Author Topic: Implicit Faith and the "19491952" Letter (Read 12694 times)

bowler · « **Reply #20 on:** March 01, 2013, 02:25:54 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

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.

I posted his own words explaining it clearly, he says it is enough for supernatural faith. what more can I do? If his own words can't convince you, then nothing will.

Quote

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.

I went back and did a word search and there is no comment of mine saying that "all Jews and Muslims are saved just because of their 2 beliefs". This is why I always ask that people quote me. I said no such thing, neither did Fenton.

Quote

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.

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.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #21 on:** March 01, 2013, 02:34:55 PM »

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.

bowler · « **Reply #22 on:** March 01, 2013, 02:35:49 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: bowler
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.

Thank you. I am interested in this because I also do not believe in Baptism of Desire, though I do not call those who do believe in it heretics. I did not know of any traditional priests who agree with me although some non-priests like the people at MHFM and others like David Landry who used to post here as CM also deny BOD.

I will look for information about these two priests on the internet.

I would not limit your search to just finding trad priests who don't believe in baptism of desire, if you can find a real Thomist (who of course is opposed to Implicit Faith and invincible ignorance) you will be way ahead. This might make your search easier.

Even if one were to concede that the Catechism of Trent (COT) teaches that one can be saved without being baptized, the COT is only teaching the theory of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, which is not the problem today (and never has been the problem), as today 99% BODers believe that a non-Catholic can be saved with no explicit desire to be a Catholic.

bowler · « **Reply #23 on:** March 01, 2013, 02:36:33 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

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.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #24 on:** March 01, 2013, 02:37:03 PM »

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.