CathInfo.com

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.