Cupertino wrote: I must repeat, however, that Nadie has gratuitously denied the concept of "implicit faith", yet elsewhere here on Cathinfo I recently mentioned how newly baptized infants believe nothing explicitly, yet possess the divine virtue of Faith, which proves the existence of implicit Faith.

Comments like this are why you won't get a response from me. I don't take you seriously, PERIOD. You know nothing.

If you knew anything, you would say what the object of this "implicit" faith is. Then we could know what you are talking about. Don't expect any responses from me, you have proven yourself to be incompetent, stiff necked, and worse of all you take things personally, a combination that makes it is a waste of time to answer you, for no one can learn anything from my responding to you.

yet elsewhere here on Cathinfo I recently mentioned how newly baptized infants believe nothing explicitly, yet possess the divine virtue of Faith, which proves the existence of implicit Faith.

This is idiotic. Basically you are saying that you proved all my sources wrong ( the councils, popes, Fathers, Doctors, etc)  by posting your own personal opinion.

Your idea that infants possess implicit faith in a God that rewards, is idiotic. Infants possess nothing but original sin, and are given a exorcism when they are baptized. If infants possessed an implicit faith in a God that rewards, then the aborted would all be saved by invincible ignorance, since they would possess the "tag team" for salvation without baptism".

Cupertino, Nadie is correct in this respect:

Infants have no implicit faith. Neither does their parents faith suffice for them. Neither does the Churches Faith suffice for the infant. Rather, the CHURCH supplies the infant with the proper disposition to receive baptism. In baptism, the gift of Faith is infused into the infant, so that the infant, after baptism, is truly said to have the gift of faith. I suppose you could say in a sense that the church's faith suffices as a necessary disposition, but it is not salvific in any way.

If an infant died on the way to the baptismal font, the infant would not go to heaven, because the infant does not have any of the necessary internal predispositions (Faith, Hope and Charity), neither has the infant lived a Christian life, nor has the infant ever manifested any personal will or desire to receive Christ in any way, or to even serve him.

On the contrary, the infant is consumed with original sin, which is a loss of the original holiness and justice of Adam, the Guilt of which is in each Child AS THEIR OWN from the instant of their conception. Council of Trent, Session 6. In addition, unbaptized children are enemies of God and abide under his wrath and are incapable of being pleasing to him; they are slaves of sin, death and the devil. They do not serve God. Council of Trent Session 5.

Therefore, infants possess nothing in themselves that would merit eternal life, either explicitly or implicitly; rather, they only merit eternal damnation because of their guilt in Adam.

Gregory I wrote: rigorist... Feeneyite

Narrow minded bigotry.

Only Americans call my beliefs "Feeneyism". Where I come from, we are taught that ALL non-Catholics go to hell (EENS just as it is written, what could be clearer?). Anyone taught by Spaniard priests prior to the 1960's was taught the same, and the majority of Catholics in the world are Spanish (or Portuguese)speaking.

American Catholic bishops and "periti" brought us Vatican II (along with the Germanics), and all the rest of the garbage we have today. In South America all non-Catholic religions, by law, were not allowed to proselytize, or have any signs on their  meeting places. In the USA, all Catholics have always been subdued  by the Protestants, and had to lay low, and thus the clergy foisted upon the laity all this theological speculation, excuses for how non-Catholics are not all lost to hell. That's an American problem. Fr. Feeney would have had nothing to teach us in South America.

Call me a mad rigorist Spaniard if you wish,  but learn something new about the world, and get off this never been out of the country  "Feeneyite"  labeling of anyone who for believes the clear dogmas as they are clearly written.

Actually, this conversation is entirely misdirected. The issue is not whether a rigorist interpretation of scripture is possible, nor whether certain saints and theologians held a rigorist position regarding baptism.

The absolute necessity of belief in Jesus Christ for salvation, and the necessity of baptism is what the New Testament is ALL about (Same goes for the Fathers of the Church). Saying it is a "rigorist' position is living in denial. What is not found in the New Testament, except by a contortionized mental gymnastics and defying the law of non-contradiction at every turn, is salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards.  

The CENTRAL issue in the Feeneyite discussion is this doctrine, which is UNIQUE to Fr. Feeney alone: The assertion that those who do NOT have the baptismal character WILL NOT persevere in any grace they may receive through their solemn vow to receive baptism. The Feeneyite does not deny a person may be justified by a desire to receive baptism. He plainly asserts a person may receive grace. What he denies, is that this person can persevere in this grace, and that the sacramental CHARACTER of baptism is an absolute and irreformable necessity for salvation:

This is the central issue with regard to the question of what happens to a catechumen who is justified before he receives baptism, but dies before he can be baptized. But that question is not even worth discussing, and never has been., since it affects numerically speaking, no one. I've never known anyone who had a relative who died as a catechumen, nor a martyr candidate for baptism of blood. All the discussion on a catechumen is just a smoke screen of the believers in the salvation of all non-Catholics who don't desire to be Catholics. and that’s the real central issue.

For the record, Fr. Feeney said that he does not know what happens to such a catechumen, and that neither do you. He basically said the same as St. Augustine concluded:

Fr. Feeney wrote:
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.

Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.

Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.

Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.

Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.

Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!

Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.


St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

There is some inaccuracy here. Please refer to my previous message in this thread. A baptized child of 3, for example, may accidentally have wrong concepts of the Trinity, and may even still believe that God is one person. This means that the divine virtue of Faith is not strictly incompatible with accidentally believing explicitly erroneous concepts.

St. Alphonsus said it is a probable enough opinion that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is not a necessity of means, but merely a necessity of precept.

Well, he wouldn't have said "probable enough".  Please quote him.  "Probable" is a technical term in theology.

A 3 y/o hasn't the use of reason.  We're talking about those with the use of reason.

Notes on the rubrics of the Roman ritual: regarding the sacraments in general, ...
By Rev. James O'Kane, Senior Dean, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth  (1886):

Quote

431. II. He must believe in the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Incarnation. An explicit belief in these articles is held by many theologians to be, since the promulgation of the Gospel, equally necessary with the preceding. This opinion seems the more probable to St. Liguori, but he admits, as probable enough, the opinion of others who maintain that the explicit belief of these articles is not necessary, necessitate medii, but only necessitate praecepti.

Well I can't speak for O'Kane, but I think that's using the term as a moralist would use it, to highlight that the opinion has enough theological probability to make it morally defensible to hold and even teach it.  You would do better to get a theology manual if you want to study these things.

In itself the term "probable" means something radically different from the use of it in English.  It doesn't mean "likely to be true" as it does in English.  It refers to two distinct factors, extrinsic and intrinsic, either of which contribute to the "weight" of an opinion.  The intrinsic factors are the proofs of the doctrine - i.e. whether it is taught by authority (i.e. the popes, the councils, or the bishops generally), and/or whether it is derived from authoritative teaching by one or more steps of reasoning (the fewer the more secure the conclusion).  The extrinsic factors are the reputation or weight of the doctors who maintain the opinion.  For example, something held by three Doctors of the Church and opposed only by a number of ordinary doctors (i.e. theologians), would be considered to have great extrinsic probability.

So you would not normally see a phrase like "probable enough" as a reference to truth or error, rather it could only be a way of describing the moral status of a doctrine, as I've already explained.

Returning to St. Alphonsus, I'd like to see what he actually says.  If I recall, he holds that the opinion of St. Thomas is true and the more probable, and the opposite opinion has little probability intrinsically, but because of the number of theologians who maintain it, must be granted a certain extrinsic probability.  In practice this means we cannot condemn those who hold or teach it, and this is because the Church does not condemn them.  It does not mean that the doctrine is likely to be true.  It has no bearing on that question, directly.  St. Alphonsus doesn't think it likely to be true, he thinks it's an error, it's wrong.

And, about the 3-year old. I certainly am aware of the use of reason (which is roughly considered to be by the age of 7, and perhaps a little earlier for girls). This has nothing to do with the principle. If the divine virtue of faith can exist in a state of ignorance, it proves it exists in a state of ignorance.

Well the divine virtue of faith can indeed exist concomitantly with grave error, because of ignorance.  But that's not the same thing as the claim you are making.  Somebody without the use of reason cannot profess the faith at all, and profession of faith is required by those with the use of reason for salvation.  It is this factor that we are discussing.

The answer to Nadie on implicit faith is that implicit faith implies explicit faith, and explicit faith is Catholic Faith, by definition.  In other words, there is no problem with admitting the concept of implicit faith in the question of salvation, because it does not suggest, indeed it cannot by the very nature of the concept, exclude the requirement for explicit faith.

Nadie doesn't follow this reasoning because he thinks like a journalist, not a theologian.  He is worried where things "lead" instead of whether they are true.  There's nothing can be done with somebody that disastrously wrong in his very thinking machinery.