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

tornpage wrote: I have highlighted the key part of St. Augustine's statement. If "they are with anxiety seeking the truth," they will find it, and will not die holding to any material heresies if they are among the elect.

Tornpage, one more comment; if you please. I wonder if you realize that to hold a material heresy is not to hold to heresy at all; it is to innocently hold to error.

“Material heresy”, properly understood, is nothing more than inculpable error.

I was wondering because I know you understand this; so I am a bit perplexed by that comment and your seeming misunderstanding of the words of St. Augustine who confirmed this basic truth for someone raised in an environment that teaches an incorrect understanding of a Catholic dogma, but who is prepared to amend his belief as soon as he realizes the Truth.

I wonder if Mike would be willing to extend his logic to the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI and even the Saint Benedict Centers, the majority of whom were born after the "alleged sins of separation" that occurred over a generation ago.

Of course, Mike's and Pope John Paul's logic is absurd, and constitutes a denial of human free will and/or alleges the "insufficiency" of the One and Triune God's Revelation to His Creation. Mike's logic is tantamount to saying that someone born in Russia, who is loyal to his/her county to the point of growing-up and joining the GRU (Russian foreign military intelligence directorate), ought not to be charged with espionage if that person spies on the US, for such a person must be "invincibly ignorant" and/or "morally inculpable" of US federal laws against espionage, since they were, after all, raised in Russia!

As Saint Thomas taught,

If the defect in the apprehensive power were nowise subject to the will, there would be no sin, either in the will, or in the apprehensive power, as in the case of those whose ignorance is invincible. It remains therefore that when there is in the apprehensive power a defect that is subject to the will, this defect also is deemed a sin. (Summa Theologica Ia IIae, q.74, a.1)

If I told any of you to go and find a novel and exact solution to Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity (a set of 10 non-elliptic partial differential equations), you almost certainly would not be able to do that (I couldn't either), and such would not be your (or my) fault! If I told you that it was "absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff," then you would know that and would be without excuse. If a person is capable of unbelief, then he/she must also be capable of belief, and to claim otherwise is to deny human free will.

Mike,

What is at issue is, is this magisterium the magisterium of the true Catholic Church?

It is all well and good to render one’s private opinion that God will supply the good-willed Orthodox soul with “right belief” in Papal Primacy and the filioque before he dies, but to foist this opinion as a “dogma”, thereby implying that the Church is teaching heresy, is where we “come to Jesus”, if I may use such a phrase.

You know damn well that I'm not foisting this opinion on the Orthodox as dogma, and you also know damn well that their is no teaching of the Church that says I can't, today, believe this to be true. Still.

The issue is the necessity for explicit faith in Christ.

My "private opinion" on the issue was "well and good" until perhaps Vatican II, but certainly not "well and good" during the pontificate of JPII and since. No "Congregation," no pope, not Pius XII, XI, X, name any of them, none of them taught that one could be saved without explicit faith in Christ.

I have good reason for suspecting this magisterium, for no prior magisterium taught what it teaches, and my belief did not go against any teaching of any pre-Vat II pontificate.

Never before was I (or you) confronted with the fact that the magisterium is teaching something we don't believe - either the Magisterium is right, or we are. One is wrong.

You evade this. I guess you think you can believe that none of the elect will be saved without explicit faith, even though the magisterium teaches that some are, and still think both you and the magisterium are right, on the same page, and all is fine with the world.

I call that dogmatic schizophrenia. Maybe you are comfortable in a straitjacket . . . I'm not.

Jehanne wrote:I wonder if Mike would be willing to extend his logic to the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI and even the Saint Benedict Centers, the majority of whom were born after the "alleged sins of separation" that occurred over a generation ago.

Of course, Mike's and Pope John Paul's logic is absurd, and constitutes a denial of human free will and/or alleges the "insufficiency" of the One and Triune God's Revelation to His Creation. Mike's logic is tantamount to saying that someone born in Russia, who is loyal to his/her county to the point of growing-up and joining the GRU (Russian foreign military intelligence directorate), ought not to be charged with espionage if that person spies on the US, for such a person must be "invincibly ignorant" and/or "morally inculpable" of US federal laws against espionage, since they were, after all, raised in Russia!

As Saint Thomas taught,

If the defect in the apprehensive power were nowise subject to the will, there would be no sin, either in the will, or in the apprehensive power, as in the case of those whose ignorance is invincible. It remains therefore that when there is in the apprehensive power a defect that is subject to the will, this defect also is deemed a sin. (Summa Theologica Ia IIae, q.74, a.1)

If I told any of you to go and find a novel and exact solution to Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity (a set of 10 non-elliptic partial differential equations), you almost certainly would not be able to do that (I couldn't either), and such would not be your (or my) fault! If I told you that it was "absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff," then you would know that and would be without excuse. If a person is capable of unbelief, then he/she must also be capable of belief, and to claim otherwise is to deny human free will.

Swell.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines heresy in this way:

2089 "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

Summa, II:II, Q. 11:

As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic.

In God's tribunal, those who return are always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and knows those who return in sincerity. But the Church cannot imitate God in this, for she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death.

1983 Code of Canon Law:

Canon 1321, 1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability.

2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished.

3. Unless it is otherwise evident, imputability is presumed whenever an external violation has occurred.

Canon 1323: The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:

(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect…These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum (1302):

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

The "logic" of Jehanne at work:

Of course, Mike's and Pope John Paul's logic [UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO] is absurd, and constitutes a denial of human free will and/or alleges the "insufficiency" of the One and Triune God's Revelation to His Creation.

Mike,

Please stop bashing the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI, etc., as well as the Saint Benedict Centers, none of whom at present were involved in the "sins of separation" that occurred over a generation ago with their respective founders. As for what you posted, we just have to "agree to disagree." You can't have your (theological) cake and eat it, too! Either you are claiming that the Orthodox (and, for that matter, everyone else) do not have free will and/or you are claiming that the One and Triune God's Revelation to His Creation is too lacking and/or defective to "convince" the Orthodox (and others) of their heresies and errors.

I agree that a native Russian who spies against the US deserves less punishment than does a native American for the same crime, but the former group still gets arrested, spends time wearing handcuffs, and if convicted (which is almost always the case) is still sent to jail and prison. After all, there are levels in Hell, aren't there? So, God believes in proportionate punishment also.

If you believe and profess what Pope Boniface declared in Unam Sanctam, then the Orthodox are without excuse, and we who work with the Saint Benedict Centers will continue to make that fact known to them, if only on an "implicit" basis, and especially out of charity for the salvation of their (and our) immortal souls.

tornpage wrote:Mike,

What is at issue is, is this magisterium the magisterium of the true Catholic Church?

Is that what this is about? Are we really going down this road again? OK; let’s.

tornpage wrote:

It is all well and good to render one’s private opinion that God will supply the good-willed Orthodox soul with “right belief” in Papal Primacy and the filioque before he dies, but to foist this opinion as a “dogma”, thereby implying that the Church is teaching heresy, is where we “come to Jesus”, if I may use such a phrase.

You know damn well that I'm not foisting this opinion on the Orthodox as dogma, and you also know damn well that their is no teaching of the Church that says I can't, today, believe this to be true. Still.

I agree with you on the latter 100%; but I am not the one who accused the Church of teaching error on a matter of Faith. If you are not foisting a “dogmatic” opinion on the non-salvation of the Orthodox who does not hold a “right belief” in Papal Primacy, please explain how the Church can be teaching “material heresy” and an erroneous doctrine on a matter of salvation without in some way being opposed to her own dogma on the necessity of “right belief” in all revealed truths (all of those truths revealed to the individual).

Can one of the Eastern Orthodox be sanctified and even saved while holding a mistaken belief in Papal Primacy? Let your speech be yes, yes; or no, no.

The Church says “yes”. Your “belief” that God will provide him with the fullness of the truth before he dies does not answer the question; the same question you are conveniently ignoring while making this an issue over what you are “allowed” to believe. I know that game only too well, so let’s not play it.

You seem to want to have it both ways; feign great umbrage at my “accusation” while evading the central issue of the cited passage from Augustine; all the while pushing the idea that the Church teaches an erroneous doctrine in opposition to the dogmatic Athanasian Creed.

If the Church is not in opposition to her own dogmatic Creed, please explain to me the purpose of this discussion on “dogmatic schizophrenia”.

tornpage wrote: The issue is the necessity for explicit faith in Christ.

Yes, and thus far you have “proven” nothing by way of providing magisterial proof positive that “explicit faith” in the Mysteries of our Lord for salvation is A) a defined dogma; B) an infallible teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium; C) an infallible “definitve act”; or D) the “infallible” common opinion of the theologians (believed always and by all men).

All of those options; and yet, the theologians and the Church stand in your way at every turn.

tornpage wrote: My "private opinion" on the issue was "well and good" until perhaps Vatican II, but certainly not "well and good" during the pontificate of JPII and since. No "Congregation," no pope, not Pius XII, XI, X, name any of them, none of them taught that one could be saved without explicit faith in Christ.

And none of them taught that one could not be saved without explicit faith in Christ.

But your “private opinion” was not the only allowable “private opinion”, as much as you wish to entertain this fantasy. And what happened to Pope Pius IX; did you forget to mention him, or will you suggest that his thrice declared teaching on the invincibly ignorant actually says the opposite of what his words suggest and that the “Feeneyite” interpretation is the “more common”?

Again, Fr. Hardon:

Against this theory of the absolute necessity of actual profession of the Catholic Faith for salvation, we have the mind of the Church which has clearly recognized: the subjective, albeit erroneous, sincerity of non-Catholics, including non-Catholic Christians, in professing another than the Catholic Faith, and the possible possession of sanctifying grace by such persons which, as we saw, is an equivalent title to eternal salvation.

From which the argument is simply this: An explicit profession of the Catholic Faith presupposes an explicit knowledge of the Catholic religion.

But: Pius IX allows that people who are in ignorance of the Catholic religion can be saved through the workings of Divine grace, if their ignorance is invincible.

Therefore: explicit profession of the Catholic Faith is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

The minor is clear from the documents quoted. However, the objection is raised by the rigorists that the Pope did not say that such people would die in their ignorance of the true faith. But if this were true, the words of the Pope cannot be excused from duplicity. For on the one hand, he says that, “those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion…can attain eternal salvation.” On the other hand, if he means that they cannot attain eternal life unless or until their invincible ignorance is dissipated and they explicitly embrace the Catholic faith, he is talking deceptively. For then he is making conditional, mentally, what is declared absolute, verbally. The condition is: If this invincible ignorance is displaced by profession of the true faith before death. But the condition is not expressed, it is purely mental, without a suggestion to its existence to be found in the words of the Pope.

Moreover, besides intrinsic evidence, we have the authority of the theologians of the Vatican Council that Pius IX is to be understood in the sense explained and not as the rigorists pretend. As noted before, the subject of the salvation of sincere non-Catholics was on the agenda of the Council. And to this end, the two pertinent documents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance among non-Catholics were quoted in extensor in the Acts. Then, commenting on the essential terms, the councilor authorities explained that: “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance…’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.”

Your attempt to place “implicit faith” squarely on the shoulders of VCII is oh so convenient since she makes such an easy target; but it is clear that you have ignored all evidence to the contrary.

tornpage wrote: I have good reason for suspecting this magisterium, for no prior magisterium taught what it teaches, and my belief did not go against any teaching of any pre-Vat II pontificate.

Stop making this about your personal beliefs and stick to the essential matter of your accusation against the Church for teaching “error” on a matter of faith necessary for salvation; to wit, that no man can be saved apart from and without belief in our Lord – period, for there is no other Name in heaven by which men are saved. The Church “denies” none of that. However, contrary to your opinion that the present (insinuating a false) magisterium is opposed to this dogma, the dogma does not necessarily translate to “explicit” belief when it can be implicit in one’s supernatural faith in God (and as a rewarder to those who seek Him).

tornpage wrote: Never before was I (or you) confronted with the fact that the magisterium is teaching something we don't believe - either the Magisterium is right, or we are. One is wrong.

Oh, horse puckey; stop with the melodrama and pull your head out of the sand. The magisterium did not come to an end with its development of "implicit faith”; and if you think it did, you can claim your last pope as Gregory XVI (1831–46).

The option is between the magisterium and you? Well; guess who I am going to side with; and you call that a difficult choice?

tornpage wrote: You evade this. I guess you think you can believe that none of the elect will be saved without explicit faith, even though the magisterium teaches that some are, and still think both you and the magisterium are right, on the same page, and all is fine with the world.

I call that dogmatic schizophrenia. Maybe you are comfortable in a straitjacket . . . I'm not.

I’ve evaded nothing.

It’s not the straightjacket of the “competing magisteriums”; it’s the straightjacket of your own “dogmatic schizophrenia”; a product of defective thinking and a lack of trust in God's promise to Peter, to His Church, and to us.

Sorry, just calling it the way I see it. If you want to believe that Peter is no longer in the building ... there is little I can do to prevent you from jumping ship.

But I hope you'll stay put and ride this out. Our Lord has not abandoned His Church; but no one said it would be easy.

Ah, Pope Pius IX. Fresh from my blog:


What about Pius IX?

Some were surprised by the election of Pope Pius IX to the Pontificate, who allegedly had some liberal tendencies, Catholic liberalism, of course, having spawned into Catholic (sic) intellectual circles out of the Enlightenment. Here is what Pope Pius IX said:

And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, it is necessary once more to mention and censure the serious error into which some Catholics have unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in errors, estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. This is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (suppliciis). However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of the Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to whom the Saviour has entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot attain salvation. (Quanto conficiamur, 7-8 )

The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. (Singulari quadam, 7)

If we take the Holy Pontiff at his word (depending on which translation you are reading!), then no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church (and those individuals who are outside the Church cannot hope for salvation unless they are "excused through ignorance beyond their control"), which would, of course, include the "invincibly ignorant," which means that the "beyond their control"-group mentioned in Singulari quadam must still become Catholic to be saved. So, we can conclude that the One and Triune God will give the "beyond their control"-group divine light and grace so that these individuals can become Catholic!

Still, the Pope's words were at least somewhat ambiguous. Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors would, of course, come after the above two statements. Coming over a century later, the Catechism of the Catholic Church nowhere even footnotes the Syllabus. I will leave it to the reader to check what the CCC does reference from Pope Pius IX.

In my opinion, Pope Pius IX "dropped the (theological) ball" without teaching anything heretical, but Catholic modernism is, of course, all about choosing which Popes to ignore.

You know, Jehanne, I am really tiring of your false and baseless accusations and your sophomoric logical fallacies.

If you can show me where I “bashed” the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI with the “sin of separation”, please do; otherwise, knock it off.

However, I do seem to remember the Church "bashing" the Bishops of the SSPX with the sin of canonical schism and heresy, resulting in their excommunication; and I also remember the Church "bashing" Fr. Feeney with the sin of disobedience and excommunicated him for the same. That kind of puts the rest of your screed about "no excuses" into context, does it not?

Well, lo and behold, after some time had passed the Church would later lift the excommunication of the SSPX Bishops (and Fr. Feeney) and even tell Catholics they could attend SSPX masses so long as they avoided the spirit of schism that resulted in the excommunication in the first place. Did you catch that, Jehanne?

But, we are discussing what the Church actually teaches with respect to the separated Eastern Churches, and if your don’t like it, then go accuse the Church of being “absurd” and of “denying free will” on your own “Blog” where you can yank St. Thomas and dogmatic declarations out of context to your heart’s content … as if you actually know what you’re talking about.

I don’t care about your silly Russian spy analogy, for it is nothing more than a logical fallacy and avoids the Church’s teaching on culpability and obstinacy. Even the sin of invincible ignorance is a SIN, but if God does not hold the sinner culpable for his ignorance, he will not be punished for that sin, and thus, it is not necessarily a barrier to supernatural faith and charity.

The true Church teaches quite clearly that the Eastern Churches “cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation”; and your magisterial schizophrenic assertion to the contrary, by referring to Unam Sanctum as if it teaches that “the Orthodox are without excuse" is actually an indictment against you for refusing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and for suggesting the Church teaches heresy. Your lip service to the Magisterium while taking punches at your cardboard pope is all too revealing.

I’ll bet the St. Benedict Center is thrilled to have you in its corner. Good grief; with friends like you, who needs enemies?

Did you know that the Church still teaches that it is her divine mission to bring the fullness of the truth even to the Orthodox? I guess you missed that part. But go ahead and tell them that they are all going to hell for their “no excuses” denial of Papal Primacy as it was defined by the Catholic Church – that always works well.

Jehanne wrote:
In my opinion, Pope Pius IX "dropped the (theological) ball" without teaching anything heretical, but Catholic modernism is, of course, all about choosing which Popes to ignore.

That has to be one of the funniest things you ever said!

And what happened to Pope Pius IX; did you forget to mention him, or will you suggest that his thrice declared teaching on the invincibly ignorant actually says the opposite of what his words suggest and that the “Feeneyite” interpretation is the “more common”?

Oh stop it already. Those words of Pius IX have been grabbed like a fumble, with a mad dash toward - let me see if I am getting this quote from you accurately - "the implicit faith goalposts." You don't need me to quote Father Michael Muller's understanding of Pius IX, or Father Harrison's, or . . . some other respected theologian who reads it as consistent with the necessity for explicit faith. Pius IX and salvation by invincible ignorance! Good grief!

Moreover, besides intrinsic evidence, we have the authority of the theologians of the Vatican Council that Pius IX is to be understood in the sense explained and not as the rigorists pretend. As noted before, the subject of the salvation of sincere non-Catholics was on the agenda of the Council. And to this end, the two pertinent documents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance among non-Catholics were quoted in extensor in the Acts. Then, commenting on the essential terms, the councilor authorities explained that: “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance…’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.”

What's that supposed to prove? A person can have explicit faith in Christ and this not be manifested. You think this proves the Church taught some were actually saved by implicit faith prior to Vat II? The language doesn't even support it. Even if it did, what's this? Some back room commentary by "councilor authorities"? That's the rock you found the Church's teaching on "implicit faith" before Vat II under?

A lot of smoke, no fire.

Again, the magisterium never said that some were saved in other religions and "without recognizing Christ," or saved "without knowing Christ," before Vat II.
And if you believe, as I do, that no one who is among the elect dies without explicit faith in Christ, then this magisterium, which teaches otherwise, is wrong. Or you better join the parade, and get rid of your old duds.

When are you going to open the door and confront your ugly little guest?

tornpage wrote:

And what happened to Pope Pius IX; did you forget to mention him, or will you suggest that his thrice declared teaching on the invincibly ignorant actually says the opposite of what his words suggest and that the “Feeneyite” interpretation is the “more common”?

Oh stop it already. Those words of Pius IX have been grabbed like a fumble, with a mad dash toward - let me see if I am getting this quote from you accurately - "the implicit faith goalposts." You don't need me to quote Father Michael Muller's understanding of Pius IX, or Father Harrison's, or . . . some other respected theologian who reads it as consistent with the necessity for explicit faith. Pius IX and salvation by invincible ignorance! Good grief!

No, I will not “stop it already”; for I will not allow you to brush aside Pope Pius IX like you so cavalierly dismiss the testimony of the theologians as if Fr. Mueller’s opinion that God will provide explicit faith even through “internal inspiration” is the intended “sense” of the words of Pope Pius IX and the more “common opinion”; when it clearly is not (even if it is acceptable). And the sooner you pull your head out of the sand and realize this, the sooner you will come to grips with what the Church actually teaches.

In other words, Tornpage, it does not make any difference if a “respected theologian” can read “it as consistent with the necessity for explicit faith”, for the fact is that the more common opinion (and the Church) holds it as being consistent with implicit faith, precisely as the words of Pope Pius IX suggest, and precisely as Fr. Hardon demonstrated in his writing on the “mind” of the Council (VCI).

You “objection” is not really with VCII, but with Pope Pius IX who is the first pope to “magisterially” confirm what had been freely taught for centuries by the theologians, and would continue to be taught in even more explicit terms through subsequent popes (and a Council).

It is freely admitted that implicit faith is a development in the Church’s understanding of what it means to have Faith in Christ and to be united to His Church (apart from the visible bonds) in faith and charity. The words of Cardinal Newman are very instructive in the regard:

Cardinal Henry Newman On: The True Notion of Papal Infallibility
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/newman.html

In these cases which in a true sense may be called the Pope's negative enunciations, the opportunity of a legitimate minimizing lies in the intensely concrete character of the matters condemned; in his affirmative enunciations a like opportunity is afforded by their being more or less abstract. Indeed, excepting such as relate to persons, that is, to the Trinity in Unity, the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, and the like, all the dogmas of Pope or of Council are but general, and so far, in consequence, admit of exceptions in their actual application,—these exceptions being determined either by other authoritative utterances, or by the scrutinizing vigilance, acuteness, and subtlety of the Schola Theologorum.

One of the most remarkable instances of what I am insisting on is found in a dogma, which no Catholic can ever think of disputing, viz., that "Out of the Church, and out of the faith, is no salvation." Not to go to Scripture, it is the doctrine of St. Ignatius, St. Irenæus, St. Cyprian in the first three centuries, as of St. Augustine and his contemporaries in the fourth and fifth. It can never be other than an elementary truth of Christianity; and the present Pope has proclaimed it as all Popes, doctors, and bishops before him. But that truth has two aspects, according as the force of the negative {335} falls upon the "Church" or upon the "salvation."

The main sense is, that there is no other communion or so called Church, but the Catholic, in which are stored the promises, the sacraments, and other means of salvation; the other and derived sense is, that no one can be saved who is not in that one and only Church. But it does not follow, because there is no Church but one, which has the Evangelical gifts and privileges to bestow, that therefore no one can be saved without the intervention of that one Church. Anglicans quite understand this distinction; for, on the one hand, their Article says, "They are to be had accursed (anathematizandi) that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by (in) the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature;" while on the other hand they speak of and hold the doctrine of the "uncovenanted mercies of God." The latter doctrine in its Catholic form is the doctrine of invincible ignorance—or, that it is possible to belong to the soul of the Church without belonging to the body; and, at the end of 1800 years, it has been formally and authoritatively put forward by the present Pope (the first Pope, I suppose, who has done so), on the very same occasion on which he has repeated the fundamental principle of exclusive salvation itself. It is to the purpose here to quote his words; they occur in the course of his Encyclical, addressed to the Bishops of Italy, under date of August 10, 1863.

"We and you know, that those who lie under invincible ignorance as regards our most Holy Religion, and who, diligently observing the natural law and its precepts, {336} which are engraven by God on the hearts of all, and prepared to obey God, lead a good and upright life, are able, by the operation of the power of divine light and grace, to obtain eternal life." [Note 7]

Who would at first sight gather from the wording of so forcible a universal, that an exception to its operation, such as this, so distinct, and, for what we know, so very wide, was consistent with holding it?

… These instances out of many similar are sufficient to show what caution is to be observed, on the part of private and unauthorized persons, in imposing upon the consciences of others any interpretation of dogmatic {338} enunciations which is beyond the legitimate sense of the words, inconsistent with the principle that all general rules have exceptions, and unrecognized by the Theological Schola.

And I am not sure where Fr. Harrison falls in the “respected theologian” department, but I would think that Garrou-Lagrange, Scheeben and many other esteemed and accomplished theologians carry just a bit more “respect”, don’t you? Not even the sainted Doctor Alphonsus Liguori went so far as to label the “implicit faith” doctrine as it was taught by many of his peers “proximate to heresy”, because he clearly did not consider it as such.

Speaking of Fr. Harrison, his opening words in his referenced talk at the St. Benedict Center are quite revealing:

In this talk I wish to challenge a theological opinion which is now almost universally held by Catholics, including those who would consider themselves conservative or even traditionalist in outlook. Many approved theologians have long held this opinion. Indeed, it first surfaced in the mid-sixteenth century. Since then it has gradually spread throughout the Catholic world in seminaries and theological faculties, and in recent times seems to have been held by nearly all bishops, possibly even popes in their private capacity. For the position I will criticize is even insinuated – though not clearly affirmed or rigorously implied – in the main document of Vatican Council II and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

And this almost universally held doctrine is “proximate to heresy” … sure it is. But at least the Popes hold this “proximate to heresy” doctrine only in their “private capacity” (!). Let’s review the “explicit” teaching of one of those Popes who wrote in his “private capacity” as Universal pastor and teacher, and “in continuity with the magisterial teaching of my predecessors”, the following “private” words in his Papal Encyclical, Redemptoris missio, “On the permanent validity of the Church's missionary mandate”:

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.” (Pope JPII, Dec. 7, 1990)

So much for the “private opinions” of “the popes”.

Neither have I failed to take notice of that other old ploy that characterizes the so-called “liberal” interpretation of Pope Pius IX as saying “salvation by invincible ignorance!” when salvation comes by and through Christ and His Church, even for the invincibly ignorant. Nice try … it won’t work.

tornpage wrote:
A lot of smoke, no fire.

Again, the magisterium never said that some were saved in other religions and "without recognizing Christ," or saved "without knowing Christ," before Vat II.

Wake up and shake off the vestiges of the Feeneyite propaganda that presents the opinion of a select few priests and theologians as the only true and "common doctrine of the Church" with respect to the teachings of Pope Pius IX on invincible ignorance.

Wake up and shake off the vestiges of the Feeneyite propaganda that presents the opinion of a select few priests and theologians as the only true and "common doctrine of the Church" with respect to the teachings of Pope Pius IX on invincible ignorance.

Fine. I'll put a sock in it and shut up.

But I reject your claim that "implicit faith" is a legitimate teaching of the Church. I find it very odd that a teaching (according to you and your theologians) of Pius IX was in effect rejected by "most theologians" as late as the 1950s - when Msgr. Fenton penned this article - who held that the "minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God's existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation." And that almost 100 years after a pope taught that one may be saved by implicit faith. As Msgr. Fenton wrote:

Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”

I guess those "most" theologians didn't understand Pius IX in the same sense, or just flat-out disagreed with him. I tend to doubt that "most" Catholic theologians would disagree with the interpretation of the Holy See - witness "most" theologians today. I don't buy that Pius IX taught it, nor that the magisterium taught it before Vat II.

But that's the last on this.

Tornpage,

No, don’t shut up and don’t make this the last of it. We might even be making some progress.

Actually, your last post is quite relevant, and very good, so let’s address it.

Fr. Fenton makes a couple of assumptions that may or not be entirely valid. But first I must take you to task for your poor choice of words when you say that “a teaching [according to me and my theologians] was in effect rejected by ‘most theologians’ as late as the 1950s."

The theologians did not “reject” any such thing, but rendered a valid opinion on their interpretation of the same doctrine. We go back once again to all of the esteemed “explicit faith” theologians who refused to “condemn” or “reject” the implicit faith teaching of their esteemed peers.

If they did not "reject" it, what gives you the right to do so?

Fr. Fenton’s comments on the Holy Office Letter are highly instructive, but they may also overreach the Letter’s intention by interpreting what the Holy Office intended to say by speculating on the meaning of what it did NOT say.

And the results of his polling of the theologians also leaves one wondering if, as has been suggested elsewhere, the particular circle a theologian tends to operate in might skew his view of the bigger picture, especially with respect to the mind of the theologians who are most closely associated with the Vatican.

I am reminded of the “shock” of certain American theologians when the reformed norms for communicatio in sacris were published by Pope Pius XII, and how totally unaware were they that their sacrosanct “common opinion” was not as common as they thought and that certain practices long held to be divinely prohibited were in fact matters of prudential and changeable disciplines.

Back to Fr. Fenton and his polling of the theologians. How can he ignore Garrou-Lagrange and Scheeben, two of the most esteemed “Thomists” in their respective and relevant eras, on such an import matter? How can he ignore The Manual of Catholic Theology based on Scheeben's Dogmatik, (With A Preface By Cardinal Manning) that was already in popular use at the turn of the 20th century?

Even Fr. Harrison concedes that “Many approved theologians have long held this opinion” on implicit faith.

Was Fr. Fenton even aware of:

the authority of the theologians of the Vatican Council that Pius IX is to be understood in the sense explained …. and … As noted before, the subject of the salvation of sincere non-Catholics was on the agenda of the Council. And to this end, the two pertinent documents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance among non-Catholics were quoted in extensor in the Acts. Then, commenting on the essential terms, the councilor authorities explained that: “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance…’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” (Fr. Hardon)

But I think you have also exaggerated what Fr. Fenton said with respect to “most theologians”, for he was clearly giving his opinion on what most theologians hold, while also stressing the importance of what the Letter actually teaches:

Still, the teaching of the letter must be seen against the backdrop of the rest of Catholic doctrine. And it is definitely a part of the Catholic doctrine that certain basic revealed truths must be accepted and believed explicitly [“He must accept explicitly and precisely as revealed truths the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order and the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil”], even though other teachings contained in the deposit of faith may, under certain circumstances, be believed with only an implicit faith. True and supernatural faith, we must remember, is not a mere readiness to believe, but an actual belief, the actual acceptance as certainly true of definite teachings which have actually been revealed supernaturally by God to man. Furthermore, this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man.

You “don't buy that Pius IX taught it, nor that the magisterium taught it before Vat II.”.

You sound like a committed Feeneyite … “damn the evidence … I don’t buy it!”

Even Fr. Harrison concedes that “Many approved theologians have long held this opinion” on implicit faith.

He also says you do not see that opinion in anyone until the 16th century, and that his nemesis, the Jesuit Father Sullivan, whose book he sounds off against, concedes that.

The theologians did not “reject” any such thing, but rendered a valid opinion on their interpretation of the same doctrine. We go back once again to all of the esteemed “explicit faith” theologians who refused to “condemn” or “reject” the implicit faith teaching of their esteemed peers.

I did not mean "reject" as in reject as heretical. I simply meant, did not agree with the view, and held to explicit faith as necessary.

You sound like a committed Feeneyite … “damn the evidence … I don’t buy it!”

Frankly, I do not see much "evidence."

You are doing a good job of softening my tone, and making me less hostile, chilling me out some, , but I'm still faced with this predicament I began with, temperature decrease notwithstanding:

The magisterium is teaching salvation by some without knowing or recognizing Christ. I believe that is not true, as all of the elect come to explicit faith in Christ before death - indeed, that is how they are saved: a conscious experience of the effects of the Precious Blood and His Passion, applied to them by faith and the sacraments, and bringing the love of God and union with the Trinity, Our Blessed Mother, all of the saints/elect - "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." There is no other way to be saved.

I fear that the magisterium disagrees with me. And I cannot let go of this faith. I see a contradiction that the truth cannot tolerate.

The Predestination and Providence of God is bound up with this, as you said. The idea of His saving anyone apart from the Catholic faith He established with His Blood is alien to me, and I can't get over this hurdle.

Alright, I'm trying to work through this.

Here's a quote I lifted from JAT in a prior discussion:

If someone wishes to hold that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence, he has a right to hold that position without heresy.

Reworking that, substituting "explicit faith in Christ" for "baptism," we get:

If someone wishes to hold that all those who are justified before coming to explicit faith in Christ, will not die in that state before receiving explicit faith in Christ, by the workings of Divine Providence, he has a right to hold that position without heresy.

So when JPII says some "receive salvation without recognizing Christ," I can interpret him as saying they receive justification before coming to an explicit faith in Christ, a justification that would save them were they to die in that state.

But I can still believe, without contradicting JPII or him contradicting me, that anyone who follows his conscience and the promptings of the Holy Ghost will be enlightened with explicit faith in Christ before death - such is God's will, such is Divine Providence and the plan of salvation.

They received this faith, were "saved" in a real sense, in a state of justification that predates their coming to an explicit knowledge of Christ - but they do come to it, it's a "necessity of infallibility" according to Divine Providence and the Predestination of the elect.

As I said, I'm trying to work through this.

tornpage wrote:As I said, I'm trying to work through this.

You need to quit; you either accept the Athanasian Creed, infallibly declared at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed again at the Council of Trent, or you don't. And, pray tell, how could the Athanasian Creed be any clearer???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether Pope Pius IX formally taught implicitum votum or not is academic; he tolerated that POV. For that, I believe that he erred, as did the Second Vatican Council which also tolerated that POV.

If I am in "full communion" with present-day Rome, great; if not, I am okay with that, also. I believe that I am in full communion with the eternal Rome, and for me, that's what's important.

You are, of course, free to continue to "debate" this issue with Mike, and he will continue to cite ad nauseam theologians who teach and/or advocate implicitum votum, and Popes over the past 150 years who tolerated that POV. Question is, however, "Is implicitum votum part of the ancient faith of the Church?" For me, the answer is, "Absolutely not." That's my position, and I am happy to answer to the Righteous Judge on that count. Not only is implicitum votum a denial of human free will and the Sovereignty and Providence of the One and Triune God, it is just plain silly to say that the Church had to wait 1600 years for that doctrine to "reveal" itself. Now, Mike will point to Papal Primacy and the Assumption, but he ignores the historical fact that during the Middle Ages the pious belief was that the Church could never err. Period. Look in Denzinger's and you will find the now-defunct reference to that belief. In any case, the Athanasian Creed was infallible when it was defined, and hence, needs no futher "development."

As for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Church was simply silent on that one, for a long time. It just was never something that was "on the radar screen," so to speak, but if you think about it, it just makes sense. And, of course, if Christ can bring the body of His Mother into Paradise, then He can certainly secure the Baptisms of His elect as well as bring explicit faith to them.

Jehanne,

These discussions are real for me, real in the sense that there is no foregone conclusion at the end of the road. I may "work through this" by any number of resolutions, one of which being permanently rejecting "implicit faith."

Is there an inherent and necessary conflict between what I believe and what the magisterium now teaches? Either the answer is "no," and everything's fine, or the answer is yes, and then I need to correct my view or reject the impostor authority.

This is not a simple issue.

I am in full communion with the eternal Rome, and for me, that's what's important.

Of course. But being in communion with eternal Rome may entail rejecting the impostor, or being in real communion with the current legitimate magisterium, which may be eternal Rome. Which, if it is, means understanding what the current magisterium is saying, and recognizing the truth of what it is saying, and not being in some weird "communion" with an indefectible authority that you believe is teaching falsehood.

tornpage wrote:Of course. But being in communion with eternal Rome may entail rejecting the impostor, or being in real communion with the current legitimate magisterium, which may be eternal Rome.

It's not either/or, which is the fallacy of the sedes and neo-cons alike. As with Pope John XXII (or XXIII), simply reject the false teachings and go with the rest. One can do this without being guilty of schism, which is to reject the unity of the Church. This is not to embrace "private judgements" or have one's own "private Magisterium," but as I explain on my blog, the proper attitude is akin to that of the US President and US Constitution. Which is of higher authority? Of course, it's the latter, and every American (except, perhaps, Dick Cheney) knows and understands this. The same is true of the Supreme and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Mike,

“Material heresy”, properly understood, is nothing more than inculpable error.

Yes. But here's the focus of the dispute: justification requires faith, period. As St. Thomas said, a native who has not had the gospel preached to him is not culpable in not believing in Christ, but nonetheless lacks that which is necessary (faith) for his redemption, and would need a preacher sent, or messenger or an angel to inform him of the faith, or an internal revelation from God.

The question (not that you need to be reminded) is whether the at all times minimum of Hebrews 11:6 is "sufficient" in the Gospel age (St. Thomas). This issue wouldn't cover the Orthodox or the Protestant, but it would the Jew or the Muslim or other non-Christian.

The answer to that question may or may not resolve my dilemma regarding the current teachings of the Magisterium. If the minimum is still good, no problem. If not, do the current teachings indicate that is it (which would be error). If they don't, again - no problem.

Of course, the minimum may be taught as sufficient (like justification by baptism of desire) by the Magisterium, but not preclude the position that explicit faith, or water baptism, would be provided to the elect by God in His Providence and Predestination. In which case, also no problem. Nay, rather than "not preclude," is could also be sort of like, if such and such happened, the non-Christian would be saved - but it doesn't de facto happen.

This is how I see this issue focused.

Jehanne,

It's not either/or, which is the fallacy of the sedes and neo-cons alike.

It would not be either/or if we were dealing with a private teaching of a pope or bishop, or even a group of bishops. But when the pope teaches something regarding faith and morals, and there is a vast consensus of agreement by the bishops in union with him, then we are dealing with the faith of the teaching Church, and the issue of indefectibility.

It appears to me that the Church is teaching one can be saved without explicit faith in Christ. I think MRyan agrees with that (Mike, if I haven't read your posts closely enough and am wrong in that regard, I apologize - and please clarify for this blockhead).

Now, is the Church teaching that this actually happens de facto? Or is it a case of this is what would happen to a person dying with the proper dispositions and without knowledge of Christ - but the Church does not say it actually happens (as with baptism of desire)?

So, the first two questions: 1) does the Church teach that one living today can be saved without explicit faith in Christ? 2) Does it teach that some actually are?

Jehanne wrote:
You are, of course, free to continue to "debate" this issue with Mike, and he will continue to cite ad nauseam theologians who teach and/or advocate implicitum votum, and Popes over the past 150 years who tolerated that POV. Question is, however, "Is implicitum votum part of the ancient faith of the Church?" For me, the answer is, "Absolutely not." That's my position, and I am happy to answer to the Righteous Judge on that count. Not only is implicitum votum a denial of human free will and the Sovereignty and Providence of the One and Triune God, it is just plain silly to say that the Church had to wait 1600 years for that doctrine to "reveal" itself. Now, Mike will point to Papal Primacy and the Assumption, but he ignores the historical fact that during the Middle Ages the pious belief was that the Church could never err. Period. Look in Denzinger's and you will find the now-defunct reference to that belief. In any case, the Athanasian Creed was infallible when it was defined, and hence, needs no futher "development."

Tornpage, I could not have put the “choice” any more succinctly. You can accept the legitimate authentic and ordinary teaching of the magisterium, precisely as you portrayed it in your well-reasoned previous post, together with your private belief -- without contradiction; or you can listen to whisperings and the ramblings of a sede-in-denial (I have more respect for true sedes) who believes that he has the authority to determine, in opposition to the authority of the Church, what is of the ancient Faith, and what is not. He will also tell you that any true development of doctrine is a fantasy of the liberal Cardinal Newman and that any such development with respect to implicitum votum is a corruption of dogma, “a denial of human free will and the Sovereignty and Providence of the One and Triune God.”

I reject out of hand his 3rd grade syllogisms, his fatally flawed “denial of free will” mantra; his heresy that the See of Peter can be stained with error and his heretical accusation that the Church has contradicted her own Athanasian Creed. He is deluding himself, but I doubt he has any influence over others, so it’s no big deal.

But he is right about standing in happy defiance before the Supreme Judge (“I guess I told those crazy popes and theologians a thing or two and what they could do with their absurd implicitum votum; especially ‘pope’ JPII and his ridiculous Papal Encyclical"); and good luck with that.

But perhaps that’s actually a fresh way of looking at this. Take the “safe” route with Peter and the freedom to reconcile the doctrine the best one can while remaining open to further guidance and instruction, or be prepared to justify one’s defiance and “rejection” with the “invincible ignorance” plea at the ready should the Supreme Judge not take too kindly to such an arrogant happy defiance against His Vicars and His Church?

Terrible words, these: “I placed Peter as the head of My Church and assured him of My perpetual divine assistance since, as I dogmatically declared at VCI, he is the foundation of unity and the Faith of My Church upon which your salvation rests; and you dare to stand before Me in happy defiance of My Vicars as you accuse them of ‘error’ in doctrine”?

Or perhaps: “Well done, My good and faithful servant. My wayward and too-easily deceived Vicars needed to be corrected for denying the ancient Faith and Creed of My Church and you will be rewarded for having stood with my true Church and the ancient faith while Rome and my Vicars fell into that absurd and specious error of the theologians called ‘implicitum votum'."

Hmmm … tough one; coin toss?

Terrible words, these: “I placed Peter as the head of My Church and assured him of My perpetual divine assistance since, as I dogmatically declared at VCI, he is the foundation of unity and the Faith of My Church upon which your salvation rests; and you dare to stand before Me in happy defiance of My Vicars as you accuse them of ‘error’ in doctrine”?

Poor St Athanasius.

columba wrote:

Terrible words, these: “I placed Peter as the head of My Church and assured him of My perpetual divine assistance since, as I dogmatically declared at VCI, he is the foundation of unity and the Faith of My Church upon which your salvation rests; and you dare to stand before Me in happy defiance of My Vicars as you accuse them of ‘error’ in doctrine”?

Poor St Athanasius.

I see you've swallowed the myth of St. Athanasius standing opposed to Pope Liberius in the matter of the Arian heresy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Athanasius remained loyal to his Vicar who never lost the Faith - and even forgave what he thought (never proven) was Liberius's signing of an unorthodox document while under captivity and duress. Pope Liberius remained a staunch defender of the true Faith until the very end.

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

Terrible words, these: “I placed Peter as the head of My Church and assured him of My perpetual divine assistance since, as I dogmatically declared at VCI, he is the foundation of unity and the Faith of My Church upon which your salvation rests; and you dare to stand before Me in happy defiance of My Vicars as you accuse them of ‘error’ in doctrine”?

Poor St Athanasius.

I see you've swallowed the myth of St. Athanasius standing opposed to Pope Liberius in the matter of the Arian heresy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Athanasius remained loyal to his Vicar who never lost the Faith - and even forgave what he thought (never proven) was Liberius's signing of an unorthodox document while under captivity and duress. Pope Liberius remained a staunch defender of the true Faith until the very end.

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.

Mike is doing the same thing that the atheist Sam Harris does when he appeals to the fact that over 90% of the current and past membership of the United States American National Academy of Sciences (an elite body of scientists -- their web site is www.nas.edu) who are either atheist and/or agnostic. Harris' "logic" is, of course, that since these elite scientists are atheist that you should be too, since they are so much smarter and more educated than you are.

Many of these theologians whom Mike cites also deny the literal existence of Adam & Even, the worldwide Deluge, the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, or some (or all) of the miracles of Christ. Mike's logic is that when Saint Peter denied Christ, the Apostles should have, also, since Peter was, even at that time, the Head of the Apostolic College.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

Terrible words, these: “I placed Peter as the head of My Church and assured him of My perpetual divine assistance since, as I dogmatically declared at VCI, he is the foundation of unity and the Faith of My Church upon which your salvation rests; and you dare to stand before Me in happy defiance of My Vicars as you accuse them of ‘error’ in doctrine”?

Poor St Athanasius.

I see you've swallowed the myth of St. Athanasius standing opposed to Pope Liberius in the matter of the Arian heresy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Athanasius remained loyal to his Vicar who never lost the Faith - and even forgave what he thought (never proven) was Liberius's signing of an unorthodox document while under captivity and duress. Pope Liberius remained a staunch defender of the true Faith until the very end.

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.

Mike is doing the same thing that the atheist Sam Harris does when he appeals to the fact that over 90% of the current and past membership of the United States American National Academy of Sciences (an elite body of scientists -- their web site is www.nas.edu) who are either atheist and/or agnostic. Harris' "logic" is, of course, that since these elite scientists are atheist that you should be too, since they are so much smarter and more educated than you are.

Many of these theologians whom Mike cites also deny the literal existence of Adam & Even, the worldwide Deluge, the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, or some (or all) of the miracles of Christ. Mike's logic is that when Saint Peter denied Christ, the Apostles should have, also, since Peter was, even at that time, the Head of the Apostolic College.

That was desperate attempt at something ... but I'm not sure what.

I wonder how many logical fallacies are packed into that one very strange post.

Actually, Peter was not given the Keys (Primacy) and the promise of the divine assistance until just before the Ascension of our Lord (at the thrice asked "Peter ... lovest thou Me ..?); and I'm not sure St. Peter appreciates your retroactive on-the-spot promotion.

Of course, every pope is capable of "denying" our Lord in a moment of weakness and duress, but that has nothing to do with Peter losing the Catholic faith through obstinate and pertinacious heresy, or with denying the Athanasian Creed through his official teaching of the "absurd" implicit faith doctrine, especially in a universal Papal Encyclical.

Yeah, "Sam Harris" and I have a lot in common ... just ask Jehanne. So let me see if I get it: The Pope is Catholic and professes the Catholic Faith; so, according to the logic of Sam Harris, I should too.

OK, I agree ... guilty as charged!

Next, Jehanne will tell me that the Pope teaches in his official capacity as the Vicar of Christ a doctrine that is opposed to a dogma contained within the Athanasian Creed.

And in this, Jehanne has more in common with the atheist than do I.

Jehanne wrote:In any case, the Athanasian Creed was infallible when it was defined, and hence, needs no futher "development."

Only the Church can determine if any one particular point of a particular dogma (a “point of doctrine”) needs further development, and it is not your job to tell her there is no need to do so, or that to do so would cause a recession in meaning.

In fact, the Athanasian Creed came about as a true “development” of the already “developed” Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds, and as a development in the correct understanding of her "already developed" dogmas due to the numerous heresies still raging.

This just proves once again that you have no idea what “true” development of doctrine means; as you join that special class of fundamentalists who believe the dogmas of the Faith were passed down to each of you for safekeeping so you can “correct” the Popes when they step out of line with their “absurd” teachings at Ecumenical Council’s and in Papal Encyclicals.

And you have the audacity to claim St. Athanasius as your Patron Saint of Dissent.

So, the first two questions: 1) does the Church teach that one living today can be saved without explicit faith in Christ? 2) Does it teach that some actually are?

I will assume the answer to the first question is yes.

Anyone want to hazard an answer to question 2?

I'm going to go research that.

And talk about writings on the wall to read, this is a telling little one: Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:

§1. We considering a matter of this kind to be of so grave and perilous a nature that even the Roman Pontiff, who is the viceregent of God and the Lord Jesus Christ upon earth, having a plenitude of power over nations and kingdoms, judging all and being judged of none in this present world, may nevertheless be reproved if he is found deviating from the faith-and (considering moreover) that where there is greater danger there should be also a fuller and more diligent consultation, lest false prophets or others having secular jurisdiction also, should entangle miserably the souls of the faithful, and should draw down with them into perdition and destruction the innumerable peoples committed to their charge and government in spiritual or temporal matters, and so it might happen that we should see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, in the holy place ...

Talk about prescience!

Ooops. Wrong thread.

Yes, this is the wrong thread; perhaps it time the two of you move this over to the sede sub-forum where you can fantasize to your heart's content about the person of Peter sitting in the Chair otherwise known as the "abomination of desolation", and the Keys he holds and wields are the Keys to hell.

"I am with you always; well, kind of ... I'll be with the CMRI and the SSPV and My little remnant of believers in upstate NY, New Mexico or wherever; but not necessarily with that joker in the Vatican ... good help is so hard to find these days."

As it is, I'm done with this .... eight pages and we're going backwards. I don't think there is anything left to say.

move this over to the sede sub-forum

Done.