I don't believe in implicit faith.

Even though it's taught by the Church?

Regarding BoD, I'm with Raoul. I believe in it.

Quote from: trad123

I don't believe in implicit faith.

Even though it's taught by the Church?

Regarding BoD, I'm with Raoul. I believe in it.

It's taught in 2 or 3 theology manuals that I know of. If I recall Tanquerey did not, but I don't own those volumes anymore, so I can't check.

From a previous link, first paragraph:

http://eens123.blogspot.com/2009/07/some-important-passages-in-catholic.html

"Some theologians," says St. Alphonsus, "hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved." (First Command. No. 8.)

St. Thomas:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article8

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer14.htm

Q. 14: Faith, Article 11

Is it necessary to believe explicitly?

Difficulties

1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit belief is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary.

Answers to Difficulties

1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows 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 would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).

So far, all of the Feeneyites & their sympathizers here have repeatedly not answered this question, but are obviously struggling with talking around it and avoiding it. Nothing "intellectually honest" about that. This is a profession concerning the Faith (not some personal question like, how old are you, or, how much do you weigh.)

Did the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus teach in opposition to any solemn teaching of the Church previous to them?

Catechism of the Council of Trent [section on baptism]:
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."  

St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95., "Concerning Baptism":
"baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent"

Yes, or No?

This is directed particularly to Stubborn, SS, parentsfortruth and J.Paul.

No, they didn't. Do you somehow think they did? And no, I'm not a Feeneyite.

Stubborn answered you directly. You will need to erect another strawman if you wish to persist.

It is very unlikely that either intended to contradict or oppose defined dogmas of the Church.  It is most likely that to suit your belief, you read them in such a way that they do. And as well neither had the authority to do it anyway.

 :applause:

Stubborn answered you directly. You will need to erect another strawman if you wish to persist.

It is very unlikely that either intended to contradict or oppose defined dogmas of the Church.  It is most likely that to suit your belief, you read them in such a way that they do. And as well neither had the authority to do it anyway.

The hesitancy to answer from all of you is a part of history now you cannot erase, and it simply doesn't look good for y'all. Good enough to get a direct answer, however delayed it was. Nothing strawman in the historical delay to answer a simple question. It has its significance. There IS a wrong and a right answer, so the wrong answer doesn't make it end there. I will address that shortly with Mr. Stubborn.

Quote from: Nonno

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

No, they didn't. Do you somehow think they did? And no, I'm not a Feeneyite.

You asked what the question was because you forgot. I have repeated it. Please answer, then.

I just did.

Sorry, SS, but unless you give a Yes, or No, I don't consider your answer clear enough.

Roger, SS. You accept both quotes. I understand.

Stubborn, so you think the quote I gave from the Catechism of the Council of Trent concerning baptism does not call into doubt any solemn teaching of the Church previous to it?

Catechism of the Council of Trent [section on baptism]:
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

You do realize that the "unforeseen accident" means death?

You do realize that "grace and righteousness" means sanctifying grace, and that the Church teaches all who die in that state are saved?