Quote from: bowler

. . .a person can have “supernatural Faith” and be inside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by his “implicit desire” when he only believes that 1) God exists and 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil, without knowing the Trinity and Incarnation!  [/b]  [/size].

My question is this. Can you name a single traditional Catholic priest today who does not agree with Msgr. Fenton? Can you name more than one? If you can, please do.

I think that the official positions of the SSPX and CMRI and SSPV agree with Msgr. Fenton. I don't know about the other traditional Catholic groups or independent priests.

I'm sure there are many traditionalists and even Novus Ordo (SSPX and whatever) priests that disagree with Fenton on the theory of Implicit faith.
Any defender of explicit baptism of desire who uses St. Thomas to give authority to their position, but then goes against St. Thomas by believing in the Implicit Faith theory, is not a real Thomist, and is just a hypocrite.

I believe there are many real Thomists priests who do not agree with Fenton on this point of Implicit Faith. The problem is that the false-Thomists and the Salamances rule the roost (occupy the positions of power, of promotions), and the "Feeneyites" are the whipping boys of the the traditionalists priests that want to get anywhere.

There are also traditionalist priests who hold to the strict EENS, that only a sacramentally baptized member can be saved. Fr. Waltham and Fr. Hector Bolduc were two big ones in the trad movement. I'm sure others might name more.

My point is that if the true Thomists priests would come out and teach that Implicit faith is a novelty which has no tradition behind it, indeed is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and was never taught by any saint. Most importantly, it opened the door to Vatican II era indifferentism with regard to the necessity of Church membership to be saved. If true Thomists would spend their time writing against the giant beast of implicit faith, and leave alone the gnat of "Feeneyism",  they would really cause a change. Instead they keep quiet and even write against the "Feenyites" , in order to curry favor with their superiors.

I don't think it is fair to call Msgr. Fenton an adherent of "implicit faith." The reason why he says what he does, is, IMHO, because the Church has not touched the question about what doctrines must be believed in a person having implicit desire. He doesn't do anymore than just say what the Church says: one must have supernatural faith and charity to have implicit desire become efficacious. He doesn't say what he believes; he only says what Catholic theology allows to be believed. I repeat: he doesn't go into which two, since it is still an unsettled question.

And I don't agree Msgr. Fenton would say Jews and Muslims are saved just because you make him say only believing in God and rewarding good and punishing evil is enough for supernatural faith; unless they believe correctly and renounce the errors they believe vincibly, they will not be saved. That is a stretch to make Msgr. Fenton say all Jews and Muslims are saved just because of their 2 beliefs! It seems to me that you're filling in in the blanks of Msgr. Fenton's beliefs, even though he doesn't go into what he personally believes.

p. 41: The docuмent [Cantate Domino] insists that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics will not be saved unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined ... to tge one true Church.

Again, it is just your specualtion against what both Rulleau and Fenton actually wrote. Nowhere do either one say that they disagree with the theory of implict faith.

Sorry, bowler, but you are picking and choosing Msgr. Fenton. I've already quoted him using Cantate Domino. As I said, you're only reading into your own interpretation of what Msgr. Fenton says, instead of looking at the book as a whole.

I posted what he wrote himself. You have posted nothing.

You posted his own words and then interpreted that the two beliefs must be belief in God as head of the Supernatural order, and as a rewarder of good and punisher of evil. That's all you did. You can't say that Msgr. Fenton directly stated that these are the two conditions because he didn't, no matter how much you believe he did.

You posted his own words and then interpreted that the two beliefs must be belief in God as head of the Supernatural order, and as a rewarder of good and punisher of evil. That's all you did. You can't say that Msgr. Fenton directly stated that these are the two conditions because he didn't, no matter how much you believe he did.

If I teach Implicit faith in every detail when I'm explaining the 1949/1952 letter, and I don't EVER in any writing say that I'm opposed to the fallible theory (which has no root in tradition or any teaching of a saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian creed, and is in no catechism prior to the 20th century etc etc), then either I believe in that theory or I'm a hypocrete currying favor with my superiors. Take your pick.

Quote from: bowler

Again, it is just your specualtion against what both Rulleau and Fenton actually wrote. Nowhere do either one say that they disagree with the theory of implict faith.

I posted p. 41 of Msgr. Fenton's book, concerning Cantate Domino. Are you going to dismiss that? And I didn't even bring up Fr. Rulleau: I conceded that point already. But Msgr. Fenton didn't say which 2 of the 4 beliefs were necessary for salvation. That is only your interpretation. If he didn't disagree with implicit faith, Msgr. Fenton neither explicitly confirmed it despite what you say.

You didn't post anything from Fenton from pg 41 this is all you wrote:

p. 41: The docuмent [Cantate Domino] insists that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics will not be saved unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined ... to the one true Church.

In any case, at this point, I want to end my involvement concerning the implicit faith controversy. It really isn't such a big deal as you and probably some others have made it. The main point is that a person, invincibly ignorant, must have supernatural faith and charity to have an efficacious implicit desire to enter the Church. All the rest is detail, important no doubt, but not so much as to undermine EENS, which I firmly believe in as well as the rest of traditional Catholics (I hope), despite the differences in belief concerning the nature of implicit desire. Implicit faith of the Tridentine and pre-Vatican II era is a far cry from Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian" which allows for the salvation even of those not disposed to conversion to God by supernatural faith and charity.

EDIT: I knew you wouldn't change your mind, but that doesn't make implicit faith any more wrong or right. You seem to want to say more than what the Church says, even though She hasn't done so.

The 1949 Letter simply reiterated the theological state of the question and did not hand down any definitive decision beyond what was already known among theologians. It did not venture to decide the question of whether explicit faith in Christ was needed or implicit faith in Him could suffice. That question is still undecided, although prudence inclines us to favor the better attested opinion among the Doctors and Saints.

“Suarez and the Salmanticenses were of the opinion that, since the promulgation of the gospel, an explicit faith in Christ is per se a necessary means for salvation, but that, as a matter of fact, some people are saved apart from this means per accidens. This opinion, for all practical purposes, is equivalent to the teaching of Blasio Beraza in our own times. Beraza holds that explicit faith in Our Lord as mediator is not absolutely requisite for salvation even in the New Testament.”

Msgr. Fenton's position is that of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, he believes explicit faith in Christ is needed, but that the other view is permissible. If Dimond wants to call Msgr. Fenton a heretic, let him at least be consistent in his schismatic mentality and call St. Alphonsus that as well, as Richard Ibranyi for one freely does, for St. Alphonsus said the same of Suarez' position.

If as is evident from the excerpts you post you get your theological education from these men, and prefer their rantings to the teaching of Fr. Fenton, inspite of their bedazzling ignorance, truly dogmatic sedevacantist Feeneyites of the very worst sort, who anathematize just about every Catholic in the world, yourself included, Bowler, as a heretic, you will inevitably fall into grave error.