Jehanne said:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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?
Topic: Fr. hαɾɾιson corrects The Wanderer for their misinterpretation of EENS (Read 24900 times)