Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: bowler

Total nonsense, implicit implicit desire! This was only permitted because it was an obscure theological speculation for discussion in the halls of academia. It was only foisted upon the faithful in the 20th century, at time of upheaval.

Bowler, you state implicit desire is nonsense, and that it was foisted upon the faithful in the 20th century. Why then do we see this teaching from Saint Thomas in the 13th century and from Saint Alphonsus in the 18th century?

St. Thomas Aquinas, 13th-century:

Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?

"Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism"

Saint Alphonsus Ligouri, 18th-century:

"baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water..."


Let's hear your answer on this.

OK, at least now you quote me, we're progressing. However, you have taken out one line out of context, and even misconstrue it. What do you think that I mean by implicit implicit desire in the context of the complete posting that I  thoroughly detailed?  Your equating the Thomist implicit desire with the Suarez Implicit faith is like equating a lightning bug with lightning.

Hint:
Implicit faith in  a god that rewards, implies faith in Christ, which implies implicit baptism of desire, which incorporates  the non-believer into a metaphorical church.

You are using so much doubletalk here, I don't even think you know what you are trying to say. I simply presented to you above, two quotes on implicit/explicit baptism of desire as taught by the Church, and you accuse me of taking a line out of context? I made no comments on the quotes - I simply presented them. Which line are you referring to? The meaning of these quotes is very, very clear.

Now you keep trying to drag "implicit faith" into the discussion as though anyone is talking about that. You are clearly making up what you're saying. But just to be clear, St. Thomas Aquinas clearly believes in implicit faith as the quotes below show:

Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?
"If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him..."

Whether every act of an unbeliever is a sin?
"Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith."

Whether all are bound to offer sacrifices?
"Reply to Objection 2. Though all do not know explicitly the power of the sacrifices, they know it implicitly, even as they have implicit faith, as stated above (2, 6,7)."

If any of these quotes are in error, please reply back with very specific condemnations or opposing teaching from the Church. Please spare us 5 pages of EENS quotes or personal complaints on implicit this and implicit that. Be specific, and to the point using teaching from the Church.

Bosco said:  I simply presented to you above, two quotes on implicit/explicit baptism of desire as taught by the Church, and you accuse me of taking a line out of context? I made no comments on the quotes - I simply presented them. Which line are you referring to? The meaning of these quotes is very, very clear.

This tread is about implicit faith (that is what InfiniteFaith described as his belief) which I defined like 100 times, it is not a teaching of St. Thomas that someone can be saved TODAY by implicit faith in a god that rewards.  

Everyone here knows that St. Thomas of Aquinas taught explicit and implicit baptism of desire. Your quotes were about implicit baptism of desire, that is not the same as implicit faith in a god that rewards. If you don't understand that by now, you have serious problems comprehending English.

Now you keep trying to drag "implicit faith" into the discussion as though anyone is talking about that.

 
Implicit faith is the only subject of importance, St. Thomas's Explicit and Implicit baptism of desire (and also Baptism of Blood while we are at it) is an insignificant restrictive theory, it is not worth debating about, SPECIALLY when the people on the other side like YOURSELF, do not believe that any explicit or implicit desire for baptism, or any explicit desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation! You believe in Implicit Faith, that theory is opposed to all of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, and the Athanasian creed.

That is why I will only discuss Implicit Faith, that is the fight, not St. Thomas's explicit or implicit baptism of desire.

Bosco said: But just to be clear, St. Thomas Aquinas clearly believes in implicit faith as the quotes below show:

Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?

"If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him..."

Everyone knows that St. Thomas did not teach salvation by Implicit Faith in a God that rewards. Do yourself a favor and find yourself a knowledgeable mentor to teach you about this subject.

You did not give the source for that quote, so I don't know if it is true. Nevertheless, I assume he is talking about those saved before Christ, those that went to the Old Testament "Paradise", Limbo of the Patriarchs.

Whether every act of an unbeliever is a sin?
"Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith."

St. Thomas is not teaching salvation by implicit faith there. Anyhow, Cornelius was baptized.

Whether all are bound to offer sacrifices?
"Reply to Objection 2. Though all do not know explicitly the power of the sacrifices, they know it implicitly, even as they have implicit faith, as stated above (2, 6,7)."

The use of the term implicit faith does not mean that St. Thomas believed that someone could be saved by it after the new covenant. This is like calling the Northerners gαy because they sand "when Johnny comes marching home again we'll all be gαy".