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

tornpage Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:44 pm

Columba,

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.

I was going to laugh but then I thought, there probably is a Congregation for the Doctrine of Implicit Faith.

Speaking of letters, I hear they have a room full of implicit letters written implicitly by those with a desire for stamps.

Maybe we should let that go.

tornpage Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:46 pm

And . . . I'm not done.

The retired professor and I are done.

Jehanne Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:37 pm

tornpage wrote:And . . . I'm not done.

The retired professor and I are done.

The idea of implicit faith was, clearly, something that was condemned:

Condemned error: "A faith indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification" (Denz. 2123, Pope Innocent XI, 1679).

Of course, some will say that the Pope was condemning the idea of a natural faith in the existence of God even though the word "natural" is nowhere to be found in his pronouncement. The authentic interpretation of this canon came a few decades later. From the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott's (Obl. S.B., M.I.C.M.) book The "Ignorant Native":

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Native.pdf

And in 1703 during the reign of Pope Clement XI when the missionary effort to the Amerindians was at its height, the Holy Office responded to an inquiry from the Bishop of Quebec: "Question. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing according to this remark of the Apostle: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder" (Heb. 11:16), from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.

Response. A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized" (Denz. 2380).

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

Evidently, the Bishop of Quebec believed in implicit faith, if only "implicity," but had the theological sense to ask Rome.

tornpage Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:01 am

Jehanne,

Yes, I am aware of the Bishop of Quebec thing. You will hear in response, "but they are saying he needs explicit faith to be baptized," but then the language about a "necessity of means" is hard to get around. I will make more active use of this in the future.

Now here's my thinking, and it is purely opinion and means nothing to anyone but me: the "implicit faith" as a teaching of the Church is a recent phenomenon and implies the illegitimacy of the magisterium that adopted it. This is part of my harping on the "common opinion" thing with MRyan - I didn't hit on that in my last post on this, Mike. The question might have been, strictly speaking, "open," but you will not have a majority of Catholic theologians taking an opinion (the "common opinion") against what is the opinion of the Church without there being notice taken and mention of that. When Fenton says, in the Fifties, that explicit faith is the common opinion of the theologians and the Holy Office letter is not contra to that, then it seems obvious to me that the Church was not teaching implicit faith as of Fenton's writing.

This is just one point of many points which have a cumulative effect for me on this question of what to make of the Conciliar Church and the issue of sedevacantism - yes, that issue.

There appears to me to be no question that the magisterium must be rejected on at least some issues, explicit faith being one of them. Whether that necessarily implies, because of indefectibility or another reason, a rejection of the magisterium as being that of an impostor, alien body (not the True Church) or merely a rejection of what is the magisterium of the One True Church on certain issues (like the Ferrara, Gruner, etc. crowd maintain) - that for me is the issue.

Rejection of implicit faith is a given - for me, right now. Unless MRyan convinces me otherwise.

MRyan Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:16 am

Jehanne wrote:
The idea of implicit faith was, clearly, something that was condemned:

Condemned error: "A faith indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification" (Denz. 2123, Pope Innocent XI, 1679).

Of course, some will say that the Pope was condemning the idea of a natural faith in the existence of God even though the word "natural" is nowhere to be found in his pronouncement. The authentic interpretation of this canon came a few decades later. From the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott's (Obl. S.B., M.I.C.M.) book The "Ignorant Native":

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Native.pdf

And in 1703 during the reign of Pope Clement XI when the missionary effort to the Amerindians was at its height, the Holy Office responded to an inquiry from the Bishop of Quebec: "Question. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing according to this remark of the Apostle: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder" (Heb. 11:16), from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.

Response. A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized" (Denz. 2380).

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

Evidently, the Bishop of Quebec believed in implicit faith, if only "implicity," but had the theological sense to ask Rome.

Did you catch the highlighted passage? A dying catechumen who has the capacity and opportunity to receive and profess his faith in the essential mysteries of Christ shall not be denied the same. His ignorance can and must be overcome by a necessity of means prior to Baptism.

Baptism is also necessary as a necessity of means, yet you recognize baptism of desire as a divinely "revealed truth". Amazing.

The Letter does not address the invincibly ignorant who do not have the capacity or opportunity to be evangelized.

tornpage Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:20 am

Solid points you make there, Mike.

Jehanne Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:32 am

The Holy Office is stating what Saint Thomas taught:

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

What they are saying is that the adult Indian must, at a minimum, explicitly believe in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus, but if that person is capable of believing more things, then the priest baptizing him should instruct him further. Here's another reference almost a cerntury after Pope Innocent XI's condemnation:

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

Sorry, I do not know how things could be any more "explicit." One again, the Council of Trent clearly defined the absolute necessity of explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ:

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."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8, ex cathedra: "But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons;..."

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: "This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…"

The above texts are "crystal clear" to me. As for Saint Thomas and "the pagan child," I do not believe that Saint Thomas was at all teaching that such a child could die without explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ:

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

Instead, such a virtuous pagan child would receive the Divine Light:

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

So, your virtuous pagan child would receive the necessary revelation.

This is my last post for this thread. Until next time...

tornpage Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:23 am

Excellent post, too, Jehanne. And of course I agree with you about explicit faith in Christ, and about the ignorant native - it's all in St. Thomas. I see your interpretation of "in accordance with the capacity," and it makes sense too. But Mike's view is also reasonable.

All of which indicates why I have never argued using this Holy Office Instruction, even in my most passionate Feeneyite days.

MRyan Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:33 pm

Jehanne wrote:The Holy Office is stating what Saint Thomas taught:

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

What they are saying is that the adult Indian must, at a minimum, explicitly believe in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus, but if that person is capable of believing more things, then the priest baptizing him should instruct him further.

So you simply dismiss the given context which frames "necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized" and ramble on as if the letter positively excludes salvation by internal inspiration or a supernatural faith in God.

Neither can you respond to the understanding of "necessity of means" with respect to Baptism, especially given your assertion that baptism of desire is a "revealed truth". The truth of baptism of desire necessarily dictates that the necessary means of baptism is an extrinsic necessity, meaning God can supply the fruit and merit of the sacrament apart from water, but never apart from the desire for the sacrament.

The Church and many of her esteemed theologians hold that the same may also apply to faith in our Lord, without which no one can be saved, but that such faith may be implicit in a supernatural faith in God.

Jehanne wrote:Here's another reference almost a cerntury after Pope Innocent XI's condemnation:

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

Sorry, I do not know how things could be any more "explicit."

Sorry, but I don't see how you can yank this passage completely out of context. Well, strike that, I do.

Are you blinded to the fact that Pope Benedict XIV is clearly lamenting the egregious situation where the Baptized who were preparing for "Confession and Holy Communion ... were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even of those matters which must be known by necessity of means"?

In other words, their teachers and "confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved; which is the same as saying they are "bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized". It is obvious that they failed to do so, thereby putting their students Baptized souls at risk and making them "ineligible to partake of the Sacraments".

That baptism and explicit faith are both necessary as necessities of means does not mean that neither can be "implicit" in one's supernatural faith in God, or that God will not provide this faith in ways known only to Himself.

The Church is concerned with objective situations in the here and now, and leaves to God those things out of her control. A necessity of means does not mean that God cannot supply the means apart from the instruments of the Church, to include faith by hearing. But NEVER does the Church assume that this in any way mitigates her role in providing the necessary instrumental means of salvation, for she knows of no other means under her control that can assure anyone of their salvation.

Jehanne wrote:
One again, the Council of Trent clearly defined the absolute necessity of explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ:

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."

And once again you have failed to provide the "proof" that this dogmatic declaration says what you allege. Nowhere does an "implicit faith" contradict this infallible declaration for it does not change the fact that no one can "receive the benefit His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated" in and through Christ.

Tell us Jehanne, just what do you think "the merit of His Passion is communicated" means in this context?

Jehanne wrote:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8, ex cathedra: "But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons;..."

Again, please demonstrate where this dogmatic passage declares that the very justifying faith it makes reference to in Hebrews 11/6 cannot include 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.."

You can't.

Jehanne wrote:Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: "This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…"

The above texts are "crystal clear" to me. As for Saint Thomas and "the pagan child," I do not believe that Saint Thomas was at all teaching that such a child could die without explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ:

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

Instead, such a virtuous pagan child would receive the Divine Light:

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

So, your virtuous pagan child would receive the necessary revelation.

Yes, and no one said St. Thomas taught anything different. But neither can it be disputed that he was offering his opinion on the providence of God and that the Scholastics did not consider the question "closed" and that the esteemed Thomistic theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries recognized that the opinion of St. Thomas is generally true, but not necessarily as an absolute necessity since "implicit faith" is also a possibility.

If you can find even one scholastic theologian who "rejected" implicit faith as a heresy of other theologians ... go ahead. The fact is not even St. Liguori "rejected" implicit faith, but considered explicit faith the more probable opinion.

With one hand you are ready to dismiss St. Thomas and all the theologians, but you sure like to cite him when it suits your purpose.

Jehanne wrote:This is my last post for this thread. Until next time...

Sure it is; I've heard that before. Rolling Eyes

MRyan Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:26 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:[...]
Not at all, for you highlight an important point: English translations to the official Latin magisterial texts are not always consistent. But inconsistency does not translate to bad intentions and nefarious agendas, but it may reflect one’s unintended “bias” with respect to one’s own understanding. I think it is safe to say that any “official” translation reflects the honest interpretation of the translator who strives to be as accurate as possible. Since the more “official” translations will be reviewed by a host of theologians and ecclesiastical sources, any translation that is too far off from the “mind of the Church” and its intended meaning of the Latin text will, one may assume, be corrected.

We see this, as you know, even in the translations to the Council of Trent where, for example, in Sess. 6. Ch 4 “sine” is not always translated as the more literal “without”, but also as “except through”; i.e., “cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration or its desire” vs. “cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.”

When properly understood, it doesn’t make any difference for they both mean the same thing, unless one’s objection to “except through” simply reflects one’s bias to change the meaning of the disjunctive “or” so that it means that both the sacrament and its desire are at all times necessary for justification. The Church has never understood it in this manner … and that is the point … how does the Church understand a particular magisterial text? I’m not sure that someone with a Latin dictionary is qualified to tell us without recourse to the common opinion of the theologians and the traditional understanding of the Church that may be known by her other corroborative official teachings.

We see these same principles at play with the translation of “voto” in the same passage. Despite the fact that “vow” is the primary meaning for “votum”, the secondary meaning “desire” is the more common translation for, as the CE indicates, the Council of Trent did not want to limit the intention to receive baptism to one of vowed intention, which is of course necessary, but also wished to convey the supernatural aspect of “desire” as it is commonly understood in “baptism of desire” as a vow/intention to receive baptism that is animated by perfect charity.

In other words, one may have the vowed intention (votum) to receive baptism without possessing the necessary charity that makes one a living "member" of the Body. To be a member of the mystic Body without the divine life of grace is not that “justification” defined by Trent; hence, no one (of the impious) can be justified without Baptism, or without at least the intention and desire for Baptism.

However, as is the case with Mystic Corporis Chrtisti, the NCWC (predecessor of the USCC/NCCB) translations are often the “official” English translations, though there is nothing that can guarantee 100% accuracy. If you are familiar with the works of Fr. Fenton and Fr. Harrison, they will sometimes provide their own translations or corrections to NCWC translations (or Denzinger’s) with what they believe is a more accurate representation of the mind of the Church conveyed in the nuance of the Latin text.

For example, here is Fr. Fenton in his article “Questions About Membership in the Church”:

Now what is precisely the teaching of the Church with reference to membership in the Church? Obviously the basic text of the magisterium with which we must be concerned is the statement in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. To quote Pope Pius XII:

In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt. (AAS, XXXV (1943), 202. In the Gregorian University Press text, with notes by Sebastian Tromp, S.J., this is par. 21.)

The NCWC translation of the Mystici Corporis Christi gives this version of the statement about membership in the Church or the Mystical Body of Christ.

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

The one fairly serious imperfection of this rendering is to be found in the use of the term "unity" as a translation of the Latin "compage." The Latin word carries the implication of a physical connection, of a visible principle of unity. Harper's Latin Dictionary uses the English terms "joining together," "connection," "joint," "structure," and "embrace" as translations of the Latin "compages" or "compago."

The term "member of the Church" can legitimately be applied only to those baptized persons who have not frustrated the force of their baptismal characters by public heresy or apostasy, or by schism, and who have not been expelled from the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1357)
Are we on the same page?

I don’t know yet. I understand what you are saying in the above response; that information is useful as reference and was not posted in vain. It wasn’t what I looking for with regard to the Unam Sanctam quote, but that is no problem. In fact, it provides some interesting topics for future discussion.

The reason I pointed out that particular translation of the Unam Sanctam quote is that, to me at least, that translation lends itself to an innocuous, watered-down, domesticated, Steubenvilleistic reading. I was reminded of this (from the CUF website):

Boniface VIII wrote concerning the nature of the Church and the supremacy of the Pope. He did not write concerning the damnation of those who have never heard the Gospel. After expressing the truth that there is only one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one Church, he explained that supreme authority of the Pope is both temporal and spiritual. He then ended by declaring: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This is not a statement demanding that everyone know the supremacy of the Pope to be saved, but rather is a truthful claim that the Pope authority from God as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, to whom Our Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

Yet, they use the, in my opinion, clearer translation. Go figure.

On Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, they have this to say:

There are two principal errors when it comes to the Church’s teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Some reject this teaching as both incorrect and arrogant. Others interpret this statement to condemn all those who are not visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church. To come to the proper understanding of this teaching, we must examine it within the context of divine Revelation and Church history. This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.

Translation or Interpretation?

Many people translate the Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This translation does not seem entirely faithful to the Latin meaning, and contributes to the misunderstanding of the phrase.

The Latin word "extra" is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as "beyond" or "outside of"(e.g., beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated "without" (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, "Without the Church there is no salvation." This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.

I find this “without” argument of theirs to be sophistry. In both instances, with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the quote from Unam Sanctum, it seems to me they attempt to make the dogmas as innocuous as possible by taking a secondary meaning and making it the primary, exclusive, meaning.

Perhaps, for starters, the simplest way to put this would just be to ask you what you make of the above CUF take on Unam Sanctam.

Sorry, DeSelby, I did not mean to put this on "ignore".

I think I can be more precise with my answer if I know where you are coming from; so I'd like to hear your opinion on what Unam Sanctam means with respect to the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff as a necessity of means for salvation.

What is your take, for example, on the notion of an "implicit" or "virtual" submission inherent within an explicit will to do the will of God and the will of Church in all things ... when prevented from knowing about this precept?

MRyan Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:40 pm

Tornpage,

I will return to St. Thomas’s explicit belief that Cornelius and the pagan child was/may be justified in Christ prior to having an explicit faith in Christ, and why this is important (I’ve been too lazy to reconstruct my previous lengthy response that inadvertently disappeared).

But I think it is equally important that we return to what seems to be your summary dismissal of the teachings of the scholastic theologians who considered the question of explicit faith in our Lord an “open” question, even if they held it as the more “common opinion” until this latest era; and in particular that you address the representative teachings of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Fr. Matthias Scheeben, Fr. Reginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange and Fr. Antonio Royo Marín¸ none of whom framed the necessity of explicit faith in the same manner as you.

I have chosen these four luminaries because their respective works span some four centuries and no one can doubt the respect given to their teachings.

St. Liguori is an 18th century Doctor of the Church who believed that explicit faith is the more probable opinion and should be held, but he did not “reject” the implicit faith doctrine.

Fr. Scheeben (the “German Thomas”) is widely considered the greatest Thomistic theologian of the 19th century whose Dogmatik formed the basis for the late 19th century A Manual of Catholic Theology containing the implicit faith doctrine (as the “best” but not the only “solution”).

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is known as the greatest 20th century Thomistic theologian who “disagrees mildly with Thomas, opining that what he says is right as a general rule, but that God may still accept implicit faith in exceptional cases.”

And finally, the great Spanish Thomist and Dominican Antonio Royo Marín of this century teaches “that although it is not proven with absolute certainty that explicit faith is necessary for salvation by necessity of means, this is the most probable opinion” (Teologia Moral, vol. I, 7th edition).

To the last I would say that we can in fact say with absolute certainty that explicit faith is necessary for salvation by necessity of means, but not as an intrinsic necessity when it may be implicit (under certain conditions) in one’s supernatural faith in God, and I think that is the context he framed his statement.

You will not hesitate to claim Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as your mentor on predestination and the infallibility of efficacious grace, but you obviously do not accept his teachings on implicit faith.

Until you can resolve this gaping division between your opinion (“the necessity of infallibility”) and the teachings of these great theologians, I do not see why we should take serious your claims that the Church cannot be taken seriously when she appears to accept the teachings of Scheeben and Garrigou-Lagrange, while never closing the door on the more traditional view of Liguori and Royo Marín, especially in light of her consistent teaching on the divine light of grace which enlightens every one of the elect (even the invincibly ignorant) with what is "infallibly" needed for salvation.

MRyan Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:11 pm

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

I'm glad Jehanne posted this, for I'd like for Tornpage to be consistent and affirm that in the example above, there is no chance that any of these Baptized students preparing for Confession and Holy Communion could have received the grace of justification in the sacrament of baptism, no matter their faith, charity and intention; for they lacked the fulness of explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ that alone is pleasing to God.

Is that right, Tornpage?

MRyan Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:20 pm

tornpage wrote:Solid points you make there, Mike.

Thanks, Tornpage, and please accept my subsequent posts addressed to you in the spirit they are intended. Charity and a challenge are not necessarily opposed, not even a "feisty" one!

columba Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:05 pm

Tornpage made the point about implicit/explicit faith being an open question and if that be so and the Church teaches implicit faith can suffice -at least in some if not many cases- then can this be harmful to souls if it turns out that in fact implicit faith was a false doctrine?
My thinking is that it would be very harmful, leading many catholics to a false sense of security concerning the salvation of those outside the Church.
On the other hand, if explicit faith was taught as absolute -as if the matter had been resolved in its favor- there would be no spiritual harm done to anyone either outside or inside the Church.

As Vat II Council was declared pastoral in nature -as opposed to doctrinal- which I take it means that it was more concerned with the practical care of souls rather than solving long disputed theological riddles, how is it that since the council more theological dilemmas have apparently been resolved in favor of the not so commonly held view than all the great doctors and theologians could resolve definitively throughout the Churches long history?

This is the crux of the matter. If no harm could result from either position being the true one then there would be no pressing need to resolve the question at all. The pressing need has been imposed by the Vat II Church teaching by implication that implicit desire is in fact the undoubtable truth. If the post Vat II Church be wrong (and they have never presented any new argument in favor of implicit faith but rather just started assuming it out of the blue) then the consequences could be (and seem to be ) devastating to the faith. IMHO it would be safer for all to assume the commonly held belief on the necissity of explicit faith.

tornpage Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:43 pm

I think it is equally important that we return to what seems to be your summary dismissal of the teachings of the scholastic theologians who considered the question of explicit faith in our Lord an “open” question

I did not dismiss them; in fact, I hold the same opinion as them as to the necessity of explicit faith. You are saying I dismiss them because I am floating the opinion that the Magisterium teaching implicit faith is heretical. They were not confronted with my (our) situation. Any speculation as to what they would do would be just that, speculation. It's one thing not to accuse other Catholics of heresy on an "open" issue. It's another thing when the Magisterium teaches the minority opinion, and opines that salvation may be reached while practicing other religions and without recognizing Christ as savior, in a world where almost everyone has heard of Christ.

If you do see this as a critical distinction, well, I don't know what to say about that. I think it is critical, and distinguishes the response of St. Alphonsus and Fr. Marin. As to Fr. GL and Fr. Scheeben, I differ with them, of course. You will note I have not called my fellow Catholic neocons who share the implicit faith belief heretics. In fact, I believe them Catholic and presume their good faith. I have also not called JPII, BXVI, or any of the other post-V2 pontiffs formal heretics.

What I am saying is I will not have "implicit faith" - a heresy whose adoption in "good faith" by fellow Catholics I consider wrong and materially heretical - shoved down my throat, and it is being shoved down my throat. Where is the decree and analysis of an ecumenical council discussing the issue, or the encyclical and decision of a pope, discussing St. Thomas's view, St. Augustine's view, St. Alphonsus's view, the view of other doctors and theologians, Fr. Marin's view, etc., and giving reasons for the magisterium's dismissal of those views and embracing of "implicit faith" . . . where?

I see your point, but dismiss in under these conditions and in these times. The Magisterium is teaching "implicit faith." I think this is a critical distinction that the others did not have to deal with and address.

You say the teaching can be reformed. Fine, but indefectibility does not allow the magisterium to teach error, even only synchronically. If one can only be redeemed by a conscious faith (or the sacrament of faith, baptism in the case of infants) in Our Lord, a faith that unites one with the salvific merits of His Precious Blood and truly allows one to "know" Him in the intimate and Biblical sense, then the contrary view that one can be redeemed in the Gospel age "without recognizing Christ" is false. The True Church cannot embrace a false position, ever. Theologians and lay Catholics in the "minority" opinion (or the majority even) can embrace a false position on an open issue.

This is why my reaction to "implicit faith" differs from that of St. Alphonsus, Fr. Marin, etc. and why I react differently to JPII teaching it and it appearing in the official catechism of the Church then when it appears in the teaching of my favorite theologian, Father GL.

Also, you have to add to this the perversion of the teaching that an "implicit faith" can also include the faith of Muslims, Jews and others who actually deny the divinity of Our Lord.

I wonder what Father GL would do if he had the Church attempt to shove Molinism (which he believed was false on a critical issue regarding grace and the mechanism of God's saving work in salvation) down his throat as the Catholic truth, as opposed to serving under a Church that merely told him he could not call his brother Catholics who espoused Molinism heretics and genuinely treated the "open" issue as an "open" issue by not shoving it down his throat.

To the last I would say that we can in fact say with absolute certainty that explicit faith is necessary for salvation by necessity of means, but not as an intrinsic necessity when it may be implicit (under certain conditions) in one’s supernatural faith in God, and I think that is the context he framed his statement.

So then you think it's a relative necessity of means, like with water baptism, and its "necessity" depends on one having the gospel actually preached to him? I always thought the concept of a "relative necessity of means" was bogus and not more than a necessity of precept - a smoke and mirrors show with regard to "necessity of means."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was JAT's view (the view that the promulgation happens when the individual hears the word), yes?

Also, you have to add to my response above the perversion of the teaching that an "implicit faith" can also include the faith of Muslims, Jews and others who actually deny the divinity of Our Lord. How does that fit into your explicit faith being a "relative necessity of means"? Where is the "necessity of means" if one can know the Gospel message about Christ and deny it and still have the supernatural faith to be saved? What a joke this "relative necessity of means" turns out to be!

And I wonder how St. Alphonsus and co. would react to this understanding of "implicit faith," and by the magisterium to boot!!

In any event, now I'm going to need to explore the meaning of "promulgation of the gospel" with you?

Thanks, Tornpage, and please accept my subsequent posts addressed to you in the spirit they are intended. Charity and a challenge are not necessarily opposed, not even a "feisty" one!

No problemo. But you are familiar with how feisty I can be when challenged, and I presume know what will be coming. Or should I say what has already come. Very Happy

tornpage Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:07 pm

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

I'm glad Jehanne posted this, for I'd like for Tornpage to be consistent and affirm that in the example above, there is no chance that any of these Baptized students preparing for Confession and Holy Communion could have received the grace of justification in the sacrament of baptism, no matter their faith, charity and intention; for they lacked the fulness of explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ that alone is pleasing to God.

Is that right, Tornpage?

Apparently these adults underwent baptism, went to Confession and received Holy Communion without believing Christ was the Incarnate Son of God and without also believing in the Father and the Holy Ghost. If they died without believing in the Incarnation of Our Lord, or in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, then yes, I say they could not be saved in such a state.

That's right, MRyan.

But wait . . . I don't know about the situation of the baptism of the mentally deficient. These people would seem to me, if they received the proper form of these sacraments and still did not know anything (or inquire about?) the Incarnation and the Trinity, to be mentally deficient. So maybe they, like infants, could be saved by the receipt of the rite without a personal, conscious explicit faith.

I've never looked into the situation of the retarded.

MRyan Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:31 pm

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

I'm glad Jehanne posted this, for I'd like for Tornpage to be consistent and affirm that in the example above, there is no chance that any of these Baptized students preparing for Confession and Holy Communion could have received the grace of justification in the sacrament of baptism, no matter their faith, charity and intention; for they lacked the fulness of explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ that alone is pleasing to God.

Is that right, Tornpage?

Apparently these adults underwent baptism, went to Confession and received Holy Communion without believing Christ was the Incarnate Son of God and without also believing in the Father and the Holy Ghost. If they died without believing in the Incarnation of Our Lord, or in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, then yes, I say they could not be saved in such a state.

That's right, MRyan.

Actually, no, they had not gone “to Confession and received Holy Communion”, but were, evidently, Baptized when they should have been ineligible to receive the sacrament, and were presently undergoing a “course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion” when it was “found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even of those matters which must be known by necessity of means”.

I didn’t ask you if any of these baptized students could be saved, I already knew you would say no; I asked you if they “could have received the grace of justification in the sacrament of baptism, no matter their faith, charity and intention; for”, if you are to remain consistent, you would say “they lacked the fullness of explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ that alone is pleasing to God.”

You already indicated your answer would be no; but I wanted it confirmed that you believe they could not have been justified. And if so, you depart from St. Thomas Aquinas in a big way; so I am not inclined to accept your assertion that your belief in “necessity” of explicit faith is the same as his … it is not.

You wrote:

What I am saying is I will not have "implicit faith" - a heresy whose adoption in "good faith" by fellow Catholics I consider wrong and materially heretical - shoved down my throat, and it is being shoved down my throat.

Heresy has officially entered the Church … but please don’t gag on it as it is shoved down your throat.

Such melodrama and grandstanding is quite the spectacle. And it’s nice to know that your favorite theologian was a material heretic. Oh wait, there’s the “implicit faith” error taught by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, then there’s the “implicit faith” heresy of the heretical modern Church and her claim that an Eastern Orthodox Christian, for example, who does not possess “right faith” in the dogma of Papal Primacy or in the “filioque” clause many not only obtain sanctification (should his ignorance be inculpable), but he may also be saved by and through the graces of the true Church.

Yeah, that’s real “heresy” that I’m sure Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange would have condemned, especially coming as it does from the Magisterium. After all, didn’t you say:

They were not confronted with my (our) situation. Any speculation as to what they would do would be just that, speculation. It's one thing not to accuse other Catholics of heresy on an "open" issue. It's another thing when the Magisterium teaches the minority opinion, and opines that salvation may be reached while practicing other religions and without recognizing Christ as savior, in a world where almost everyone has heard of Christ.

Are you sure you understand what by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange taught? Hmmm…; perhaps you should digest this (I think DeSelby tried to warn you):

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote:

The common opinion of the Fathers and ancient theologians is without doubt that those who are saved do not represent the greater number. We may cite in favor of this view the following saints: Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas. Then, nearer to our own times: Molina, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasquez, Lessius, and St. Alphonsus. But they give this view as opinion, not as revealed truth, not as certain conclusion.

In the last century the contrary opinion, namely, of the greater number of the elect, was defended by Father Faber in England, by Monsignor Bougaud in France, by Father Castelein, S.J., in Belgium.

To conclude: some insist on the mercy of God, others on the justice of God. Neither one side nor the other gives us certitude. And the reasons of appropriateness which each invokes differ very much from the reasons of appropriateness invoked in favor of a dogma which is already certain by revelation, whereas here we are treating of a truth that is not certain.

Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church.

Restricting the question to Catholics, we find the doctrine, generally held especially since Suarez, that, if we consider merely adults, the number of the elect surpasses that of the reprobate. If adult Catholics do at one time or another sin mortally, nevertheless they can arise in the tribunal of penance, and there are relatively few who at the end of life do not repent, or even refuse to receive the sacraments.

But if we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution.

If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God's government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; Further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, [679] can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace. [680]

We cannot arrive at certitude in this question. It is better to acknowledge our ignorance than to discourage the faithful by a doctrine which is too rigid, to expose them to danger by a doctrine which is too superficial. (http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/ev35.php)

I’m sorry, Tornpage, but was that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange who “teaches the minority opinion, and opines that salvation may be reached while practicing other religions and without recognizing Christ as savior, in a world where almost everyone has heard of Christ”, or was that “the Magisterium”?

May we surmise that the Church is shoveling the teaching of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange down your throat; because honest to goodness, I don't see any difference between his and even the most liberal interpretations of VCII and Pope Pius IX. In fact, when you say "The Magisterium is teaching 'implicit faith.' I think this is a critical distinction that the others did not have to deal with and address"; the critical distinction lost on you is the obvious fact that GL is following the magisterial lead of Pope Pius IX.

I guess it goes without saying that you would deny that this can in any way be considered a “development in doctrine” as understood and taught, as almost everyone believes, by Pope Pius IX (how’s that for the “common opinion”); this is rank material heresy ... though we emphasize “material" so as not to offend anyone. The Church made a boo-boo.

There’s a lot more to unravel in your previous post, but I think I’ll let it cool down some before touching it.

Oh boy, the sparks are flying now!

Guest Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:29 pm

Bill Strom wrote it this way on his blog:

"In individual cases, of those validly baptized,
however in numbers known only to God, they might not be guilty of the
sin/s of heresy and/or schism, owing to "invincible ignorance"(non-culpible ignorance) of the true Faith,
in these cases they may belong to the Catholic Church by desire,
provided they put no obstacle of the will to the authority of the Vicar
of Christ, and are open to obey God in things revealed for salvation
such as being free from all mortal sin, and believe explicitly the
mysteries of the faith which are necessary by a necessity of means,
especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation for
salvation." http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/session-one-dogmatic-constitution-of.html

I think these students would seem to fall into this class which is that they are kinda like babies, who put no obstacle to grace.

tornpage Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:52 pm

I don't really see anything I need to comment on that I didn't already cover in my previous post, except this:

the critical distinction lost on you is the obvious fact that GL is following the magisterial lead of Pope Pius IX.

Just nonsense. Pius IX never taught that Jews and Mohammedans can be saved while practicing their religion.

When you put something on the table that necessitates comment beyond what I said previously, I"ll comment.

tornpage Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:55 pm

I don't see any difference between his and even the most liberal interpretations of VCII and Pope Pius IX.

For crying out loud, and to make the point: as I already said, I disagreed with Father GL, and he is isn't the Magisterium.

Geez.

tornpage Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Mike,

Sparks need a lot of wood and stuff to keep flying, so . . .

I said this a couple of days ago I think and said it variously over and over the past week or so:

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.

I said that St. Thomas and I agreed that explicit faith in Christ was necessary for salvation now. And I was right. I didn't say St. Thomas and I agree on every particular of this or that. Keep fixating on subtleties and avoid the real issue.

As to development of doctrine, we are not talking about something present in an inchoate state and then fully revealed later, something present in kernel and then flowering later. Implicit faith and salvation "without recognizing Christ" did not grow out of explicit faith in Christ and salvation by knowing and believing in the name of Jesus. If explicit faith in Christ being necessary for salvation was handed down from the apostles, implicit faith couldn't have been. No seed/kernel and flower there; more like fire and ice. It's that simple.

As simple as explicit faith in Christ being necessary for salvation meaning, well, it's necessary for salvation . . . but you'll likely give us your mile long presentation on justification according to St. Thomas, baptism - Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"? - Page 3 906921

baptism - Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"? - Page 3 906921

who believed explicit faith in Christ was necessary since the promulgation of the Gospel for salvation.
baptism - Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"? - Page 3 333287

baptism - Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"? - Page 3 333287

Guest Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:28 am

Here is another priest, one who offers Mass in Italian, who agrees with Jehanne, Mike, tornpage and I assume everyone at St.Benedict Centre in saying: there is no de facto baptism of desire that we know of.

THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF- Fr.George Puthoor
Second Catholic priest in Rome affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation)

A second priest in Rome within a few weeks affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Florence pointing out that there is no baptism of desire that we can personally know of.
A Rossiminian priest from South India Fr.George Puthoor said yesterday, Sunday morning, that there is no baptism of desire that we can know of.

He was speaking with me at the Basilica Santi Ambrogio e Carlo, Via del Corso, Rome where he was to offer Holy Mass in Italian at 12 p.m on Trinity Sunday.He gave me permission to quote him on this blog.

Since the cases of non-Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are de facto unknown to us and can only be accepted in principle it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus he observed.

If there is no case of the baptism of desire or implicit faith that we know of then Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

The secular media hype and those of the liberals have claimed that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II has changed church teaching with refrence to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Their claim is that every one does not have to enter the Church since there could be non Catholics saved with invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.This is the claim of Wikipedia on the Internet, Catholic Answers and the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome and abroad.They could quote Pope John Paul II on ‘silent apostasy’ in the Church, as if, they are not a part of it.

So when EWTN says everyone does not have to enter the Church to avoid Hell it is irrational. Since EWTN implies the baptism of desire is de facto known to us.

There is also no Magisterial text to support this position.

Since we do know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance Fr. George Puthoor is getting rid of another modernist sacred cow- the lie about a priest, Leonard Feeney...
CONTINUED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-baptism-of-desire-that-we.html#links

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:01 am

cowboy wrote:Bill Strom wrote it this way on his blog:

"In individual cases, of those validly baptized,
however in numbers known only to God, they might not be guilty of the
sin/s of heresy and/or schism, owing to "invincible ignorance"(non-culpible ignorance) of the true Faith,
in these cases they may belong to the Catholic Church by desire,
provided they put no obstacle of the will to the authority of the Vicar
of Christ, and are open to obey God in things revealed for salvation
such as being free from all mortal sin, and believe explicitly the
mysteries of the faith which are necessary by a necessity of means,
especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation for
salvation." http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/session-one-dogmatic-constitution-of.html

I think these students would seem to fall into this class which is that they are kinda like babies, who put no obstacle to grace.

With this critical distinction: Babies cannot cooperate with grace by orienting their wills towards God and to do all that He commands. No one (adults) can be justified (or saved) without this free grace assisted consent and act of the will.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:49 am

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
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.

Yes, I have; and St. Thomas is quite clear:

“Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.” (Stl, II-II, Q. 10, A.4, Reply to the third)

“As stated above, man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.”

And, as Lud says: “Thus it is very clear that St. Thomas holds that Cornelius was justified by his implicit faith and implicit desire for baptism before he knew about Christ or the Trinity. Nevertheless, it is St. Thomas's belief that, after the promulgation of the Gospel, God will bring all such people as Cornelius to an explicit knowledge of Christ and the Trinity.”

And you say it has not been established that St. Thomas teaches that no one can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ. Really?

- “Cornelius … was NOT an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith”. Now how can someone who does not have that faith which is pleasing to God perform meritorious works (acceptable to God)?

- Cornelius “had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.” Note too that the Gospel was already promulgated, but was not yet manifested to Cornelius.

- “man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly … So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit”. Forgiveness of sins and baptism of desire through an implicit faith in Christ and the desire for Baptism … and St. Thomas is not talking about justification?

- “when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues.” How can anyone who is not already justified in grace by faith/charity receive a greater fullness of the same sanctifying grace and virtues he does not possess?

If St. Thomas is not describing justification, what is this state where sins are forgiven, baptism of desire takes place; where one’s faith and works are pleasing to God, and where existing grace and virtues can only increase through water Baptism?

Do I need to bring my crayons?

In fact, in his Reply to a Liberal, Part III, Baptism, Raymond Karam wrote (http://catholicism.org/rptal-part3.html):

St. Augustine who, in his treatise On Baptism: Against the Donatists, asks us “not to depreciate a man’s righteousness should it begin to exist before he joined the Church, as the righteouness of Cornelius began to exist before he was in the Christian community,” also says in the same sentence that this righteousness “was not thought worthless, or the angel would not have said to him, ‘Thy alms have been accepted and thy prayers have been heard;’ nor did it yet suffice for his gaining the kingdom of Heaven, or he would not have been told to send for Peter, in order to be baptized by him.”

It is clear, therefore, that Cornelius, who was already in the state of sanctifying grace even before the actual reception of baptism, would not have been saved if he had not sent for Peter to be baptized by him, or if, having sent for him, he had refused to be baptized with water. St. Augustine says, Cornelius would have been guilty of contempt for so holy a sacrament if, even after he had received the Holy Ghost, he had refused to be baptized.

And my response to this is if Cornelius, upon being confirmed in his justification, had not sent for Peter after being instructed by the Angel to do so, “or if, having sent for him, he had refused to be baptized with water” out of contempt for the sacrament, how could he have been sanctified in the first place? He obviously would not have had the requisite will that is pleasing to God, and God will not be mocked.

Note too that we are not talking about Jehannes’s “free will” argument which has the justified popping in and out of justification every 10 minutes, and neither do I deny the fact that someone who is justified can fall from justification; but it is quite clear that Cornelius, a just man and a man of faith, was selected by God to receive instruction and Baptism from Peter, so throwing out the “IF” Cornelius had contempt for the sacrament argument is ludicrous on its face when we already know from Scripture that if Cornelius had such a contrary will, his faith and works would not have been pleasing to God and he would not have been selected by God for this favor.

tornpage wrote: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.

It does matter, for a soul who is justified under the law of grace since the promulgation of the Gospel is justified in and through Christ, and, as a true heir, has rights to the kingdom. This places St. Thomas’s understanding of “necessity” into proper context; meaning he did not hold this necessity as an absolute necessity, but, as Lud correctly surmises, he held this reformable opinion as an extension of the infallible Providence and Predestination of God, “insofar as God's intention never fails.”

In other words, Tornpage, since Cornelius had already been translated into Christ as an heir to the kingdom St. Thomas did not consider “necessity” in this instance as some type of absolute dogmatic imperative spelled out in the Athanasian Creed. So, when you say that “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”, this is misleading and would be similar to saying that you and Br. Andre both believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation as a necessity of means. Of course you share this position; but Br. Andre’s understanding of necessity is in the “absolute” intrinsic sense, while yours is in the extrinsic sense. This is no small difference; as we know.

If you are going to ride on the back of St. Thomas Aquinas to justify your position, you will need to come to grips with his entire doctrine on justification, and stop taking his opinion on the "necessity of infallibility" out of context.

The “common opinion” of St. Thomas, as Fr. GL would say, is generally true, but “they give this view as opinion, not as revealed truth, not as certain conclusion.”

CCC 1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:05 am

MRyan wrote:
And you say it has not been established that St. Thomas teaches that no one can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ. Really?

Correction; should read "And you say it has not been established that St. Thomas refutes your position that says no one can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ. Really?"

I wish we had more time with the "edit" function before it shuts you out.

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:06 am

Mike,

And you say it has not been established that St. Thomas teaches that no one can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ. Really?

I noticed that you didn't quote me saying "St. Thomas teaches that no one can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ."

Before we proceed further, can you show me where I did that, since you say I did.

Thanks.

Jehanne Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:08 am

It comes down to if one accepts Florence's decree that,

"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."

Of course, Pope Urban II, in calling for the First Crusade, defined perfect charity in quoting John 15:13, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." That's perfect charity, to die for someone.

Florence, in quoting Saint Fulgentius from 900 years before the Council, said that such "perfect charity" would not avail someone to everlasting life if done outside of the Catholic Church, which is the mystical body of Jesus Christ. One must "remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." What does it mean to be within the "bosom" of the Catholic Church? Of course, the analogy is clear, but a somewhat personal example will enlighten all of us to the obvious.

I am close to my mother-in-law, closer than she is to me. She is an attractive and petite woman, feminine and gentle. On occasion, she will embrace me and hold my head against her breasts, her arms wrapped around me. These are tender moments for me, something that my own mother used to do to me as a child but no longer does. My mother-in-law will hold me in her bosom for a short time, my arms around her, then we both "let go" at the same time, and life goes on.

The same is true of the Church, our Mother. In Baptism, we are adopted into her arms, but having free will, we can separate ourselves from her through heresy and/or schism. Of course, the former word, in Latin, means choice. This is why Saint Thomas taught:

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

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

Of course, the Medievals understood this well (from the Condemnation Trial of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle -- May 2, 1431):

When it was explained to her what the Church Militant meant, and [she was] admonished to believe and hold the article Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam, etc., and to submit to the Church Militant, She answered: I believe in the Church on earth; but for my deeds and words, as I have previously said, I refer the whole matter to God, Who caused me to do what I have done.

She said also that she submits to God her Creator, Who caused her to do what she did; and refers it to Him in His own Person.

Asked if she means that she has no judge on earth, and our Holy Father the Pope is not her judge,

She replied: I will tell you nothing else. I have a good Master, Our Lord, in Whom I trust for everything, and not in any other.

She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam, she would be a heretic to uphold [her views], and that she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned.

She answered: I will tell you nothing else. And [even] if I saw the fire, I should tell you what I have told you, and nothing else.

Questioned as to whether, if the General Council, that is to say our Holy Father, the Cardinals [and the rest] were here, she would be willing to submit,

She answered: You will drag nothing else from me.

Asked if she is willing to submit to our Holy Father the Pope,

She said: Bring me to him, and I shall answer him.

Yes, Protestants and Orthodox, when they come to that "perfect age" have free will, and they, like Catholics, can be guilty of apostasy, heresy, and/or schism, and per Saint Thomas, are much more likely to do so.

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:09 am

And you say it has not been established that St. Thomas refutes your position that says no one can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ. Really?"

Ok, you corrected it. I'm sure glad you did.

Yeah, REALLY. When I said that, all you had referred to was St. Thomas on the "pagan child" - Lud's argument. And I gave my reasons for saying that that doesn't establish it.

Now you cite St. Thomas on Cornelius.

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:17 am

This places St. Thomas’s understanding of “necessity” into proper context; meaning he did not hold this necessity as an absolute necessity, but, as Lud correctly surmises, he held this reformable opinion as an extension of the infallible Providence and Predestination of God, “insofar as God's intention never fails.”

In other words, Tornpage, since Cornelius had already been translated into Christ as an heir to the kingdom St. Thomas did not consider “necessity” in this instance as some type of absolute dogmatic imperative spelled out in the Athanasian Creed. So, when you say that “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”, this is misleading

Blah, blah, blah.

Again, as I said, what, 3, 4, 5 days ago, and as we established about the same time, for St. Thomas explicit faith was a "necessity of infallibility."

You can call it "misleading," but what it is is absolutely true:

no one is saved without explicit faith in Christ in the Gospel age, which is a position St. Thomas and I share

Now, being as you are an honest gentleman, please tell me what about that statement if false, or admit it's true.

I do hold that the AC indicates a Catholic faith, which requires explicit faith in the Incarnation and Trinity, is necessary for salvation (you can do whatever you want with justification), JUST AS IT SAYS:

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

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Explicit faith is a necessity for salvation. Period.

Jehanne Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:23 am

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
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.

Yes, I have; and St. Thomas is quite clear:

“Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.” (Stl, II-II, Q. 10, A.4, Reply to the third)

“As stated above, man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.”

And, as Lud says: “Thus it is very clear that St. Thomas holds that Cornelius was justified by his implicit faith and implicit desire for baptism before he knew about Christ or the Trinity. Nevertheless, it is St. Thomas's belief that, after the promulgation of the Gospel, God will bring all such people as Cornelius to an explicit knowledge of Christ and the Trinity.”

And you say it has not been established that St. Thomas teaches that no one can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ. Really?

- “Cornelius … was NOT an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith”. Now how can someone who does not have that faith which is pleasing to God perform meritorious works (acceptable to God)?

- Cornelius “had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.” Note too that the Gospel was already promulgated, but was not yet manifested to Cornelius.

- “man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly … So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit”. Forgiveness of sins and baptism of desire through an implicit faith in Christ and the desire for Baptism … and St. Thomas is not talking about justification?

- “when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues.” How can anyone who is not already justified in grace by faith/charity receive a greater fullness of the same sanctifying grace and virtues he does not possess?

If St. Thomas is not describing justification, what is this state where sins are forgiven, baptism of desire takes place; where one’s faith and works are pleasing to God, and where existing grace and virtues can only increase through water Baptism?

Do I need to bring my crayons?

In fact, in his Reply to a Liberal, Part III, Baptism, Raymond Karam wrote (http://catholicism.org/rptal-part3.html):

St. Augustine who, in his treatise On Baptism: Against the Donatists, asks us “not to depreciate a man’s righteousness should it begin to exist before he joined the Church, as the righteouness of Cornelius began to exist before he was in the Christian community,” also says in the same sentence that this righteousness “was not thought worthless, or the angel would not have said to him, ‘Thy alms have been accepted and thy prayers have been heard;’ nor did it yet suffice for his gaining the kingdom of Heaven, or he would not have been told to send for Peter, in order to be baptized by him.”

It is clear, therefore, that Cornelius, who was already in the state of sanctifying grace even before the actual reception of baptism, would not have been saved if he had not sent for Peter to be baptized by him, or if, having sent for him, he had refused to be baptized with water. St. Augustine says, Cornelius would have been guilty of contempt for so holy a sacrament if, even after he had received the Holy Ghost, he had refused to be baptized.
And my response to this is if Cornelius, upon being confirmed in his justification, had not sent for Peter after being instructed by the Angel to do so, “or if, having sent for him, he had refused to be baptized with water” out of contempt for the sacrament, how could he have been sanctified in the first place? He obviously would not have had the requisite will that is pleasing to God, and God will not be mocked.

Note too that we are not talking about Jehannes’s “free will” argument which has the justified popping in and out of justification every 10 minutes, and neither do I deny the fact that someone who is justified can fall from justification; but it is quite clear that Cornelius, a just man and a man of faith, was selected by God to receive instruction and Baptism from Peter, so throwing out the “IF” Cornelius had contempt for the sacrament argument is ludicrous on its face when we already know from Scripture that if Cornelius had such a contrary will, his faith and works would not have been pleasing to God and he would not have been selected by God for this favor.

tornpage wrote: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.
It does matter, for a soul who is justified under the law of grace since the promulgation of the Gospel is justified in and through Christ, and, as a true heir, has rights to the kingdom. This places St. Thomas’s understanding of “necessity” into proper context; meaning he did not hold this necessity as an absolute necessity, but, as Lud correctly surmises, he held this reformable opinion as an extension of the infallible Providence and Predestination of God, “insofar as God's intention never fails.”

In other words, Tornpage, since Cornelius had already been translated into Christ as an heir to the kingdom St. Thomas did not consider “necessity” in this instance as some type of absolute dogmatic imperative spelled out in the Athanasian Creed. So, when you say that “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”, this is misleading and would be similar to saying that you and Br. Andre both believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation as a necessity of means. Of course you share this position; but Br. Andre’s understanding of necessity is in the “absolute” intrinsic sense, while yours is in the extrinsic sense. This is no small difference; as we know.

If you are going to ride on the back of St. Thomas Aquinas to justify your position, you will need to come to grips with his entire doctrine on justification, and stop taking his opinion on the "necessity of infallibility" out of context.

The “common opinion” of St. Thomas, as Fr. GL would say, is generally true, but “they give this view as opinion, not as revealed truth, not as certain conclusion.”

CCC 1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

All that the example of Cornelius proves is that it possible for a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc., to convert to Catholicism. That's what Cornelius did!! He converted to Catholicism!!!

Of course, you're saying that Cornelius, if he had died in his state of "implicit faith," that he would have gone to Heaven, and I, and all "Feeneyites" would agree with that. However:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:" (Hebrews 9:27)

Yes, Cornelius was fully justified and fit for Heaven because of his genuine implicit faith, but because of that, the One and Triune God, in His Sovereignty over Creation, sent Peter to finish the process. Cornelius came to explicit faith and was baptized.

I cannot think of a better example to demonstrate the truthfulness of Father Feeney's theology.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:34 am

tornpage wrote:
And you say it has not been established that St. Thomas refutes your position that says no one can be justified without an explicit faith in Christ. Really?"

Ok, you corrected it. I'm sure glad you did.

Yeah, REALLY. When I said that, all you had referred to was St. Thomas on the "pagan child" - Lud's argument. And I gave my reasons for saying that that doesn't establish it.

Now you cite St. Thomas on Cornelius.

On June 15th I wrote in my response to you: “St. Thomas did in fact teach that a (pagan) child who reaches the age of reason may be justified and translated to a state of grace as an heir to the kingdom without an explicit belief in our Lord. He said the same thing about Cornelius." .

On June 16th I responded to you by saying, in part: “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."

On June 20th I wrote: “I will return to St. Thomas’s explicit belief that Cornelius and the pagan child was/may be justified in Christ prior to having an explicit faith in Christ, and why this is important …”

Btw, when I first brought this up and made reference to Lud's article on Aquinas, you provided the link to his article referencing the pagan child and Cornelius, so please stop with this theatrical obfuscation. The only reason I did not make reference to the pagan child in my previous post was for the sake of brevity. Aquinas's teaching on Cornelius seals the deal ... and you are kicking against the goad.

Nice try.

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:44 am

you and Br. Andre both believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation as a necessity of means. Of course you share this position; but Br. Andre’s understanding of necessity is in the “absolute” intrinsic sense, while yours is in the extrinsic sense. This is no small difference; as we know.

Wow.

I know subtlety is not something strange to you, so why can't you grasp the distinctions in my position?

Do you really believe I maintain that water baptism is an absolute necessity of means such that one could not be saved without it?

Wow. Is this MRyan I'm talking to?

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:45 am

I will return to St. Thomas’s explicit belief that Cornelius

Yeah, you referred to it, and now you finally cited it. Great.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:48 am

Jehanne wrote:
All that the example of Cornelius proves is that it possible for a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc., to convert to Catholicism. That's what Cornelius did!! He converted to Catholicism!!!

Of course, you're saying that Cornelius, if he had died in his state of "implicit faith," that he would have gone to Heaven, and I, and all "Feeneyites" would agree with that. However:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:" (Hebrews 9:27)

Yes, Cornelius was fully justified and fit for Heaven because of his genuine implicit faith, but because of that, the One and Triune God, in His Sovereignty over Creation, sent Peter to finish the process. Cornelius came to explicit faith and was baptized.

I cannot think of a better example to demonstrate the truthfulness of Father Feeney's theology.

No real problem with any of that except conversion of heart is not always manifested externally; and with the last part where Fr. Feeney and the present St. Benedict Center would have us believe that justification under the law of grace since the promulgation of the Gospel by "the desire thereof" is NOT a true justification that can make one a "true" heir to the kingdom.

I strongly disagree; either Justification is precisely what Trent declared it to be, or it isn't. And whether God infallibly brings water baptism and/or explicit faith in our Lord to each of the justified elect is not infallibly "certain"; though every soul in heaven believes "rightly" in all of the Paschal mysteries.

Jehanne Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:59 am

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
All that the example of Cornelius proves is that it possible for a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc., to convert to Catholicism. That's what Cornelius did!! He converted to Catholicism!!!

Of course, you're saying that Cornelius, if he had died in his state of "implicit faith," that he would have gone to Heaven, and I, and all "Feeneyites" would agree with that. However:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:" (Hebrews 9:27)

Yes, Cornelius was fully justified and fit for Heaven because of his genuine implicit faith, but because of that, the One and Triune God, in His Sovereignty over Creation, sent Peter to finish the process. Cornelius came to explicit faith and was baptized.

I cannot think of a better example to demonstrate the truthfulness of Father Feeney's theology.
No real problem with any of that except conversion of heart is not always manifested externally; and with the last part where Fr. Feeney and the present St. Benedict Center would have us believe that justification under the law of grace since the promulgation of the Gospel by "the desire thereof" is NOT a true justification that can make one a "true" heir to the kingdom.

I strongly disagree; either Justification is precisely what Trent declared it to be, or it isn't. And whether God infallibly brings water baptism and/or explicit faith in our Lord to each of the justified elect is not infallibly "certain"; though every soul in heaven believes "rightly" in all of the Paschal mysteries.

That's not the point. Yes, we agree, "God is not bound by His Sacraments," but He is bound by His Perfection (and hence, His Word), which means that all who go to Heaven must come to explicit faith in His One and Only Son Jesus Christ and be Baptized. This is what the Athanasian Creed infallibly states. You claim, if only "implicitly," that God will allow some to die with a justifying implicit faith, and that is definitively not what Saint Thomas taught. Father Feeney simply extended Thomas' faith that God would bring the Gospel to those who had genuine implicit faith so that they could receive it (and come to explicit faith) to also include bringing to them Sacramental Baptism in Water.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:03 am

tornpage wrote:
you and Br. Andre both believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation as a necessity of means. Of course you share this position; but Br. Andre’s understanding of necessity is in the “absolute” intrinsic sense, while yours is in the extrinsic sense. This is no small difference; as we know.

Wow.

I know subtlety is not something strange to you, so why can't you grasp the distinctions in my position?

Do you really believe I maintain that water baptism is an absolute necessity of means such that one could not be saved without it?

Wow. Is this MRyan I'm talking to?

It sure is, but I'm not sure I know the person I am talking to. I've never seen such desperate grasps at straw from you before through such flagrant misrepresentations of what I say.

Why did you omit the first part of my statement which makes it clear that I was making an analogy between yours and St. Thomas's position on the necessity of explicit faith, and yours and Br. Andre's position on the necessity of Baptism, which only appear to be similar (as a necessity of means); but are not the same?

I said:

So, when you say that “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”, this is misleading and would be similar to saying that you and Br. Andre both believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation as a necessity of means. Of course you share this position; but Br. Andre’s understanding of necessity is in the “absolute” intrinsic sense, while yours is in the extrinsic sense. This is no small difference; as we know."

Why are you doing this? You appear to be desperate and will flail at anything to make me look foolish.

I generally don't need any help in that department, but this is disappointing.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:08 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
All that the example of Cornelius proves is that it possible for a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc., to convert to Catholicism. That's what Cornelius did!! He converted to Catholicism!!!

Of course, you're saying that Cornelius, if he had died in his state of "implicit faith," that he would have gone to Heaven, and I, and all "Feeneyites" would agree with that. However:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:" (Hebrews 9:27)

Yes, Cornelius was fully justified and fit for Heaven because of his genuine implicit faith, but because of that, the One and Triune God, in His Sovereignty over Creation, sent Peter to finish the process. Cornelius came to explicit faith and was baptized.

I cannot think of a better example to demonstrate the truthfulness of Father Feeney's theology.
No real problem with any of that except conversion of heart is not always manifested externally; and with the last part where Fr. Feeney and the present St. Benedict Center would have us believe that justification under the law of grace since the promulgation of the Gospel by "the desire thereof" is NOT a true justification that can make one a "true" heir to the kingdom.

I strongly disagree; either Justification is precisely what Trent declared it to be, or it isn't. And whether God infallibly brings water baptism and/or explicit faith in our Lord to each of the justified elect is not infallibly "certain"; though every soul in heaven believes "rightly" in all of the Paschal mysteries.

That's not the point. Yes, we agree, "God is not bound by His Sacraments," but He is bound by His Perfection (and hence, His Word), which means that all who go to Heaven must come to explicit faith in His One and Only Son Jesus Christ and be Baptized. This is what the Athanasian Creed infallibly states. You claim, if only "implicitly," that God will allow some to die with a justifying implicit faith, and that is definitively not what Saint Thomas taught. Father Feeney simply extended Thomas' faith that God would bring the Gospel to those who had genuine implicit faith so that they could receive it (and come to explicit faith) to also include bringing to them Sacramental Baptism in Water.

Jehanne, I am not going to sit here and go tit for tat with you over allowable opinions. The POINT of this "debate" is whether the Church is teaching error and/or "heresy" by teaching that one may in fact be saved through supernatural faith, while having an implicit faith in our Lord.

Stay on point.

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:14 am

this is disappointing.

Agreed.

You are saying that my belief in explicit faith is similar to Brother Andre's regarding baptism? Ok, it didn't read that way to me.

But I think it's just a confusion about terminology.

I am calling the necessity of explicit faith a "necessity of infallibility." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brother Andre also believes water baptism is a necessity of infallibility - I do too as to that, though I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about explicit faith.

The theologians do a damn good job at mucking things up - for example, "relative necessity of means." You keep drawing distinctions regarding justification, that's your prerogative. I prefer to cut through the crap.

As I said:

no one is saved without explicit faith in Christ in the Gospel age, which is a position St. Thomas and I share

And, again, I wonder if you'd answer this one, among a string of several questions I've posed to you which have not been answered:

Now, being as you are an honest gentleman, would please tell me what about that statement (just quoted) is false, or admit it's true?

Jehanne Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:16 am

MRyan wrote:Jehanne, I am not going to sit here and go tit for tat with you over allowable opinions. The POINT of this "debate" is whether the Church is teaching error and/or "heresy" by teaching that one may in fact be saved through supernatural faith, while having an implicit faith in our Lord.

Stay on point.

Of course, the Church does; such has never been in dispute. Point is that one cannot, of his/her own free will, refuse to believe. However, those who have genuine implicit faith will receive the Gospel through "internal inspiration," "some preacher of the faith," or perhaps "an angel" (but not an angle.) Such is the teaching of the Church.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:46 am

tornpage wrote:
this is disappointing.

Agreed.

You are saying that my belief in explicit faith is similar to Brother Andre's regarding baptism? Ok, it didn't read that way to me.

But I think it's just a confusion about terminology.

I spelled out the analogy I was making, and I even spelled out your position on baptism. Next time I'll bring my crayons.

tornpage wrote:I am calling the necessity of explicit faith a "necessity of infallibility." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brother Andre also believes water baptism is a necessity of infallibility - I do too as to that, though I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about explicit faith.

The theologians do a damn good job at mucking things up - for example, "relative necessity of means." You keep drawing distinctions regarding justification, that's your prerogative. I prefer to cut through the crap.

And not just the theologians, but certain internet posters who say:

"I am calling the necessity of explicit faith a 'necessity of infallibility.' Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brother Andre also believes water baptism is a necessity of infallibility - I do too as to that, though I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about explicit faith."

So with respect to the necessity of Baptism you hold it as a "necessity of infallibility", but not so "infallible" that it excludes baptism of desire; and not as "strongly" as you hold the necessity of explicit faith.

In other words, its all "relative" depending on how "strongly" one beleives that God predestines each of the elect to Baptism or explicit faith.

Way to cut through the "crap".

tornpage wrote:As I said:

no one is saved without explicit faith in Christ in the Gospel age, which is a position St. Thomas and I share
And, again, I wonder if you'd answer this one, among a string of several questions I've posed to you which have not been answered:

Now, being as you are an honest gentleman, would please tell me what about that statement (just quoted) is false, or admit it's true?

It is certainly true; as true as Br. Andre's and St. Aquinas' statements on the absolute necessity of Baptism.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:20 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Jehanne, I am not going to sit here and go tit for tat with you over allowable opinions. The POINT of this "debate" is whether the Church is teaching error and/or "heresy" by teaching that one may in fact be saved through supernatural faith, while having an implicit faith in our Lord.

Stay on point.

Of course, the Church does; such has never been in dispute. Point is that one cannot, of his/her own free will, refuse to believe. However, those who have genuine implicit faith will receive the Gospel through "internal inspiration," "some preacher of the faith," or perhaps "an angel" (but not an angle.) Such is the teaching of the Church.

So the teaching of the Church on the possibility of sanctification and even salvation for a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church (who does not accept the dogma of Papal Primacy, for example) is erroneous, and even heretical, is that correct?

In other words, there is no possibility that once presented with the dogma, no one can refuse to believe “rightly” in that same dogma, even when they believe they already “believe rightly”; and never mind St. Augustine’s teaching and the Church’s on inculpability in this matter under certain conditions, such as being raised in the Eastern Orthodox religion.

Come on Jehanne, just say it … the Church teaches “heresy”, and please do not give me this “material heresy” nonsense. This is the magisterium and not the opinion of uncle Fred or the “private opinion” of the Roman Pontiff.

Gee, I wonder what you would say about Canon Law and how it allows (under certain conditions and at the discretion of the local Catholic Ordinary) the reception of the Eucharist by the Eastern Orthodox?

I know Catholics who joined the sede camp precisely over this issue.

I love it when “trads” dictate to the pope the limits of his authority over the sacraments, over the Liturgy and over the transmission of the faith by pretending that he can fail in all three prerogatives of his universal Primacy.

But the best one has to be the so-called "private opinions" rendered by that strictly "pastoral Council", VCII.

MRyan Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:56 pm

tornpage wrote:
I will return to St. Thomas’s explicit belief that Cornelius

Yeah, you referred to it, and now you finally cited it. Great.

I “referred to it” on several occasions and I also knew that you were already familiar with Lud’s article containing the specific teachings of Aquinas on this matter. So it was not so much that I needed to cite these same teachings you were already familiar with, but remained unconvinced of (though I did finally take the line-by-line “crayon” approach); it was, as I said, important to explain why his teaching on justification through implicit faith was important.

So I’ll explain why, once again:

It does matter, for a soul who is justified under the law of grace since the promulgation of the Gospel is justified in and through Christ, and, as a true heir, has rights to the kingdom. This places St. Thomas’s understanding of “necessity” into proper context; meaning he did not hold this necessity as an absolute necessity, but, as Lud correctly surmises, he held this reformable opinion as an extension of the infallible Providence and Predestination of God, “insofar as God's intention never fails.”

In other words, Tornpage, since Cornelius had already been translated into Christ as an heir to the kingdom St. Thomas did not consider “necessity” in this instance as some type of absolute dogmatic imperative spelled out in the Athanasian Creed. So, when you say that “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”, this is misleading and would be similar to saying that you and Br. Andre both believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation as a necessity of means. Of course you share this position; but Br. Andre’s understanding of necessity is in the “absolute” intrinsic sense, while yours is in the extrinsic sense. This is no small difference; as we know.

If you are going to ride on the back of St. Thomas Aquinas to justify your position, you will need to come to grips with his entire doctrine on justification, and stop taking his opinion on the "necessity of infallibility" out of context.

Your mocking tone of impatience does not sit well since you said that there would be no problem with my delay in responding to this specific area. No, I will not be reconstructing my lengthy post ... too late for that and it would be a waste of effort. I’ve already explained why the Angelic Doctor’s teaching on justification through implicit faith is important in the context of “necessity of infallibility”, whether you think so or not.

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:37 pm

"I am calling the necessity of explicit faith a 'necessity of infallibility.' Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brother Andre also believes water baptism is a necessity of infallibility - I do too as to that, though I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about explicit faith."

So with respect to the necessity of Baptism you hold it as a "necessity of infallibility", but not so "infallible" that it excludes baptism of desire; and not as "strongly" as you hold the necessity of explicit faith.

In other words, its all "relative" depending on how "strongly" one beleives that God predestines each of the elect to Baptism or explicit faith.

Way to cut through the "crap".

Apparently, St. Thomas - and you and Lud agree with this - believes explicit faith in Christ is a "necessity of infallibility" for salvation but that one could also be justified without it. In other words, St. Thomas believes that it's "infallible" (explicit faith) that all the saved in the Gospel era explicitly believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but that it's "not so 'infallible' that it excludes a justification by implicit faith" at some point prior.

Cut the grandstanding and posturing in front of a mirror and deal with the argument which you ignore: St. Thomas and I hold that all of the elect who are saved in the Gospel age will believe explicitly in Christ. The view expressed by the Magisterium, that one may be come to salvation in other religions "even without recognizing Christ," denies that and is contradictory to it.

And we haven't even touched the question yet how one can deny the divinity of Christ (such as Muslims and Jews) and still have the supernatural faith in Christ necessary for salvation.

You're losing even while you're "ahead."

columba Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:19 pm

Mike, will you answer the darn question. baptism - Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"? - Page 3 625443

This is interesting stuff. Keep going. Smile

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:27 pm

Mike,

You had a very good post a few back, and you quoted St. Augustine in it:

St. Augustine who, in his treatise On Baptism: Against the Donatists, asks us “not to depreciate a man’s righteousness should it begin to exist before he joined the Church, as the righteouness of Cornelius began to exist before he was in the Christian community,” also says in the same sentence that this righteousness “was not thought worthless, or the angel would not have said to him, ‘Thy alms have been accepted and thy prayers have been heard;’ nor did it yet suffice for his gaining the kingdom of Heaven, or he would not have been told to send for Peter, in order to be baptized by him.”

That's - not to beat the dead horse to too much of a pulp - the essence of this dispute. This state of justification no longer "suffice[s] for [the] gaining of the kingdom of Heaven." Which is what I maintain Trent is saying in Session VI, Chapter IV - "this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire for the same," which requires explicit faith (I say).

You make some good points regarding justification, I concede that. But the justification of Cornelius before Christ was preached to him and he believed was not sufficient for salvation. JPII and BXVI and the bishops and priests today believe this type of justification of Cornelius before explicit faith is sufficeint, contra St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Of course, they go behind that, in so far as they say Jews and Muslims who deny Christ have a justification which saves - and we haven't even touched that yet.

This is why I keep distancing the argument from the finer theological points, because they do not diminish or evade this central point.

DeSelby Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:44 pm

MRyan wrote:Sorry, DeSelby, I did not mean to put this on "ignore".

I think I can be more precise with my answer if I know where you are coming from; so I'd like to hear your opinion on what Unam Sanctam means with respect to the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff as a necessity of means for salvation.

What is your take, for example, on the notion of an "implicit" or "virtual" submission inherent within an explicit will to do the will of God and the will of Church in all things ... when prevented from knowing about this precept?

No problem.

My opinion on the "notion of an 'implicit' or 'virtual' submission inherent within an explicit will to do the will of God and the will of the Church in all things" is simply that, yes, that notion is sound, but it is only sound within certain limits. For instance, if a native is converted by a Catholic missionary, believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, is baptized, but for some reason -- let's say the missionary is killed by the other natives -- isn't able to continue instruction but maintains the faith, then the concept of an implicit or virtual submission is fine, it seems to me.

It's when this concept of implicitness (whether it be submission to the pontiff or belief in the Trinity and Incarnation and so on) is extrapolated to all and sundry -- Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. -- that I believe it becomes unsound.

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:50 pm

Mike,

Some great commentary on Cornelius by St. Robert Bellarmine, and provided by you no less via Father Hardon on the "rigorist" interpretation:

RIGORIST THEORY

“It is clear that Cornelius, who was already in the state of sanctifying grace even before the actual reception of Baptism, would not have been saved if he had not sent for Peter to be baptized by him… St. Robert Bellarmine says…on the authority of St. Augustine: ‘Further, Augustine in his Epistle 57 to Dardamus, in Book 1 Of the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 7; in Book 1, Question 2, To Simplician; in Book 1, Chapter 8, On Baptism; and in Book IV, Chapter 21 of the same, says that Cornelius the Centurion, although he was praised in the Scriptures, was not yet such that he could have been saved, unless he became incorporated in the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.” [321]

Quite obviously, Bellarmine gives an answer to this objection which he quotes from the Sectarians. He says: “Cornelius had unquestionably received the forgiveness of his sins before Baptism, at least after he heard the faith from Blessed Peter and had a desire for Baptism. For, as it is said in Acts 10, he also had the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. But Augustine in the passages quoted is speaking of the time when Cornelius had not yet heard of Christ and did not even have a desire for Baptism. For, speaking of the later time, Augustine himself says (quest. 35 in Numbers): ‘Cornelius, hearing and believing what Peter preached, was so cleansed that even before visible Baptism he, together with those who were with him, received the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” [322]

Hey, Mike . . . I owe you one. Very Happy

tornpage Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:59 pm

Lesson: Be careful what "rigorist" you're combating. Laughing

Guest Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:34 am

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).

Mike,
When I say that the Baptism of Desire is never de facto known and it is always de jure, known in principle to us I am not putting forward a philosophical proposition. I am making a simple observation about baptism of desire.
I am not saying it is a philosophical principle like the Principle of Non Contradiction which you apply consistently in many cases. Intellectual reasoning and analysis is a part of philosophy; philosophical studies.

I refer to baptism of desire as being hypothetical, known only as a concept, something we accept ‘in principle’ (in the mind), since there is so much literature in which Catholics assume it is de facto known to us and not just hypothetical.

You have not denied that baptism of desire is only de facto known to God and never known to us humans in real cases. I assume you agree?

So one may not accept and apply it in general as a philosophical principle. However we can still agree that in the case of baptism of desire it is never explicit for us and so cannot contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence on extra eccleisam nulla salus.
So I can accept implicit baptism of desire and at the same time affirm explicit baptism of water and Catholic Faith being needed for everyone, with no exception.
I am free to accept that a non Catholic can be saved implicitly (implicit for us humans) with a good conscience and also affirm everyone needs explicit Catholic Faith for salvation, there being no exceptions.

MRyan Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:59 am

tornpage wrote:
"I am calling the necessity of explicit faith a 'necessity of infallibility.' Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brother Andre also believes water baptism is a necessity of infallibility - I do too as to that, though I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about explicit faith."
So with respect to the necessity of Baptism you hold it as a "necessity of infallibility", but not so "infallible" that it excludes baptism of desire; and not as "strongly" as you hold the necessity of explicit faith.

In other words, its all "relative" depending on how "strongly" one beleives that God predestines each of the elect to Baptism or explicit faith.

Way to cut through the "crap".
Apparently, St. Thomas - and you and Lud agree with this - believes explicit faith in Christ is a "necessity of infallibility" for salvation but that one could also be justified without it. In other words, St. Thomas believes that it's "infallible" (explicit faith) that all the saved in the Gospel era explicitly believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but that it's "not so 'infallible' that it excludes a justification by implicit faith" at some point prior.

It doesn’t matter what Lud or I “believe” with respect to “necessity of infallibility”, and you assume too much for it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with Lud’s position.

What matters is what the Church teaches. You have latched onto the concept of “necessity of infallibility” like some junk yard dog who thrashes it about with wild and blind abandon to the exclusion of everything else that properly frames the teaching of St. Thomas. You are a one-trick pony hopelessly wed to one single idea that distorts the suffocating reality closing in around you that demonstrates that St. Thomas’ opinion is not an absolute, that his opinion was never considered a “settled” irreformable doctrine, and that for a justified soul an explicit faith in our Lord can only increase the graces, faith and virtues already received through supernatural faith and “desire”, as St. Thomas also taught.

The moment you concede that yours is a private “opinion” binding on no one but yourself, and that the “error” and “heresy” accusation you hurl at the Church is the product of a flawed one-dimensional theology that bullishly attempts to elevate the more “probable opinion” of the theologians (of old) to some sacrosanct irreformable dogma that the Church has no right to amend or develop, is the moment you realize your “I will not have this shoveled down my throat” peevish crusade is lost, and that you lost this debate a long time ago the moment you accused the Church of heresy (what you call an “error” in doctrine on a matter of faith necessary for salvation).

No one is shoveling anything down your throat. But you are shoveling a lot of misspent anger.

What you will have to confront is the FACT that St. Thomas teaches that a soul may be justified in and through Christ prior to Baptism and explicit faith. This very fact places into context his teaching and opinion on the infallible intention of God to reveal the mysteries of Christ to “Cornelius and others like him” by revealing the obvious; that, as Lud wrote, “St. Thomas does not believe that it is necessary by an absolute necessity, both because men before Christ were saved without it, and also because men after Christ can be justified, and made fit for heaven without it.”

So let’s try this again:

It does matter, for a soul who is justified under the law of grace since the promulgation of the Gospel is justified in and through Christ, and, as a true heir, has rights to the kingdom. This places St. Thomas’s understanding of “necessity” into proper context; meaning he did not hold this necessity as an absolute necessity, but, as Lud correctly surmises, he held this reformable opinion as an extension of the infallible Providence and Predestination of God, “insofar as God's intention never fails.”

In other words, Tornpage, since Cornelius had already been translated into Christ as an heir to the kingdom St. Thomas did not consider “necessity” in this instance as some type of absolute dogmatic imperative spelled out in the Athanasian Creed. So, when you say that “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”, this is misleading and would be similar to saying that you and Br. Andre both believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation as a necessity of means. Of course you share this position; but Br. Andre’s understanding of necessity is in the “absolute” intrinsic sense, while yours is in the extrinsic sense. This is no small difference; as we know.

If you are going to ride on the back of St. Thomas Aquinas to justify your position, you will need to come to grips with his entire doctrine on justification, and stop taking his opinion on the "necessity of infallibility" out of context.

Deal with it.

tornpage wrote:Cut the grandstanding and posturing in front of a mirror and deal with the argument which you ignore: St. Thomas and I hold that all of the elect who are saved in the Gospel age will believe explicitly in Christ. The view expressed by the Magisterium, that one may be come to salvation in other religions "even without recognizing Christ," denies that and is contradictory to it.

Just like you “deny” that one may be justified prior to making an act of explicit faith in Christ. Btw, where does the “Magisterium” teach that one may come to salvation in other religions "even without recognizing Christ,"?

Show us the Magisterial teaching to which you refer.

tornpage wrote:And we haven't even touched the question yet how one can deny the divinity of Christ (such as Muslims and Jews) and still have the supernatural faith in Christ necessary for salvation.

Fine, I know you can't wait to sink your bulldog teeth into that one and throw it against the wall; but I will insist in return that you address the Church’s teaching on the possibility of sanctification and salvation for certain members of the Orthodox Church who do not profess a “right belief” in the dogma of Papal Primacy.

Its time to put up or ....

Sponsored content