could also give it where He wants without infringing justice. Or do geographical locations have claims to justice?

In God’s plan and design, in His Providence, some die and lose any chance of the Beatific Vision (the aforementioned infants) by the “chance” of geographical and temporal location. This is simply a datum of life. In my opinion, the argument that it would be unfair to another group (those who live to maturity in those same lands) if baptism of desire did not exist does not seem morally cogent to me under these circumstances, where innocent children are deprived of their only remedy and chance at Paradise.

If God's choice of who is to be saved is gratuitous and unmerited, and it is, as instanced by the fact that some infants receive baptism and others don't, the additional fact that the elect might be concentrated in one land mass rather than another does not trouble the conscience or present an additional fact that is particularly relevant in terms of morality or justice.

The argument from geography fails.

Jehanne wrote:

Roguejim wrote:I don't understand how you can say we "don't know" that these individuals weren't baptized. It's a known historical fact that that only Christians carry out Christian baptism, and it's equally well established historically that no Christian missionaries arrived in these lands for many centuries after Christ. So what I'm saying is a plain matter of history.

This statement is false. As "anyone whatsoever" (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can validly baptize, anyone under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can validly baptize another; for an infant, of course, a valid Baptism is always a fruitful one. It's a "minor miracle," Jim; if you profess that Christ walked on water, then He could certainly reveal to someone, even a pagan in pre-Columbian North America, Africa, Australia, etc. how to validly baptize another. The St. Benedict Center has collected some of these examples, by the way.

As for angles baptizing, I do not know; they did other things, of course -- the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin, the comforting of our Lord in the garden, rolling the stone away and then sitting on it, etc.

A reply from the prof:

"Mr. Rogue -

Of course, anyone can validly baptize, but the scenario being postulated here is really just a desperate flight of fancy.

I didn't say, "only Christians can carry out Christian baptism", which would be false, but "only Christians carry out Christian baptism", which in the present context is true, although to be more exact I guess I should have said, "only Christians would carry out Christian baptism". In other words, these hypothetical "natives" would presumaby not have received an inspiration of the Holy Spirit to baptize anyone unless they had also received the Gospel, at least in rudimentary form, by a previous inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to explain what baptism is and means. (Of course, the person being baptized would not be saved anyway unless he also had received the theological gift of faith in Christ from a similar direct inspiration.)

Now, either: (a) this sort of thing happened on a relatively large scale - with the initial direct inspiration to believe and baptize giving rise to whole tribes or communities becoming Christians prior to any missionary activity, or (b) it only happened in a few rare and isolated cases that did not give rise to any lasting Christian community.

Well, if (a) were true, we would expect some historical evidence or testimonies for this "spontaneous" evangelization and baptism of certain communities without missionaries. For example, we would have testimonies of missionaries arriving for the first time and finding baptized Christian communities already functioning, in which the people had preserved the oral or written tradition of how their initial conversion had come about by direct 'evangelization' from Heaven. Since there is no such historical evidence or testimonies (and since there is no indication in the sources of revelation that this sort of 'missionary-free' evangelization has ever been part of God's global plan of salvation), we must presume (a) is not true.

However, if (b) were true, it wouldn't do anything to answer the objection that the denial of baptism of desire turns the revealed truth of God's universal salvific will into a sick joke. If, among all those hundreds of mllions of pagans round the world who lived and died beween Pentecost and the first arrival of missionaries in their lands, the Holy Spirit directly inspired only a tiny handful of baptisms, the 'big picture' remains unaltered. A God who makes salvation possible for only one in a million of all those folks, while claiming he would like all of them to be saved, is still no more credible than a God who makes it possible for zero in a million, while making the same claim. In any case, of course, there is no more historical evidence that (b) ever took place than that (a) ever took place."

tornpage wrote:Jim, some thoughts for the "retired theology professor."

Salvation, which depends upon supernatural faith and final perseverance, is a gratuitous gift from God. It is “due’ or owed to no man. Which is why the fact that God bestows it upon some and not others does not offend justice. As St. Thomas said, ““[i]n things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases – provided he deprives nobody of his due – without any infringement of justice” (Summa, Ia, q.23, a.5 ad 3um).

Under your scheme some men are given a chance at Paradise, the adults in those pagan lands who reach maturity and can avail themselves of baptism of desire, and others no chance at all, the infants who do not live long enough for that chance. It would appear that those infants are therefore deprived of “their due,” the chance that others have. If you tell me that is not what you are saying is due, then your whole argument for the existence of baptism of desire falls apart, since it is premised on the necessity, according to justice, of providing a chance for salvation to all men, since God wills the salvation of all (1 Timothy 2:4), your smooth attempt to qualify God's will for the salvation of all men to a will to save them "from the fires of hell" notwithstanding.

It is therefore your scheme which infringes justice by depriving a group of men (the infants in those lands who die before maturity) of their "due," the chance at salvation which you say God wills that all men have.

But this is a failing that others fall to. For example. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, in his book Predestination, says, "[w]hat is due to each one, what God refuses to nobody, is sufficient grace for salvation" (page 204-05). This is manifestly false, since infants who die without baptism do not receive this due.

Thinking about those infants who die before maturity in lands where they have no opportunity for baptism puts this matter in its proper light. We may conclude, historically and factually, that many infants died under such circumstances. Is the deprivation of the possibility of the only remedy that could obtain for them the Beatific Vision (Council of Florence) less “unjust” than the injustice that would result to adults in those lands if baptism of desire didn't exist?

If you think it is, please explain to me how? How is it “fair” or “just” for God to permit human souls to be conceived, born and die in infancy in lands where they will not have access to baptism, their sole remedy and only means to Paradise, as long as he gives those who come to maturity in those same lands the possibility of salvation without baptism by way of baptism of desire? Explain this type of “justice” to me if you can.

The fact is the human objection to millions living and dying in lands where the Gospel is not heard and baptism is unavailable is just that, a human objection that flies in the face of the truths of God’s Revelation, such as the gratuity of His election of some to salvation. In light of those truths, there is nothing “unjust” about the fact that God may bring forth His elect in certain geographical locations as opposed to others, and that he may provide the remedy (baptism) only in certain locations: "[i]n things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases – provided he deprives nobody of his due – without any infringement of justice." If He can give more or less without infringing justice, He could also give it where He wants without infringing justice. Or do geographical locations have claims to justice?

In God’s plan and design, in His Providence, some die and lose any chance of the Beatific Vision (the aforementioned infants) by the “chance” of geographical and temporal location. This is simply a datum of life. In my opinion, the argument that it would be unfair to another group (those who live to maturity in those same lands) if baptism of desire did not exist does not seem morally cogent to me under these circumstances, where innocent children are deprived of their only remedy and chance at Paradise.

If God's choice of who is to be saved is gratuitous and unmerited, and it is, as instanced by the fact that some infants receive baptism and others don't, the additional fact that the elect might be concentrated in one land mass rather than another does not trouble the conscience or present an additional fact that is particularly relevant in terms of morality or justice.

The argument from geography fails.

I've presented your argument to the "professor". Waiting for a reply.

I

t would be like a school athletic coach who says, "I really, truly, want everyone in the class to be able to make it over this high-jump bar. If you guys train hard, with my help, you should all be able to accomplish this task by the end of the semester!" And then he sets the bar at 8 feet high. Not one in a million athletes could make that height no matter how long or hard they trained. Would anyone take this coach seriously?

You have to love this analogy.

As St. Thomas says, to everyone who does what he can, i.e. follows the promptings of the sufficient graces given to all men, God will provide what is "necessary" for salvation. It is as logical to conclude that none of the men in those lands complied with those promptings - in light of the professor's assumption that none received baptism - as it is to conclude that water baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, that the remedy of baptism of desire exists. To me this is not outrageous, considering the customs and traditions many of these men lived under, which included things like the sacrificial offerings of other human beings and various offensive customs.

Poor retired prof - men can jump the eight foot bar. That none do in fact is why the coach throws some over, which is due to none . . . so His selection of who to throw over, being entirely gratuitous, does not offend justice.

I think the prof should merely say, "the Church taught baptism of desire for centuries." There's no other real reason that necessitates one to accept it.

But this is a lot of fun.

Roguejim wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

Roguejim wrote:I don't understand how you can say we "don't know" that these individuals weren't baptized. It's a known historical fact that that only Christians carry out Christian baptism, and it's equally well established historically that no Christian missionaries arrived in these lands for many centuries after Christ. So what I'm saying is a plain matter of history.

This statement is false. As "anyone whatsoever" (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can validly baptize, anyone under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can validly baptize another; for an infant, of course, a valid Baptism is always a fruitful one. It's a "minor miracle," Jim; if you profess that Christ walked on water, then He could certainly reveal to someone, even a pagan in pre-Columbian North America, Africa, Australia, etc. how to validly baptize another. The St. Benedict Center has collected some of these examples, by the way.

As for angles baptizing, I do not know; they did other things, of course -- the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin, the comforting of our Lord in the garden, rolling the stone away and then sitting on it, etc.

A reply from the prof:

"Mr. Rogue -

Of course, anyone can validly baptize, but the scenario being postulated here is really just a desperate flight of fancy.

I didn't say, "only Christians can carry out Christian baptism", which would be false, but "only Christians carry out Christian baptism", which in the present context is true, although to be more exact I guess I should have said, "only Christians would carry out Christian baptism". In other words, these hypothetical "natives" would presumaby not have received an inspiration of the Holy Spirit to baptize anyone unless they had also received the Gospel, at least in rudimentary form, by a previous inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to explain what baptism is and means. (Of course, the person being baptized would not be saved anyway unless he also had received the theological gift of faith in Christ from a similar direct inspiration.)

Now, either: (a) this sort of thing happened on a relatively large scale - with the initial direct inspiration to believe and baptize giving rise to whole tribes or communities becoming Christians prior to any missionary activity, or (b) it only happened in a few rare and isolated cases that did not give rise to any lasting Christian community.

Well, if (a) were true, we would expect some historical evidence or testimonies for this "spontaneous" evangelization and baptism of certain communities without missionaries. For example, we would have testimonies of missionaries arriving for the first time and finding baptized Christian communities already functioning, in which the people had preserved the oral or written tradition of how their initial conversion had come about by direct 'evangelization' from Heaven. Since there is no such historical evidence or testimonies (and since there is no indication in the sources of revelation that this sort of 'missionary-free' evangelization has ever been part of God's global plan of salvation), we must presume (a) is not true.

However, if (b) were true, it wouldn't do anything to answer the objection that the denial of baptism of desire turns the revealed truth of God's universal salvific will into a sick joke. If, among all those hundreds of mllions of pagans round the world who lived and died beween Pentecost and the first arrival of missionaries in their lands, the Holy Spirit directly inspired only a tiny handful of baptisms, the 'big picture' remains unaltered. A God who makes salvation possible for only one in a million of all those folks, while claiming he would like all of them to be saved, is still no more credible than a God who makes it possible for zero in a million, while making the same claim. In any case, of course, there is no more historical evidence that (b) ever took place than that (a) ever took place."

Jim,

I wish that I would have known that you were going to share my post with others, even if that was going to be in private. I would have checked my spellings more carefully. Of course, angles cannot baptized, but angels almost certainly can. (Damn spell checker!)

You're friend is an atheist, or certainly acts like one, and please let him know that. The late Professor Carl Sagan, an agnostic, had a wonderful quote (which he "borrowed"):

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Does your theological friend believe in ensoulment -- Yes or No, and please ask him? If so, is that a miracle? If so, why? If not, why not? Please ask him to explain. If he does profess and believe that we have souls, does he believe that such occurs on a large scale or does he believe that the pre-missionary natives are "soulless"? And, if the One and Triune God is capable of giving the pre-missionary natives souls, why is He "incapable" of securing their Baptisms in their infancies?

As for "the person being baptized would not be saved anyway unless he also had received the theological gift of faith in Christ from a similar direct inspiration," such is manifestly false, and if your friend believes this, then he is a heretic. (Please let him know that I said that.) As I pointed out before,

For an infant, a valid Baptism is always a fruitful one.

If you do not believe this, Jim, then I am through talking with you or your "friends."

As I point out on my blog, the following two propositions can never, ever be disproved:

1) It is impossible to prove that any particular individual was not sacramentally Baptized in water at some time during that person's infancy.

2) It is impossible to prove that a person who was sacramentally Baptized in water during his/her infancy will not (or has not) receive (received) salutary repentance at the moment of his/her own death.

And, of course, what the One and Triune God can do for one, He can also do for many.

It's not that the One and Triune God could not use "extraordinary means" to save someone; it's that He does not have to do so! And, since we know that God is a Perfect Being, it stands to reason that He will use the "ordinary means" that He has revealed to us to bring salvation to His elect. By the way, ask your friend what he thinks of the North American Indians who "slow roasted" Catholic missionaries. Does he think that such individuals "rejected" the Gospel?

Invite him to this board; I would love to eviscerate his "arguments." Like so many modernistic academics, he is, no doubt, far too arrogant to take-up my offer. Finally, ask him what historical evidence that he has for the existence of angels (or even "angles.")

As for "the person being baptized would not be saved anyway unless he also had received the theological gift of faith in Christ from a similar direct inspiration," such is manifestly false, and if your friend believes this, then he is a heretic. (Please let him know that I said that.) As I pointed out before,

For an infant, a valid Baptism is always a fruitful one.

Well, let's just say there's a huge lacuna in the professors theology book: the chapter dealing with the salvation of infants who die before maturity, whose faith is supplied by the Church and his godparents via the sacrament of baptism. Although I can't remember mine so I can't entirely dismiss the notion of a "direct inspiration."

The world is going berserk, has been since the Prot reformation and those wonderful revolutions, my country's and France's. The "equality" movement has even caused the Church to lose hold on the principle of predilection, which is "the will to effect in a particular person and by means of him in preference to a certain other, this salutary good by which such a person will actually merit and attain eternal life" (Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, page 47). As he says St. Thomas and St. Augustine beleived, " 'no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than another. ' " (Ibid., page 335, citing the Summa). He concludes, "thi[s] principle of predilection that dominates all these problems, virtually contains the whole doctrine of predestination and the efficacy of grace to which our Lord refers when He says: 'No one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father.' " (Page 335-6).

It's easy to hold onto that principle in a world where there are kings and peasants, and to teach it when you think a society ordered into kings and peasants is rightly ordered.

As the pope said before he was pope, the whole Vat II regime is an updating of the faith according to the principles of the French Revolution.

And we wonder where things went wrong?

tornpage wrote:

As for "the person being baptized would not be saved anyway unless he also had received the theological gift of faith in Christ from a similar direct inspiration," such is manifestly false, and if your friend believes this, then he is a heretic. (Please let him know that I said that.) As I pointed out before,

For an infant, a valid Baptism is always a fruitful one.

Well, let's just say there's a huge lacuna in the professors theology book: the chapter dealing with the salvation of infants who die before maturity, whose faith is supplied by the Church and his godparents via the sacrament of baptism. Although I can't remember mine so I can't entirely dismiss the notion of a "direct inspiration."

You can't have your "rationalistic, materialistic cake" and eat it, too! If you (or, rather, our ambiguously orthodox theology prof) are going to profess the existence of the immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent One and Triune God (like it matters), then you can hardly accuse those of us who have faith in Him of having "desperate flight(s) of fancy." If the Prof does not believe in miracles and/or thinks that miracles only occur "rarely," then he is an atheist. God exists, and He is not some impotent cosmic boob who just "sits around" all day watching humanity suffer. If He can create souls by the billions, then it stands to reason that He can secure the Baptisms of each and every one of His elect. Neither time nor space will be an issue for the Creator of time and space.

Roguejim,

Please do not invite the theology professor to this forum ... I would be too embarrassed to have him see such infantile screeds based on wholly pathetic misrepresentations of what he said.

Hey Jehanne, last I checked this is not a private forum and if you can't stand the thought of your posts being read by non-forum members, get over it. Your rebuke of Roguejim was entirely unjustified since it was already established that he was presenting arguments from this debate for the professor's comments.

Of course, if I were you, I would be embarrassed to have my posts read; and not because of typos. Oh wait, that's why you have a Blog, where you can say anything you want, no matter how "...".

There is a reason most respected theologians and academics do not participate on open forums, and you are the reason why with your scandalous accusations of being "arrogant", an "atheist" and a "heretic" and every other insult you can muster as if you actually know what you are talking about.

You don't, Jehanne; and anyone with any Catholic common sense knows that the professor was not referring to infants when he mentioned the need of explicit faith for baptism.

It's just like your ignorant comment that he does not believe in miracles, as if Baptism by hidden miraculous means somehow refutes his arguments, which you obviously slept through.

You have misrepresented just about everything he said ... but then again, what else is new? Yeah, you would really "eviscerate his 'arguments.'" Sure you would.

Isn't this professor a priest? I guess that wouldn't matter to Jehanne; he can spot an arrogant, modernist, heretical atheist a mile away ... just ask him.

God help us all.

Amen to that! May God help you!!

Pray tell, "enlightened Mike," why is my "scenario being postulated here is really just a desperate flight of fancy"? How in the hell does our priest professor know this? Because, he "lacks" historical evidence?? This is something that I would expect Richard Dawkins to say:

"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

"What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"

You see, Mike, I read The God Delusion several times, as well as the books by Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. Your priest professor is using the exact same arguments that they are using to "disprove" the existence of God to "prove" his "implicit baptism of desire"!

Over 90% of the membership of the US National Academy of Sciences are atheist and/or agnostic; does that fact "prove" that atheism is true?? (Basck to proving a negative again, aren't we?!) Stop your (implicit) "appeal to authority" -- it means nothing.

Do you believe in angels, Mike? Pray tell, what historical and/or scientific evidence do you have for their existence? If you say that you believe in their existence based upon revelation, that is, revealed truths, then my argument (and, that of Father Fenney) is proved. By the way, even Dawkins would agree:

"If there really is a creative intelligence at the root of the universe, even if only a deist god who no longer does anything, it would be a massively significant fact about the universe: a scientific fact. It would constitute a totally different world view to the atheist world view. It is not that I am emotionally hostile to the idea of a deistic god. If any evidence for a deistic god existed, I would be fascinated and intrigued. But I think the idea is false, for good reasons, and since I am a scientist I care about that, even if a deistic god would have no implications for, say, morality."

Jehanne wrote:

tornpage wrote:

As for "the person being baptized would not be saved anyway unless he also had received the theological gift of faith in Christ from a similar direct inspiration," such is manifestly false, and if your friend believes this, then he is a heretic. (Please let him know that I said that.) As I pointed out before,

For an infant, a valid Baptism is always a fruitful one.

Well, let's just say there's a huge lacuna in the professors theology book: the chapter dealing with the salvation of infants who die before maturity, whose faith is supplied by the Church and his godparents via the sacrament of baptism. Although I can't remember mine so I can't entirely dismiss the notion of a "direct inspiration."

You can't have your "rationalistic, materialistic cake" and eat it, too! If you (or, rather, our ambiguously orthodox theology prof) are going to profess the existence of the immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent One and Triune God (like it matters), then you can hardly accuse those of us who have faith in Him of having "desperate flight(s) of fancy." If the Prof does not believe in miracles and/or thinks that miracles only occur "rarely," then he is an atheist. God exists, and He is not some impotent cosmic boob who just "sits around" all day watching humanity suffer. If He can create souls by the billions, then it stands to reason that He can secure the Baptisms of each and every one of His elect. Neither time nor space will be an issue for the Creator of time and space.

And to think that Jehanne is the same person who says that baptism of desire is a divinely revealed Truth. Now, one must believe with divine and Catholic Faith a divinely revealed Truth by a necessity of means for salvation. But, to Jehanne, this divinely revealed truth was revealed not so that we would know that God assures the salvation of some of the elect for whom Providence did not infallibly secure water Baptism; oh no, the divinely revealed Truth of baptism of desire was revealed so that we would know that it never happens; it is an irrelevant “{null} set” for it “stands to reason” that God predestines every soul to water Baptism since He is “immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.”

See, for Jehanne, baptism of desire is the divinely revealed theoretical back-up plan; not that it ever happen, or anything. It’s just a divinely revealed but unproven theory that we are required to hold with divine and Catholic FAITH.

And if you believe that the divinely revealed theoretical back-up plan called baptism of desire actually occurs and that miraculous water Baptisms occur but rarely, than, like the retired Catholic theology professor, you are “an atheist”.

Oh yes, Tornpage, this is a lot of “fun”!

It’s just a divinely revealed but unproven theory that we are required to hold with divine and Catholic FAITH.

It is absolutely true. And I think for those who do receive the grace of final perseverance, what they will see is that it highlights the absolute gratuity and mercy of salvation: because no one in fact will have availed of baptism of desire to enter Heaven. A just God would grant such entrance to someone who died with perfect charity and the desire for baptism, but no such person existed.

It's an entirely man-made, human assumption that some men meet the baptism of desire requirements and depart this earth in such a state.

Our Lord said, "you must be perfect, as your Father is perfect." This is absolutely true, yet none of us are.

It's sort of like baptism of desire.

Oh yes, Tornpage, this is a lot of “fun”!

Hell yeah!!

And I think it's going to get a lot more fun.

MRyan wrote:See, for Jehanne, baptism of desire is the divinely revealed theoretical back-up plan; not that it ever happen, or anything. It’s just a divinely revealed but unproven theory that we are required to hold with divine and Catholic FAITH.

And if you believe that the divinely revealed theoretical back-up plan called baptism of desire actually occurs and that miraculous water Baptisms occur but rarely, than, like the retired Catholic theology professor, you are “an atheist”.

Oh yes, Tornpage, this is a lot of “fun”!

Mike,

Do you believe that the account of The Deluge in Genesis was absolutely true and literal history? (I do to both assertions.) Please include a "Yes" or "No" in your reply.

"what is disputed is that this “necessity of infallibility” is itself infallible, such that the Church would fall into error (heresy) by denying an article of faith if she taught (as she does) that in certain circumstances one may be justified and saved through that faith without which it “is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.”

Are you saying the Church taught against the "common opinion" of the theologians that explicit faith was necessary? How could an opinion against the Church's opinion be "common"?

Bump.

Not rushing you, Mike. But don't want you to forget.

I am very interested in understanding how the necessity of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is the "common opinion" of the theologians in light of your understanding that the Church teaches salvation by implicit faith in Christ? Fenton said explicit faith was the "common opinion" in the Fifities. How could something (the necessity for "explicit faith") be the "common opinion" if it is against what the Church teaches? It would be a more accurate description to describe an opinion against what the Church teaches as a heretical opinion rather than the "common opinion" of Catholic theologians.

Jehanne wrote:Amen to that! May God help you!!

Pray tell, "enlightened Mike," why is my "scenario being postulated here is really just a desperate flight of fancy"? How in the hell does our priest professor know this? Because, he "lacks" historical evidence?? This is something that I would expect Richard Dawkins to say:

"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

"What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"

You see, Mike, I read The God Delusion several times, as well as the books by Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. Your priest professor is using the exact same arguments that they are using to "disprove" the existence of God to "prove" his "implicit baptism of desire"!

Over 90% of the membership of the US National Academy of Sciences are atheist and/or agnostic; does that fact "prove" that atheism is true?? (Basck to proving a negative again, aren't we?!) Stop your (implicit) "appeal to authority" -- it means nothing.

Yours is but one big logical fallacy after another. You are so impressed with your reading of Dawkins and others that you act like the theology professor is not aware of these same atheistic arguments; and you rashly conclude by logical fallacy that an argument positing a lack of objective historical evidence for miraculous Baptisms is the argument of an atheist. That is sheer and utter nonsense.

Btw, the "desperate flight of fancy" argument is in fact one of objective historical evidence in the same way that we can observe the apostasy and heresy of those who objectively reject the Catholic faith.

This has nothing to do with "denying" that miraculous Baptisms can and have occurred, but only to say that if they have occurred in anything resembling more than rare and isolated instances, there would be more objective evidence for them in the memory of the people than the record shows. That's all he is saying and if you disagree, your job would be to demonstrate that there is such a record in the record of the saints .. and to supply the objective evidence for miraculous baptisms that have and do occur more than he suspects. But, you would rather fight with logical fallacies and chase straw-men while insulting the professor with vicious ad hominems.

Jehanne wrote:Do you believe in angels, Mike?

I believe in angles; and that everyone has one.

Jehanne wrote:Pray tell, what historical and/or scientific evidence do you have for their existence? If you say that you believe in their existence based upon revelation, that is, revealed truths, then my argument (and, that of Father Fenney) is proved. By the way, even Dawkins would agree:

"If there really is a creative intelligence at the root of the universe, even if only a deist god who no longer does anything, it would be a massively significant fact about the universe: a scientific fact. It would constitute a totally different world view to the atheist world view. It is not that I am emotionally hostile to the idea of a deistic god. If any evidence for a deistic god existed, I would be fascinated and intrigued. But I think the idea is false, for good reasons, and since I am a scientist I care about that, even if a deistic god would have no implications for, say, morality."

I'm sorry, but did the retired theology professor say that miraculous baptisms have never, or never can, occur? I must have missed that part. If he did not say this, your entire logical fallacy goes up in flames; which of course it already has.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:See, for Jehanne, baptism of desire is the divinely revealed theoretical back-up plan; not that it ever happen, or anything. It’s just a divinely revealed but unproven theory that we are required to hold with divine and Catholic FAITH.

And if you believe that the divinely revealed theoretical back-up plan called baptism of desire actually occurs and that miraculous water Baptisms occur but rarely, than, like the retired Catholic theology professor, you are “an atheist”.

Oh yes, Tornpage, this is a lot of “fun”!

Mike,

Do you believe that the account of The Deluge in Genesis was absolutely true and literal history? (I do to both assertions.) Please include a "Yes" or "No" in your reply.

Why gee, Jehanne, yes I do. I also believe in a geocentric universe, in angles, in angels, and in baptism of desire.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:See, for Jehanne, baptism of desire is the divinely revealed theoretical back-up plan; not that it ever happen, or anything. It’s just a divinely revealed but unproven theory that we are required to hold with divine and Catholic FAITH.

And if you believe that the divinely revealed theoretical back-up plan called baptism of desire actually occurs and that miraculous water Baptisms occur but rarely, than, like the retired Catholic theology professor, you are “an atheist”.

Oh yes, Tornpage, this is a lot of “fun”!

Mike,

Do you believe that the account of The Deluge in Genesis was absolutely true and literal history? (I do to both assertions.) Please include a "Yes" or "No" in your reply.

Why gee, Jehanne, yes I do. I also believe in a geocentric universe, in angles, in angels, and in baptism of desire.

Well, good for you! All of the above for me, also, except, I am not a geocentrist. (Another argument for another thread.) As for "there would be more objective evidence for them in the memory of the people than the record shows," this one is bad archeology!! The Indians of North, Central, and South America were largely illiterate; there were few written records. Besides, the Saint Benedict Centers have collected some of these records:

Of the many petroglyphs (rock carvings) that Barry Fell has deciphered, my favorite is one called the “Horse Creek Petroglyph” which was discovered in West Virginia. It is written in Old Irish in an ancient script call Ogam, and apparently dates from the sixth to the eighth centuries A.D.

http://catholicism.org/Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus-salvation-amerindian.html

But, again, Mike, yours is the logical fallacy here:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sorry, Mike, but this is what drives modern scientific inquiry.

As for Baptisms occurring in Pre-Columbian America, what type of evidence would you expect?? Baptism records? Carvings (see above!)? And again, perhaps it was simply not the Will of the One and Triune God to preach the Gospel to each and every one of the North & South American Indians, most of whom were in to human sacrifice of children and women, torturing and sadistic executions of their enemies, incest, robbery, rape, murder, etc. So, PC or not, most native peoples were just plain evil. It's a toss-up if the Aztecs or Auschwitz killed more human beings "per hour" at their peak operations. So, perhaps revelation was limited and only to a select-few individuals? Or, perhaps a few individuals baptized many, many Indian infants who received salutary repentance at their deaths. Who knows?! In any case, why base one's theology on the supposed salvation (or lack thereof) of pagans?

As an ordinary way of salvation exists for these peoples, I have no need of "desperate flight(s) of fancy." To claim otherwise is to try, once again, to "prove a negative." You have your one example above, which is all that I need to prove my argument.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Do you believe in angels, Mike?

I believe in angles; and that everyone has one.

tornpage wrote:

"what is disputed is that this “necessity of infallibility” is itself infallible, such that the Church would fall into error (heresy) by denying an article of faith if she taught (as she does) that in certain circumstances one may be justified and saved through that faith without which it “is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.”

Are you saying the Church taught against the "common opinion" of the theologians that explicit faith was necessary? How could an opinion against the Church's opinion be "common"?

Bump.

Not rushing you, Mike. But don't want you to forget.

I am very interested in understanding how the necessity of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is the "common opinion" of the theologians in light of your understanding that the Church teaches salvation by implicit faith in Christ? Fenton said explicit faith was the "common opinion" in the Fifities. How could something (the necessity for "explicit faith") be the "common opinion" if it is against what the Church teaches? It would be a more accurate description to describe an opinion against what the Church teaches as a heretical opinion rather than the "common opinion" of Catholic theologians.

I didn’t forget … In fact, I wrote one of those long-winded detailed replies yesterday and when I went to post it my fast but erratically moving fingers accidentally shut down the computer and I lost the entire document. So I gave up for the day and never returned to it ... but I will. Ever since my PC died I’ve been using a laptop and I cannot get used to the keypad. It takes me twice as long to write anything and I am forever inadvertently bringing up all of these crazy functions that want to take me in unknown directions and are difficult to get out of. It can’t be me ... it’s the blasted laptop!

But this is a rather simple issue, and I don’t understand the weight you are giving it. The Scholastic theologians have never considered the question of explicit faith “closed”; and the fact that in several eras the more probable opinion was for explicit faith does not mean that the implicit faith theory is an “error”; let alone an error against the faith.

You seemed to brush off the teaching of the esteemed theologians who either recognized the implicit faith doctrine, but held explicit faith as the more probable; or, like Lagrange, considered the Thomsitic view the general rule, but accepted the plausibility of implicit faith. They weren’t just being polite; and if any one of them thought that “implicit faith” was heretical, they would have said so without attacking their peers.

Why, because it was an “open” question; and still is (meaning it is still “reformable”), even if the CCC seems to weigh heavily in favor of interpreting Pope Pius IX, VCII and other magisterial documents as supporting implicit faith. But even that declaration (CCC 1260) can be read in an entirely orthodox sense that does not preclude final enlightenment through the divine light of grace and explicit faith in our Lord, even in a mysterious way known to God alone. The Church simply leaves the option open, while allowing for both interpretations.

Jehanne wrote:
Well, good for you! All of the above for me, also, except, I am not a geocentrist.

So, you are in atheist who does not believe in the literal meaning of Scripture and you do not believe that God has miraculously suspended the earth in the center of the universe.

You don't even believe in the miraculous; you don't believe in the liberal meaning of Scripture; so one can assume that you are an arrogant, modernist and atheist .. no?

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
Well, good for you! All of the above for me, also, except, I am not a geocentrist.

So, you are in atheist who does not believe in the literal meaning of Scripture and you do not believe that God has miraculously suspended the earth in the center of the universe.

You don't even believe in the miraculous; you don't believe in the liberal meaning of Scripture; so one can assume that you are an arrogant, modernist and atheist .. no?

The Church in her Magisterium has never taught geocentrism. Show me the reference from Denzinger's and I will concede. Nicolaus Copernicus was a Roman Catholic canonist, and his book was never condemned until nearly a century after it was published. The Council of Trent could have condemned it, but did not. Neither did any Pope from the time of Copernicus until Galileo, and even with Galileo, there was no formal Papal bull as there was with the heretic Martin Luther, that Bull, of course, being Exsurge Domine. Show me anything similar to that for Copernicus and/or Galileo. All that you have is a canonical judgment against Galileo, which, like the one with Saint Jehanne la Pucelle and Father Feeney, was something that was completely reformable.

The Church does not demand that the Catholic faithful adhere to geocentrism; I choose not to do so. Likewise, the Church never condemned Saint Augustine for not holding to a strictly literal interpretation of the 6-Days of Creation, so I do not hold to that, either. However, everything that the Pontifical Commission on the Bible under Pope Pius X declared I hold to be absolutely infallible and irreformable.

Jehanne, a Geocentrism discussion is currently open. Why not pop over there (when time permits) https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t458-geocentricism#3285
and give an account of the Heliocentrism viewpoint and the proofs that sustain it.

It can be a welcome diversion from baptism of desire and Implicit/Explicit faith debates which are likely to continue in perpetuity.

tornpage wrote:Jim, some thoughts for the "retired theology professor."

Salvation, which depends upon supernatural faith and final perseverance, is a gratuitous gift from God. It is “due’ or owed to no man. Which is why the fact that God bestows it upon some and not others does not offend justice. As St. Thomas said, ““[i]n things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases – provided he deprives nobody of his due – without any infringement of justice” (Summa, Ia, q.23, a.5 ad 3um).

Under your scheme some men are given a chance at Paradise, the adults in those pagan lands who reach maturity and can avail themselves of baptism of desire, and others no chance at all, the infants who do not live long enough for that chance. It would appear that those infants are therefore deprived of “their due,” the chance that others have. If you tell me that is not what you are saying is due, then your whole argument for the existence of baptism of desire falls apart, since it is premised on the necessity, according to justice, of providing a chance for salvation to all men, since God wills the salvation of all (1 Timothy 2:4), your smooth attempt to qualify God's will for the salvation of all men to a will to save them "from the fires of hell" notwithstanding.

It is therefore your scheme which infringes justice by depriving a group of men (the infants in those lands who die before maturity) of their "due," the chance at salvation which you say God wills that all men have.

But this is a failing that others fall to. For example. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, in his book Predestination, says, "[w]hat is due to each one, what God refuses to nobody, is sufficient grace for salvation" (page 204-05). This is manifestly false, since infants who die without baptism do not receive this due.

Thinking about those infants who die before maturity in lands where they have no opportunity for baptism puts this matter in its proper light. We may conclude, historically and factually, that many infants died under such circumstances. Is the deprivation of the possibility of the only remedy that could obtain for them the Beatific Vision (Council of Florence) less “unjust” than the injustice that would result to adults in those lands if baptism of desire didn't exist?

If you think it is, please explain to me how? How is it “fair” or “just” for God to permit human souls to be conceived, born and die in infancy in lands where they will not have access to baptism, their sole remedy and only means to Paradise, as long as he gives those who come to maturity in those same lands the possibility of salvation without baptism by way of baptism of desire? Explain this type of “justice” to me if you can.

The fact is the human objection to millions living and dying in lands where the Gospel is not heard and baptism is unavailable is just that, a human objection that flies in the face of the truths of God’s Revelation, such as the gratuity of His election of some to salvation. In light of those truths, there is nothing “unjust” about the fact that God may bring forth His elect in certain geographical locations as opposed to others, and that he may provide the remedy (baptism) only in certain locations: "[i]n things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases – provided he deprives nobody of his due – without any infringement of justice." If He can give more or less without infringing justice, He could also give it where He wants without infringing justice. Or do geographical locations have claims to justice?

In God’s plan and design, in His Providence, some die and lose any chance of the Beatific Vision (the aforementioned infants) by the “chance” of geographical and temporal location. This is simply a datum of life. In my opinion, the argument that it would be unfair to another group (those who live to maturity in those same lands) if baptism of desire did not exist does not seem morally cogent to me under these circumstances, where innocent children are deprived of their only remedy and chance at Paradise.

If God's choice of who is to be saved is gratuitous and unmerited, and it is, as instanced by the fact that some infants receive baptism and others don't, the additional fact that the elect might be concentrated in one land mass rather than another does not trouble the conscience or present an additional fact that is particularly relevant in terms of morality or justice.

The argument from geography fails.

The Prof:

"The whole argument is based on the false assumption that my argument "is premised on the necessity, according to justice, of providing a chance for salvation to all men, since God wills the salvation of all (1 Timothy 2:4)" (emphasis added), and upon this gentleman's apparent inability to see the relevance of the huge, massive difference between suffering the eternal fires of Hell and enjoying the perpetual natural happiness of Limbo.

In any case - though my argument doesn't depend on this point - we don't know that in I Tim 2: 4 the fate of infants was on St. Paul's radar screen at all. He may have just been implictly prescinding from that question. The context shows he was talking mainly about social and political relations - which first and foremost involve adults. So for all we know, Paul may have been thinking just about the two options (for adults) of either eternal glory or the eternal suffering of the wicked in Hell and teaching us that God wants to save everyone from the latter horrendous fate. (If so, that would fit in well with the fact that in the main 'private' revelation of the last century, Our Lady taught us to pray, "save us from the fires of Hell", not "save us from deprivation of the Beatific Vision".)

Denial of baptism of desire may or may not be reconcilable with God's justice. But in any case my point is that I can't see how it's reconcilable with his love. It turns the Good News into Bad News.

I've spent enough of my valuable time now on this debate with persons who presumptuously pit their private interpretation of the patristic and biblical evidence against the clear, millennial-long teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium that baptism of desire is a reality. So I won't answer any more objections."

Roguejim wrote:The Prof:

"The whole argument is based on the false assumption that my argument "is premised on the necessity, according to justice, of providing a chance for salvation to all men, since God wills the salvation of all (1 Timothy 2:4)" (emphasis added), and upon this gentleman's apparent inability to see the relevance of the huge, massive difference between suffering the eternal fires of Hell and enjoying the perpetual natural happiness of Limbo.

Limbo is a theological opinion; the view of Saint Augustine may be the correct one -- infants who die without Baptism may, indeed, suffer in Hell, in which case our Prof's argument falls. The idea that "God is Love" is proximate to heresy; God is Perfect, not only His love, but his righteousness, justice, glory, etc. as well. No one "deserves" Heaven, as we can see in the case of infants who die without Baptism.

I've spent enough of my valuable time now on this debate with persons who presumptuously pit their private interpretation of the patristic and biblical evidence against the clear, millennial-long teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium that baptism of desire is a reality. So I won't answer any more objections."

I do agree that the professor has better things to do. I will not take a cheap parting shot at someone who will not respond because he has other more important things to attend to: I mean that sincerely.

We're done.

The idea that "God is Love" is proximate to heresy

Jehanne, you're a real spitfire!!

tornpage wrote:

The idea that "God is Love" is proximate to heresy

Jehanne, you're a real spitfire!!

Is that the word I was looking for?

"Proximate to heresy" - no less.

Oh well, I didn't realize until just recently that Jehanne is a modernist and an atheist, just like the retired theology professor Jehanne accuses of the same. What goes around comes around.

I do agree that the professor has better things to do. I will not take a cheap parting shot at someone who will not respond because he has other more important things to attend to: I mean that sincerely.

We're done.

I'm not done.

I've just written a letter to the prefect of the CDIF (That's the Congregation for the Doctrine of Implicit Faith).
Well.. I didn't really write the letter but I have an explicit desire to do so.

Why, because it was an “open” question; and still is (meaning it is still “reformable”), even if the CCC seems to weigh heavily in favor of interpreting Pope Pius IX, VCII and other magisterial documents as supporting implicit faith.

I missed this. Sometimes the exchanges are so fast and furious that new responses get buried on a prior page.

Here's one of my main points: if the question is "open," and I agree it was held out as open, why is the Magisterium teaching one of the positions? This seems irresponsible and suspicious to me. I mean, if it's "open," the Church hasn't decided - so what the hell is it doing teaching one side of an "open" question?

The main point of the "common opinion" point was that this teaching the contrary is not only suspicious because it's an "open" question but also because it goes against the grain of "common opinion." Sort of like, when was the "common opinion" rejected and the opposite taught without any detailed analysis, examination of the Church's past touching on the issue - you know, like the Popes did when they declared the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

You have the "common opinion" the necessity for "explicit faith" in Christ and then, wham, you wake up in the morning and get this stuff like "salvation in other religions without recognizing Christ," and it's like, when was the midnight coup? How was the "common opinion" rejected and on what theological basis?

The Magisterium should not be teaching on an "open" question, particularly the minority opinion.

It suggests to me a takeover, to be honest. An illegitimate revolution and change of guard. It's very suspicious, to say the least.