CathInfo.com

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.