The Fathers on Baptism of Blood

The Church does not teach that some are IN FACT saved without an explicit faith in Christ; she says they may be or “can be saved” by the divine light of grace even without an explicit faith in Christ.

And this teaching that one "can be saved" is taught with less conviction than the "firm conviction" regarding baptism of desire. Thus, if we are free to (I'm quoting JAT) "hold that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence . . . without heresy," even for a stronger reason are we free to hold that no one who will be saved will die without explicit faith.

The Church does not teach that some are IN FACT saved without an explicit faith in Christ; she says they may be or “can be saved” by the divine light of grace even without an explicit faith in Christ.

In other words, you do not think there is a contradiction. In order for there to be no contradiction, there must be no contradiction if in fact both are true. So while it is "true" that "one can be saved" by the divine light of grace even without an explicit faith in Christ, it is also true that none of the elect die without explicit faith in Christ. The only way I make sense of this is the way I have argued it and the way I make sense of it: it is possible, but it doesn't happen. I seem to recall this specific point coming up with JAT regarding baptism of desire and an acceptable Feeneyite position: one's belief would be orthodox and acceptable if one holds that it is possible for someone to be justified and therefore saved if they were to die in a state of perfect charity and repentance but that this does not happen in fact, i.e. all of the elect are baptized.

Now, here's my position again with regard to the necessary saving faith: if one were to die with a love of God and desire to do His will above all things without explicit faith in Christ, they would be saved; but, no one in fact dies in such a state; all of the elect come to an explicit faith in Christ and it is this explicit faith in Christ that saves all of them.

There is no contradiction here with what the Church teaches, right?

Here, let me help with that: St. Thomas was “wrong”; the Church teaches that one may be saved before coming to an explicit faith in Christ. It’s that simple.

Wait a minute. How could St. Thomas be "wrong" unless it is false that all of the elect since "the coming of Christ" (Haydock Bible) come to explicit faith in Christ? If it isn't false, he's not "wrong." If there is no contradiction, St. Thomas is not "wrong." Or stated otherwise, if in fact it may be true that all of the elect come to explicit faith in Christ before death, we cannot say St. Thomas is "wrong." How could he be wrong if "nowhere does the Church suggest that you are not allowed to believe that all such souls will come to an explicit faith before passing"?

Are you now changing your position that St. Thomas taught explicit faith was a "necessity of infallibilty" (or "a working of Divine Providence" (JAT) in the case of all of the elect since the coming of Christ), and saying now that he taught that explicit faith was a necessity of means such that one could not be saved with an implicit faith?

And, by the way, doesn't the Haydock Bible say exactly that, that "faith in Christ" is now a necessity of means for salvation? Here's the quote again:

Haydock Commentary on Romans 3:20 et seq.

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

When I brought this up before, the only response you made to it was this:

And no, Tornpage, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with St. Thomas or with Haydock; for Faith in Christ is and always has been absolutely necessary for salvation, but only the Church has the authority to definitively “settle” the matter of “implicit faith”; and she seems to want to come down in favor of the body of theologians who taught the latter.

I know about the Church's authority. So what?

Did Haydock say faith in Christ was, since His coming, a necessity of means, or not?

At least the atheist Christopher Hitchens is honest:

http://www.casttv.com/video/29drvv1/christopher-hitchens-pope-benedict-closes-the-doors-to-limbo-video

Mike, you are living in the world of a theological Fantasia. Yes, the Pope is the Head of the Church, and is, therefore, judged by no one, but what he is, IMHO, teaching is not the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The same could be said of Pius IX, who let the train derail off the tracks with his "half-nod" to the implicit-faith crowd, something which even his infallible Syllabus could not contain. (Not even a footnote in the CCC for that -- why is that, Mike?) That Pope Pius IX taught error is now, in retrospect, certain, but so what? He was not the first, was he? How about Pope John XXII?

Sorry, Mike, the One and Triune God, a Perfect Being, is not the author of such confusion; man, yes, God, no.

Sorry, Jehanne, but coming from a man who gets his doctrine from Christopher Hitchens and Karl Rahner; who accuses the Holy Office of formal heresy and who tells us us that the universal consensus of the theologians and the CCC can go to hell, your post about Pope Pius IX, the conciliar commission of VCI, Pope JPII (in a universal Papal Encyclical) and Pope BXVI teaching "error" (it's called heresy since it is alleged to deny a dogma of the Credo) comes as no surprise.

Btw, concerning Pope John XXII, let's see how his erroneous understanding of a then non-defined doctrine, the correction by a theological commission in their presentation of the true doctrine, and his subsequent withdrawal of his opinion; an opinion he said never meant to be decisive, compares to the Church's teaching on implicit faith:

Overcoming objections concerning Pope John XXII:

http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/search/label/Pope%20John%20XXII

In the last years of Pope John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him.

Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical.

A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter.

In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question.

In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.

In his papal bull Benedictus Deus, Pope John’s successor, Benedict XII defined the dogma that the souls of the faithful departed go to their eternal reward immediately after death or Purgatory.

If Pope John had publicly taught his erroneous opinion after the contrary had been defined by the Holy See, then he would have been a heretic who lost office, but this, again, is a simple case of a pope teaching (without the intention of binding the faithful) an erroneous opinion that was not at that time opposed to a formal dogma.

Why don't you run that by the "honest" Christopher Hitchens and see what he thinks.

Mike,

I am surprised that you would post a link from a "home aloner" sede website run by David Landry, whom I know personally. He was banned by "Matthew," who runs the CathInfo message board, which I used to post at. (And, no, I was not banned from that board; I left on my own accord.) I have corresponded with David at length.

I believe that "implicit faith" was condemned:

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

Of course, you will probably disagree with me, as will "the theologians," many of whom, by the way, deny the literal existence of Adam & Eve, the Deluge, the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, that masturbation, artificial contraception, or fornication are sinful, and even, that our Lord rose bodily from the dead. His Resurrection was only "spiritual" they say.

So much for the "common opinion" of "the theologians."

I

am surprised that you would post a link from a "home aloner" sede website run by David Landry, whom I know personally.

Jehanne,

Cut it out. Mike's posting it for the information it contains, and the content should be judged on its merits.

There's often good information on sede sites. And research sometimes takes you there, where you can find something of value.

And "CM" had some things of value to say . . . like everyone else.

Tornpage, thanks.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I am surprised that you would post a link from a "home aloner" sede website run by David Landry, whom I know personally. He was banned by "Matthew," who runs the CathInfo message board, which I used to post at. (And, no, I was not banned from that board; I left on my own accord.) I have corresponded with David at length.

Well, Jehanne, thanks for that history lesson, and I really don’t care why you left that CathInfo. Didn’t we have this discussion before when I told you that my link to a particular website and a particular article is not an endorsement of all of the website owner’s views? Do I have to repeat that disclaimer each and every time? The specific statement of facts was handy, it was true, and I used it, so what? At least I cited the source.

But is that all you got? You attempt to discredit me by linking me with this home alone fellow because I cited his accurate presentation of Pope John XXII? What is this, guilt by association? If you have a problem with his summary, then say so; but we both know you don’t because we both know that his presentation was 100% accurate and was based on the historical record, and not on his “opinion” (his opinion that the pope would have immediately lost his office should he have taught his erroneous opinion after it was defined is irrelevant to the issue at hand). I trust forum members are smart enough not to play this guilt-by-association game you seem to relish in.

Jehanne wrote:I believe that "implicit faith" was condemned:

I don’t care what you “believe”; I am only concerned with what the Church actually teaches.

Jehanne wrote:Condemned Proposition: "A faith indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification." (Pope Innocent XI, 1679 -- Denzinger 2123)

Of course, you will probably disagree with me, as will "the theologians," many of whom, by the way, deny the literal existence of Adam & Eve, the Deluge, the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, that masturbation, artificial contraception, or fornication are sinful, and even, that our Lord rose bodily from the dead. His Resurrection was only "spiritual" they say.

So much for the "common opinion" of "the theologians."

That was pitiful, and your reference to certain “common opinions” are as common as your opinion that the Holy Office is guilty of teaching “formal heresy”. You have no idea what you are talking about – NONE.

Sure, there are a bunch of liberal theologians who espouse common quackery, but that no more represents the “common opinion of theologians” as the Feeneyite doctrine that denies the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Come on, Jehanne, get with the program and stop this silliness.

tornpage wrote:

The Church does not teach that some are IN FACT saved without an explicit faith in Christ; she says they may be or “can be saved” by the divine light of grace even without an explicit faith in Christ.

And this teaching that one "can be saved" is taught with less conviction than the "firm conviction" regarding baptism of desire. Thus, if we are free to (I'm quoting JAT) "hold that all those who are justified before baptism, will not die in that state before receiving baptism, by the workings of Divine Providence . . . without heresy," even for a stronger reason are we free to hold that no one who will be saved will die without explicit faith.

Yes, realizing that the “stronger reason” alludes to the degree of submission owed to “teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

While baptism of blood and baptism of desire enjoy a stronger tradition, I do not remember a degree of submission that entails the “rejection” of an alleged “false doctrine” taught by the authentic ordinary Magisterium.

That would be the real "contradiction", and one I reject.

tornpage wrote:

The Church does not teach that some are IN FACT saved without an explicit faith in Christ; she says they may be or “can be saved” by the divine light of grace even without an explicit faith in Christ.

In other words, you do not think there is a contradiction. In order for there to be no contradiction, there must be no contradiction if in fact both are true. So while it is "true" that "one can be saved" by the divine light of grace even without an explicit faith in Christ, it is also true that none of the elect die without explicit faith in Christ.

If one “can be saved” by the divine light of grace even without an explicit faith in Christ, then it would be false to say that none of the elect “CAN” die without explicit faith in Christ, for both propositions cannot be true.

However, it is not false to say that none of the elect die without explicit faith in Christ if one still recognizes the Church’s teaching on the possibility of salvation without an explicit faith in Christ (and accepts it as at least plausible on the authority of the Church teaching; even while withholding consent of the intellect if one simply cannot reconcile the doctrine in one’s own mind); but still holds (as a well established opinion) that God will still provide explicit faith to each of His elect before death.

tornpage wrote:The only way I make sense of this is the way I have argued it and the way I make sense of it: it is possible, but it doesn't happen. I seem to recall this specific point coming up with JAT regarding baptism of desire and an acceptable Feeneyite position: one's belief would be orthodox and acceptable if one holds that it is possible for someone to be justified and therefore saved if they were to die in a state of perfect charity and repentance but that this does not happen in fact, i.e. all of the elect are baptized.

I have no problem with that, even if there is a slight whiff of the misleading and pernicious "dejure/ defacto” argument, when falsely applied.

But, you are basically saying that it is possible, as the Church teaches, that a soul can be saved by the divine light of grace, even without his coming to an explicit faith in Christ before death; but you believe that God will still provide through His good Providence. There is no contradiction, and the Church has no problem with that; so why should I? (I don’t)

I think we’re done.

Well, almost.

tornpage wrote:

Here, let me help with that: St. Thomas was “wrong”; the Church teaches that one may be saved before coming to an explicit faith in Christ. It’s that simple.

Wait a minute. How could St. Thomas be "wrong" unless it is false that all of the elect since "the coming of Christ" (Haydock Bible) come to explicit faith in Christ? If it isn't false, he's not "wrong." If there is no contradiction, St. Thomas is not "wrong." Or stated otherwise, if in fact it may be true that all of the elect come to explicit faith in Christ before death, we cannot say St. Thomas is "wrong." How could he be wrong if "nowhere does the Church suggest that you are not allowed to believe that all such souls will come to an explicit faith before passing"?

You jumped right on that. Now for a point of clarification: I do not see where St. Thomas ever taught that a soul “cannot” be saved without coming to an explicit faith in Christ; he was rendering his opinion as to why, since the promulgation of the Gospel, he believes God WILL provide explicit faith to each of His elect. So my statement that “St. Thomas was 'wrong'” was only in the context of his opinion that is not shared by the Church, that teaches God can (never disputed) and will (point of contention) indeed save those of good will who are otherwise properly disposed with the virtues of faith and charity.

tornpage wrote:Are you now changing your position that St. Thomas taught explicit faith was a "necessity of infallibilty" (or "a working of Divine Providence" (JAT) in the case of all of the elect since the coming of Christ), and saying now that he taught that explicit faith was a necessity of means such that one could not be saved with an implicit faith?

No, I am not changing my position. I never held that “necessity of infallibility” was anything more than an opinion, and is certainly not an “infallible” necessity; and with respect to the latter proposition, I do not believe that St. Thomas taught that an explicit faith in Christ was necessary (on an individual basis) as an intrinsic necessity of means (for explicit faith in Christ was at all times necessary as a necessity of means), such that without it salvation cannot be.

tornpage wrote:And, by the way, doesn't the Haydock Bible say exactly that, that "faith in Christ" is now a necessity of means for salvation? Here's the quote again:

Haydock Commentary on Romans 3:20 et seq.

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

When I brought this up before, the only response you made to it was this:

And no, Tornpage, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with St. Thomas or with Haydock; for Faith in Christ is and always has been absolutely necessary for salvation, but only the Church has the authority to definitively “settle” the matter of “implicit faith”; and she seems to want to come down in favor of the body of theologians who taught the latter.

I know about the Church's authority. So what?

So, listen to the Church.

tornpage wrote:Did Haydock say faith in Christ was, since His coming, a necessity of means, or not?

Of course it did, but did it mean by this only by an intrinsic necessity of means? We can't say for certain, but even if it did, to use your language, so what? Why couldn’t it be, like in the case of Baptism, an extrinsic necessity of means that can be fulfilled through one’s explicit desire and explicit faith; with one’s faith in Christ being implicit in one’s explicit faith in God?

As you know, the theologians who taught implicit faith based their thesis on this very theological premise of St. Thomas that governed his teaching on baptism of desire

tornpage wrote:I

am surprised that you would post a link from a "home aloner" sede website run by David Landry, whom I know personally.

Jehanne,

Cut it out. Mike's posting it for the information it contains, and the content should be judged on its merits.

There's often good information on sede sites. And research sometimes takes you there, where you can find something of value.

And "CM" had some things of value to say . . . like everyone else.

David is a "sede-Feeneyite," by the way; you can invite him to this forum, if you wish. (I think that I already did this six or so months ago.) I agree 100% with his quote, "and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter."

Unlike Mike (and, apparently, you) I firmly believe and profess that explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was defined at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed again the Council of Trent. So, for me, David, and many others, the issue was settled long ago, and theologians are no longer "free" to "explore" this question, in spite of the fact that they continue to do so and in spite of the fact that the Pope tolerates them doing so.

Mike can provide references from so-called experts at Vatican I who disagreed with the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith for eternal life just as he could provide references from experts who, at that same Council, denied the soon-to-be defined dogma of Papal infallibility. He could do the same for Vatican II on the part of those who claimed that Sacred Scripture is not without error. I am not sure what any of this "proves."

Twice (or pick whatever number you wish) nothing is still nothing.

Unlike Mike (and, apparently, you) I firmly believe and profess that explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was defined at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed again the Council of Trent.

At least David's a sedevacantist. I don't know how you can believe that explicit faith was "defined" and not be a sedevacantist, or at least leaning that way. I've been floating the idea that it was infallibly stated in the Athanasian Creed, with the full understanding that, if I really came to believe that after that was discussed and vetted here and elsewhere, that I'd have to come out of it a sedevacantist.

But you toss it off and don't blink about recognizing a magisterium, and popes, that entertain the idea of "implicit faith" as valid successors to the magisterium of the Apostles.

I jiust don't get that.

Of course it did, but did it mean by this only by an intrinsic necessity of means? We can't say for certain, but even if it did, to use your language, so what? Why couldn’t it be, like in the case of Baptism, an extrinsic necessity of means that can be fulfilled through one’s explicit desire and explicit faith; with one’s faith in Christ being implicit in one’s explicit faith in God?

I have a big problem with that. It's the same problem I have with the interpretation of Session VI, Chapter IV of the Council of Trent as consistent with an economy of salvation where the same disposition of faith and "implied" baptism that was sufficient before the "promulgation of the gospel" or, in the language of Haydock, "after the coming of Christ," to save is salvific now.

To me, it makes a mockery of the big fanfare and set up of Trent and Haydock: "since the promulgation of the gospel/after the coming of Christ" . . . drum roll . . . a person cannot be justified . . . except by baptism and explicit faith . . . or . . . the same implicit faith and implicit desire "for baptism" that justified before the promulgation/coming.

Huh?

And just when things were getting back on track.

Jehanne wrote:
Unlike Mike (and, apparently, you) I firmly believe and profess that explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was defined at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed again the Council of Trent. So, for me, David, and many others, the issue was settled long ago, and theologians are no longer "free" to "explore" this question, in spite of the fact that they continue to do so and in spite of the fact that the Pope tolerates them doing so.

Mike can provide references from so-called experts at Vatican I who disagreed with the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith for eternal life just as he could provide references from experts who, at that same Council, denied the soon-to-be defined dogma of Papal infallibility. He could do the same for Vatican II on the part of those who claimed that Sacred Scripture is not without error. I am not sure what any of this "proves."

Twice (or pick whatever number you wish) nothing is still nothing.

And those experts at the Council who denied the soon-to-be-defined dogma of Papal Infallibility had one of two choices to make after the definition; to accept it, or to leave the Church, there was no middle ground. Those who could not accept it left the Church and became schismatic Old Catholics (for the most part), and those who accepted it submitted immediately to the authority of the infallible Church.

And here you are daring to make the same accusation against the Fathers assembled at VCI, against Pope Pius IX and against all subsequent popes (at least those who weighed-in on the matter), as well as against a Papal Encyclical and the CCC which clearly teaches “implicit faith”, for denying a defined dogma, and making that denial “official”.

Tornpage is right, you feign communion with a Church that you say has totally defected from the Catholic Faith, and with a Holy See that you must conclude has most certainly been stained with heresy.

That you can be so glib about such matters is outrageous.

You do not seem to have the courage of your convictions; you want to have it both ways as you enjoy the freedom to accuse the Holy Office, the Doctors, the Popes, and the Church of “formal heresy”.

You have zero credibility, at least with me.

tornpage wrote:

Unlike Mike (and, apparently, you) I firmly believe and profess that explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was defined at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed again the Council of Trent.

At least David's a sedevacantist. I don't know how you can believe that explicit faith was "defined" and not be a sedevacantist, or at least leaning that way. I've been floating the idea that it was infallibly stated in the Athanasian Creed, with the full understanding that, if I really came to believe that after that was discussed and vetted here and elsewhere, that I'd have to come out of it a sedevacantist.

But you toss it off and don't blink about recognizing a magisterium, and popes, that entertain the idea of "implicit faith" as valid successors to the magisterium of the Apostles.

I jiust don't get that.

Because I also believe that the Pope is judged by no one:

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)

This is why, unlike David, I am not a sede and never will be, even if the Pope were to embrace, publicly, positive/strong atheism.

tornpage wrote:

Of course it did, but did it mean by this only by an intrinsic necessity of means? We can't say for certain, but even if it did, to use your language, so what? Why couldn’t it be, like in the case of Baptism, an extrinsic necessity of means that can be fulfilled through one’s explicit desire and explicit faith; with one’s faith in Christ being implicit in one’s explicit faith in God?

I have a big problem with that. It's the same problem I have with the interpretation of Session VI, Chapter IV of the Council of Trent as consistent with an economy of salvation where the same disposition of faith and "implied" baptism that was sufficient before the "promulgation of the gospel" or, in the language of Haydock, "after the coming of Christ," to save is salvific now.

To me, it makes a mockery of the big fanfare and set up of Trent and Haydock: "since the promulgation of the gospel/after the coming of Christ" . . . drum roll . . . a person cannot be justified . . . except by baptism and explicit faith . . . or . . . the same implicit faith and implicit desire "for baptism" that justified before the promulgation/coming.

Huh?

And just when things were getting back on track.

I’m having a tough time following the reasons for your objection. So let me go out on a limb and approach this in a somewhat different manner:

So the drum roll you envisage would impose a heavier burden on those who would be saved after the promulgation than before, is that right? Honestly, I actually believe that the path to salvation is made the easier by the lifting of the burden of inequity on the entire human race that was assumed and destroyed by Christ... that need only be fully realized in fact or in desire … for our Lord did the rest and everything since the Redemption has changed, even justification itself; which is not even of the same kind, for the Holy Ghost was never given in the abiding manner as He is now.

Let me see if I have this right: Though, as St. Thomas teaches, explicit faith was at all times necessary for salvation, anyone who died immediately prior to the promulgation of the Gospel could have been saved by an implicit faith in Christ, so long as he possessed the proper faith and dispositions. However, someone of the same immediate family who died just after the promulgation of the Gospel who never heard the Gospel, but had the same faith and good dispositions, could not be saved unless the Mysteries of Christ were revealed to Him, and he was capable of making and act of explicit faith in our Lord; otherwise, he was damned.

Do I have that right? In addition to the divine precept to receive baptism, is that what “changed” since the promulgation of the Gospel?

Or, is the burden of the new law (the absolutely necessity of arriving at an explicit faith in Christ, or be damned) a burden placed totally on God who must and will provide explicit faith to each of His elect, without fail? So is that what man must do to be saved, to seek the truth and to love God with his whole heart, and pray that his Love of God and his good will is somehow sufficient for salvation, when in fact it is not … not if God does not reveal (before death) the essential Mysteries of His Son?

Is that how God separates the reprobate from the elect, by withholding the grace of explicit faith (and infallible efficacious grace) from those were given sufficient grace to find our Lord through explicit faith, but not sufficient enough?

Our Lord promised that he would come and make His abode with those who seek and love Him, and since no can can know the Father but those to whom the Son reveals Him, the love of God in a certain soul cannot impel our Lord to unite Himself with that same soul unless and until He explicitly reveals Himself to this same soul before his passing into the next life?

Is that what “changed” since the promulgation of the Gospel?

Jehanne wrote:
This is why, unlike David, I am not a sede and never will be, even if the Pope were to embrace, publicly, positive/strong atheism.

What else can one say? The foundation of the Church, the very Faith of Peter, upon whom our unity and the entire edifice rests, may rest upon the "faith" of a public, positive and strong atheist.

You thought you'd never see the day ... But I'm speechless.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
This is why, unlike David, I am not a sede and never will be, even if the Pope were to embrace, publicly, positive/strong atheism.

What else can one say? The foundation of the Church, the very Faith of Peter, upon whom our unity and the entire edifice rests, may rest upon the "faith" of a public, positive and strong atheist.

You thought you'd never see the day ... But I'm speechless.

Well at least Jehanne didn't go as far as St Catherine.
"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him." (St. Catherine, Letter to Bernabò

Does that not make you speechless?

But I find myself speechless too, but for another reason.
MRyan, you said something at long last that doesn't offend sound reason and that my little brain can cope with.
quote:

Let me see if I have this right: Though, as St. Thomas teaches, explicit faith was at all times necessary for salvation, anyone who died immediately prior to the promulgation of the Gospel could have been saved by an implicit faith in Christ, so long as he possessed the proper faith and dispositions. However, someone of the same immediate family who died just after the promulgation of the Gospel who never heard the Gospel, but had the same faith and good dispositions, could not be saved unless the Mysteries of Christ were revealed to Him, and he was capable of making and act of explicit faith in our Lord; otherwise, he was damned.

There's a hole in this somewhere and I'm off to find it, but in the meantime, you have me pinned (but I am tired right now)

columba wrote:There's a hole in this somewhere and I'm off to find it, but in the meantime, you have me pinned (but I am tired right now)

"And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many." (Matthew 27:52-53)

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
This is why, unlike David, I am not a sede and never will be, even if the Pope were to embrace, publicly, positive/strong atheism.

What else can one say? The foundation of the Church, the very Faith of Peter, upon whom our unity and the entire edifice rests, may rest upon the "faith" of a public, positive and strong atheist.

You thought you'd never see the day ... But I'm speechless.

Well at least Jehanne didn't go as far as St Catherine.
"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him." (St. Catherine, Letter to Bernabò

Does that not make you speechless?

Not at all, for I know exactly what St. Catherine was suggesting and no one should take her rhetorical flourish (made for dramatic effect) literally.

The point is that even the devil believes, but has not charity, and there were plenty of popes who acted like the devil incarnate, but never lost the true faith.

St. Catherine was very critical of Pope Gregory XI in her letters to him and did not hesitate to gently accuse him of neglecting his office through the sin of pride and self-love ... but never did she suggest the pope could lose the Catholic Faith, let alone become an “atheist”.

Puuhleeeze. Jehanne, please tell us you were not serious about your communion in Faith with a strongly avowed and public atheist who also happens to be the Vicar of Christ.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Does that not make you speechless?

Not at all, for I know exactly what St. Catherine was suggesting and no one should take her rhetorical flourish (made for dramatic effect) literally.

It amazes me that Mike has the hermeneutical understanding of when to take the Fathers & Saints literally and when not to take them literally. Are you saying, Mike, that if the Pope were to become an atheist that you would become a sede?

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Does that not make you speechless?

Not at all, for I know exactly what St. Catherine was suggesting and no one should take her rhetorical flourish (made for dramatic effect) literally.

It amazes me that Mike has the hermeneutical understanding of when to take the Fathers & Saints literally and when not to take them literally.

Thank you; I think you just accused me of having common sense. This was a no-brainer requiring very little or no "hermeneutical understanding" whatsoever.

Jehanne wrote:Are you saying, Mike, that if the Pope were to become an atheist that you would become a sede?

No, I am saying the pope, with the charism of a divinely conferred never-failing-faith, will never become an atheist, so your question is a non-sequitur.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Does that not make you speechless?

Not at all, for I know exactly what St. Catherine was suggesting and no one should take her rhetorical flourish (made for dramatic effect) literally.

It amazes me that Mike has the hermeneutical understanding of when to take the Fathers & Saints literally and when not to take them literally.

Thank you; I think you just accused me of having common sense. This was a no-brainer requiring very little or no "hermeneutical understanding" whatsoever.

Then you are claiming to know people better than they know themselves. If Saint Catherine meant her words to be "figurative," then she would have said so, especially, when in writing a letter, she knew that the recipient of her letter would no doubt take her words literally. We are certainly free to do the same -- She said what she meant, and she meant what she said. The same is true of Saint Augustine when he wrote of the One and Triune God's predestination of His elect to receive, without exception, sacramental Baptism in Water.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Are you saying, Mike, that if the Pope were to become an atheist that you would become a sede?

No, I am saying the pope, with the charism of a divinely conferred never-failing-faith, will never become an atheist, so your question is a non-sequitur.

You have proven "Feeneyism," because we believe that the Pope, while he can err in his office, cannot bind Catholics via an ex cathedra declaration to believe in dogmas that are false. So while the Pope has free will (as does every other human being), and is, therefore, capable of choosing to be a heretic or even an apostate (which means, of course, even choosing to embrace atheism), he cannot bind Catholics to those false beliefs that he is still able to freely choose. And yet, in spite of his choices, he is still Pope, because we also believe that the Pope is judged by no one, but by Christ alone.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Does that not make you speechless?

Not at all, for I know exactly what St. Catherine was suggesting and no one should take her rhetorical flourish (made for dramatic effect) literally.

It amazes me that Mike has the hermeneutical understanding of when to take the Fathers & Saints literally and when not to take them literally.

Thank you; I think you just accused me of having common sense. This was a no-brainer requiring very little or no "hermeneutical understanding" whatsoever.

Then you are claiming to know people better than they know themselves. If Saint Catherine meant her words to be "figurative," then she would have said so, especially, when in writing a letter, she knew that the recipient of her letter would no doubt take her words literally.

So how about a little "hermeneutical understanding":

He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice (act) against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you.

God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." ---(Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28---St. Catherine of Siena to Barnabas, Viscount Lord of Milan, on the Pope and Obedience to Him)

As I said; its called "common sense", and I'm sure that the Viscount Lord of Milan was not deprived of it; and knew St. Catherine better than you.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
Are you saying, Mike, that if the Pope were to become an atheist that you would become a sede?

No, I am saying the pope, with the charism of a divinely conferred never-failing-faith, will never become an atheist, so your question is a non-sequitur.

You have proven "Feeneyism," because we believe that the Pope, while he can err in his office, cannot bind Catholics via an ex cathedra declaration to believe in dogmas that are false. So while the Pope has free will (as does every other human being), and is, therefore, capable of choosing to be a heretic or even an apostate (which means, of course, even choosing to embrace atheism), he cannot bind Catholics to those false beliefs that he is still able to freely choose. And yet, in spite of his choices, he is still Pope, because we also believe that the Pope is judged by no one, but by Christ alone.

I am not even responding to this "we Feeneyites believe" twaddle ... good grief!

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Does that not make you speechless?

Not at all, for I know exactly what St. Catherine was suggesting and no one should take her rhetorical flourish (made for dramatic effect) literally.

It amazes me that Mike has the hermeneutical understanding of when to take the Fathers & Saints literally and when not to take them literally.

Thank you; I think you just accused me of having common sense. This was a no-brainer requiring very little or no "hermeneutical understanding" whatsoever.

Then you are claiming to know people better than they know themselves. If Saint Catherine meant her words to be "figurative," then she would have said so, especially, when in writing a letter, she knew that the recipient of her letter would no doubt take her words literally.

So how about a little "hermeneutical understanding":

He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice (act) against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you.

God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." ---(Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28---St. Catherine of Siena to Barnabas, Viscount Lord of Milan, on the Pope and Obedience to Him)

As I said; its called "common sense", and I'm sure that the Viscount Lord of Milan was not deprived of it; and knew St. Catherine better than you.

Probably. Saint Catherine states my position eloquently.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:
So how about a little "hermeneutical understanding":

He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice (act) against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you.

God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." ---(Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28---St. Catherine of Siena to Barnabas, Viscount Lord of Milan, on the Pope and Obedience to Him)

As I said; its called "common sense", and I'm sure that the Viscount Lord of Milan was not deprived of it; and knew St. Catherine better than you.

Probably. Saint Catherine states my position eloquently.

St. Catherine would take your heretical position and throw it in the garbage where it belongs. The given context of what she said is quite clear; and it is also clear that she was admonishing the Viscount Lord of Milan from taking action against a derelict pope.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense, and anyone familiar with the life and teachings of St. Catherine, would know that. So what's your excuse?

How is my position heretical? And, please be specific.

Jehanne wrote:This is why, unlike David, I am not a sede and never will be, even if the Pope were to embrace, publicly, positive/strong atheism.. … So while the Pope has free will (as does every other human being), and is, therefore, capable of choosing to be a heretic or even an apostate (which means, of course, even choosing to embrace atheism)

How is my position heretical? And, please be specific.

Ok, I'll be very specific:

VCI, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

You deny that the permanent principles that hold together the unity of faith and communion in believers were instituted IN the very person of Peter as their visible foundation. An avowed public atheist hardly represents the permanent principles, let alone the visible foundation, of the unity of faith that is held together in the person and faith of Peter.

VCI, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ:

Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation.

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.

You deny that Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received in his person (the permanent principles of faith and communion).

VCI, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ:

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences.

You deny that the principal foundation of faith conferred and instituted in the person of Peter, “to maintain the rule of the true faith” for our salvation, “cannot fail of its effect”.

Was that specific enough?

Yes, it was; however, I do not deny any of those things that you impute to me. You are not my judge, and just because I believe that the Pope, as a human being has free will, and as such, can embrace error does make me a heretic and/or schismatic; on the contrary, I believe my view to be the correct and orthodox one.

Jehanne wrote:Yes, it was; however, I do not deny any of those things that you impute to me. You are not my judge

I am not judging you, just your pernicious heretical doctrine. If you can find justification to hold it, as I am sure you can, good for you. To me, its heretical bunk.

A post previous to my last seems to have disappeared. In it, I answered Jehanne by telling him why I believe his doctrine is heretical and explained to him the difference between "error", and becoming an avowed public apostate or atheist (in the person of Peter).

I want to know if one of the moderators removed my post, and if so, on what grounds? Are we not free to hold certain positions as heretical, or aren't we?

Jehanne wrote:Yes, it was; however, I do not deny any of those things that you impute to me. You are not my judge, and just because I believe that the Pope, as a human being has free will, and as such, can embrace error does make me a heretic and/or schismatic; on the contrary, I believe my view to be the correct and orthodox one.

As I said in a previous post that mysteriously vanished, I am interpreting the infallible First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ of VCI precisely as it is written. As such, it is clear to me that an avowed public apostate or atheist cannot possess in his person (as Peter) that divinely conferred permanent principle of divine and Catholic Faith that unites believers to Peter in the foundational visible bonds of faith and communion, upon which our salvation rests.

As I also said, Jehanne, no one said that the divine charism prevents the very human pope from falling into error (like Pope John XXII), but there is a profound difference between innocent error and becoming an avowed public apostate or atheist. If you have not yet grasped this critical distinction, I suggest that you do.

I am entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that your position is heretical.

Jehanne wrote:

tornpage wrote:
But you toss it off and don't blink about recognizing a magisterium, and popes, that entertain the idea of "implicit faith" as valid successors to the magisterium of the Apostles.

I jiust don't get that.

Because I also believe that the Pope is judged by no one:

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. [...] (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)

This is why, unlike David, I am not a sede and never will be, even if the Pope were to embrace, publicly, positive/strong atheism.

Funny that Jehanne, in order to justify his position that has him remaining in full communion with the pope who may already have been judged by Jehanne to be an avowed public apostate or atheist (hypothetically - of course!) and thus, the “pope” would no longer possesses in his person the permanent principle of divine and Catholic Faith; the very foundation of the Church that unites all believers; appears to have taken his citation from the sede site “Daily Catholic” (it inserted the bracketed “i.e. error in respect of the Faith”), when the whole point of posting the allegedly "infallible" Bull was to “prove” that, as the Bull declares, though the Pope is judged by no one, nonetheless, he may be “contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith”.

But the Bull does not end there, and goes on to explain the justification for “contradicting” and withdrawing one's submission when it declares in section six, “if ever at any time it shall appear that … any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

I don’t want to get bogged down in a sede debate, we have a sub-form for that where I already addressed the erroneous notion that says just because a disciplinary papal Bull is issued “ex cathedra” (from the Chair of Peter) that automatically makes it an “ex cathedra” infallible definition of faith, when disciplines, by the very reason of their changeable nature, cannot be infallible articles of defined faith.

The discipline (or law) may be based in part on immutable Catholic principles (secondary objects of infallibility) and may be infallible in the general sense, meaning it cannot give harm (even if it was imprudently and rashly promulgated, and may in time become even a detriment to good order and discipline), but it does not automatically merit papal infallibility just because the Pope used his Supreme Legislative Office to promulgate it. Papal infallibility applies only to the Supreme Teaching Office where it must be clear that the pope is defining a matter of divine and Catholic Faith (or rendering a “definitive” pronouncement on a non-revealed doctrine) for the universal Church.

However, my point here is to demonstrate the Feeneyite penchant (though they do not hold the exclusive patent) for taking a statement from a papal Bull (the pope is “judged by none”) completely out of context by ignoring what the rest of the Bull actually declared ... the "pope" may be "contradicted" because he is not the pope and was never the pope because he fell into heresy prior to his elevation, resulting in an automatic excommunication requiring no further declaration (that's what it says ... and I will reserve further commentary on official judgments).

Columba in effect does the same thing with Cantate Domino by taking the section on blood martyrdom out of context (and also falsely stating that this section is an ex cathedra solemn definition) and by refusing to be moderated by the Church when the Magisterium presents the “true understanding” as it is universally taught by the Doctors, theologians and schools.

That aside, it still remains for Jehanne, if he so inclined, to explain how the Vicar of Christ can be an avowed public atheist and remain in possession of the PERMANENT principle of unifying Faith that was conferred directly by Christ into the person of Peter so that he would remain the bedrock and unifying foundation for the Faith of all believers.

I honestly don’t get it, and do not see how this position cannot be heretical, given the very clear and infallible words of VCI.

Mike,

My logic is quite simple and was (infallibly, I believe) stated by Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal bull Unam Sanctam:

Therefore if the earthly power err, it shall be judged by the spiritual power; but if the lesser spiritual power err, by the greater. But if the greatest, it can be judged by God alone, not by man, the Apostle hearing witness.

As for the modern teaching on the "invincibly ignorant" attaining everlasting life, that group of persons would constitute a null set devoid of any human beings whatsoever; therefore, LG #16 and CCC #848 are fully reconciled with Cantate Domino.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

My logic is quite simple and was (infallibly, I believe) stated by Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal bull Unam Sanctam:

Therefore if the earthly power err, it shall be judged by the spiritual power; but if the lesser spiritual power err, by the greater. But if the greatest, it can be judged by God alone, not by man, the Apostle hearing witness.

As for the modern teaching on the "invincibly ignorant" attaining everlasting life, that group of persons would constitute a null set devoid of any human beings whatsoever; therefore, LG #16 and CCC #848 are fully reconciled with Cantate Domino.

You have not answered my question and you simply ignore the Dogmatic Constitution of VCI. You can't pick and choose your citations while ignoring an infallible prescription on the permanent principle of unifying Faith that was conferred directly by our Lord IN the person of Peter.

You don't seem to realize that when you say that an apostate or atheist pope can be "contradicted", you have already judged him to be an apostate or an atheist.

By what authority do you so judge the pope to be an apostate or atheist when Unam Sanctam says that only God can make such judgements, and Cum ex says you may only do so when the invalid pope has already fallen into heresy prior to his election or elevation.

Given the infallible authority of VCI and Unam Sanctum, you have no right to judge the pope as an apostate or an atheist, and you have no right to presume that he has lost, or can lose, the permanent principle of unifying Faith, upon which our salvation rests.

Mike,

So the drum roll you envisage would impose a heavier burden on those who would be saved after the promulgation than before, is that right?

Absolutely not. The elements necessary to achieve baptism of desire - perfect contrition, etc. - are not necessary for the reception of sacramental baptism. How many millions have been saved by the "lower bar" of meeting the requirements for, and receiving, baptism by water? All one has to do is think of the gentile infants all over the world who have benefited since the advent of Christ by the justification made available by the sacrament of baptism.

It is not a question of "higher" burden, clearly. But of a different requirement since the promulgation/advent of Christ. St. Thomas may have said "explicit faith" in Christ was always required, but he clearly said it could be "implicit" before Christ's advent and that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation was necessary afterwards. The amount of "explicit faith" necessary varies according to the times and the circumstances.

I believe the quite common sense and apparent meaning of Trent and Haydock is in accord with the view of St. Thomas, and the "since the promulgation of the Gospel" and "the advent of Christ" of either respectively embodies this understanding as to what is required according to the "times."

Otherwise, as I said, the change in the "times" would not indicate a change in the kind of "explicit" faith that was necessary, and, according to St. Thomas, it has.

And I will note, again, that never has the magisterium prior to the CCC, the Compendium of the CCC, or the statements of Post-Vatican II popes in encyclicals etc. indicated that my (Thomistic) understanding of the change wrought in the manner of justification "since the promulgation of the gospel" or the "advent of Christ" is against the understanding of the Church.

You will argue Pius IX statements about "invincible ignorance," but I would argue that those statements do not have to be read as you insist that they be read, and I would, off the top of my head, refer to the understanding of Fathers Muller and Harrison in that regard.

I am not looking to trigger another debate on the significance vel non of my claims about the post-Vatican II magisterium, but only noting the fact of no pre-Vatican II statement by the magisterium opposed to my understanding - which of course I expect you to either agree or disagree with in terms of my contention regarding the magisterium's position over time.

MRyan wrote:By what authority do you so judge the pope to be an apostate or atheist when Unam Sanctam says that only God can make such judgements, and Cum ex says you may only do so when the invalid pope has already fallen into heresy prior to his election or elevation.

I disagree with you, emphatically, over your "interpretation" of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio:

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)

Note the phrase "if he be found to have deviated...," the "he" is referring to the Roman Pontiff, which means that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is referring to the Pope after his election to the See of Peter.

Mike,

You and I have basically agreed to refer to St. Thomas's view of explicit faith in Christ as a "necessity of infallibility." I do not believe the theologians, however, take that view, and appear to discuss the "necessity" in terms of a "necessity of means."

Here's Father Harrison:

Aquinas says: “In the third epoch, however, after the coming of Christ, all men are required to believe explicitly (omnes tenentur ad explicite credendum) [in the Redeemer], since by then the mystery of redemption was completed bodily and visibly and was preached. And if someone did not have an instructor, God would reveal it to him, unless he was left [ignorant] through his own fault (et si aliquis instructorem non haberet, Deus ei revelaret, nisi ex sua culpa remaneret)”.16

16 III Sent., d. 25, a. 2, q. 2, corp (n. 105). For a detailed study of Aquinas’ thought on this issue, cf. Anthony P. Tyrrell, The Necessity of Explicit Faith for Salvation According to Saint Thomas (Rome: Pontifical University of St. Thomas, 1996). This ‘Angelicum’ thesis, which gained a magna cum laude Licentiate degree in Theology (S.T.L.), was supervised by the distinguished Thomist theologian Fr. Benoit Duroux, O.P., a long-standing consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Tyrrell’s conclusion, on the basis of studying all of Aquinas’ texts on the subject and many commentaries, is that the Angelic Doctor holds that God has indeed established different requirements for salvation for pagans living before and after Christ respectively. His summary:

It seems that for Saint Thomas, the infidel of the age of the New Testament has a greater obligation than the gentile living in the time of the Old Testament. The question might well be raised: why isn’t the case of the gentiles of the old law the same as that of the new law unbeliever? In other words, isn’t implicit faith in Christ enough for the unevangelized of today as it was enough for the pagans of the Old Testament? The answer in the negative stems from the fact that a more perfect faith in the Incarnation is required by virtue of the more perfect revelation of the new law (p. 70).

Tyrrell has a footnote here indicating that this is the way Aquinas is understood by R. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., arguably the greatest Thomist theologian of the last century (cf. The Theological Virtues: Faith [St. Louis: Herder, 1965] p. 224). Garrigou 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. R. Lombardi (1956), M. Labourdette, R. Bernard (1950), and S. Harent (1927) all recognize that Thomas holds this strict view, even though all four disagree with him and take the more liberal view that implicit faith is still (after the coming of Christ) supernatural and salvifically sufficient for sincere pagans. J.F. Quigley, in an ‘Angelicum’ doctoral dissertation of 1984 on almost the same subject, also concludes that Thomas holds the strict view; but Tyrrell does not say whether Quigley personally agrees with it or not. The French Thomist T. Pegues (1915) recognizes that Thomas takes the strict view, and agrees with him without reservation. The only commentator Tyrrell could find who thinks Thomas might have accepted an ‘implicit faith’ as still sufficient to save unevangelized pagans living after Christ is T. O’Brien (1964), who argues, rather implausibly, that when Thomas says that “all men” (omnes ) need an explicit faith in at least the Trinity and the Incarnation, he just means “all” who have been baptized in the Catholic Church . Apart from authorities quoted by Tyrrell, the great Spanish Thomist Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., whose theological manuals have been widely used in many Spanish-language seminaries round the world for the last halfcentury, recognizes both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus as having taught the universal need for explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, and comments 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, [Madrid: BAC, 1996], p. 285, my translation).

Here's another. From, Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau (1999):

“From this survey it appears that St. Thomas opts for the necessity of an act of explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity, and, more generally, in the mysteries of faith. To the question of how a man can be saved if he has not been evangelized by missionaries, he replies that God sees to it by giving an interior inspiration or by sending a missionary. How should this doctrine of St. Thomas be interpreted? What weight should it be given. The theologians have not been unanimous.” (Pages 56-7)

I cite this authority to put this debate and the teaching of St. Thomas in its proper context.

tornpage wrote:Mike,

You and I have basically agreed to refer to St. Thomas's view of explicit faith in Christ as a "necessity of infallibility." I do not believe the theologians, however, take that view, and appear to discuss the "necessity" in terms of a "necessity of means."

Let’s back-up just a bit. This whole “necessity of infallibility” theory began with my reference to the work of Lud who made this connection in the context of his detailed explanation of St. Thomas on explicit and implicit faith. I neither agreed nor disagreed with this view since it remained for me an unresolved “opinion” on the necessity of divine Providence to infallibly fulfill the “more perfect revelation of the new law”.

For me, this debate should in fact be centered on whether explicit faith is necessary as a necessity of means, and I believe it is; but not intrinsically so. In other words, like Baptism, Faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation, without exception, for there is no other name by which men can be saved. Salvation is IN and through our Lord … period. However, like Baptism when necessity precludes actual ablution, explicit Faith in our Lord can sometimes be implicit in one’s supernatural Faith in God, the Creator, and Rewarder to those who seek and fear Him.

I appreciate the citations from Fr. Harrison and Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau who only affirm what I have been saying from the beginning, that the explicit faith debate always remained an open question, meaning any such appeal to the Creed as a dogmatic prescription closing all debate is simply without merit, for the Church and her theologians have never understood it that way. Neither is an appeal to the authority of St. Thomas and “the most probable opinion” necessarily the most probable opinion.

As Garrigou “opined … what he [Thomas] says is right as a general rule, but that God may still accept implicit faith in exceptional cases”; and as Fr. Rulleau wrote: “How should this doctrine of St. Thomas be interpreted? … The theologians have not been unanimous.”

So to whom do we turn? We turn to the Vicar of Christ and his authentic Magisterium.

It’s that simple.

Does that mean the Church has “settled” the issue? Not definitively and not so that it cannot be reformed and explicated further. But she has definitely opted for the “most probable” opinion being one of implicit faith … and she does not hesitate to say so.

However unlikely it may appear, the Church may one day reconcile the opinion of St. Thomas with her own teaching. I never thought that St. Thomas’ teaching on the Immaculate Conception could be reconciled with the defined dogma, but I am beginning to see some light I didn’t see before.

This is why I object to this whole unnecessary business of forcing a “St. Thomas must be wrong, if the Church is right” show-down. The Church does not look at it that way. Technically, he may very well have been "wrong" in his opinion, but I still believe he was fundamentally correct since no one attains the beatific vision without having an explicit faith in our Lord. We are debating only whether what must be explicitly known must be known before death.

And even Fr. Harrison speculates that revelation received during "near death" experiences demonstrates that clinical death may not be true death for we do not know when the soul leaves the body for its particular judgement.

Back to the question:

In other words, isn’t implicit faith in Christ enough for the unevangelized of today as it was enough for the pagans of the Old Testament? The answer in the negative stems from the fact that a more perfect faith in the Incarnation is required by virtue of the more perfect revelation of the new law (p. 70).

By an intrinsic necessity or means? The more perfect revelation is made possible by the perfect fulfillment of the law (blood Redemption), but that does not necessitate that its merit or application cannot be transmitted through one's supernatural faith in God, and charity.

MRyan wrote:I appreciate the citations from Fr. Harrison and Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau who only affirm what I have been saying from the beginning, that the explicit faith debate always remained an open question, meaning any such appeal to the Creed as a dogmatic prescription closing all debate is simply without merit, for the Church and her theologians have never understood it that way. Neither is an appeal to the authority of St. Thomas and “the most probable opinion” necessarily the most probable opinion.

Mike,

Are you saying that those of us who profess that explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ as being necessary, without exception (per the Athanasian Creed), for eternal life is a de fide (hence, settled) dogma of the Catholic faith are heretics and/or in theological error? You have admitted that implicit faith, historically, arose in the 16th-century. How then do we understand the following:

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;..."

Or, how do we understand this:

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…"

Are you saying that we must acknowledge the "validity" of implicit faith to be in full communion with Rome? Do you believe that it is possible for someone not to be a sede but yet not in full communion with Rome? Also, can you provide any Magisterial references that state that there are human beings in Heaven who have died without Baptism and/or explicit faith in Christ? Are you saying that it is wrong and/or theological incorrect to state that those who attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision, without Baptism and explicit faith constitutes a null set devoid of any actual persons?

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:I appreciate the citations from Fr. Harrison and Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau who only affirm what I have been saying from the beginning, that the explicit faith debate always remained an open question, meaning any such appeal to the Creed as a dogmatic prescription closing all debate is simply without merit, for the Church and her theologians have never understood it that way. Neither is an appeal to the authority of St. Thomas and “the most probable opinion” necessarily the most probable opinion.

Mike,

Are you saying that those of us who profess that explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ as being necessary, without exception (per the Athanasian Creed), for eternal life is a de fide (hence, settled) dogma of the Catholic faith are heretics and/or in theological error? You have admitted that implicit faith, historically, arose in the 16th-century. How then do we understand the following:

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;..."

First, the Athanasian Creed says nothing about “explicit” faith; meaning, it does not define those specific articles of faith that must be explicit in one’s profession of right belief (those articles that may be implicit in one’s explicit faith). If you think the Athanasian Creed defined that explicit Faith in our Lord cannot be implicit in one’s supernatural faith in God, you are wrong and are imposing your private interpretation over that of the Magisterium and her theologians. That theologians even debated the “most probable opinion” in this regard only proves that the question has always remained open.

The fact that the question was not explicitly addressed until the 16th century does not mean that the “uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church” expressly precluded such a development, especially when the groundwork (theological principles) for how God may save those who have not received Catholic “faith by hearing” through no fault of their own, both before and after the promulgation of the Gospel, was already recognized in the teachings of the Fathers, even if the opinion of Aquinas would become the more favored position.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the objections of Tornpage, it cannot be disputed that the final version of the Constitutio Dogmatica by the VCI Commission De Fide clearly reflected the mind of the Council (and Pope Pius IX) when it explained that the reason for the minor changes in wording to its final draft was as follows: “to remove the close connection between this and the preceding paragraph, lest it appear that an act of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, for all people. For this is false. I ask you, therefore, Most Reverend Fathers, to accept the formula modified by us.”

In other words, VCII, Redemptoris Missio, the CCC and other documents that teach (or strongly suggest) "implicit faith" do not represent a sudden "reversal" in doctrine as if the "most probable opinion" of explicit faith was still the opinion of Pope Pius IX and the Vatican Fathers and theologians. It it clear that it was not, and that Pope Pius IX was the first Pontiff to put some magisterial teeth behind the implicit faith doctrine (with his magisterial explications on invincible ignorance) that would take on a more developed form with VCII, and with subsequent magisterial teaching.

So, while it is infallibly and dogmatically true that “by divine and Catholic Faith all those things must be believed which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which are proposed by the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary magisterium, as having to be believed”, it is not dogmatically true that the Virtue of Divine Faith must (by intrinsic necessity) manifest itself in AN ACT of Divine AND Catholic Faith in order to be pleasing to God, for the latter may be implicit in the former.

As St. Augustine wrote in Tract. xxix in Joannem, 6, “What, then, is to believe in God? — It is to love Him by believing, to go to Him by believing, and to be incorporated in His members. This, then, is the faith which God demands of us; and He finds not what He may demand except where He has given what He may find."

But does any of this mean that that “men living in errors and apart from the true faith and from the Catholic unity, can attain to eternal life”? No, and Pope Pius IX condemned this error and with it those who imagined such a possibility, while affirming that one may still be saved while being invincibly ignorant of that Faith which renders Divine Faith “Catholic”. That one may not be able to make an explicit act of divine and Catholic Faith does not mean that one can be saved apart from the true faith – with the Catholic faith being implicit in one’s true Divine Faith (an act of faith) in God.

We may say that the act of Faith must be at least an act of Divine Faith, while the act of Catholic Faith may be implicit within the habit of Divine and Catholic Faith.

As Fr. Hardon also explains:

Worth noting is the consistency with which Papal documents before and after the Vatican Council use terms equivalent to nullatenus to indicate that salvation is impossible only for those who in no way whatsoever belong to the true Church. Thus Pius IX says: “qui in vera Christi Ecclesia necuaquam versantur”; (Allocutio, Singulari Quadam). And again: “qui nobiscum minime coniuneti sunt”; (Encyclica, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore). And Pius XII: “membra samen, a Corpore omnino abscissa,” (Encyclica, Mystici Corporis). The importance of these qualifying terms lies in two facts: first, that the Popes recognize some other kind of membership than real, actual and visible which per se is sufficient for salvation; and secondly, that the context in which the terms nequaquam, minime, etc. are used, indicates rather a quality of membership than a quantity or degree. In other words, if a non-Catholic is saved, it is not because he belonged to some quantitative part of the true Church, say its soul, but because he possessed some kind of Catholic membership, other than actual and real.[voto membership]

We do not “debate” defined articles of Divine and Catholic Faith as to whether they are TRUE or not, we debate only their true understanding as they were defined and as they are held by the Church. The Church clearly teaches that one may be saved through an implicit faith in our Lord … and if she cannot be trusted to pass on the Faith without blemish or error, especially on matters of faith and salvation, perhaps those who accuse her of being stained with error (heresy) should look elsewhere for the “true Church”.

Fr. Harrison simply avoids this by stating that what is “proximate to heresy” is the “private” opinion of the pope on implicit faith. However, a universal Papal encyclical is hardly the “private” opinion of the Vicar of Christ, though perhaps Fr. Harrison believes that the implicit faith doctrine is only implied within the same. Go figure.

Session 6, Chapter 8 of the Council of Trent does not at all negate the Church’s teaching that one may be saved through an implicit faith in our Lord (implicit in one’s explicit faith in God); neither does the implicit faith doctrine suggest that anyone can be justified without true (Divine) Faith. In fact, perhaps you failed to notice that Trent is citing Hebrews 11/6 when it declared that “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”. The 1st Vatican Council, in its Constitution Dogmatica de Fide Catholica, is its third chapter, declared De Fide:

Since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11/6, and to attain to the fellowship of His children, therefore, without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life. Unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.

And Hebrews 11:6 reads: “But without faith 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 say that I have “admitted that implicit faith, historically, arose in the 16th-century” as if this was some sort of crass novelty that sprung out of nowhere and is opposed to the once-defined dogma, when you obviously refuse to consider that this is a legitimate development in the understanding of what constitutes the minimal essential components of Divine Faith. If an explicit belief in our Lord was always (or at least since the promulgation of the Gospel) intrinsic to salvation, the question could not have been treated as open if it was already closed by the dogmatic Apostle’s, Athanasian, or Nicene Creeds.

Of course, as I know from experience, there is no “debating” those blessed with the infallible charism of private interpretation.

Jehanne wrote:
Or, how do we understand this:

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…"

We understand it precisely as it is defined and precisely as the Church understands and presents it. There can be no difference between its once declared definition, and how the Church understands and presents it (Feeneyite private interpretation notwithstanding).

Jehanne wrote:
Are you saying that we must acknowledge the "validity" of implicit faith to be in full communion with Rome? Do you believe that it is possible for someone not to be a sede but yet not in full communion with Rome? Also, can you provide any Magisterial references that state that there are human beings in Heaven who have died without Baptism and/or explicit faith in Christ? Are you saying that it is wrong and/or theological incorrect to state that those who attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision, without Baptism and explicit faith constitutes a null set devoid of any actual persons?

Since “implicit faith” is not a defined dogma or an infallible definitive proposal for Catholic belief, no one can be accused of “heresy” for not accepting it as “valid”, even if its outright rejection carries the risk of mortal sin for placing private authority over that of the Magisterium.

Having said that, I believe it is more a misunderstanding of the Church’s doctrine by those who affirm the very orthodox and Catholic belief that no one can be saved without divine and Catholic faith. And no one can be “condemned” for holding this belief; but that does not give them the right to accuse the Church of teaching an erroneous doctrine on a matter of faith and salvation.

We accept the Church’s understanding of her own dogma on the authority of the Ecclesia docens, the very authority about which our Lord said “he who hears you, hears Me”; and if one cannot reconcile the Church’s explication on implicit faith, the withholding of the intellect (while conforming the will to submission and trust in the authority of the Church) while waiting for a better explanation to a difficult doctrine, is not unreasonable.

Sede’s are not in communion with the visible Church of Rome. I will let God determine on an individual basis if the state of objective schism is rendered excusable.

Why do you keep beating the irrelevant “can you provide any Magisterial references that state that there are human beings in Heaven who have died without Baptism and/or explicit faith in Christ” mantra, when you cannot provide any Magisterial references that state that every soul in heaven died with water Baptism and/or explicit faith in Christ?

I’m saying that your “null set” theory is a pernicious charade for actual dissent by rendering meaningless the Church’s explicit teaching on baptism of desire. To propose that the Church can teach a doctrine that is never realized in fact makes a mockery of the Magisterium and of catholic doctrine.

For example, the Church does not teach that the faithful may be restored to a state of grace before and even without the sacrament of Penance (but not without the proper intention to receive it), despite the fact IT NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL HAPPEN; she teaches the doctrine because we live in the real world where the Church anticipates the very real possibility that it does and will happen that the sacrament will not always be available to those with a sincere contrition and resolve for sacerdotal absolution; and thus, she anticipates the need for this full explication on the doctrine of mercy. She does the same with baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

The fact that we cannot know who is actually saved by baptism of desire or perfect charity (faith, sincere contrition and resolve) is irrelevant, though we are certainly allowed to believe that certain of the martyrs died without Baptism, as the Church’s own Liturgical books indicate.

Finally, let me affirm once again that no one can be saved without Divine and Catholic Faith, if we mean by this no one can attain the beatific vision without it; for God will reveal the fullness of Divine Faith to each of the elect. We are only debating whether an act of explicit Catholic faith is necessary for salvation prior to one’s death (presupposing the possession of Divine Faith). And there is room for debate; but, if the living, authentic ordinary Magisterium is summarily dismissed as being the arbiter of this debate, it is pointless to proceed further.

MRyan wrote:And there is room for debate; but, if the living, authentic ordinary Magisterium is summarily dismissed as being the arbiter of this debate, it is pointless to proceed further.

It is pointless to proceed further. If you read more of "Feeneyite" literature, we do not at all deny the fact that the Church was starting to "come of the rails" in the late 18th-century, as evidence by the condemnations of the Popes who were living at the time. Pope Pius IX was, of course, a bit of liberal, and his two low-level allocutions (which, Father Feeney pointed out, may not have even been written by him) were, IMHO, the beginnings of precision theological ambiguity. In this era of precision physical sciences, the Catholic Magisterium speaks with, at best, a "forked tongue," which is why the recent Popes will never give live interviews to any journalist. Just my two cents.

I think that the Athanasian Creed speaks for itself, especially this section:

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.

Apparently, in modern theology, one can "believe" in the Blessed Trinity without "thinking" or even "knowing" about it? Is this correct?

In any case, I would really like to understand this concept further, so, please, bear with me and entertain these questions:

1) Can someone, say, a Jew, who was raised from birth as a Jew, have "implicit faith" in Christ while at the same time rejecting, explicitly, Jesus' Resurrection from the dead?

2) If you answer 'Yes,' to #1, can this same Jew, if he/she converts to Islam later in life, retain his/her "implicit faith" in Christ by becoming a Muslim?

3) Can a Catholic, who has explicit faith in Christ, who then converts to Islam still have "implicit faith" in Christ even though he/she has renounced his/her explicit faith in Him?

4) In general, can you describe how someone who has "implicit faith" in Christ could ever become an apostate? Is apostasy even possible for someone who has genuine "implicit faith" in Christ without any explicit faith in Him?

5) Are individuals who have genuine "implicit faith" in Christ still capable of unbelief? After their "anonymous conversion" to Christianity/Catholicism do such individuals still have free will in ever deciding not to continue to be Catholic? If so, how would such a "transformation" take place?

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:And there is room for debate; but, if the living, authentic ordinary Magisterium is summarily dismissed as being the arbiter of this debate, it is pointless to proceed further.

It is pointless to proceed further. If you read more of "Feeneyite" literature, we do not at all deny the fact that the Church was starting to "come of the rails" in the late 18th-century, as evidence by the condemnations of the Popes who were living at the time. Pope Pius IX was, of course, a bit of liberal, and his two low-level allocutions (which, Father Feeney pointed out, may not have even been written by him) were, IMHO, the beginnings of precision theological ambiguity. In this era of precision physical sciences, the Catholic Magisterium speaks with, at best, a "forked tongue," which is why the recent Popes will never give live interviews to any journalist. Just my two cents.

Then we agree, it is pointless to proceed further with someone who dismisses the authentic ordinary Magisterium as being irrelevant to this debate; and I am not interested at all in Feeneyite revisionist history which sees the “liberal” Pope Pius IX being coerced and intimidated by "liberals"; and even replaced by “ghost writers” as he stood on the side-lines wringing his hands in angst as the “Church was starting to ‘come off the rails’".

Feeneyites came off the rails a long time ago; and I’m getting tired of the “we Feeneyites” ever-changing “doctrine according to Jeahanne”, which is as incomprehensible as it is self-contradictory, and as downright foolish as a “null set” that poses as Catholic doctrine (but not really) can be.

I’ve read more Feeneyite literature than even most Feeneyites; the only problem for you being that I understand what I read.

Jehanne wrote: Pope Pius IX was, of course, a bit of liberal, and his two low-level allocutions …

His “two” so-called “low-level allocutions” actually consisted of one papal allocution, Singulari Quadam (9 December 1854) and two papal encyclicals, Singulari Quidem (17 March 1856) and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863).

But what do we expect from Feeneyite revisionist history; and does anyone see a pattern here with this whole notion of “low-level” papal allocutions, low-level papal encyclicals, low-level Roman Catechisms and low-level Ecumenical Councils?

MRyan, much of you wrote above, actually most of it, is beginning to make sense to me, not that I also do not have some questions and problems (in my own head at least) arising in relation to it.... But, what you've been saying is starting to hit me all at once, I think — it would be dishonest if I failed to mention this. I need to go back and re-read over some things though (and not just in this thread). I'll get back eventually, or maybe start another thread, but for now I'll spare you. Thanks.

DeSelby,

Thank you.

It it’s starting to make sense – then that’s all I can ask. I have tried to keep the Magisterium front and center and to keep things in perspective while realizing that this is a complex subject that has vexed even the most renowned theologians (which is why I keep coming back to the Magisterium).

If you haven’t done so already, I would suggest that you take the time to read and digest Fr. Hardon’s detailed explication on “A COMPARITIVE STUDY OF BELLARMINE’S DOCTRINE ON THE RELATION OF SINCERE NON-CATHOLICS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”; it will help.

(http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Mystical_Body/Mystical_Body_003.htm#_ednref49)

I too have questions, and I don’t pretend to have all the answers. One area I wish the Church would clamp down is with this pernicious notion afloat that says a natural good-will is sufficient for salvation; implying of course that supernatural faith is not always necessary. This is the “basic option” doctrine that posits that “Every man of good will is in grace, and is mystically united in Christ with all other men of good will.” While admitting that the basic option doctrine has “perhaps” a “disputable theological justification” and is “only hinted at in the Council Acts”, those who hold it do not hesitate to say that “it was familiar enough to the theological architects of the aggiornamento.

When it comes to the necessity of supernatural faith for salvation, there should be no ambiguity whatsoever; as even the 1949 Holy Office Letter made clear, even while leaving the definition of supernatural faith, beyond the minimum essentials of an explicit supernatural faith in God as creator and rewarder, open. Unfortunately, ambiguity runs rampant, and both sides of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus debate are allowed to run free with their exaggerations and errors (laxists and rigorists).

The relationship and theology behind the virtue (habit) of Divine Faith and the act of Faith is most intriguing and forms an integral part of the larger question on Faith, and is one area we have only touched on briefly. Our old friend JAT made a good run at defending the notion of salvation through the virtue of Faith without it ever becoming explicit in the act of Faith, but in the end he came around to believing (if I remember correctly) that some act of supernatural faith is necessary, as St. Thomas teaches, even if Faith in our Lord may be implicit in the act of Divine Faith.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ramble … just covering some loose ends that may never be resolved to our satisfaction.

DeSelby I have to admit also that Mryans arguments are good but I have one big reservation that blocks my acceptance of them. It was either yourself or RogueJim who made the point in another thread (many weeks ago) that Mikes arguments are based on his belief that the Roman Pontiff enjoys personal indefectibility and therefore, whenever a Pope seems to contradict tradition, the problem can always be resolved by recourse to rule number one, “the boss is always right.” and rule number two, If the boss is wrong refer to rule number one.”
Not regarding the warnings of Pope Pius X that an erring Pontiff could take with him many simple souls to perdition, it still remains a presumption on his part that personal indefectibility is a dogma.
If it weren't for the fact that in almost every case of questionable doctrine, the recent popes themselves have been the instigators or at least the approvers of such, this question of indefectibility may never have arisen in the first place whether it be true or false.

As Mike will always back up his views with recourse to the doctors and the long established traditional thinking of the Church, can he find one Doctor or even Pope who viewed the Jewish religion as good and still pleasing to God in any way? If any religion was ever viewed by the Church as the very antithesis of Christianity you would be hard pressed to find one more condemned by the Church than the Jewish religion. The recent statements concerning the acceptability of the Jewish faith have left no doubt (in my mind) that personal indefectibility (excluding the Blessed Virgin) is not applicable to any human being including the Pope.
All Mikes arguments are based on this presumption of his and if any questionable but personal views held by a Pontiff should creep into catechisms or non-official “official” teachings of the Church which are more presumed than defined, then in Mikes view of things we should unquestionably submit to each and every one of them. This will no doubt, in due course, lead to (and already has led to) a blurring of the massive chasm between Christianity and Judaism.
This is but one example. The implicit Faith argument has many more subtleties but its creeping acceptability without any authoritative clarification makes me suspicious.
Mikes arguments do indeed fit, but to me they fit more like a sewn on patch rather than an authentic piece of the garment. When they fit perfectly (as they should) I will humbly submit.

Columba,

Roguejim never said anything as silly as “Mikes arguments are based on his belief that the Roman Pontiff enjoys personal indefectibility” and I don’t remember DeSelby making any such comments either.

I suspect this is just one more of your gross distortions of what “Mike said”, when Mike said no such thing. Your incessant distortion of the definition of religious submission of the mind and will to non-defined doctines, by alleging that “Mike believes that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are de fide binding matters of Faith” is a classic case in point. The gift of a never-failing faith has nothing to do with personal indefectibility or impeccability, and the pope, being human, is capable as a theologian of falling into serious error while making some of the most wildly irresponsible gaffes. But he is not capable of losing the Catholic faith by becoming an obstinate and pertinacious heretic – that’s what the charism of a never-failing-faith actually means. Why don’t you actually read what I wrote on the subject and respond with something more than misleading and even false characterizations.

However, you seem to have a real problem separating actual Magisterial teachings from orientations, personal “off-the-record” statements and changes in policy which may in fact appear to be imprudent, wrong-headed and the opposite of what we believe the Church needs. You are forever citing some less than magisterial personal statement of the pope and passing this off as “questionable but personal views held by a Pontiff” that “creep into catechisms or non-official ‘official’ teachings of the Church which are more presumed than defined”. Even when the pope clearly states he is not speaking in his capacity of universal teacher, you run with it, as do all of his enemies, as if he is speaking for the universal Church as Christ’s Vicar.

It is clear that for you, “non-official ‘official’” teachings are those magisterial teaching you reject based on the fact that the Church has never formally defined the doctrines ex cathedra. Your ecclesiology is actually quite appalling, as my latest deconstruction and analysis of your personal theology clearly demonstrates. As I said, you do not seem capable of responding with anything but your own private distortions and “perceptions” of what a defined dogma and magisterial teachings actually are -- and you keep getting it wrong. I have also demonstrated your hypocrisy with respect to the clear meaning (of the words) of an ex cathedra negative prescription condemning the very idea you and Jehanne promote – that some other union is necessary for salvation for someone already united to Christ as His member in charity. As I demonstrated, your private interpretation is taken from your distortion of a non-defined section of Cantate Domino that you pass off as an ex cathedra definition that does not even say what you allege.

Your contempt for the authority of the Doctors and theologians is also quite regrettable, but predictable.

But, nice try in telling DeSelby what Mike believes. I think DeSelby is more than capable of figuring that out for himself.

We all struggle, or have struggled, with what we can all agree appear to be contradictions. If that language is too strong for some (even if qualified, "appear"), I think we can certainly all agree that certain things suggest contradiction - and we grapple with them.

I give an example from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "necessity," which addresses, the old "necessities of means" issue, which gets us into our discussions about faith and baptism:

Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

So even a "relative" necessity of means cannot be omitted, even if the omission is "guiltless." What does that mean? Is baptism of water a "relative necessity" of means for the catechumen? Yes. Yet it's "omission" is forgiven (or no bar) where "impossible," - I would say also "guiltless," but I try to find a word that makes a distinction in accord with the CE.

So a "relative necessity" of means which is factually impossible can be omitted. Are there not circumstances where the "relative necessity" is omitted where not factually impossible but "guiltless"? Like a catechumen not making an appointed baptism in its due season because of his illness, or the illness of a child - or for any reason that would excuse the failure to observe a necessity of precept, like attending Mass. What happens then? I do not understand the distinction between "relative necessity of means" and "necessity of precept."

How a thing is a necessity of means such that the end cannot be reached without it "relatively," "based on a positive precept," without it thereby becoming a "necessity" of precept, rather than means, is beyond me.

Mike has indicated that explicit faith in Christ is an "extrinsic" necessity, like baptism in water. The "intrinsic" necessity being, in each case respectively, faith (in God as supreme being and rewarder and punisher) and baptism (regeneration by the Holy Spirit). As with baptism, I see an "extrinsic" necessity as not any different from a necessity of precept, not means: it only becomes "necessary" when you hear the teaching (precept) of its necessity.

Each of us has a different level of contentment with this. Mine fluctuates wildly, but mainly in one variation or other of intensity of discontent. At times I have in the past shared that discontent perhaps too openly; I do not mean to be a canker on faith of others, or on the teaching of the current magisterium (in the limited sphere of those who hear my grumblings, like you all). This is part of the reason for my less activity on this forum lately.

I will continue to read, and watch for the opening of a satisfactory resolution (for me). Not nearly there yet.

Let me just add, I appreciate Mike's mighty efforts at reconciling all of this (and am glad that DeSelby sees a reconciliation emerging); I appreciate the mighty grappling with this of Columba and Jehanne; and, I appreciate intermediate stages of the frustrations and attempts to reconcile of everyone who grapples with these issues. This is why I am tolerant of sedes and neocons and of all who with good faith either "reject" or follow the teachings of the Church in light of the ever growing "suggestion" of contradiction -since the Church seemed to at least lean toward going "off the rails" on one bend in the track or another to so many faithful Catholics since the 19th Century.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote: Pope Pius IX was, of course, a bit of liberal, and his two low-level allocutions …

His “two” so-called “low-level allocutions” actually consisted of one papal allocution, Singulari Quadam (9 December 1854) and two papal encyclicals, Singulari Quidem (17 March 1856) and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863).

But what do we expect from Feeneyite revisionist history; and does anyone see a pattern here with this whole notion of “low-level” papal allocutions, low-level papal encyclicals, low-level Roman Catechisms and low-level Ecumenical Councils?

It does not disturb me one bit to say that Pope Pius IX erred just as it does not disturb me one bit to say that Pope Gregory XIV erred when he, in 1591, reversed Pope Sixtus V's bull Effraenatum, stating that a fetus conceived earlier than 120 days did not have a soul, therefore, abortion was not murder, a position that was not reversed until 1869, by (you guessed it!) Pope Pius IX.

I recently updated my blog on this issue:

I think, therefore, I believe.

Have a look again at line 28 of the Creed:

He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Here's the Lain:

Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.

Note the word "sentiat." Here's the definition (from the University of Notre Dame):

senti.at V 4 1 PRES ACTIVE SUB 3 S
sentio, sentire, sensi, sensus V (4th) [XXXAX]
perceive, feel, experience; think, realize, see, understand;

You are certainly free to "interpret" the Athanasian Creed as for allowing an unconcscious perception of the Blessed Trinity, but as the Creed concludes with "which except a man believe truly and firmly" (quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit), I do not believe that you are being faithful to what the authors of the Creed were trying to convey. After all, firmiter is defined as follows:

firmiter ADV POS
firmiter ADV [XXXDX] lesser
really, strongly, firmly; steadfastly;

And, finally, fideliter:

fideliter ADV POS
fideliter, fidelius, fidelissime ADV [XXXCO]
faithfully/constantly/loyally; earnestly; reliably/accurately; securely/firmly;
with reliance on God;

Does not sound like "unconscious belief" to me...

You can redefine faith as Bill Clinton redefined sex; good luck with that.

tornpage wrote:
Mike has indicated that explicit faith in Christ is an "extrinsic" necessity, like baptism in water. The "intrinsic" necessity being, in each case respectively, faith (in God as supreme being and rewarder and punisher) and baptism (regeneration by the Holy Spirit). As with baptism, I see an "extrinsic" necessity as not any different from a necessity of precept, not means: it only becomes "necessary" when you hear the teaching (precept) of its necessity.

Tornpage,

If you do not see "extrinsic" necessity as any different from a necessity of precept, that is, it only becomes "necessary" when you hear the teaching (precept) of its necessity, then you are simply confusing the terms by failing to make the necessary distinctions.

The sacrament of baptism, for example, is necessary as both a necessity of precept and means. When you say that it only becomes "necessary" when you hear the teaching (precept) of its necessity [or when it is accessible], you are speaking only to its necessity as precept. You are not speaking to its necessity as a necessity of means for salvation, without which salvation cannot be. That is why Baptism, at least in desire, is still necessary as a necessity of means even if ignorance of the divine law excuses its actual reception.

I know this will be a bit tedious (for you, repetitious), but please bear with me; I think it is very important to a correct understanding of necessity:

When we say something is a necessity of means, we mean that it is so essential that without it, the end cannot be (in this case, salvation). By "intrinsic necessity" we mean things like faith, charity and sanctifying grace, all of which are intrinsic to justification and glorification – unity with our Lord. They are and always have been necessary for salvation as an intrinsic necessity of means to our unity with and in Christ for all eternity.

Actual ablution in water baptism is an extrinsic necessity of means because the sacrament itself (matter-form-intention) is not intrinsic to salvation as is the grace or fruit of the sacrament; however, no one can be justified and saved without the sacrament, at least in desire (explicit or implicit) because no one can be saved without being regenerated (born again) in Christ.

Like the Church herself, the sacraments are divine helps or aids instituted for our benefit as the ordinary and chief means of sanctification. As divine institutions (we are not speaking about their mystical components), they will not always exist; thus, they cannot be intrinsic to the essence of our state of glorification in all eternity. This is why St. Thomas could say about the sacrament of Baptism that it is absolutely necessary for salvation, while realizing he was referring to the fruit of the sacrament, and not the temporary (from an eternal perspective) components (matter and form) that render it valid; through which the grace of salvation is ordinarily transmitted.

As Tanquerey put it, “Baptism of water is really necessary by necessity of means, but extrinsically only, according to the positive will of God. But what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied through something else; it was altogether fitting that this would be supplied through charity or perfect contrition, which are the best depositions". (A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol II, 1959, Pg. 229)

And if it must be supplied (fulfilled), even through something else, then its necessity is NOT one of precept alone where ignorance and inaccessibility excuse one from its fulfillment.

While the Eucharist, for example, was instituted for our salvation as a necessity of precept, ignorance of the law and inaccessibility may excuse one from it’s reception. While one may receive a spiritual communion, nowhere is this defined as a necessity of means for salvation like Baptism and Penance (for those who have fallen from grace); though once one is aware of the obligation to receive the Eucharist, contempt for the sacrament or an indifferent attitude even when one cannot receive it, will surely bar one from the kingdom.

While the grace of salvation can be supplied “through something else”, that something else must also include the desire for the sacrament. In the same way, the sacrament of Penance is necessary as a necessity of means for the Baptized who have fallen from grace. No one who has fallen from grace can be restored to grace without the sacrament (extrinsic necessity), at least in desire and intention (intrinsic necessity).

Divine Faith is an intrinsic necessity of means. The fruit of Divine Faith is unity with God in the substantial habitation or Indwelling as His divine sons (and the gifts of created and uncreated grace). This by necessity includes faith and unity with the Son (and the Trinity), even if the latter is only implicit (before death, and will manifest itself before entering into glory).

This why St. Thomas could say that an explicit faith in Christ was at all times necessary for salvation, but this necessity would vary for the individual depending on his proximity to the act of Redemption and the promulgation of the Gospel.

Lastly, Tornpage, since you mentioned previous to this Fr. Mueller as perhaps representing the more common opinion during the reign of Pope Pius IX, here is what he had to say:

"Some theologians," says St. Alphonsus, "hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved." (The Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur)

As it turns out, the “more common and truer opinion” of theologians does not appear to be the “more common and truer opinion” by the time of Pope Pius IX and VCI, as the Commission De Fide affirms.