CathInfo.com

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.

This thread is clear as to why it was started; you said the 1949/1952 and Pius XII did not teach Implicit faith. That is what this thread is about, and I have shown through your sources Fr. Rulleau and specially Fr. Fenton, that the 1949/1952 does teach implicit faith. Indeed if it is as you say, and Pius XII approved the letter (which I believe he did), then Pius XII taught implicit faith too. And that is all that I set out to show YOU. As to the rest, there was nothing to teach you since you said you don't believe in implicit faith.

Now, concerning your comment above that:

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.

This is where you are dead wrong, for the belief in Implicit Faith (like 99% of Catholics, and the whole world believes in implicit faith) is foundational to the Vatican II revolution. Anyone that believes in implicit faith is flawed in their logic, and can be made to believe that black is white. People who believe in implicit faith can't think right. It has no roots in tradition; Fathers, saints, and only appeared in catechisms in the 20th century. Indeed it is diametrically opposed to the Athanasian Creed. Any trad that believes it, is flawed.

 

You are simply mistaken. Fr. Fenton's view is well known, as is his commentary on Suprema Haec Sacra, and you really didn't understand what you read at all, I'm afraid. I already showed you Msgr. Fenton arguing against the opinion of Suarez and also that of Beraza.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.

It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”

 

"I already showed you Msgr. Fenton arguing against the opinion of Suarez and also that of Beraza".

I shown many things through the years, but I always repeat them when I'm talking about them. You have not posted anything but at quote above as far as I'm and this thread is concerned. So repeat posting whatever it is that you "already showed you".

That small quote is not enough for me. It is not very clear, and needs further expanding on. Quote some more Fenton.

"In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith".

This needs explanation from Fenton. Is he saying that supernatural faith would have to include as a minimum belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? AND thus he is saying that the 1949/1952 letter does not teach implicit faith?