Quote from: Raoul76

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"?

True supernatural Faith is and has been required at all times and in all places.

Most theologians hold that the following four articles must be held explicitly:

(1)  The existence of a single God
(2)  That God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(3) The triune nature of God
(4) The Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.

Those theologians who teach otherwise hold that the first two are explicit and the last two may be implicit.

If the last two are "implicit," how does one stop believing in them, if one only has "implicit faith" in them?  We can all think of baptized and confirmed Catholics who are now atheist.  Clearly, such individuals have apostatized.   How about the "implicit faith" folks?  How do they apostatize?  Let's say that they believe in Articles 1 & 2 explicitly and also implicitly in Articles 3 & 4.  How do they stop believing in Articles 3 & 4?

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB

Most theologians hold that the following four articles must be held explicitly:

(1)  The existence of a single God
(2)  That God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(3) The triune nature of God
(4) The Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.

Those theologians who teach otherwise hold that the first two are explicit and the last two may be implicit.

If the last two are "implicit," how does one stop believing in them, if one only has "implicit faith" in them?  We can all think of baptized and confirmed Catholics who are now atheist.  Clearly, such individuals have apostatized.   How about the "implicit faith" folks?  How do they apostatize?  Let's say that they believe in Articles 1 & 2 explicitly and also implicitly in Articles 3 & 4.  How do they stop believing in Articles 3 & 4?

You implicitly believe in certain Catholic doctrines you don't fully understand or even know even about. You can't "unbelieve" them.

Are you saying that it is impossible for me to deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  Of course, an 8-year old child may not understand the IC, but they have been baptized, which means that they, barring some other mortal sin, are in a state of grace.

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that someone who believes in Articles #1 and #2 can never "not believe" in Articles #3 and #4, if they have "implicit faith" in Articles #3 and #4.  In other words, it would be impossible for such an individual to ever apostatize unless they became an atheist?

Is that 'No' to all my questions?  If not, how does one who believes in Articles 1 & 2 but only has "implicit faith" in Articles 3 & 4 ever commit apostasy?

Quote from: Jehanne

Is that 'No' to all my questions?  If not, how does one who believes in Articles 1 & 2 but only has "implicit faith" in Articles 3 & 4 ever commit apostasy?

By professing a belief in Paganism or Naturalism, possibly.

The problem is that someone in this condition is known only to God. That's why these people are not considered members of the Church, which has a visible membership. The other problem is that you cannot seem to grasp that the Church has not condemned implicit Faith and you are not required to believe it. Explicit Faith in all four items I mentioned is the common opinion.

I think that the Church did condemn "implicit faith for justification" for reasons that I have already stated.  I realize that "the theologians" may not agree with this (the sole exception appearing to be Father Brian hαɾɾιson), but as most of them in today's Church openly support "gαy sex," I am not sure what your point is.

The "known only God" condition seems even more queer to me.  We all agree (I hope) that infants who die without Baptism do not attain the Beatific Vision, both those born to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  If one is born in a non-Paganistic and/or non-Naturalist religion (they share some similarities), how does such a child ever acquire his/her "implicit faith"?  Seems kind of unjust for the One and Triune God to exclude someone from Heaven who, at age 6.9, dies before the Age of Reason, but give "implicit faith" to some child who dies at age 7.1, even though both kids have never received sacrament Baptism.

So, if Jews, Muslims, etc., are in a state of grace via their "implicit faith," why not have some communion with them?  And, why exclude Pagans and naturalists?  With just a little more "theological development," why not say that one only needs "implicit faith" in all 4 articles of faith?!

"The theologians" are, by the way, not a reliable source for theology, because their opinions, unlike theology, keep morphing.  It's a vacuous"appeal to authority," something that Sam hαɾɾιs likes to do when he appeals to the atheistic makeup (+90%) of the United States National Academy of Sciences.

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Jehanne

Is that 'No' to all my questions?  If not, how does one who believes in Articles 1 & 2 but only has "implicit faith" in Articles 3 & 4 ever commit apostasy?

By professing a belief in Paganism or Naturalism, possibly.

The problem is that someone in this condition is known only to God. That's why these people are not considered members of the Church, which has a visible membership. The other problem is that you cannot seem to grasp that the Church has not condemned implicit Faith and you are not required to believe it. Explicit Faith in all four items I mentioned is the common opinion.

I think that the Church did condemn "implicit faith for justification" for reasons that I have already stated.  I realize that "the theologians" may not agree with this (the sole exception appearing to be Father Brian hαɾɾιson), but as most of them in today's Church openly support "gαy sex," I am not sure what your point is.

The "known only God" condition seems even more queer to me.  We all agree (I hope) that infants who die without Baptism do not attain the Beatific Vision, both those born to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  If one is born in a non-Paganistic and/or non-Naturalist religion (they share some similarities), how does such a child ever acquire his/her "implicit faith"?  Seems kind of unjust for the One and Triune God to exclude someone from Heaven who, at age 6.9, dies before the Age of Reason, but give "implicit faith" to some child who dies at age 7.1, even though both kids have never received sacrament Baptism.

So, if Jews, Muslims, etc., are in a state of grace via their "implicit faith," why not have some communion with them?  And, why exclude Pagans and naturalists?  With just a little more "theological development," why not say that one only needs "implicit faith" in all 4 articles of faith?!

"The theologians" are, by the way, not a reliable source for theology, because their opinions, unlike theology, keep morphing.  It's a vacuous"appeal to authority," something that Sam hαɾɾιs likes to do when he appeals to the atheistic makeup (+90%) of the United States National Academy of Sciences.

Yet you consider yourself capable of doing your own theology?

I only know what the Church has told me, which, I do not feel that modern theologians are being faithful to.  Consider (once again), these words:

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Full text here:

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Seems pretty "self explanatory" to me.

I think the first one to teach implicit faith was Pighius.

Possibly, but Pighius held to some form of double justification (and a few other erroneous opinions), so his views on the matter were likely thrown-off since this issue deals indirectly with justification.

Posting this for reference


Dogmatic Treatise, Volume 7, Grace: Actual and Habitual, by Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle, pgs. 182-187: