Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 28

Author Topic: Implicit BOD  (Read 18855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2020, 02:43:23 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 15, 2020, 02:26:22 PM

Right, St. Alphonsus is merely talking about the charity aspect of sanctifying grace, and assumes as a sine qua non for charity that there must be supernatural faith.  Trent teaches clearly that no one has ever been justified without faith.  St. Alphonsus himself, for instance, articulated that he believed that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation, although he IMO wrongly classified the "Rewarder God" theory as "probable".  In the light of Vatican I's definition of the OUM, it must be regarded as NOT probable.  It's also contrary to the Holy Office teaching, which I believe came out before he wrote that and which trumps St. Alphonsus' opinion, since the Holy Office clearly did not consider it probable.  I surmise that St. Alphonsus was not acquainted with that particular ruling (which I'll have to dig up at some point here).

NB:  When they use the term "probable," it does not mean probable in the sense that it's "probably" the true position.  He actually felt that the other position was the right one and held it himself.  Probable simply means more along the lines of "tenable", though I disagree that it was tenable for the reasons I cited.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

"If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.”

STh II-II q. 2 a. 7 ad 3
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2020, 02:44:12 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 15, 2020, 02:36:53 PM
Circuмcision was not the ONLY means of grace, nor was it the only prefigurement of baptism:

The Fathers note that the passage through the Red Sea was also a type of baptism (and of the 600,000 who passed through it, only 2 made it to the promised land).

Even if you think that, there's still a problem with it.  One would have to say, based on this theory, that all females who died before the age of reason were lost, since until the age of reason they would not have any other means of grace.  So a 2-year-old boy who died circuмcised would eventually make it to heaven, while a 2-year-old girls who died could not.  That just doesn't sound right to me.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2020, 02:45:25 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 15, 2020, 02:40:29 PM
Yes, this is a big problem with the circuмcision position.  I personally do not believe that circuмcision remitted Original Sin, as it were, ex opere operato.  So in the OT there were no just women who were saved, not even the likes of St. Ann?  There's something missing with the circuмcision theory.  St. Paul seemed to indicate that OT justification came through faith in the coming Redeemer.

As mentioned above, it is no problem at all:

Seraphina mistakenly thought circuмcision was the ONLY means of sanctifying grace, but nobody ever made that argument.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2020, 02:47:56 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 15, 2020, 02:44:12 PM
Even if you think that, there's still a problem with it.  One would have to say, based on this theory, that all females who died before the age of reason were lost, since until the age of reason they would not have any other means of grace.  So a 2-year-old boy who died circuмcised would eventually make it to heaven, while a 2-year-old girls who died could not.  That just doesn't sound right to me.

Its quite a bit worse than that:

Only 2 of 600,000 were saved.  

"But with most of them he was not well pleased."

Moses seems to be the exception to the 2/600,000 stat (but even the great Moses did not inherit the promised land, though he was certainly saved).
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2020, 02:49:39 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 15, 2020, 02:43:23 PM
St. Thomas Aquinas:

"If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.”

STh II-II q. 2 a. 7 ad 3

I would like to discuss this now.

I have never heard anyone other than a Feeneyite assert Aquinas erred here.

But as I understand the Feeneyite mind:

1) Lefebvre was a modernist for allegedly teaching implicit faith;

2) St. Thomas likewise was a modernist teaching implicit faith;

3) All the post-Tridentine theologians are modernists for preaching implicit faith;

4) St. Alphonsus was a mushhead, and not knowing what Trent taught, maintained an heretical position condemned by Trent;

5) The popes who declared anyone might follow the teachings of St. Alphonsus were modernists for leading people into Alphonsus's errors;

6) All these are wrong, and the Feeneyites are right.

Does that more or less sum it up?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 28
« previous next »