Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Tradycja on February 20, 2011, 07:34:24 PM
-
The following is a scan from the current issue of the Wanderer (Vol 143, No.7- Feb 17, 2011) in which Fr. hαɾɾιson corrects them for their misinterpretation of Cantate Domino.
I have not seen the previous issue with the Wanderer article where they contradict Cantate Domino. If you have it please let me know. I would like to get my hands on it.
(http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/16/10/68/56/frharr10.jpg)
-
Excellent article. However, pagans, even those who are completely inculpable of hearing the Gospel, will be damned on account of original sin. This is why it is de fide that the sole and only means of salvation for infants and children who die before the age of reason is sacramental Baptism. Saint Thomas was quite explicit about the absolute necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ, in particular, the 14 Articles of Faith that comprise the Apostle's Creed.
None of this, IMHO, contradicts what Father Feeney taught who said,
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water." (Bread of Life, page 56)
-
BroMo over at CAF says Council of Florence only applied to Catholics, so there you go. Problem solved. Indians are saved. :turban:
-
BroMo over at CAF says Council of Florence only applied to Catholics, so there you go. Problem solved. Indians are saved. :turban:
Listening to those people you would think only Traditional Catholics go to hell.
-
Jehanne said:
However, pagans, even those who are completely inculpable of hearing the Gospel, will be damned on account of original sin.
I have joined the dark side, so here goes --
Theology has moved on past St. Thomas, just as St. Thomas moved on past St. Augustine. This doesn't mean there are new revelations, but what was already revealed with the Apostles has been more fully explained.
Trying to "go back to Augustine" is a recipe for heresy, as was already seen with the Jansenists and the Protestants. Take it from someone who went down that route for a while ( wink ).
Theology doesn't add anything, it doesn't change, but it does become MORE CLEAR. Recall that no one was going around teaching "original sin" until Augustine, he came up with that term, but at the same time, proof of it is clearly in the Gospels. It just took God, using Augustine, to shed more light on it, centuries after the Apostles.
Tread carefully, since a Pope, Pius IX, has spoken of invincible ignorance in an encyclical, and by now it very well may be part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Very, very few theologians of the last two hundred years would have denied that it is possible for God to save someone with an IMPLICIT FAITH, despite invincible ignorance.
Apart from that, we can have our opinions. My opinion is that very, very few will be saved who have never heard the Gospel, it would be an extraordinary grace. I mean very, very, VERY few.
The last Doctor of the Church is St. Alphonsus, in my opinion, he is the one who must be our guide in this hazy, confusing jumbled modern world. I have prayed to him to help me avoid scruples and I believe he has been most effective.
-
Also, just forget Father Feeney. Stop trying to shoehorn him into some kind of plan that you're comfortable with, stop mulling over his statements and trying to make them click. Just trust God, trust the Church, and you can't go wrong.
Yes, Vatican II didn't happen overnight. But that doesn't mean the Church has allowed a heresy to be taught for five hundred years ( if you think implicit faith is a heresy ).
If you have a tendency to intellectual pride, as I do, you are ripe for incipient Feeneyism or some variant thereof. THe devil is ALL over it, trust me. Careful! The most important thing is to read good books, trustworthy sources. St. Alphonsus is accredited a great theologian by everyone; Father Feeney is not.
-
Another theologian I would give my total trust is Tanquerey. He taught implicit faith, just like almost all if not all European theologians.
-
Jehanne said:However, pagans, even those who are completely inculpable of hearing the Gospel, will be damned on account of original sin.
I have joined the dark side, so here goes --
Theology has moved on past St. Thomas, just as St. Thomas moved on past St. Augustine. This doesn't mean there are new revelations, but what was already revealed with the Apostles has been more fully explained.
Trying to "go back to Augustine" is a recipe for heresy, as was already seen with the Jansenists and the Protestants. Take it from someone who went down that route for a while ( wink ).
Theology doesn't add anything, it doesn't change, but it does become MORE CLEAR. Recall that no one was going around teaching "original sin" until Augustine, he came up with that term, but at the same time, proof of it is clearly in the Gospels. It just took God, using Augustine, to shed more light on it, centuries after the Apostles.
Tread carefully, since a Pope, Pius IX, has spoken of invincible ignorance in an encyclical, and by now it very well may be part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Very, very few theologians of the last two hundred years would have denied that it is possible for God to save someone with an IMPLICIT FAITH, despite invincible ignorance.
Apart from that, we can have our opinions. My opinion is that very, very few will be saved who have never heard the Gospel, it would be an extraordinary grace. I mean very, very, VERY few.
The last Doctor of the Church is St. Alphonsus, in my opinion, he is the one who must be our guide in this hazy, confusing jumbled modern world. I have prayed to him to help me avoid scruples and I believe he has been most effective.
Sorry, not buying the "clarity" argument, as it's a favorite of modernists, and Ratzinger in particular, to explain this and that novelty. To be the faith, it must have either:
1.) Been a divine revelation
2.) Part of constant teaching of the Church throughout its history
3.) Solemly proclaimed by Pope, or Council with the Pope's approval
Moreover, any such clarification must not contradict previous expounded dogma. That's my problem with arguing that this is an example of doctrinal evolution. Augustine's works on matter, were never, to my knowledge accepted as being authoritative. The Summa Theologica on the other hand, as I've stated in another thread, was according a place next to divine revelation of Scripture on the altar at the Council of Trent, and moreover was declared by Leo XIII to be the authoritative exposition of Christian doctrine, with no approbation to the necessity for explicit faith, or anything else therein contained. Considering that this comes from Leo XIII, who himself would've been quite aware of his predecessor's work, I find this at odds with the belief that the exploration of implicit faith is binding.
-
Moreover, any such clarification must not contradict previous expounded dogma.
True, except you could very well be seeing a contradiction where there is none.
-
True, except you could very well be seeing a contradiction where there is none.
I don't deny this is possible; on this matter, I have no particular stance and defer to the guidance of others. I do not, however, think it can be much denied that Thomas is both firm and consistent in his doctrine on the need for explicit faith.
-
Also, just forget Father Feeney. Stop trying to shoehorn him into some kind of plan that you're comfortable with, stop mulling over his statements and trying to make them click. Just trust God, trust the Church, and you can't go wrong.
Yes, Vatican II didn't happen overnight. But that doesn't mean the Church has allowed a heresy to be taught for five hundred years ( if you think implicit faith is a heresy ).
If you have a tendency to intellectual pride, as I do, you are ripe for incipient Feeneyism or some variant thereof. THe devil is ALL over it, trust me. Careful! The most important thing is to read good books, trustworthy sources. St. Alphonsus is accredited a great theologian by everyone; Father Feeney is not.
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).
Note the "from a similar motive..."
Faith in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ must be explicit:
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)
2) The Athanasian Creed states so, explicitly, and that was infallibly included in the text of the Council of Florence.
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??
As for implicit faith being taught for 500 years, it wasn't. It was De Vega who first taught it, didn't he? So, the idea is around 400 years old, and it was never widely embraced when it first showed-up.
As for Pope Pius IX, in my (humble) opinion, he blew it, big time. He laid the foundation for Vatican II, but notice, none of his successors, until Pope Pius XII, followed in his footsteps. If anything, they tried to correct his ideas. In any case, we can read Pius IX's two statements in light of Tradition, but like Vatican II, one is not required to. And, that's the problem, isn't it?
As for Father Feeney, I think that he was a great priest and theologian. In essence, I think that he got things right, even though he got some of the details wrong.
As for St. Alphonsus, I think that he got some things wrong, which is the claim that you appear to be making about St. Augustine!
-
Well, Jehanne, I thought almost exactly like you at one time, and like Richard Ibranyi. I saw the idea of implicit faith as sort of the bridge from the Renaissance right to Vatican II, spanning hundreds of years -- a sort of slow-burning conspiracy theory. I am ashamed of this now, the Church would not let a heresy be taught by almost all of its theologians for this long.
I think the first one to teach implicit faith was Pighius. I don't know about De Vega, but someone named Soto taught it, a Jesuit ( my name is de la Sota, so that was easy to remember ). It then took off like wildfire among the Jesuits, and eventually, became the norm.
I don't know, my panic over this whole issue just lifted one day, as it did with NFP.
-
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
-
R76 said ineptly:
Do you think they'd know that all three Persons of the Holy Ghost are uncreated --
I meant Holy Trinity, not Holy Ghost, of course.
-
Might a sense of peace, calm, and confidence come from the Devil?
-
Well, Jehanne, I thought almost exactly like you at one time, and like Richard Ibranyi. I saw the idea of implicit faith as sort of the bridge from the Renaissance right to Vatican II, spanning hundreds of years -- a sort of slow-burning conspiracy theory. I am ashamed of this now, the Church would not let a heresy be taught by almost all of its theologians for this long.
I think the first one to teach implicit faith was Pighius. I don't know about De Vega, but someone named Soto taught it, a Jesuit ( my name is de la Sota, so that was easy to remember ). It then took off like wildfire among the Jesuits, and eventually, became the norm.
I don't know, my panic over this whole issue just lifted one day, as it did with NFP.
Time, of course, "flows both ways." The Church allowed the IC to be debated for almost 1900 years. Besides, you can make the same claim about the teachings of Vatican II. 40 years or 400 years, what's the difference? As for condemning "implicit faith," I think that the Church did condemn it from Pope Innocent XI on. Consider what Pope Gregory XVI said in Mirari Vos,
Next let Us start with the things which concern the faith which, as We mentioned above, some are endangering in order to introduce greater freedom for mixed marriages. You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the apostles, martyred St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: "Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God." Moreover, St. Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: "Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ." Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: "The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved." Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: "There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved." Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses and that which other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies."
No exceptions, right? No "invincibly ignorant, through no fault of their own." That came later.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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."
We're all happy that is "good enough" for you. Nobody is saying there is salvation outside the Church, so what is good enough for you doesn't matter to anybody else.
-
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:
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.
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.
Something else to think about is how penance has changed over the centuries. I heard about a woman in the early Church who committed a mortal sin, they made her stand outside the Church with a rope around her neck for years, every Sunday, until they let her come back into the flock. Now for a mortal sin we'd say five Hail Marys. Does this bother you as well, do you want to go back to those stricter rules? So did the Jansenists. But it is God's will, which we know through the Church, for penance to be relaxed.
Or how about communion in one species? That was changed with Trent; do you think that's heresy, do you want to go back to two species? Vatican II does!
Like I said, trying to "go back to Augustine" or "go back to the early Church" is a recipe for heresy. Over time, it is clear, God's mercy is being revealed, in a way that wasn't always visible to some of the earlier saints, who were perhaps more aware of His justice. But over time, God has shown Himself to be more liberal than it seemed at first. "Liberal" is a relative term. Vatican II is not invalid because it's "liberal," it's invalid because it's heretical. But the Church throughout the last five hundred years was clearly liberal COMPARED to the very early Church, yet it was still the same Church.
Remember, Christ Himself seemed very liberal to the Pharisees, refusing to allow the woman taken in sin to be stoned, spending time with people that would be ostracized under Jєωιѕн law, like Mary Magdalene, who would be given no second chance. They didn't like that. Just like you don't like implicit faith, perhaps...
I know what you're dealing with, I know what it is to see cօռspιʀαcιҽs everywhere, even to trace the seeds of Vatican II back to the Renaissance. But the seeds can be traced back further than that -- they can be traced back to the Garden of Eden. This is the mystery of iniquity; it's always been there. But the concept of implicit faith is not one of our problems, that is not part of the iniquity.
-
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.
-
Remember, the shoe was once on the other foot, so I know all the arguments. There's another papal decree you haven't yet cited, about how someone who doesn't know what is necessary to know by necessity of means, the Incarnation and the Trinity, shouldn't be baptized if they're dying.
For an answer to this, see the above post. As for the "necessity of means" argument, remember, baptism is also a necessity of means, and yet you admit that baptism of desire is possible for God...
SJB surely knows more about this than me, but I think there are subcategories within "necessity of means" that explains how this is possible. I forget the exact terminology. Take it away, SJB.
-
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"?
-
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.
Can you (or SJB) point to any writings of the Fathers on "implicit faith"?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
No.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Part of the problem with those who uphold "implicit faith" is that it doesn't mean the same thing to every theologian in every era. In the late Middle Ages the notion of implicit faith could only apply to those in the Church who give their assent to all that the Church teaches even though they may not know all that the church teaches. Of course St. Thomas as well as others taught that this could not apply to every doctrine (for sake of discussion, namely the person of Christ, Trinity, and the Incarnation) and such implicit faith could only go so far.
-
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.
-
I don't believe in NFP without a GRAVE reason, and 99.9% of people using it don't have that. Here's from the SSPX website. I think this illustrates the promotion of this idea very well.
http://www.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/rhythm_unhappy_compromise.htm
-
Posting this for reference
Dogmatic Treatise, Volume 7, Grace: Actual and Habitual, by Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle, pgs. 182-187:
(http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/5286/42736849.jpg)
(http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/6561/96310502.jpg)
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5641/42872542.jpg)
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4818/29310137.jpg)
(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9958/64012941.jpg)
(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/6610/61367420.jpg)
-
One can see the beginnings of modernistic theology:
The "fides implicita" theory is far more plausible, for it postulates no miracles, implicit faith (or fides in voto) being independent of the external preaching of the Gospel, just as the baptism of desire (baptismus in voto) is independent of the use of water...Does this not also necessitate a miracle (e.g., the sending of an angel or of a missionary, which we have rejected as improbable)?
One can see David Hume written all over this, who, of course, was the forerunner of Bertrand Russell, the forerunner of Richard Dawkins. Is this what CMRI really believes??
Here is another reference:
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Native.pdf
If you are going to accept the "fides implicita" theory, you might as well accept Vatican II, all of it.
-
From another manual which expounds on this point
http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_06.html
SECT. 45. — Necessity of Faith.
I. The Necessity of Faith is twofold a Necessity of Necessity Means and a Necessity of Precept. The latter always includes the former, but not vice versa.
The Faith which is a necessary means of justification and salvation is Theological Faith, perfect in its kind. In infants the Habit of Faith is sufficient; in those who have reached the use of reason some act is required bearing in some way on the economy of salvation as revealed by God. Faith, in the broad sense of the word — that is, faith founded on the testimony which creatures give of God's existence and providence — is not enough (see prop. xxiii., condemned by Innoc. Xl, March 2, 1679). Nor is Inchoate Faith sufficient — that is, a faith in the germ, not extending beyond a willingness and readiness to believe. The act of Faith must be complete, and must be based upon a supernatural Divine Revelation. Faith alone can give that knowledge of the supernatural economy of salvation which enables man to dispose his actions in harmony with his supernatural end. This reason is adduced by the Apostle (Heb. xi. 6) to prove that Abel and Henoch, like Abraham, obtained their justification and salvation by means of Faith, although Holy Scripture does not say of them, as of Abraham, that their Faith was founded upon a positive Divine Revelation: “Without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God [to serve Him] must believe that He is, and is [becomes, Greek word] a rewarder to them that seek Him.”
1. The two points of Faith mentioned in this text are indispensable, because they are the two poles on which the whole economy of salvation turns. There is probably some allusion to the words spoken by God to Abraham: “I am thy protector and thy reward exceeding great” (Gen. xv. I). Hence the words, “that He is,” refer to the existence of God, not in the abstract, but as being our God, as leading us on to salvation under the care of His paternal Providence. A belief in His existence, in this sense, is the fundamental condition of all our dealing with Him, and this belief is as much above our natural knowledge as is the belief in God the Rewarder. If, as St. Peter Chrysologus states, the first article of the Apostles' Creed expresses belief in God as our Father, then the words “that He is” correspond with this article, just as the words “that He is a rewarder to them that seek Him” correspond with the last article, “Life everlasting.” Theologians rightly conclude from Heb. xi. 6 that, at least in pre-Christian times, the two points there mentioned were alone necessary to be expressly believed. They suffice to enable man to tend by hope and charity towards God as the Source of salvation.
2. It is an open question whether, after Christ's coming, Faith in the Christian economy is not indispensable. Many texts in Holy Scripture seem to demand Faith in Christ, in His death and resurrection, as a necessary condition of salvation. On the other hand, it is not easy to understand how eternal salvation should have become impossible for those who are unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation. The best solution of the difficulty would seem to be that given by Suarez (De Fide, disp. xii., sect. iv.). The texts demanding Faith in Christ and the Blessed Trinity must not be interpreted more rigorously than those referring to the necessity of Baptism, especially as Faith in Christ, Faith in the Blessed Trinity, and the necessity of Baptism are closely connected together. The Faith in these mysteries is, like Baptism, the ordinary normal means of salvation. Under extraordinary circuмstances, however, when the actual reception of Baptism is impossible, the mere implicit desire (volum) suffices. 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. The implicit wish and willingness to believe in Christ must be accompanied by and connected with an explicit Faith in Divine Providence as having a care of our salvation ; and this Faith implies Faith and Hope in the Christian economy of salvation (see St. Thom., 2a 2ae, q. 2, a. 7).
(. . .)
-
Another
Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Volume 3, by Sylvester J. Hunter S.J., pgs. 115-122:
(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2340/29897895.jpg)
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1636/56890641.jpg)
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4894/15985329.jpg)
(http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8784/56664826.jpg)
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4769/78532566.jpg)
-
From the same volume, pgs 85-88.
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3183/27776241.jpg)
(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/9702/96735158.jpg)
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9990/82327456.jpg)
-
From another manual which expounds on this point
http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_06.html
SECT. 45. — Necessity of Faith.
I. The Necessity of Faith is twofold a Necessity of Necessity Means and a Necessity of Precept. The latter always includes the former, but not vice versa.
The Faith which is a necessary means of justification and salvation is Theological Faith, perfect in its kind. In infants the Habit of Faith is sufficient; in those who have reached the use of reason some act is required bearing in some way on the economy of salvation as revealed by God. Faith, in the broad sense of the word — that is, faith founded on the testimony which creatures give of God's existence and providence — is not enough (see prop. xxiii., condemned by Innoc. Xl, March 2, 1679). Nor is Inchoate Faith sufficient — that is, a faith in the germ, not extending beyond a willingness and readiness to believe. The act of Faith must be complete, and must be based upon a supernatural Divine Revelation. Faith alone can give that knowledge of the supernatural economy of salvation which enables man to dispose his actions in harmony with his supernatural end. This reason is adduced by the Apostle (Heb. xi. 6) to prove that Abel and Henoch, like Abraham, obtained their justification and salvation by means of Faith, although Holy Scripture does not say of them, as of Abraham, that their Faith was founded upon a positive Divine Revelation: “Without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God [to serve Him] must believe that He is, and is [becomes, Greek word] a rewarder to them that seek Him.”
1. The two points of Faith mentioned in this text are indispensable, because they are the two poles on which the whole economy of salvation turns. There is probably some allusion to the words spoken by God to Abraham: “I am thy protector and thy reward exceeding great” (Gen. xv. I). Hence the words, “that He is,” refer to the existence of God, not in the abstract, but as being our God, as leading us on to salvation under the care of His paternal Providence. A belief in His existence, in this sense, is the fundamental condition of all our dealing with Him, and this belief is as much above our natural knowledge as is the belief in God the Rewarder. If, as St. Peter Chrysologus states, the first article of the Apostles' Creed expresses belief in God as our Father, then the words “that He is” correspond with this article, just as the words “that He is a rewarder to them that seek Him” correspond with the last article, “Life everlasting.” Theologians rightly conclude from Heb. xi. 6 that, at least in pre-Christian times, the two points there mentioned were alone necessary to be expressly believed. They suffice to enable man to tend by hope and charity towards God as the Source of salvation.
2. It is an open question whether, after Christ's coming, Faith in the Christian economy is not indispensable. Many texts in Holy Scripture seem to demand Faith in Christ, in His death and resurrection, as a necessary condition of salvation. On the other hand, it is not easy to understand how eternal salvation should have become impossible for those who are unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation. The best solution of the difficulty would seem to be that given by Suarez (De Fide, disp. xii., sect. iv.). The texts demanding Faith in Christ and the Blessed Trinity must not be interpreted more rigorously than those referring to the necessity of Baptism, especially as Faith in Christ, Faith in the Blessed Trinity, and the necessity of Baptism are closely connected together. The Faith in these mysteries is, like Baptism, the ordinary normal means of salvation. Under extraordinary circuмstances, however, when the actual reception of Baptism is impossible, the mere implicit desire (volum) suffices. 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. The implicit wish and willingness to believe in Christ must be accompanied by and connected with an explicit Faith in Divine Providence as having a care of our salvation ; and this Faith implies Faith and Hope in the Christian economy of salvation (see St. Thom., 2a 2ae, q. 2, a. 7).
(. . .)
The word “impossible” is pure atheistic rationalism. It is interesting how they reference St. Thomas, yet declare him to have been in error on such a fundamental point of dogma.
-
Msgr. Fenton, "The Holy Office Letter on the Necessity of the Church":
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation are(sic) not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
Still, the teaching of the letter must be seen against the backdrop of the rest of Catholic doctrine. And it is definitely a part of the Catholic doctrine that certain basic revealed truths (Trinity, Incarnation) must be accepted and believed explicitly, even though other teachings contained in the deposit of faith may, under certain circuмstances, be believed with only an implicit faith. 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.
-
Another
Lectures on Dogmatic Theology, God and Man, Volume 2, by Rev. Labauche, pgs. 211-216:
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/4474/90915679.jpg)
(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/3613/61015817.jpg)
(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4874/70805436.jpg)
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8994/22255892.jpg)
-
Another
Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Volume 3, by Sylvester J. Hunter S.J., pgs. 115-122:
(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2340/29897895.jpg)
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1636/56890641.jpg)
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4894/15985329.jpg)
(http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8784/56664826.jpg)
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4769/78532566.jpg)
This theological manual is definitely out of date, because according to the late Father Karl Rahner not even an explicit faith in a Creator God is not necessary for salvation. I feel sorry for all the many missionaries who gave their lives in bringing the Gospel to native peoples. What a waste.
-
From the same volume, pgs 85-88.
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3183/27776241.jpg)
(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/9702/96735158.jpg)
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9990/82327456.jpg)
I love how they quote St. Thomas in support of a teaching which he himself rejected.
-
Another
Lectures on Dogmatic Theology, God and Man, Volume 2, by Rev. Labauche, pgs. 211-216:
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/4474/90915679.jpg)
(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/3613/61015817.jpg)
(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4874/70805436.jpg)
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8994/22255892.jpg)
It's amazing that some of this stuff is coming from a sede website, because all of Vatican II flows from it. And please stop quoting St. Thomas against Father Feeney, because St. Thomas (and, apparently, the Council of Florence) made some fundamental errors.
-
Msgr. Fenton, "The Holy Office Letter on the Necessity of the Church":
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation are(sic) not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
Still, the teaching of the letter must be seen against the backdrop of the rest of Catholic doctrine. And it is definitely a part of the Catholic doctrine that certain basic revealed truths (Trinity, Incarnation) must be accepted and believed explicitly, even though other teachings contained in the deposit of faith may, under certain circuмstances, be believed with only an implicit faith. 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.
This analysis seems more in line with St. Thomas; however, as before, if one has an implicit desire for the Church even with supernatural faith, how does one ever “leave” it?
-
This analysis seems more in line with St. Thomas; however, as before, if one has an implicit desire for the Church even with supernatural faith, how does one ever “leave” it?
Culpably believe in heresy.
-
This analysis seems more in line with St. Thomas; however, as before, if one has an implicit desire for the Church even with supernatural faith, how does one ever “leave” it?
Culpably believe in heresy.
Such a person would not have been “outside” the Church to begin with. Heresy only applies to the baptized.
-
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.
-
Quoting from one of my earlier posts that I referenced:
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:
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
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.
-
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?!
-
The less one knows, the better, huh?!
I don't see how one could say something like this. Could you explain.
-
Quoting from one of my earlier posts that I referenced:
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:
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
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??
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
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.)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
Because, if you told them "too much," you could cause them to fall from grace. For instance, if a Protestant is validly baptized and, hence, in a state of grace, if you, a Catholic, told that individual that he/she needs to believe in the IC, and she refused, she could lose her salvation. Correct?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Another worthless appeal to authority. Sam hαɾɾιs (whom I have also read) tries to pull the same ruse when says, “Look, you should be an atheist like me; over 90% of US National Academy of Sciences members are atheist..blah, blah.”
If you have reason and arguments to share, then, please share them. Appealing to a group of intellectuals who say, “Well, we just don't believe in that” is not an argument.
-
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.
-
Trad123 answered my question that I asked SJB. I had asked him about the "subcategories" of necessity of means, to explain how there can be a baptism of desire when baptism is a necessity of means.
In one of trad123's scanned books, it gives the answer: Necessity of absolute means and necessity of relative means.
You are doing your homework, trad123.
-
Correction:
I wrote --
It is not possible for the Church to allow a heresy to be taught for five hundred years, sorry.
I should have written --
It is not possible for most if not all of the theologians of the Church to teach a heresy over three hundred years.
I have to change that, because of course, the Immaculate Conception was denied by some for a while, including -- arguably -- St. Thomas, and more shockingly, St. Bernard, who, as legend has it, was breast-fed by Mary with the milk of wisdom itself ( no, I didn't make this up, look up Lactation of St. Bernard ).
But just as with the Immaculate Conception, where over time more and more people believed in it until basically everyone believed, and then it became a dogma, the idea of some kind of implicit faith being sufficient for salvation is on the same track. The trend, long before Vatican II, was for more and more theologians to accept that some form of implicit faith being sufficient for salvation is possible.
It's true that very few agree on what must be believed implictly, and what must be believed explicitly. This may be the "vortex of confusion" that Augustine feared. What he didn't see, I think, and what perhaps God showed me after much agonizing over this question -- and I do mean agonizing -- is that it's only confusing if you think that you HAVE to know every last secret of the mind of God. If you leave it a mystery, then there is no problem. God can save certain people under certain conditions, but we don't always know what those conditions are, and therefore, they should take steps to learn the faith and be baptized...
The following quote from an encylical of Pius IX, to me, is the last word on the matter. It explains that the exact boundaries of invincible ignorance are a MYSTERY at which our minds should stop, which we should not try to penetrate further.
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [ 1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [ Eph. 4:5 ]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
Of course, this didn't stop all the theologians from inquiring, or myself, but maybe it should.
-
Is it possible to talk about 'absolute necessity' and 'relative necessity'? Sounds funny to me.
-
Is it possible to talk about 'absolute necessity' and 'relative necessity'? Sounds funny to me.
I think the correct terms would be necessity of means and necessity of precept.
-
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.
I do not deny Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, and I have already expressed my views on that. If "modern" theologians can "improve" on Saints Augustine & Thomas, I am not sure why you think Father Feeney could not, also. However, this is a very old debate, so this will be my last post in this thread. Until next time...
As for theologians teaching "implicit faith" for five centuries and the Church tolerating it, I do not think that statement is accurate. The late Father Michael Muller, in his book The Catholic Dogma, stated the following:
"Hence it has always been, from the beginning, absolutely necessary for salvation to know, by divine faith, God as the Creator of heaven and earth and the eternal Rewarder of the good and the wicked, and the Incarnation of the Son of God, and consequently the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity; 'For he that cometh to God,' says St. Paul, 'must believe that he is, and is a rewarder of those who seek him.' (Heb. xi. 6.) Upon these words of the great Apostle, Cornelius a Lapide comments as follows..." (page 9)
So, I guess the answer to "implicit faith" depends upon whom you ask, a Paulist or a Redemptorist. If Paulists can "improve" upon Saint Thomas, why can't Father Feeney?
In any case, I am through with this one, so thank you for your comments. I was contemplating going to the CMRI, but no longer. So, this message board is very useful to me, just a "guy on the Internet."
-
RHYTHM: THE UNHAPPY COMPROMISE
Fr. Hugh Calkins, O.S.M.
Originally printed in the June 1948 issue of Integrity magazine and reprinted by Angelus Press in 1995 in Raising Your Children; The Integrity Magazine Series
What about Rhythm? That simple question is rapidly becoming a stormcenter of controversy. It comes up during parish missions, Cana Conferences, bull sessions on careers, even high school retreats. All too often, wrong answers are given, bum theology is handed out. Even more often, right answers are given but very imprudently. These cause confusion among the laity and lead to cynical questioning. Why don’t priests get together on this thing voices that cynicism.
This article will discuss Rhythm thoroughly. First, the latest and best theological thought concerning the morality involved shall be presented. This will remove the guesswork of beauty shop theologians and gabfest experts who too easily settle everything with: "Oh, Rhythm’s okay. It’s Catholic birth control." Secondly, we shall present the true picture of how Rhythm is currently being used around America. It is not a pretty picture, but it’s based upon wide missionary experience and thorough research. It may surprise a few too glib advocates of Rhythm —lay, cleric, religious —to see how widely astray Catholic couples have gone on this moral question. Thirdly, we shall discuss how all this fits into a full Christian life, into the synthesis of religion and life any earnest Christian must promote, if we are "to restore all things in Christ."
Moral Considerations
Let’s understand what we mean by Rhythm. Incidentally, we are permitted to discuss the method. The only official prohibition issued by the Church deals with the teaching and recommending of the method. Too long have we kept silent, while imprudently zealous advocates spread the method nationwide. The term Rhythm is a convenient name for a systematic method of performing marital relations on certain days of the month. The method is built around the Rhythm of fertility and sterility which occurs in the monthly cycle of a woman’s menstrual periods. Briefly, it now seems medically certain that on certain days of the month a woman is quite likely to conceive new life and on other days she is quite unlikely to conceive. The days on which conception are quite likely are called "fertile": those on which conception is quite unlikely are called "sterile." The Rhythm Method consists in following a systematic method of performing marital relations only on "sterile" days and abstaining on "fertile" days. This method is followed in order to space children or to avoid having children. Whether the method is used for a few months, a few years, or all during childbearing years, the motive remains the same. The motive in using this method is to avoid conception and pregnancy. Let’s have no talk about "virtuous continence." That’s the red herring often dragged in to confuse the issue. The people who use Rhythm are not primarily concerned about continence. They seek to avoid conception. Hence, they restrict sɛҳuąƖ intercourse strictly to sterile days, safe periods.
Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, Rhythm is not the same as contraception. It’s true that often the aim of the married couple is the same—they use Rhythm to avoid conception—but their method is not the same as the birth-controller. The practice of Rhythm is natural so far as the biological aspect is concerned. The practice of contraception is unnatural, against nature, a perversion just as truly as ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. But just because Rhythm is "natural" doesn’t mean it is always morally good and permissible. The practice of Rhythm proceeds from a free and deliberate will—the will not to have children—that is directly opposed to the primary purpose of marital relations as ordained by God. Is such a free will choice contrary to the will of God and sinful?
Without getting too technical, there are two schools of thought on the essential morality of Rhythm as a system. The more common opinion, the majority opinion, holds that this method is not of itself illicit, and becomes lawful only when there is sufficient cause present for sidestepping the primary purpose of marriage. Both opinions are approved by expert theologians: you may follow either one until the Church makes an official pronouncement on the subject. But keep in mind that all theologians hold certain basic facts to be true. There is perfect agreement among theologians that Rhythm can become sinful because of circuмstances and dangers involved.
Important Conditions
So we can summarize the latest and best theological thought on the subject. The Church neither approves nor disapproves of the Rhythm Method as a system to be followed. The Church merely tolerates the use of this method. Tolerates indicates reluctant permission. And the Church only tolerates this method, when three definite factors are present. These three are: First, there is sufficiently serious reason for a given couple to use this method, sufficiently serious enough to justify side-stepping the first purpose of marriage; Second, both husband and wife are truly willing to follow the method —neither one can force the other to adopt this system; Third, the use of this method must not cause mortal sins against chastity nor become a proximate occasion of such sins. The breakdown of any one of those three factors makes the use of Rhythm sinful. So the correct attitude is this: The use of Rhythm is sometimes no sin, sometimes venial sin, sometimes mortal sin. Please stop saying, "Oh, it’s okay, the Church approves it."
Now study carefully those three factors. First, a sufficient reason; theologians admit there are at times solid reasons to justify the use of the Rhythm system. These reasons may be permanent or only temporary —poverty, poor health of the mother (real, not pretended), frequent still-births or Caesarean births, medical necessity of spacing births because of the unusual fecundity of the wife, in other words, solid and honest reasons for avoiding births for a time, or maybe for all time. But even when such honest reasons are present (and so often today they are not) it still remains true that husband and wife must both be truly willing.
But all too often in actual daily life, one spouse is unwilling and is being high-pressured by the other. All moral theologians would condemn as a grave sin the exclusive use of the sterile period when it is not a truly free agreement on both sides. If not free, a grave injustice is done the other spouse. Such dangers and such mortal sins are frequent in our materialistic age. Confessors would do well to investigate the close relationship between "cheating" by married people and their use of Rhythm. So a good reason by itself is not enough. Circuмstances change cases. A confessor’s help is advised. More about those three factors later.
Assuming there is free consent and no special dangers of mortal sin, would a couple be justified in using Rhythm for only selfish reasons? Theological opinion is divided: some say such a course would be mortally sinful, others say venially sinful. But all eminent theologians say such a course would be sinful and fraught with grave danger. The more you study the theologians on this question, the more you see how cautious priests and laity should be in advocating Rhythm. You see why the Holy See, only with reluctance, tolerates this method. It certainly has never been declared officially that the Holy See approves of the "safe period" method. Not even the much-quoted paragraph from the "Chaste Wedlock" encyclical of Pius XI can be accurately used as giving such approval. It is far more likely that Pius XI was referring to physically sterile people ("certain defects") or those who have passed the menopause ("reasons of time") and not the use of Rhythm. Yet the new supercolossal campaign for selling Rhythm devices by mail dares to quote the Holy Father in approval of such crassly commercial restriction of birth.
Face the Cold Realities
Now that we’ve laid the theological groundwork, let’s be terribly practical. Catholic couples have gone hog-wild in the abusive employment of Rhythm. Theological distinctions have been pitched completely in the utterly selfish desire to avoid conception at any cost. Too many priests are acting imprudently in the public recommendation (in classrooms and sermons) of the method which the Holy See has cautioned "the confessor may cautiously suggest." There is abundant evidence increasing daily that only spiritually strong couples can be trusted really to observe Rhythm prudently, even when a sufficient reason is present. All too many other couples say they’re using Rhythm and they really are following a system of "Don’t become pregnant at any cost." So they use Rhythm, when it "works," varied methods of contraception when it doesn’t work, and even abortion when they get "caught" (what an expression to describe the start of an immortal existence). Yet all the time such people try kidding confessors with "Oh, no, no birth control, we just use Rhythm."
It’s becoming a scandal to their sincere neighbors. John Doe is no theologian. He doesn’t make fancy distinctions between unnatural and natural birth control. All he sees is these selfish couples are married and don’t have kids —even brag about how they’re through having any more. He begins to wonder how they can so easily go to Confession and Communion. I’m beginning to wonder too. Even our adversaries throw a body blow at us by saying: "What’s the difference? You forbid contraception so firmly, but your couples slip through by using Rhythm."
Promoting Sterility
The thing is out of hand. A method meant to be a temporary solution of a critical problem has become a way of life, a very selfish, luxury-loving, materialistic way of life. What theologian would ever justify practices like these actual cases I now cite: parish priests giving a copy of a book on Rhythm to each engaged couple with a word of approval; preachers explaining in weekend retreats the advantages of this method for having children as you planned them; teachers in some of our best colleges teaching the method, often to girls who are well set financially; gynecologists lecturing in leading Catholic medical schools and telling classes of young doctors how to teach this method to patients, so that the doctors assume Church approval to recommend the method has now been given them; engaged couples planning their wedding day with rhythm cycle all plotted so no pregnancy results until a year or two passes, so that they can enjoy all the privileges and none of the obligations of marriage.
It is one thing to permit Rhythm reluctantly, as the Church officially does. It’s quite another to become promoters of sterility, as too many of our people have. Naturally, the commercializing of Rhythm has hit a new high. Expensive gadgets are now available —"every medical and theological student, nurse and social worker should have one," reads the blurb. So now our people have fool-proof methods of "making love by a calendar," effectively blocking God’s creative designs. It’s enough to make God vomit out of His mouth the creatures who ignore so completely the divine purposes of marriage. How will we ever convert godless America, how produce modern saints, if we won’t give God citizens for His Heavenly Kingdom? And most ironic of all, Catholics so anxious to be in on Catholic Action (which to them means anything from bingo to flag-waving) are often the most determined advocates of Rhythm. They labor so hard to get others to attend lectures, Cana Conferences, book reviews; but to have babies as God wants them to —don’t be silly. Have you noticed the heavy emphasis on Rhythm among our wealthy parishes, among our college graduate couples, our social and cultural leaders?
Rhythm Mentality
So there has sprung full-grown from pagan propaganda this vicious Rhythm mentality —a state of mind that won’t trust God. Our moderns concede God knows how to balance the universe in the palm of His hand, knows how to harness atomic energy, can dangle stars and planets at His fingertips, but children? Oh, no, God just doesn’t know how to arrange things there. We’ll take care of that through family planning. But the planning centers about how not to have a family. So our do-gooders extol either the practice of total sɛҳuąƖ abstinence (oh, so piously), even when the other partner is unwilling and is being unjustly defrauded, or the practice of methodical Rhythm. They don’t admit or don’t care about the mortal sins such systems produce. They are determined: No Pregnancy Now! There is the state of mind that despairs of God’s help.
These bleeding hearts, especially busybodies-in-law, and nosey neighbors, scream protestingly: "Who’ll take care of the next baby?" The simple answer is: The same God that takes care of you even when you resist His Will. "But we must give our children security and education." Just because God doesn’t give parents and children all today’s phony materialistic standards require, doesn’t mean He fails them. He didn’t give His own mother much in material security. But heaven, not security, is the goal set for the babies God sends. God established marriage primarily to give children life in this world that would bring eternal life.
Too many people are trying to play God. God alone is still the Author of new life. And God doesn’t need alarmist doctors, despairing parents, nor even thoughtless priests trying to run His affairs and deciding when new life shall be born. What God wants from us is free will co-operation with His Will. That’s the one contribution we alone can make. What God demands from married partners is willingness to have the children He shall decide to send. People go to heaven only by doing God’s Will, not by planning things for Him.
Well, then, should every couple have a flock of children? That’s up to God. Every couple should have the children God wants them to have. But they are not having them. Forty-four percent of American families have no children. Twenty-two per cent have only one child. And Catholics living in cities now have far fewer children than the families in rural areas (which are about eighty per cent Protestant). Obviously, family planners are planning families out of existence. That certainly is not God’s Will. The use of Rhythm by so-called "devout" Catholics is a major factor in that falling birth rate. You say the birth rate is up higher now? Yes, on the first and second babies. But it continues to fall steadily in the number of third, fourth and later babies.
Too Much Prudence
The Rhythm mentality has a tear-jerker argument. It’s turned on, full stops, something like this: "But God wants people to use prudence in bringing children into the world. Neither God nor His Church demands people have as many kids as possible. People should use discretion, be decent enough to plan their family. Isn’t it far better that a few kids be well fed, clothed, educated than a large family endure poverty." It sounds good, doesn’t it? People advancing this line are often quite righteous about it. With pharisaical smugness, they feel sorry for "imprudent pregnancy" of poor parents. But I’m sick of them. They’re the kind who probably pitied Mary of Nazareth, carrying a Baby God has sent, but for whom Joseph and Mary couldn’t find a home (talk about a housing shortage and tough landlords). They’re the kind who pitied my own mother, when she carried me, her twelfth child. Sweet chance I, and many another poor kids like me, would have to be priests, if Rhythm mentality prevailed. And what would the bleeding heart of another day have done about Nancy Hands carrying the Baby who became Abe Lincoln? There would have been no Bernadette of Lourdes, coming from a jail flat, nor Teresa of Lisieux from sickly parents and a mother who lost three babies in a row, and most certainly not a Catherine of Siena, a twenty-third child, if the "prudent planners" had their way. What all these extollers of prudence forget is: God’s Will is the end of man. The essence of the world: ours to do His Will. Prudence is a cardinal virtue, highly praiseworthy indeed. But faith, hope, and charity are supernatural virtues far more praiseworthy. And the greatest of these is charity. What nobler way to practice charity than to co-operate with God in passing on new life, when God wants it to be born, not when humans think it should? Let only God play God.
Hidden Costs
"Such a manner of using the marriage right, followed without a very serious reason during all, or almost all of the married life, is opposed to the plan of Providence for the propagation of the human race, represents a serious attack on the honor of marriage and particularly on the dignity of the wife, and creates grave dangers for the married people." So spoke the bishops of Belgium in their Fifth Provincial Council back in 1937. Their words point up the hidden costs of using Rhythm. Take that point on debasing the honor of marriage and lowering the dignity of the wife. Fifty per cent of today’s mothers are neurotic, say several leading non-Catholic psychologists. In many cases, Rhythm produces the neurosis. It made the "rejecting mother" type. She "got caught" with a pregnancy she had sedulously fled. The unwanted pregnancy results in the lonely, neurotic, unwanted child. Neurosis like this can increase sterility, so often when the "Rhythmeer" finally wants a baby, she can’t have one. It’s odd that women can’t see the debasing results of a system that uses them systematically to satisfy sɛҳuąƖ desires but seldom to produce children.
Advocates of Rhythm are fond of stressing how "natural" the method is. But as Fr. Lavaud, O.P., has said: "We cannot see an adaptation to nature in something which is, in effect a trick to frustrate nature." Rhythm is quite unnatural as currently employed. It requires the couple to "make love by a calendar," so charts, gadgets, graphs rule romance, not the loving desire of devoted partners. Some medical men assure us a wife’s desire for marital union is most vehement precisely during the fertile period. It appears the Jews followed a more natural procedure in abstaining during sterile periods, as the Book of Leviticus indicates. Even Dr. Ogino, the originator of the method, viewed the method primarily as a means of having children. "Rhythm in reverse," having relations on fertile days just to have children, is natural.
Another hidden cost is infidelity. Women puzzled by male misbehaving at certain time periods might well remember the desires of the flesh respect no calendar. And remember, too, man’s sɛҳuąƖ life follows a monthly cycle of vehemence and subsidence, as well as a change of life later. Men not living a properly satisfactory sɛҳuąƖ life with wives, too much calendar restriction, are easy victims to feminine wiles outside the home. The coolness and jittery bickering caused by Rhythm is incalculable. The fulfillment of marriage as a vocation demands that husband and wife minister to each other’s needs through tenderness and understanding often best expressed through love-making and intimate union postponed by the Rhythm calendar. How stupid to live a love-life holding your breath.
Who shall estimate the hidden costs generated in a woman’s finely adjusted emotional and psychical life through fear of having another baby. Once such fear is implanted, how difficult to eradicate it. How easily it leads to desperation about avoiding pregnancy at all costs. Be sure that Satan knows how to employ it to create despair about trusting God. Only in eternity shall we know the immortal souls denied a chance to have life because they were snuffed out through abortions caused by such fear.
The New Synthesis
What’s the answer to all this bogeyman propaganda about babies? It could be expressed in a word Vivant (let them live). One group of splendid parents in Milwaukee have taken that word as their slogan and the title of their magazine circulated among young married couples. It’s a vivid expression of the forgotten virtue of hope. God’s providence still rules the world. True Christians, mindful of their supernatural birth at Baptism, the growth of that life of grace through Mass, Sacraments and prayer know that hope not only springs eternal but it brings eternity as its reward. It devastates right here on earth the creeping paralysis of despair born of these hard times. It cures insecurity by abandoning itself to the constantly supporting arms of God. Married couples, so fearful of what to eat and wear with children arrived or coming, need frequent meditations on that famous sixth chapter of Matthew: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you." Seeking His justice means doing His Will, doing it with hope in your heart that God will provide and reward generosity. He never is outdone in generosity, as we all should know from experience. Surprising how God fills your heart and life with pulsating affection of children, once you trust Him enough to have the children. Surprising how little warmth there is in the mink coat, the vacation, the television set, the car that you fought so hard for, while denying your arms the warm embrace of children. Or is all this surprising? God keeps His word.
It would be well to meditate frequently on Paul’s vivid reminders about "the great Sacrament" married people give each other on their wedding day. Matrimony joins two hearts and souls and lives by fusing natural and supernatural bonds that day. God and husband and wife become partners that a great vocation might be fulfilled. The virtue of hope receives a mighty increase that day through the grace of Matrimony. At every instant of their married life, the married couple has God’s assurance that His grace is sufficient for them. No obstacle is insurmountable to God.
As Fr. Orville Griese, in his famous book, The Rhythm in Marriage and Christian Morality, says:
Christian couples ought to realize that it is a singular, providential blessing to be able to bring forth new life, thus assuring man and wife of a deeper, most lasting union, offering them means of personal sanctification and of contributing to the strength and growth of both Church and State. The mere fact that the future looks a little uncertain or that the child might be frail or sickly is no reason for substituting faith in the biological computations of the safe period method for trust in God.
-
So, I guess the answer to "implicit faith" depends upon whom you ask, a Paulist or a Redemptorist.
And you can't accept that? You should hold the common opinion of explicit to the four items I listed, and you do, but your problem is that you want to go further and condemn the minority opinion when the Church has not.
-
So, I guess the answer to "implicit faith" depends upon whom you ask, a Paulist or a Redemptorist.
And you can't accept that? You should hold the common opinion of explicit to the four items I listed, and you do, but your problem is that you want to go further and condemn the minority opinion when the Church has not.
In my opinion, it was condemned. As with today's Church where one could point to a number of priests and theologians who openly support “gαy sex” and yet remain in full canonical standing with Rome, the same is true of those priests and theologians who, at the end of the 18th-century, had embraced Catholic liberalism. I find the idea that just because the “Church has not condemned it, so you may believe it” to be rather shallow. But, I am ready to wrap this one up. I will give whoever wants it the “last word.”
-
I find the idea that just because the “Church has not condemned it, so you may believe it” to be rather shallow. But, I am ready to wrap this one up. I will give whoever wants it the “last word.”
I think what you're getting at is that many otherwise faithful Catholics often have a positivistic view (or a legalistic-positivistic view) of both the Magisterium as well as tradition. Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical. In fact it is known as denying the antecedent.
-
Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
-
Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
The Church has not condemned the Neocatechumenal heresy and may never condemn it for the objective of the new Rome is to keep unity at all costs, even if this "unity" means the destruction of our Creed/Faith. Think of this when you receive communion, that Rome has turned our act of communion into a farse, for with the approval and full backing of Rome we commune with heresy. Yea, be "at peace".
-
Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
The Church has not condemned the Neocatechumenal heresy and may never condemn it for the objective of the new Rome is to keep unity at all costs, even if this "unity" means the destruction of our Creed/Faith. Think of this when you receive communion, that Rome has turned our act of communion into a farse, for with the approval and full backing of Rome we commune with heresy. Yea, be "at peace".
Are you unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II?
-
Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
The Church has not condemned the Neocatechumenal heresy and may never condemn it for the objective of the new Rome is to keep unity at all costs, even if this "unity" means the destruction of our Creed/Faith. Think of this when you receive communion, that Rome has turned our act of communion into a farse, for with the approval and full backing of Rome we commune with heresy. Yea, be "at peace".
Are you unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II?
Apparently its flown over your head that it was the pre-Vat II Church that gave us Vat II. Vat II didn't just pop up out of nothing.
-
Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
The Church has not condemned the Neocatechumenal heresy and may never condemn it for the objective of the new Rome is to keep unity at all costs, even if this "unity" means the destruction of our Creed/Faith. Think of this when you receive communion, that Rome has turned our act of communion into a farse, for with the approval and full backing of Rome we commune with heresy. Yea, be "at peace".
Are you unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II?
Apparently its flown over your head that it was the pre-Vat II Church that gave us Vat II. Vat II didn't just pop up out of nothing.
Of course it didn't. But you still seem unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II.
-
Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
The Church has not condemned the Neocatechumenal heresy and may never condemn it for the objective of the new Rome is to keep unity at all costs, even if this "unity" means the destruction of our Creed/Faith. Think of this when you receive communion, that Rome has turned our act of communion into a farse, for with the approval and full backing of Rome we commune with heresy. Yea, be "at peace".
Are you unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II?
Apparently its flown over your head that it was the pre-Vat II Church that gave us Vat II. Vat II didn't just pop up out of nothing.
Of course it didn't. But you still seem unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II.
Don't fool yourself SJB. Vat II brought together from all corners , " ideologies" that had already/were invading Catholic thought. These "ideologies where "packaged" via a "council" to establish/cement them in. The post-VatII Church is the flourishing of seeds that found ground long, long ago, in the pre-VatII era. The source of post-VatII IS pre-VatII.
-
Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
The Church has not condemned the Neocatechumenal heresy and may never condemn it for the objective of the new Rome is to keep unity at all costs, even if this "unity" means the destruction of our Creed/Faith. Think of this when you receive communion, that Rome has turned our act of communion into a farse, for with the approval and full backing of Rome we commune with heresy. Yea, be "at peace".
Are you unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II?
Apparently its flown over your head that it was the pre-Vat II Church that gave us Vat II. Vat II didn't just pop up out of nothing.
Of course it didn't. But you still seem unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II.
Don't fool yourself SJB. Vat II brought together from all corners , " ideologies" that had already/were invading Catholic thought. These "ideologies where "packaged" via a "council" to establish/cement them in. The post-VatII Church is the flourishing of seeds that found ground long, long ago, in the pre-VatII era. The source of post-VatII IS pre-VatII.
What you are suggesting is heretical.
-
What you are suggesting is heretical.
How so SJB? Popes such as Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X recognized that modernist heretics were making inroads into the Seminaries and such. It didn't mean that any of the Pre-Vatican II heresies were actual teachings of the Church because none of the heresies were ever declared infallibly by the Popes. They were only promoted by heretical theologians and seminary professors.
-
Saying that "If the Church didn't specifically condemn something then it's to OK hold or even do" isn't very logical.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
The Church has not condemned the Neocatechumenal heresy and may never condemn it for the objective of the new Rome is to keep unity at all costs, even if this "unity" means the destruction of our Creed/Faith. Think of this when you receive communion, that Rome has turned our act of communion into a farse, for with the approval and full backing of Rome we commune with heresy. Yea, be "at peace".
Are you unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II?
Apparently its flown over your head that it was the pre-Vat II Church that gave us Vat II. Vat II didn't just pop up out of nothing.
Of course it didn't. But you still seem unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II.
Don't fool yourself SJB. Vat II brought together from all corners , " ideologies" that had already/were invading Catholic thought. These "ideologies where "packaged" via a "council" to establish/cement them in. The post-VatII Church is the flourishing of seeds that found ground long, long ago, in the pre-VatII era. The source of post-VatII IS pre-VatII.
What you are suggesting is heretical.
Again, stop fooling yourself.
-
What you are suggesting is heretical.
How so SJB? Popes such as Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X recognized that modernist heretics were making inroads into the Seminaries and such. It didn't mean that any of the Pre-Vatican II heresies were actual teachings of the Church because none of the heresies were ever declared infallibly by the Popes. They were only promoted by heretical theologians and seminary professors.
The power to teach and to rule does not reside directly in the theologians and seminary professors, they are auxiliaries of the Bishops.
The Teaching Body is a living organism, and consequently has the power of producing auxiliary members to assist in its work, and of conferring upon them the credentials required for their different functions. These auxiliary members may be divided into two classes: (1) auxiliaries of the Bishops, and (2) auxiliaries of the Chief Bishop.
I. The ordinary auxiliaries of the Episcopate are the priests and deacons. They receive their orders and their jurisdiction from the Bishops, and hold an inferior rank in the Hierarchy. Their position as regards the office of teaching, though far below that of the Bishops, is nevertheless important. They are the official executive organs of the Bishops, their missionaries and heralds for the promulgation of doctrine. They have a special knowledge of doctrine, and they receive, by means of the sacrament of Holy Orders, a share in the teaching office of the Bishops, and in the doctrinal influence of the Holy Ghost. Hence their teaching possesses a peculiar value and dignity, which may, however, vary with their personal qualifications. Moreover the Bishops should, under certain circuмstances, consult them in matters of doctrine, not, indeed, to receive direction from them, but in order to obtain information. When we remember the immense influence exercised by the uniform teaching of the clergy over the unity of Faith, we may fairly say that they participate in the infallibility of the Episcopate both extrinsically and intrinsically: extrinsically, because the universal consent of all the heralds is an external sign that they reproduce the exact message of the Holy Ghost; and intrinsically, inasmuch as by their ordination they obtain a share in the assistance of the Spirit of Truth promised to the Church.
When and where necessary, the Bishops have the power of erecting Schools or Seminaries for the religious or higher theological education of a portion of their flocks. The professors in these institutions are auxiliaries of the Bishops, and are, if possible, in still closer union with the Teaching Apostolate than the clergy engaged in the ministry.
What is heretical is the idea this unorthodoxy came from the Church and NOT Her enemies. You have confirmed this heretical idea, humble man.
-
What you are suggesting is heretical.
How so SJB? Popes such as Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X recognized that modernist heretics were making inroads into the Seminaries and such. It didn't mean that any of the Pre-Vatican II heresies were actual teachings of the Church because none of the heresies were ever declared infallibly by the Popes. They were only promoted by heretical theologians and seminary professors.
The power to teach and to rule does not reside directly in the theologians and seminary professors, they are auxiliaries of the Bishops.
The Teaching Body is a living organism, and consequently has the power of producing auxiliary members to assist in its work, and of conferring upon them the credentials required for their different functions. These auxiliary members may be divided into two classes: (1) auxiliaries of the Bishops, and (2) auxiliaries of the Chief Bishop.
I. The ordinary auxiliaries of the Episcopate are the priests and deacons. They receive their orders and their jurisdiction from the Bishops, and hold an inferior rank in the Hierarchy. Their position as regards the office of teaching, though far below that of the Bishops, is nevertheless important. They are the official executive organs of the Bishops, their missionaries and heralds for the promulgation of doctrine. They have a special knowledge of doctrine, and they receive, by means of the sacrament of Holy Orders, a share in the teaching office of the Bishops, and in the doctrinal influence of the Holy Ghost. Hence their teaching possesses a peculiar value and dignity, which may, however, vary with their personal qualifications. Moreover the Bishops should, under certain circuмstances, consult them in matters of doctrine, not, indeed, to receive direction from them, but in order to obtain information. When we remember the immense influence exercised by the uniform teaching of the clergy over the unity of Faith, we may fairly say that they participate in the infallibility of the Episcopate both extrinsically and intrinsically: extrinsically, because the universal consent of all the heralds is an external sign that they reproduce the exact message of the Holy Ghost; and intrinsically, inasmuch as by their ordination they obtain a share in the assistance of the Spirit of Truth promised to the Church.
When and where necessary, the Bishops have the power of erecting Schools or Seminaries for the religious or higher theological education of a portion of their flocks. The professors in these institutions are auxiliaries of the Bishops, and are, if possible, in still closer union with the Teaching Apostolate than the clergy engaged in the ministry.
What is heretical is the idea this unorthodoxy came from the Church and NOT Her enemies. You have confirmed this heretical idea, humble man.
Let me make it clearer for you SJB. When we speak/say the Church, we take into account Her human element. As our history has shown, within the minds of this human element error/unorthodoxy/heresy has been/will be born. Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian. Of course this needs for one to understand that when speaking of error/unorthodoxy/heresy in terms of the Church, we are speaking of the human element in the Church.
-
Let me make it clearer for you SJB. When we speak/say the Church, we take into account Her human element. As our history has shown, within the minds of this human element error/unorthodoxy/heresy has been/will be born. Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian. Of course this needs for one to understand that when speaking of error/unorthodoxy/heresy in terms of the Church, we are speaking of the human element in the Church.
The Church does not teach error. Surely there were ememies within the structure of the Church. Nobody is arguing that was not the case. What you are implying is that the Church was leading the Faithful into error, which is heretical.
-
Let me make it clearer for you SJB. When we speak/say the Church, we take into account Her human element. As our history has shown, within the minds of this human element error/unorthodoxy/heresy has been/will be born. Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian. Of course this needs for one to understand that when speaking of error/unorthodoxy/heresy in terms of the Church, we are speaking of the human element in the Church.
The Church does not teach error. Surely there were ememies within the structure of the Church. Nobody is arguing that was not the case. What you are implying is that the Church was leading the Faithful into error, which is heretical.
That "implication" is born in your head SJB. So stop picking at straws.
-
Let me make it clearer for you SJB. When we speak/say the Church, we take into account Her human element. As our history has shown, within the minds of this human element error/unorthodoxy/heresy has been/will be born. Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian. Of course this needs for one to understand that when speaking of error/unorthodoxy/heresy in terms of the Church, we are speaking of the human element in the Church.
The Church does not teach error. Surely there were ememies within the structure of the Church. Nobody is arguing that was not the case. What you are implying is that the Church was leading the Faithful into error, which is heretical.
That "implication" is born in your head SJB. So stop picking at straws.
What are you saying then? Otherwise, saying pre-v2 led to v2 is like saying the 19th century led to the 20th. It is meaningless.
-
Let me make it clearer for you SJB. When we speak/say the Church, we take into account Her human element. As our history has shown, within the minds of this human element error/unorthodoxy/heresy has been/will be born. Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian. Of course this needs for one to understand that when speaking of error/unorthodoxy/heresy in terms of the Church, we are speaking of the human element in the Church.
The Church does not teach error. Surely there were ememies within the structure of the Church. Nobody is arguing that was not the case. What you are implying is that the Church was leading the Faithful into error, which is heretical.
That "implication" is born in your head SJB. So stop picking at straws.
What are you saying then? Otherwise, saying pre-v2 led to v2 is like saying the 19th century led to the 20th. It is meaningless.
Blowing smoke SJB.
-
Nonsense, LM.
-
Are you unable to differentiate between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II?
Let me make it clearer for you SJB. When we speak/say the Church, we take into account Her human element. As our history has shown, within the minds of this human element error/unorthodoxy/heresy has been/will be born. Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian. Of course this needs for one to understand that when speaking of error/unorthodoxy/heresy in terms of the Church, we are speaking of the human element in the Church.
The Church does not teach error. Surely there were ememies within the structure of the Church. Nobody is arguing that was not the case. What you are implying is that the Church was leading the Faithful into error, which is heretical.
That "implication" is born in your head SJB. So stop picking at straws.
What are you saying then? Otherwise, saying pre-v2 led to v2 is like saying the 19th century led to the 20th. It is meaningless.
Blowing smoke SJB.
Nonsense, LM.
SJB you can't even keep up with yourself and end up shooting your own foot. In the context of the Church, if pre-v2 leading to post-v2 is "meaningless" than we wouldn't be on the spot of differentiating between pre-v2 from post-v2.
-
Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian
It is not valid, and it is heretical.
-
Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian
It is not valid, and it is heretical.
Turn on the light-switch, Lighthouse. It would heretical only if one divorces Her from Her human element/attribute, splitting Her in two, where the words the Church make reference only to Her Divine Eternal Truth. As I said prior, when speaking of the Church and error/unorthodoxy/heresy it is referencing Her human element/attribute.
-
Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian
It is not valid, and it is heretical.
Turn on the light-switch, Lighthouse. It would heretical only if one divorces Her from Her human element/attribute, splitting Her in two, where the words the Church make reference only to Her Divine Eternal Truth. As I said prior, when speaking of the Church and error/unorthodoxy/heresy it is referencing Her human element/attribute.
Please provide the source for this "human element" attribute that appears to allow the Church (as you understand it...two elements) to be in error in Faith and morals.
Also, if Arians were heretics, they simply were not Catholics. Surely there was plenty of confusion at that time, but even so, a heretic is severed from the Church by definition. Don't you understand that?
-
Error(s) born in the mind of Arius engulfed the Church to such an extent that it is valid and not heretical to say that the majority of the Church was Arian
It is not valid, and it is heretical.
Turn on the light-switch, Lighthouse. It would heretical only if one divorces Her from Her human element/attribute, splitting Her in two, where the words the Church make reference only to Her Divine Eternal Truth. As I said prior, when speaking of the Church and error/unorthodoxy/heresy it is referencing Her human element/attribute.
Please provide the source for this "human element" attribute that appears to allow the Church (as you understand it...two elements) to be in error in Faith and morals.
Also, if Arians were heretics, they simply were not Catholics. Surely there was plenty of confusion at that time, but even so, a heretic is severed from the Church by definition. Don't you understand that?
You mean you've never heard of the two natures of the Church. That She is both human (human element) and Divine. You seem to be making yourself purposely obtuse in this matter.
As to the Arians, prior to the Council of Nicea, should those who fought Arianism, instead have been "at peace etc" and waited until the Council condemned Arius and his heresy.
Jehanne wants things to be be condemned that are not condemned (and may never be.) Until they are condemned, he must be at peace with his fellow Catholics.
-
You mean you've never heard of the two natures of the Church. That She is both human (human element) and Divine. You seem to be making yourself purposely obtuse in this matter.
Quote your source. I'd like to see it.
As to the Arians, prior to the Council of Nicea, should those who fought Arianism, instead have been "at peace etc" and waited until the Council condemned Arius and his heresy.
I didn't say make peace with heretics. You're the one who thinks heretics are still Catholics.
-
Ah, let me understand this. So when the majority of northern Europeans and the British Isle decided to adopt Protestantism were they still Catholic? Just the bad-boy human division of the Church?
-
You mean you've never heard of the two natures of the Church. That She is both human (human element) and Divine. You seem to be making yourself purposely obtuse in this matter.
Quote your source. I'd like to see it.
As to the Arians, prior to the Council of Nicea, should those who fought Arianism, instead have been "at peace etc" and waited until the Council condemned Arius and his heresy.
I didn't say make peace with heretics. You're the one who thinks heretics are still Catholics.
You are human are you not. Are you a member of the Church, part of Her? Would the Church exist if She had no human members? Would the Church exist without Her Divine Truth?
You said until a condemnation comes down, to be at peace. If a person is confronted with heresy (which has not yet been officially condemned) and you didn't mean it to make peace with heretics, what do you consider to be "at peace".
As to the Arians, were the Arians members of the Church prior to Nicea setting to paper the nature of Christ and condemning the heresy.
-
So you don't have a source. Is that right?
-
So you don't have a source. Is that right?
So can you answer the questions?
-
So you don't have a source. Is that right?
So can you answer the questions?
That's what I thought.
-
So you don't have a source. Is that right?
So can you answer the questions?
That's what I thought.
Apparently you can't think to answer the questions.
-
So you don't have a source. Is that right?
So can you answer the questions?
That's what I thought.
Apparently you can't think to answer the questions.
No, I think you don't have any source and you are just making things up.
-
So you don't have a source. Is that right?
So can you answer the questions?
That's what I thought.
Apparently you can't think to answer the questions.
No, I think you don't have any source and you are just making things up.
You should have no problem answering the questions.