Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Nishant Xavier on February 08, 2020, 10:19:46 AM
-
For certain (invincibly?) ignorant persons here:
De virtute fidei divinae, 1646 (C2-D1)Title: De virtuto fidei divinæ Author: His Eminence Cardinal John de Lugo. Pub.: Lyons, 1646
“Those who do not believe with the Catholic Church can be divided into several categories. There are some who, while they do not believe all the dogmas of the Catholic religion, do acknowledge the one true God; such are the Turks and all Moslems, as well as the Jews. Others acknowledge the triune God and Christ, as most heretics do… Now if these people are excused from the sin of infidelity by reason of invincible ignorance, they can be saved. For those who are in invincible ignorance about some articles of faith but believe others, are not formally heretics, but they have supernatural faith, by which they believe true articles, and on this basis there can follow acts of perfect contrition, by which they can be justified and saved. The same must be said about the Jews, if there are any who are invincibly mistaken about the Christian religion; for they can still have a true supernatural faith in God, and about other articles, based on Sacred Scripture, which they accept, and so, with this faith, they can have contrition, by which they can be justified and saved, provided that explicit faith in Christ is not required with a necessity of means, as will be explained later on. Finally, if any Turks and Moslems were invincibly in error about Christ and his divinity, there is no reason why they could not have a true supernatural faith about God as the supernatural rewarder, since their
15 The Salvation of the Unbeliever, by Riccardo Lombardi, S.J. Translation from the Italian original La Salvezza di chi non ha fede (Edizione “La Civilta Cattolica”, Rome) by Dorothy M. White. Nihil Obstat: Daniel Dvivesteijn, S.T.D., Censor Depvtatvs. Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vicarivs Generalis, Westmonasterii, die XIX Decembris MCMLV. The Newman Press. First published 1956 in Great Britain. Disputatio. 20, sect. 23, n. 122.
16 SOC, Chap. 7, p. 110.
15
belief about God is not based on arguments drawn from natural creation, but they have this belief from tradition, and this tradition derives from the church of the faithful, and has come down to them, even though it is mixed up with errors in their sect. Since they have relatively sufficient motives for belief with regard to the true doctrines, one does not see why they could not have a supernatural faith about them, provided that in other respects they are not guilty of sinning against the faith. Consequently, with the faith that they have, they can arrive at an act of perfect contrition.”17
“…One should note, with Suarez, that there is a certain intermediate state of those people to whom the faith has not been proposed sufficiently so that they are obliged to embrace it, but who have heard enough about it to be obliged to inquire further and to examine the motives for belief in the teaching of the faith. Thus, while a first preaching of the faith might not suffice to impose a proximate obligation of believing, it could suffice for a remote obligation. People in this situation, of whom there are a great many nowadays, among the heretics, the pagans, and especially among the Turks and other Moslems, if they do not exercise the required diligence [in inquiring further], will no longer have an ignorance that is invincible and inculpable. However, if they do exercise the required diligence, but still are not able to find sufficient knowledge for a prudent decision to embrace the Christian faith, their ignorance will still remain invincible."
Second Council of Orange, 529 A.D.: "According to the Catholic Faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and ofZacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness."
-
For certain (invincibly?) ignorant persons here:
De virtute fidei divinae, 1646 (C2-D1)Title: De virtuto fidei divinæ Author: His Eminence Cardinal John de Lugo. Pub.: Lyons, 1646
“Those who do not believe with the Catholic Church can be divided into several categories. There are some who, while they do not believe all the dogmas of the Catholic religion, do acknowledge the one true God; such are the Turks and all Moslems, as well as the Jews. Others acknowledge the triune God and Christ, as most heretics do…
-
De virtute fidei divinae, 1646 (C2-D1)Title: De virtuto fidei divinæ Author: His Eminence Cardinal John de Lugo. Pub.: Lyons, 1646
“Those who do not believe with the Catholic Church can be divided into several categories. There are some who, while they do not believe all the dogmas of the Catholic religion, do acknowledge the one true God; such are the Turks and all Moslems, as well as the Jews. Others acknowledge the triune God and Christ, as most heretics do…
A serious refutation of modern heretics who, like Old Catholics, claim the Magisterium is heretical, isn't it Praeter? It is when someone claims the Magisterium itself that condemns them is heretical, and when he refuses correction from the Authorities of the Church, that he is to be considered a heretic, and falls outside the Body of the Church.
Pope Pius IX's refutation of ecclesia-vacantist Dimondites applies in every measure to all those who follow them or Ibranyi, in wickedly assailing the Roman Catholic Church with false and temerarious accusations.
"They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.
23. These unhappy men undermine the foundations of religion, overturn all its marks and properties, and invent so many foul errors, or rather, draw forth from the ancient store of heretics and gather them together and publish them. Yet they do not blush to call themselves Catholics and Old Catholics, while in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old or Catholic. Certainly the Church rises up with greater right against them than it once did through Augustine against the Donatists.
Diffused among all people, the Church was built by Christ the Son of the living God upon the rock, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, and with which He Himself, to Whom all power in heaven and on earth is given, said He would be with until the consummation of the world. “The Church cries to Her Spouse: Why do certain men withdrawing from me murmur against me? Why do these lost men claim that I have perished? Announce to me the length of my days, how long I will be in this world? Tell me on account of those who say: it was and is no longer; on account of those who say: the scriptures have been fulfilled, all nations have believed, but the Church has apostatized and perished from all nations. And He announced and the voice was not vain.
What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, She asked of God that He announce to Her the length of Her days and She found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”[8] https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm
-
Thank you for the quote from de Lugo!!
It EXACTLY expresses my belief on invincible ignorance (and therefore implicit baptism of desire), and so far as I can tell, the Church’s teaching on same.
-
Thank you for the quote from de Lugo!!
It EXACTLY expresses my belief on invincible ignorance (and therefore implicit baptism of desire), and so far as I can tell, the Church’s teaching on same.
You're welcome. All who love God truly will really only rejoice when others Love God above all things. Everyone should be taught to be less attached and detached from material things and to begin to love God above all things. It is the first and greatest commandment, and it is not easy. But those who do it will be justified, united to the Soul of the Church, and on the way of salvation, as we are taught by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X. He who loves God seeks to do His will and keep His commandments. But as soon as An Act of Contrition is made, the person is justified. And he who is justified cannot remain outside the Church, but is within Her.
-
DeLugo, SeanJohnson, and XavierSem are all heretics. SeanJohnson and XavierSem are also both schismatics, since if they believe this, they have no justification for being Traditional Catholics and rejecting Vatican II. As I said before, it was a bunch of Jesuits (DeLugo among them) who began to promote this heresy in the early 1600s, a theory which, as St. Alphonsus notes, is contrary to all the Scriptures and also the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and had been for the first 1600 years of the Church completely unheard of.
By the way, XavierSem is also an abject liar, for earlier he asserted that he believed in the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity for salvation.
-
de Lugo (and SeanJohnson and XavierSem)
... Turks and ... Moslems, as well as the Jews, ... [and] most heretics ... can be saved.
Council of Florence:
[The Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that ... pagans, ... Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;
Your heresy cannot be more clear. You have the diabolical audacity to assert that Catholic teaching (even dogma) is verbatim the exact opposite of what the Church dogmatically taught at Florence.
-
Holy Office in 1703 condemned the notion of salvation by implicit faith, and so did Vatican I in principle (as detailed elsewhere).
-
Thank you for the quote from de Lugo!!
It EXACTLY expresses my belief on invincible ignorance (and therefore implicit baptism of desire), and so far as I can tell, the Church’s teaching on same.
So this day the self-appointed Resistance mouthpiece and the neo-SSPX shill have become friends, united in the bond of heresy.
-
If Liarslaus called Cardinal Lugo, whom St. Alphonsus highly esteemed, as a heretic to his face, the Church would likely have him burnt at the stake as a heretic himself.
The idiot also totally misrepresents St. Alphonsus and had no idea at all about him until I corrected him with numerous sources. All these sources clearly teach Justification by Implicit Faith, and Salvation by Explicit Faith, is more probable; and that is my opinion too.
The blaspheming heretic who is now an outright Ibranyist heretic, after his master Ibranyi who called St. Alphonsus a heretic, has shown himself to be like an Old Catholic sectarian heretic entirely cut off from the Church. He has no clue how Theology proceeds in the Church. The Implicit-Explicit Faith controversy, as taught by so many Theologians, is like the Thomist-Molinist controversy. I'm a Thomist, but for the very reason I'm a Thomist, I will never call a Molinist or one who holds the minority opinion a heretic, unless the Church dogmatically defines, and then all theologians will become unanimous in teaching the question is closed.
Ladislaus is a demented demon who wants others to be damned, a faithless Ibranyist heretic who insults Great Doctors and Theologians, and cannot be treated as a Catholic in the external forum any longer, until he recants this, and formally retracts it, before the Authorities of the Church, whose Authority he denies, proving he is a formal heretic.
-
You're welcome. All who love God truly will really only rejoice when others Love God above all things. Everyone should be taught to be less attached and detached from material things and to begin to love God above all things. It is the first and greatest commandment, and it is not easy. But those who do it will be justified, united to the Soul of the Church, and on the way of salvation, as we are taught by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X. He who loves God seeks to do His will and keep His commandments. But as soon as An Act of Contrition is made, the person is justified. And he who is justified cannot remain outside the Church, but is within Her.
This is overtly heretical, nothing short of full-blown Pelagianism. You make absolutely ZERO reference to Baptism, which Trent declares is necessary for salvation ... and replace it with an "Act of Contrition". You are an absolute disgrace to the Church. You won't even make a token reference to Baptism being necessary even in voto, not even to pay lip service to Trent. Instead of Baptism, you claim that "love of God" and detachment from material things (promoting Buddhism now?), a desire to do God's will, and an "Act of Contrition" lead to justification ... without ANY VOTUM FOR BAPTISM. You finish by slandering St. Pius X by claiming that he supports your heresies. If you continue promoting these heresies, especially if, God forbid, you become a priest, then your souls is all but lost.
-
If Liarslaus called Cardinal Lugo, whom St. Alphonsus highly esteemed, as a heretic to his face, ...
No, it was the COUNCIL OF FLORENCE that declare de Lugo ... and you ... to be heretics. It is you who need to be burned at the stake.
-
Ladislaus, Ladislaus:
So many strident condemnations, but so few citations (and a lamentable ignorance regarding the couple you do supply).
Maybe you should change your pseudonym to “Gratuitous?”
-
Ladislaus, Ladislaus:
So many strident condemnations, but so few citations (and a lamentable ignorance regarding the couple you do supply).
Maybe you should change your pseudonym to “Gratuitous?”
It's been repeatedly hashed out on other threads. Every time that LiarFem gets refuted, he starts a new spam thread. I am not about to repaste all of my early posts on every one of his threads. You might notice that there are 3 or 4 threads on this same subject running concurrently. He refused to paste this inline with the other threads where all this was being dealt with in great detail.
-
Pope St. Pius X:
St. Alphonsus Maria: "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
Pope St. Pius X: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
What do you do when someone lacks either the understanding or the will to understand that the act of perfect love of God includes the implicit desire for Baptism, for Penance and the Eucharist, even after it has been explained so many times from so many authorities? It's pointless to address or explain it to him any longer.
Baltimore Catechism: Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm (http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm)
-
No, it was the COUNCIL OF FLORENCE that declare de Lugo ... and you ... to be heretics. It is you who need to be burned at the stake.
Really?
An eminent cardinal condemned by the Council, but never sanctioned, mentioned, and his book continuing to be published with full approbation.
Hmm...funny that Rome couldn’t figure out (for centuries!!) that it had condemned one if its greatest theologians unwittingly!
Why, it wasn’t until 2020 tgat Ladislaus arose on the scene to point out what 50+ popes and saints had missed!
de Lugo was a heretic! LMAO!!
:laugh1: :laugh2:
-
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, Prince of Theologians, to St. Catherine of Sienna: I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed.
There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood.
This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."
-
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
As the bad-willed heretic that you are, you love shifting between BoD for the catechumen and then the heretical position that infidels can be saved. Like the devil, you speak with a forked tongue and out of both sides of your mouth.
You claim that you support the one, get outraged at being of accused of supporting the other, and then proceed to post quotes in favor of the other, the one you just claimed to have rejected. Then you make arguments from the OT just which would in fact undermine you claimed position of being in favor of explicit faith.
Since you like to pretend that you know something about scholastic logic.
St. Alphonsus clearly stated that all the Scriptures and the Church Fathers state that explicit faith in Our Lord and the Holy Trinity are necessary for justification. By holding the explicit faith position, you are rejecting as invalid the "necessity of precept" argument. But if this argument is invalid, the conclusion is that the implicit faith position is an objectively heretical rejection of all the Scriptures and Church Fathers.
-
· St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "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, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/alphonse_theologia_moralis_5.pdf). Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).
Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."
Notice the heretic does not know that Perfect Contrition universally availed the remission of sins in the Old Testament, nor understands the passage in Ezekiel. Neither is the heretic able to answer Pope St. Pius X, or St. Alphonsus, who will both rise up at the Judgment to condemn him. The obstinate, stubborn, blind, bad-willed heretic who resists the Teaching Authority of the Church he has come to hate, and is far outside Her, also has no explanation at all for why the Church taught, with Pope Leo XIII's approval, "We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching."
The malicious demon who hates souls and wants them to be damned with him, rather than loving other souls and wanting them to be saved with us, as all true Christians do, has been told many times King David, St. Peter, St. Mary Magdalene etc received forgiveness of sins through perfect love of God or contrition. The blasphemer doesn't know this because he is ignorant, and culpably and vincibly so. His ignorance is crass and supine, and culpably such.
-
The heretic also doesn't understand what the Council of Orange said the Catholic Faith teaches us as something to evidently believe, namely that many people, including Cornelius, were already in the state of Grace, since they had not a natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of God's Grace before Baptism, i.e. supernatural faith and supernatural charity, which the blundering buffoon who would like to close Heaven to everybody but himself, and therefore closes it to nobody but himself, is not even remotely aware of: "We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness."
-
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2; III:68:2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism." http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm)
Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm)
The sequence is, according to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus; act of perfect love of God or contrition=Justification, while still with implicit faith; the person continues to seek the Truth and prays for perseverance in grace; God leads the person to faith in Christ before bestowing explicit faith in Christ and perfect love of Him=Salvation as a Christian. These people don't deserve to have the Gospel and the Catholic Faith, after great research and much study, preached to them, from so many authorities; as they reject it obstinately. But those who wish to know what the Church and Her Greatest Popes, Saints and Doctors teach can learn of it from here.
Lest anyone think I'm too severe, I've preached the Gospel and the Catholic Faith to hundreds of thousands. By God's Grace, I've helped hundreds of Hindus, Muslims and secularists come to Baptism, Christ and His Church. After reading my article on Filioque on 1P5, two Orthodox Christians came back to the Catholic Church. I know when people will benefit from mildness, and when a little severity is good for the soul. Never ever ever will I speak a word against Baptism or the Catholic Faith and its necessity, which I always promote everywhere, to lead the non-Christians to whom I preach to the Church. But it is necessary to be severe on Ibranyi types, as it is the only thing possible that may still draw them back and help them out from the pit into which they have fallen, and help them save their soul.
-
Here's the whole passage from St. Alphonsus Maria that I researched showed Ladislaus before, even after which he did not understand, and made many demonstrably false claims. But if others wish to read it, they can; and so I post it here. Now, I hold the first opinion, with St. Alphonsus. But note carefully how many authorities from how many centuries St. Alphonsus cites for our reference.
Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Tome 2, Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2, pp. 104-106:21 “2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel? The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only… But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries. So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.
Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means… Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion… Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, ‘But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.’ They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire…”
-
EDIT: RESPONDED TO WRONG THREAD