Quote from: Jehanne

Such a person would not have been “outside” the Church to begin with.  Heresy only applies to the baptized.

To be considered a heretic in the strict sense, I agree. However, when we're talking about a person who is joined to the Church by an implicit desire, even before receiving the sacrament of baptism, they possess the theological virtues. I think this supernatural virtue of faith can be, I guess one would say remitted, if this person believes a false doctrine culpably.

The less one knows, the better, huh?!

Quoting from one of my earlier posts that I referenced:

Quote

So, too, the implicit desire to believe in Christ and the Trinity must be deemed sufficient. By “implicit desire” we mean the desire to receive, to believe, and to do whatever is needful for salvation, although what is to be received, believed, and done is not explicitly known.

Quoting Msgr. Fenton:

Quote

True and supernatural faith, we must remember, is not a mere readiness to believe, but an actual belief, but an actual belief, the actual acceptance as certainly true of definite teachings which have actually been revealed supernaturally by God to man. Furthermore, this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man.

Between the truths that

1) God is

2) God shall reward the just and punish the wicked

and

3) Holy Trinity

4) Incarnation of Christ

It does not seem likely, in my opinion, that there exists a truth that would be believed explicitly before doctrines 3 & 4 which when believed explicitly would suffice as an act of supernatural faith.

However, in an example given by Fr. Taouk (I believe of the SSPX) I agree with this circuмstance:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

Quote

Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith. In the implicit desire of baptism, the act of Faith and hope must be explicit while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit since he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole. For example if a Pagan is touched by the Martyrdom of some Catholic and then openly declares himself to believe in the God of this Christian who was put to death and in turn is himself put to death. He would have an explicit faith in Christ yet knowing little about Christ or the Sacraments. Our Lord has promised: "Every one that confess me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in Heaven." St. Augustine points out that these words are as universal in their scope and import as those in which our lord taught the general necessity of baptism of water. Hence he deduces the consequence that the remission of sins is secured by death for Christ, as certainly as by the sacrament of Baptism. [13]

Regardless of how likely such a scenario would unfold, in reality, I agree that in such a circuмstance that person would be saved.

Why a Catholic?  How about the martyrdom of a Protestant who was being put to death by Catholics for the crime of heresy, yet who “confessed the name of Christ” while being burned alive?  The Protestant would go to Hell, but the Pagan would go to Heaven??

Why a Catholic?  How about the martyrdom of a Protestant who was being put to death by Catholics for the crime of heresy, yet who “confessed the name of Christ” while being burned alive?  The Protestant would go to Hell, but the Pagan would go to Heaven??

That's quite a twist of circuмstances. The Protestant would definitely be culpable in his heresies would go to hell, the Catholics would certainly have shown the person their error and refuted them. But in regards to the pagan, are you implying that the Catholics would put the person to death?

Quote from: trad123

Quote from: Jehanne

The less one knows, the better, huh?!

I don't see how one could say something like this. Could you explain.

Consider a Protestant child who was validly baptized.  He or she is fully Catholic (in my view), and yet, if she learns about a Catholic dogma, say, the Immaculate Conception and rejects it, she could fall into formal heresy and mortal sin.  Yet, it is absurd to say that a Protestant, just in "virtue" of being a Protestant cannot fall into heresy, but yet a Catholic could.  Both are validly baptized, and what could be sin for one could, at least in theory, be sin for the other.  In the case of the Protestant, it would be better for him if he had never heard of the dogma of the IC, which is also absurd.  This is why, IMHO, salvation outside of the visible bounds of the Catholic Church is absurd.  One is either in it, or one is not.

First, concerning the part I put in bold, the person could fall into material or formal heresy. If the instruction given to the person in this dogma that we're talking about was not sufficient or twisted in a way would would obstruct the truth from easily being assented to then I believe that the rejection of the teaching presented to them would not be culpable on their part.

Quoting Cardinal Billot:

Louis Card. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Romae, 1927), v. 1, p. 296-298.

Billot: Thesis XI. "Although the character of baptism is sufficient of  itself to incorporate a man into the true Catholic Church, nevertheless it requires in adults a twofold condition for this effect. The first condition is that the social bond of unity of  faith not be impeded by formal or even merely material heresy. Nevertheless, because this impediment is brought in only by that heresy which passes into open profession, it must be said that only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.

"Now, heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; material, those who labor under invincible ignorance concerning the Church herself, and choose in good faith another rule for their guide. Heresy therefore is not imputed to material heretics as sin, nor, furthermore, is there necessarily a lack of that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification. For perhaps they explicitly believe the principal articles, and believe the rest not explicitly but implicitly, by the disposition of mind and the good will of adhering to all those things which would be sufficiently proposed to them as revealed by God. Furthermore, they can still belong in voto to the body of the Church, and have the other conditions required for salvation. Nevertheless, so far as pertains to the real incorporation in the visible Church of Christ presently being treated, the thesis places no distinction between formal or material heretics, understanding everything according to the notion of materal heresy just explained, which is also the only proper and genuine notion. For if by a material heretic you meant one who, professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium of the Church, but still denies something defined by the Church which he does not know has been defined, or holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church, it would in this case be absurd to posit that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, and in addition, in this way, the legitimate meaning of the word would be completely overturned. For only then is it said that there is material sin, when the things that belong to the definition of such a sin are materially posited, but excluding reflection or deliberate volition. Now, what pertains to the definition of heresy is the departure from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, which in this case is not present, because it is a simple error of fact concerning that which the rule dictates. And therefore, there can be no place even materially for heresy."

Quoting you again:

Yet, it is absurd to say that a Protestant, just in "virtue" of being a Protestant cannot fall into heresy, but yet a Catholic could.

Was this ever stated? I believe a protestant can fall into heresy.

You, again:

In the case of the Protestant, it would be better for him if he had never heard of the dogma of the IC, which is also absurd.

I still don't understand your reasoning.

If a protestant was presented any Catholic teaching sufficiently and without twisting the true explanation of the dogma, and if this person being taught was in good faith then they would assent to the doctrine. Such would be the case with all Catholic doctrines.

A person cannot place themselves within invincible ignorance, such a circuмstance is not in their power to control.

I don't see the reason why some posters say that it would be better for missionaries or preachers not to go out and convert people and leave them in their ignorance.

Even a Catholic could believe falsely about some doctrine, for example, if one believes that Christ possess only one will and not two.

Catholics cannot be considered material heretics, since Catholics adhere to the Catholic rule of faith; the magisterium.

A Catholic who believes thus would not have any material heresy, but merely be mistaken.

Quote from: Jehanne

If he or she identified with the Protestant and "confessed the name of Christ," then, let's assume that the Catholics present did put that person to death for that reason.  Then what?  (Catholics, by the way, did put innocent people to death, sometimes without trial, just consider Vlad II Dracula.)

If this person "confessed the name of Christ" and if I'm understanding you, was put to death, even though innocent, then that person would be saved. If you object, what would you say is this person guilty of? What sin, or false belief is imputed to this person?

I consider the whole scenario absurd.  Apologists for Baptism of Desire and/or Blood like to use these scenarios to "disprove" "Feeneyism," but as I have pointed out, such scenarios just lead to further absurdities.

The One and Triune God calls everyone to eternal life, but not everyone will choose that path.  I believe that God has structured the World the way that it is, in accordance with man's own personal choices, such that the maximum number of people who exist will freely choose the path to eternal life.

In short, the scenario proposed by the SSPX priest (and my scenario) has never existed and will never exist.  God will simply not allow such things to occur.

Quote from: trad123

Even a Catholic could believe falsely about some doctrine, for example, if one believes that Christ possess only one will and not two.

Catholics cannot be considered material heretics, since Catholics adhere to the Catholic rule of faith; the magisterium.

A Catholic who believes thus would not have any material heresy, but merely be mistaken.

Agreed.

A further observation on the "theological manuals" that you posted.  The authors, clearly, do not like miracles.  If you ever read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (which I have read several times), you will find that the authors of those theological manuals are using the exact same logic and scientific paradigm that Dawkins uses to justify his atheism.  Ironically, in the recent "theological debate" over infants who die without Baptism, it is the "(modern) theologians" who are now appealing to miracles, to get these little ones into Heaven.  They do the same with people who commit ѕυιcιdє, the idea being salutary repentance.  Yet, with the ignorant natives, Muslims, Jews, etc., no such mechanism, apparently, exists, even though it exists on a very large scale for the hundreds of millions of aborted babes.  For the former group, they must be saved via "ordinary means" (i.e., implicit faith) because miracles, for them, are too implausible and/or there are far too few angels to do the job.

Maybe you should read something other than Richard Dawkins (several times) and "modern" theologians.

The manualists are not just "some theologian" writing. You however, are just "some guy on the internet" writing.

We have shared arguments with you.  

Listen, you are making connections that have no validity.  You see everything since the days of Augustine or Thomas as part of some giant liberal plot, though ou don't really even agree with them.  They taught baptism of desire, and they never wriggled out of it with some excuse that it's something that COULD happen but never does.

You compare the scientific / rationalist thinking of Dawkins to those who believe in implicit faith ( this includes most theologians of the last three hundred years ).  What you're saying is that a miraculous conversion like Saul to Paul, where Saul was visibly changed and brought into the Church, is how God really saves people, that it is always this explicit, and that it is mere rationalism to assume that someone could be saved who never was brought into the Church this way.  You feel the conversion of those like Paul is shortchanged by this idea that someone can be saved who is in invincible ignorance, because if God can do what He did for Paul, why would He ever do otherwise, why wouldn't he teach this backwards pagan more?

What you're not seeing is that one does not exclude the other.  God can rise up someone like St. Paul, he can bring him to baptism, and then use him to convert many others and to establish the Church in many far-flung nations.

But guess what?  God can also let someone into heaven who never got as far as Saint Paul.  You're comparing apples and oranges.  Just because God did great things for Saint Paul, does that mean he can't save people in any other way?  

Then why stop there?  Why not say that not only does everyone need to have explicit faith, and to be baptized, but that they have to know the entire Athanasian Creed in detail?

This is what we're trying to point out when we mention that everyone has a greater or lesser degree of knowledge about the faith.  Trad123 talks about those who may not know Christ has two wills ( and I am one of those people, I had to go back and check his message, ha ha ).

It is not that the example of St. Paul is "mystical" and the example of the ignorant native with implicit faith is "rational."  These are two totally different ways that God, in his infinite wisdom, which somewhat exceeds yours and mine -- sarcasm -- can save people.  St. Paul went very far.  The ignorant native who is saved by implicit faith did not go so far in his life... So what?  He can still go to heaven.  Some people are higher in heaven, and others lesser.

***********

Reductio ad absurdum:  St. Therese of Lisieux had a short life.  St. Francis of Paola died in his nineties after a gruelling lifetime of miracles and travelling.  By your logic, since God preserved one seventy years long, he is therefore "better," and he should go to heaven while St. Therese does not.

You may not think that is how weak your argument is.  But it is.  Because you are holding out what IN YOUR MIND is a better form of conversion, and then denying salvation to all who don't meet YOUR criteria for conversion.

The problem is that it's not you that decides, it's God, and God speaks through the Church.  It is not possible for the Church to allow a heresy to be taught for five hundred years, sorry.  If you just examine the fact that you don't really even believe in baptism of desire for catechumens, you don't think it ever happens -- a total chimera you've made up in order to satisfy YOUR sense of justice, not God's -- then you will see that you have to begin to question yourself and learn to submit to minds that have mulled this over in more detail.

True, you can't just appeal to authority in all cases to settle questions, priests are not perfect, theologians aren't perfect.  But you are basically denying, with baptism of desire, what has been taught by FIVE Doctors of the Church, okay?  That should show you that it is you with the problem.