Jehanne said:

Quote

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

There were arguments about the minimum that's necessary for faith. Just admiring creation doesn't fulfill that minimum requirement, that is what Innocent XI was condemning.

No, he was also condemning from "a similar motive," which is pretty broad, in my opinion.

Quote

Belief in God alone seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, explicit faith in a Rewarder. ERROR CONDEMNED. Pope St. Innocent XI

Here Pope Innocent XI is saying that it's not enough to believe, for instance, in a God that punishes all men, you must also believe God rewards the good.  But that doesn't necessarily mean this is the minimum of what must be believed.

That's not what the Holy Office said in 1703:

Question. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing according to this remark of the Apostle: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder" (Heb. 11:16), from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.

Response. A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized" (Denz. 2380)."

Jehanne said:

Quote

1)  Our Lord Jesus Christ's words say so in the Gospels:  "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)

He doesn't say they have to believe explicitly  :farmer:

He only lists two categories of individuals -- those who believe and those who don't.  Are you saying that there is a "third category" which our Lord neglected to mention?

Jehanne said:

Quote

2) The Athanasian Creed states so, explicitly, and that was infallibly included in the text of the Council of Florence.

The Athanasian Creed explicitly states the Catholic faith in a nutshell.  It doesn't say that to be saved you have to explicitly believe all of this.

Did you read it?  It begins saying, "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;  Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."  It ends saying, "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved."

Come on, Jehanne, how many illiterate Catholics in the Middle Ages do you think understood what is said in the Athanasian Creed?  Do you think they'd know that all three Persons of the Holy Ghost are uncreated, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son and the Father and not just from the Father or just from the Son?  

So these illiterate Catholics had their own form of implicit faith, and St. Thomas speaks of this, he talks about how certain people are required to know less than others.

Of course, but he also said this:

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.10, a.1)

Jehanne said:

Quote

3)  Implicit faith makes no sense.  How does one believe something "implicitly"?  It's like saying that I could be explicitly married to my wife yet, at the same time, be implicitly married to someone else, someone whom I do not even know.  If such an absurdity were true, how would I ever "divorce" such an individual?  How does someone with "implicit faith" ever get rid of it?  Can they apostatize, even if they want to??

Here's one way to think of it -- the Immaculate Conception of Mary would have been unknown to most early Catholics, I believe.  Yet since early Catholics were still Catholics, they must have believed it implicitly, meaning that IF THEY WERE TOLD, they would have believed it, since their heart was disposed to believe all the Church teaches.

So if there is someone out there who is disposed to believe all that the Church teaches, but he doesn't know about the Church, God sees this, and this would be an example of someone who could be saved by implicit faith.

Saint Thomas understood the difference between implicit and explicit faith and implicit and explicit desire.  What you are suggesting is that "implicit faith" in none of the 14 Articles of the Catholic Faith (the Apostles Creed) would still be sufficient for salvation.  In fact, you are suggesting that one may know about the Apostles Creed, yet still not believe in it, and as long as that person is a good Jew, Muslim, etc., he or she will find eternal life.

My question is, "How can such a person ever commit apostasy?"  How could he or she ever get rid of her "implicit faith"?  How could that person ever "deny" Christ or His Church?  How could he or she ever not believe?

Quote from: Jehanne

Implicit faith is a heresy.  Was it condemned?  I think so:

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

You think so? Does any authority explain it the way you understand it? That being implicit Faith being condemned?

All theologians agree that supernatural faith is required in ALL cases. Implicit Faith must still supernatural. The condemnation above is a natural faith, from the testimony of creation.

Novus Ordo Catholics play the same games with infant Baptism.  Just look at #1261 in the CCC, they say.  "Who the (hell) are you to question the Church's Magisterium?"  Doesn't matter what the Council of Carthage said!  Ha!!  Or any other Council, and/or Pope, etc.

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Jehanne

Implicit faith is a heresy.  Was it condemned?  I think so:

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

You think so? Does any authority explain it the way you understand it? That being implicit Faith being condemned?

All theologians agree that supernatural faith is required in ALL cases. Implicit Faith must still supernatural. The condemnation above is a natural faith, from the testimony of creation.

Novus Ordo Catholics play the same games with infant Baptism.  Just look at #1261 in the CCC, they say.  "Who the (hell) are you to question the Church's Magisterium?"  Doesn't matter what the Council of Carthage said!  Ha!!  Or any other Council, and/or Pope, etc.

Just address what I said. I'm not "playing games" here.

Consider the Baltimore Catechism, 3rd edition, on the issue of salvation of "non-Catholics":

Baltimore Catechism -- Question 510]Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

Answer: It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church provided that person (I) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Of course, the Baltimore Catechism was a late 19th-century work, and even there, they were not professing the "implicit faith in the One and Triune God and the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ plus implicit desire for Baptism" that we see all around us today.

The only thing I'm going to interject into this conversation is one point that my mother so aptly made to clarify the entire position that the Church has taught on this issue.

Ask yourself: There are two positions. Either there IS salvation outside the Church, or there IS NOT salvation outside the Church.

You can't have both. It is either one, or the other. The Church teaches that there IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and to be a Catholic, it is required to believe that.

I'm not going to dish out death and judgment. That's God's job, not mine. I believe what the Church has infallibly taught for millenia: and that is that OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION.

And, my friends, THAT is good enough for me. "Whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."

There have always been exceptions:

Consider the baptized children of Catholic parents who were kidnapped by the Moors during the Middle Ages.  When they were baptized, they became Children of God, even though they were raised Muslim.  This is what I think that the Baltimore Catechism was teaching, and it is certainly, IMHO, possible, that many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., were validly baptized as children, even though they have absolutely no knowledge of the graces that they received through that Sacrament.  In such case, salvation and eternal life is theirs to lose, not gain.

Jehanne, if you can get your mind around NFP, you can easily get your mind around implicit faith.  It's just a matter of will -- that is, submitting your will to God's.  

Same for you, PfT.  If you can see that NFP isn't birth control, your mind is limber enough to easily see that implicit faith isn't "salvation outside the Church."  

In the case of NFP, there is an advantage to believing in it -- humanity would hardly balk at the opportunity for more sex when it is permitted by God -- while with implicit faith, there is less of a personal advantage.  Sometimes human nature, unfortunately, doesn't want to see other people saved, we want to be special...  But a lawyer would say that is an irrelevant speculation.  

A simple syllogism for you, Jehanne --

You admit that God CAN save someone through baptism of desire ( while saying that He doesn't );

Someone who has baptism of desire is a member of the Church by desire;

Having at least implicit faith is a condition of having baptism of desire ( implicit or explicit faith can justify someone, and no one who is justified can go to hell );

Ergo, God CAN save someone through implicit faith, even by your own logic, since this is all part of the baptism of desire concept.  


I'm not going to be the one to change your mind.  If you keep struggling and keep questioning yourself, I believe God will show you the way.  It's clear that you are struggling because, like me, you are trying to square the circle, trying to reconcile the fact that so many theologians have taught implicit faith with your idea that it's a heresy.  So you have come up with this idea that God COULD save someone without baptism that doesn't.  I have heard this from certain Feeneyites, namely Pascendi from AngelQueen and then from his own forum.

This is all very human thinking, you're trying to use human logic -- not faith.  Faith will tell you that there is no way God would allow so many theologians to be wrong for so long without any rebuke from a Pope.  There is a HUGE difference between forty years and four hundred years.  We are in the beginning of the end times of the Apocalypse here, what we're living through is way beyond the immorality of the Renaissance.  They had real Popes then, including towering figures like Saint Pius V, who surely knew about implicit faith and did nothing to condemn the theory.
 

Jehanne said:

Response. A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized" (Denz. 2380)."

This doesn't contradict the idea of implicit faith being sufficient for justification.

I'm sure you can see this yourself.  Priests can't baptize those who aren't properly instructed, but God can still save someone who isn't properly instructed through baptism of desire.  You're dealing with Church law and divine law here, two different things.

A priest can't absolve sins through an E-mail, if someone is unable to make it to confession.  But if that same person dies on his way to confession, God can save Him, if he makes an act of perfect contrition.   In other words, a priest cannot provide long-distance absolution of sins, but God can.  Of course, the penitent must intend to see the priest, he can't just blow off the sacrament of confession entirely, but it is not the priest who forgives his sins if he dies before he makes it to church.

The priest does what he can do; God does what He can do.  God can do more.

Yes, he would seem to have denied the possibility of implicit faith being salvific.  So?  Theology doesn't evolve, as I've said, but it becomes more clear over time.  At the time of St. Thomas, the Immaculate Conception was not a dogma, some people denied it, okay?  That should show you what I mean by theology becoming more clear.

How does one get rid of "implicit faith"?  Let's say that I have it, but don't want it anymore.  How do I "apostatize"?