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.

That is just your belief that's all, just like QVP you post no proof for it.

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.

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.

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 agree with you that the matter is quite important at least. Explicit faith in Christ is necessary even in the invincibly ignorant baptized by desire according to the better theologians, approved authorities, Saints, Doctors and a variety of other sources and the Church may very well close the question some day in favor of the better attested opinion that explicit faith was necessary all along.

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 think Bowler may have meant Fr. James Wathen, not Waltham? Here is one thing Fr. Wathen has to say on the subject.

Also, Fr. Gavin P. Bitzer, one of the latest resistance priests I think,  does not believe in BOD, not last I heard any way.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

I think Bowler may have meant Fr. James Wathen, not Waltham? Here is one thing Fr. Wathen has to say on the subject.

Thank you for the information and the link. I agree wit most of it except for this:

(y) Even though we can judge that our neighbors are failing to fulfill the requirements for salvation, once they have departed this life, it is impossible to know whether they have been saved or lost.

I believe that if we know someone is not baptized before they die it is possible to know that they are not in heaven.

Yes, I believe he was simply making a statement there, he was not saying we do not know where the unbaptized go. . . . . . whereas most BOD supporters will place the sincere unbaptized in heaven as though it is dogma.

and this:

(t) It is the teaching of the Church that God gives to all men sufficient grace for salvation; to those who are saved, He gives efficacious grace.

If it were true that God gives all men sufficient grace for salvation, then this would mean that all the unbaptized infants must be given grace to be saved, but this is not true. The unbaptized infants go to hell through no fault of their own because of original sin.

Other than those two points I like the article.

We do not know that unbaptized infants go to hell. It has been the teaching of the fathers that unbaptized infants go to Limbo.

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Stubborn

I think Bowler may have meant Fr. James Wathen, not Waltham? Here is one thing Fr. Wathen has to say on the subject.

Thank you for the information and the link. I agree wit most of it except for this:

(y) Even though we can judge that our neighbors are failing to fulfill the requirements for salvation, once they have departed this life, it is impossible to know whether they have been saved or lost.

I believe that if we know someone is not baptized before they die it is possible to know that they are not in heaven.

Yes, I believe he was simply making a statement there, he was not saying we do not know where the unbaptized go. . . . . . whereas most BOD supporters will place the sincere unbaptized in heaven as though it is dogma.

Quote from: Matto

and this:

(t) It is the teaching of the Church that God gives to all men sufficient grace for salvation; to those who are saved, He gives efficacious grace.

If it were true that God gives all men sufficient grace for salvation, then this would mean that all the unbaptized infants must be given grace to be saved, but this is not true. The unbaptized infants go to hell through no fault of their own because of original sin.

Other than those two points I like the article.

We do not know that unbaptized infants go to hell. It has been the teaching of the fathers that unbaptized infants go to Limbo.

You have stated a pelagian heresy. The church has in fact said that unbaptized infants go to hell- multiple times in fact.

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that all infants born into this world (except Jesus and Mary) inherit the guilt of original sin. She also infallibly teaches that original sin is a real sin that causes real guilt. From the moment of their creation, infants are guilty of the deadly sin of original sin and hence are sinners, impious, and children of Satan:

Council of Trent [hereafter COT], Decree on Original Sin, 1546: “2. If any one asserts that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he being defiled by the sin of disobedience has only transfused death ‘and pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,’ let him be anathema, whereas he contradicts the apostle who says: ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.’ (Rom. 5:12)”

Pope St. Zosimus, Council of Carthage XVI, Original Sin and Grace, 418: “Canon 3. It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere else where blessed [beati] infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’ (Jn. 3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run to the left.”
Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or only with original sin go down into hell, but there they receive unequal [disparibus] punishments.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds.”

St. Augustine, quoted by St. Fulgentius: “The quality of an evil life begins with lack of faith, which takes its beginnings from the guilt of original sin. In it, each one begins to live in such a way that, before he ends his life, which is ended when freed from its bonds, if that soul has lived in the body for the space of one day or one hour, it is necessary that it suffer with that same body the endless punishments of hell, where the devil with his angels will burn forever. …Hold most firmly and never doubt that not only adults with the use of reason but also children who either begin to live in the womb of their mothers and who die there or, already born from their mothers, pass from this world without the sacrament of holy baptism must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire. Even if they have no sin from their actions, still, by their carnal conception and birth, they have contracted the damnation of original sin.”

He punishes them with suffering, pain, death, and eternal damnation—unlike ultimately good-willed infants and children whose suffering, pain, and death bring them to eternal life. We will now see how God punishes wicked infants and children with suffering, pain, and death:

·         God killed the firstborn males of the Egyptians: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt both man and beast: and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.” (Exodus 12:12)

·         God commanded Moses to kill infants and children: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Revenge first the children of Israel on the Madianites… Kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children.” (Num. 31:1-2, 17)

·         God commanded Josue to kill infants and children: “And when in the seventh going about the priests sounded with the trumpets, Josue said to all Israel: Shout: for the Lord hath delivered the city to you… So all the people making a shout, and the trumpets sounding, when the voice and the sound thundered in the ears of the multitude, the walls forthwith fell down: and every man went up by the place that was over against him: and they took the city, and killed all that were in it, man and woman, young and old. The oxen also, and the sheep, and the asses, they slew with the edge of the sword.” (Josue 6:16, 20-21)

·         God, speaking through the prophet Samuel, commanded King Saul to kill infants and children: “And Samuel said to Saul: …hearken thou unto the voice of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord of hosts: I have reckoned up all that Amalec hath done to Israel: how he opposed them in the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath: spare him not, nor covet any thing that is his: but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Kings 15:1-3)

·         God allowed infants to be eaten by their wicked parents: “And thou shalt eat the fruit of thy womb, and the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God shall give thee, in the distress and extremity wherewith thy enemy shall oppress thee. …And the filth of the afterbirths, that come forth from between her thighs, and the children that are born the same hour. For they shall eat them secretly for the want of all things, in the siege and distress, wherewith thy enemy shall oppress thee within thy gates.” (Deut. 28:53, 57)

·         God’s judgment of killing evil infants is invoked by King David: “O daughter of Babylon, miserable: blessed shall he be who shall repay thee thy payment which thou hast paid us. Blessed be he that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock.” (Ps. 136: 8-9)

·         God inspires the Prophet Osee to curse evil infants: “Let Samaria perish, because she hath stirred up her God to bitterness: let them perish by the sword, let their little ones be dashed, and let the women with child be ripped up.” (Osee 14:1)

Let that put an end to the idolization of infants and children! Just because you cannot see God’s justice and mercy in this, do not dare call Him unjust or unmerciful because God is all just and all merciful.

I found this on the MHFM website:

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:

“26.  The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)

So here we see that a pope infallibly condemned those who called the Limbo of the infants a Pelagian fable. It does not say that Limbo is true, but it condemns those who say the belief in Limbo is a Pelagian heresy.

Quote from: conquistador1492

You have stated a pelagian heresy. The church has in fact said that unbaptized infants go to hell- multiple times in fact.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds.�

That is an infallible decree, but you are misunderstanding what Stubborn said. Limbo of the infants is a part of Hell, it is the place where children who die unbaptized before the age of reason go. They do not suffer pain sufferings ("undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds"), but will not see the beatific vision.

Here's some more detailed quotes:

"Those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God."
-Pope Innocent III (1160-1216), Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores

�The common teaching of the scholastic theologians is the within the earth there are four inner chambers: one for the damned, another for those being purged of sin, a third for those infants who have died without receiving Baptism, and a fourth which is now empty but once held those just men who died before the passion of Christ.�
-Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Doctor of the Church

I understood stubborn perfectly which is why i responded.
Im afraid it is you and spiritus servitude who misread stubborns post. Stubborn clearly implies that limbo is a third place seperate from hell. This is heresy. I never said that any concept of limbo whatsoever is heresy. Big difference. Also i realize those old testament examples of god killing infants, like the first born of the egyptians during moses' time, was under a different covenant than what we live under now. Regardless, it happened and it should be pointed out to peole who idolize infants and deny dogmatic decrees on original sin.

I have spotted numerous posts on cathinfo where people refuse to acknowledge that limbo is in fact in hell. Pelagian heretics run rampant in the v2 sect where limbo itself has been abolished. Denial of original sin and denial of damned infants leads to a denial of salvation dogma.

Like the typical extremist, you're quick to accuse others of "heresy" but cannot even back up your claim.

It is a fact that many Church father taught Limbo. Do you believe they were all heretics?

Yeah really.

To clarify............ the little baby who dies without Baptism, cannot go to Heaven. He has never committed a mortal sin. But he lacks the entrance requirement for Heaven. He will not be punished for having rejected Baptism. He will not be accused by God of having committed a mortal sin. He will go to the essential Hell (Limbo) which is the loss of the Beatific Vision.
 But he will not go to the Hell of fire where one is positively punished for what one has positively done.

Is that better or is that what you call the pelagian heresy?