Xavier,
Thanks for providing the quotes, particularly for the Sylvius quote in a prior post.
Fr. Hunter writes:
I believe that view is defensible (though "now held by no one") and supported by Scripture: the most obvious example is Our Lord saying father Abraham, the father of those who believe, saw His day and was glad (John 8:56), and I believe almost every prophet and OT saint who wrote Scripture (e.g., Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) referred to Christ in their writings, so arguably had some explicit knowledge of Him, though God kept it under wraps from general consumption until the "fullness of time."
So I'm curious: are you aware of any Magisterial statements indicating that explicit belief in Christ was not required at some time prior to the explicit promulgation of the gospel by the apostles?
Thanks,
DR
Hi Decem. Thanks for your question. Yes, there are actually 3 opinions, not just 2. And these are mentioned by Cardinal De Lugo in, On the Virtue of Divine Faith, as follows. (1) Explicit Faith is required for final salvation (final perseverance), but not for First Justification (Act of Contrition). (2) Explicit faith is required both for the receiving of the Grace of Justification, and for the receiving of the Grace of Final Perseverance. (3) Explicit faith is not required either for the reception of the Grace of Justification, nor for Final Perseverance and Full Salvation, option 3. The view you are talking about, "now held by no one", would be closest to (2) above.
Interestingly, Cardinal John De Lugo enlists Dominigo Banez as supporting (1). Fr. Banez was confessor to St. Theresa, a proponent of Thomism who said, and his peers regarded, as never having wavered from St. Thomas; and Fr. Banez also was the one who asked the Holy Office to investigate Molinism. After the review passed, the Holy See, in consultation with St. Francis De Sales and others, decided both would be allowed till the question was studied further. After a careful study, I think it is clear St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, with Fr. Banez, held to (1), as do I.
Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, a Thomistic Theologian, teaches: "First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution ... Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, 15 can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace. 17"
Elsewhere, Father comments on a passage in the Summa already cited, where St. Thomas appears to teach every child coming to the Age of Reason is given Sufficient Grace to make an Act of Contrition at the time: ".
When man begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, through not doing that which is in his power to do.168" This is also cited here: https://www.olrl.org/misc/Feeneyism.pdfThese are Fr. G-L's words on the subject: "
A difficult problem: On the justification of a pagan child who, when he arrives at the full use of reason, does what lies in his power, with the help of actual grace, to love God above all things. St. Thomas writes, Ia Hae, q. 89, a. 6: "When a child begins to have the use of reason, he should order his acts toward a proper end, to the extent that he is capable of discretion at that age." And again in the answer to the third objection: "The end is first in the intention. Hence this is the time when the child is obliged by the affirmative command : 'Turn ye to Me ... .' But if the child does this, he obtains the remission of original sin." It is an excellent form of baptism of desire. St. Thomas and Thomists reconcile this doctrine with the legitimate interpretation of the axiom : "To one who does what in him lies (with the help of actual grace), God does not deny habitual grace," and in the present case God does not deny what is necessary for justification, that is, the supernatural presentation of the truths of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, at least that God "is, and is a rewarder" in the order of grace. However, since this thesis is extremely difficult and very complex, demanding the refutation of numerous objections, it will be well to offer here a recapitulation of its proof while at the same time solving the principal difficulties. (Cf. especially on this subject John of St. Thomas, De praedestinatione, disp. 10, a. 3, nos. 40-41, and the thesis of Father Paul Angelo, O.P., La possibtlita di salute nd primo atto morale per il fan ciullo mfedele, Rome, the Angelicuм, 1946.)"Father's also written, “Second part of the third opinion. John of St. Thomas is aligned with us in supporting the following proposition as probable. The medial necessity we have analyzed as binding per se may not always be verified. It is probable that exception may occur in territories where the Gospel has not been sufficiently preached. This, however, is per accidens. It’s ‘an exception that proves the rule.’ For this reason the rule is couched in a manner that provides for it, through the modifying phrase: ‘After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel.’ …An infidel swelling among Mohammedans, for instance, and habitually doing what his conscience judges to be right, may have no better help than an interior inspiration to keep good. He may have no knowledge whatever of revelation strictly so called, nor of an immediate intervention bordering on the miraculous. He simply follows along that traces of a lost revelation that still survive, and trusts in a God ‘who is, and who rewards.’ Implicitly the infidel would be making room for faith in Christ. …We may join with the Salmanticenses (De Fide, n. 79) and Suarez in maintaining that ‘it is possible for a catechumen to have had nothing proposed to him for belief but God, the supernatural author and end of man. No explicit knowledge of Christ the Lord has reached his ears. Nevertheless, the catechumen conceives a definite faith in God as his supernatural author and supernatural end, not believing explicitly in Christ of whom he has never heard. For the fact that his new faith is firm in God as supernatural beginning and end, he is capable of loving God through charity, and therefore may be justified. Therefore, under the New Law, it is only per accidens, that is, a pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification without having explicit faith in Christ.’” We've seen St. Thomas teach later enlightenment also.
So, my view is (1). As for a Magisterial text, is the Council of Orange sufficient? It speaks of Cornelius having not merely a natural belief, but a Gift of God's Grace, on account of which the Angel of the Lord was sent to him: "
of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness."
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/orange.txt We've seen St. Thomas say earlier that Cornelius had implicit faith.
In Jesus and Mary,
Xavier.
Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15472 times)