Author Topic: Implicit faith -- heresy or not? (Read 36068 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2009, 08:51:30 PM »

You're getting better at this, you're showing some good restraint. The notion of 'implicit faith' is not defined. Thomas taught explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation was a necessary means of salvation, along with many other theologians. Some have reduced the matter to explicit belief in a "rewarder" after St. Paul's statement in Scripture. But asserting that he is referring to actual salvation in the text is tenuous. Add to this that it is a doctrine that God must be believed according to the order of grace, not merely of nature. This seems to imply that supernatural revelation is known in part at least. But what implies something that is of an essentially different order? For assent to the proposition that God exists doesn't necessarily imply the Incarnation. So nothing in the natural order logically implies the supernatural. Thus to have "implicit" faith seems to merely mean that explicit faith in supernatural revelation, at least the two dogmas mentioned, imply other truths of revelation, so long as one does not deny them willingly or through negligence. The problem is found in extrapolating the idea an implicit desire for baptism, for desire and knowledge are two different operations.

roscoe · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2009, 08:55:32 PM »

It figures-- another Jansenist attack against the ' laxist' Jesuits such as the great theologian Suarez.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2009, 09:28:34 PM »

I had said

Quote

Taking a small break from NFP, I've lately been studying "implicit faith," the idea that you can be saved in another religion through good will.

I don't mean that it is said you can be saved in the other religion if you take "in" to mean "professing that religion."
This is what is taught in the Baltimore Catechism -- this strikes me as fundamental Americanism and yes, heresy.

Quote

"Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

1. Has been validly baptized;
2. Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
3. Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Here the Catechism says without compunction that you can be saved IN, as in PROFESSING, another religion. More than that, it insists on this hypothetical person who is unaware of the Catholic Church professing his false religion, as if obedience to a false religion is somehow laudable!

According to the most logical defenders of implicit faith, you can be saved if you are born into another religion but strive in some undefined, inchoate way for the true God. For instance, the noble pagan who sees his friends ripping the hearts out of chests but inwardly is saying "There must be more to life than this, there must be a real God out there somewhere who would never do these things." In that case you would be mentally and perhaps eventually physically separate from your co-religionists.

I find it hard to believe someone can be saved this way, but I've searched in vain for any specific condemnation from the Popes. So it appears it was an accepted, if controversial opinion, that the Modernists are trying to make into a dogma.

My conclusion: I don't have to believe in it but I shouldn't describe anyone as a heretic who holds to a cautious view of implicit faith.

P.S. Innocent XI was a Jesuit and frankly, his "condemnations" of other Jesuits strike me as pretty laxist in some cases, such as the ones I mentioned in my last post. Oh, the irony!

Seriously, can someone explain what he's getting at by saying that you must believe in one god by the necessity of means, but that it can't just be any old "one god" and must be the "Redeemer"? What monotheists out there believe in one god that ISN'T a Redeemer, at least in their own minds? The only real Redeemer is Jesus Christ. It seems to me this was left purposefully vague, so that it could either support the conservative or liberal views. If Pius XI wanted to firm up the boundaries of EENS, that was his chance to do it -- but he didn't.

Caraffa · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2009, 09:37:22 PM »

Raoul, the condemnations are extracted from the works of several Jesuits, thats why they appear they way that do.

Caraffa · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2009, 09:38:14 PM »

*that they do.

Jehanne · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2009, 10:17:53 PM »

We have been through this before. Explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for eternal life. The only alternative would be sacramental Christian baptism.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2009, 10:30:39 PM »

Good point, Caraffa, but in a crafty way Innocent XI partly CONFIRMS these propositions of the Jesuits. He condemns the first part of the proposition -- that only belief in "one God" is necessary by necessity of means -- while he lets the second part of their proposition slip through the back door, that it is sufficient to believe only in a Rewarder.

What one God do you know of that isn't a Rewarder? This is like saying "I condemn you for eating that BLT; but it is okay to eat an LTB." Unless he really felt he had to take a stand against monotheistic gods who do not promise to reward, if such exist. Does anyone worship a God who promises to take them to hell? The Freemasons literally believe in a God who is going to take them to hell, Lucifer or the Great Architect, but they THINK they're going to be rewarded, if not in heaven then in hell, where Satan probably told them they'd be grandees and VIPS.

By not defining the Rewarder as either SPECIFICALLY Jesus Christ or not, this condemnation is useless. Perhaps worse than useless. If you took it literally, it could lead to the impression that you could be saved by the Great Architect, or in the Muslim religion through Allah, since a Muslim fulfills the two conditions laid down by Innocent XI: ( a ) Belief in one God and ( b ) Belief in a Rewarder ( seventy virgins is quite a reward ). The latter is the only necessity of means, according to Innocent XI.

If you read it another way, and the Feeneyites do, you could say that by the Rewarder he certainly meant Jesus Christ. The real "Rewarder" is Jesus, as we all know, but according to the sense in which Innocent XI describes the Rewarder, he could either be Jesus or a vague, inchoate notion of Jesus, a "monotheistic God who rewards," bearing certain characteristics of Jesus, or at least enough of them to save the noble pagan under review. As usual, the precise characteristics of this Jesus-not-Jesus that are necessary to believe in are omitted.

The truth is, as I said, that this condemnation of Innocent XI is neutral and useless, and far from the conclusive evidence that Feeneyites -- or even conservative BoD defenders like myself who believe in the potential salvation of catechumens -- would wish. I am going to keep reading through other Popes and maybe one of them will be more forthright.

Where have we been through this before, Jehanne? Do you have the link? Unfortunately CathInfo is not able to firmly decide anything; it can only sway our opinions one way or the other. Sheesh, I'm starting to sound like John Lane.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2009, 10:31:20 PM »

Correction:

For -- Good point, Caraffa, but in a crafty way Innocent XI partly CONFIRMS these propositions of the Jesuits.

Read instead: Good point, Caraffa, but in a crafty way Innocent XI partly CONFIRMS this proposition of the Jesuits.

Jehanne · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2009, 10:47:48 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Where have we been through this before, Jehanne? Do you have the link? Unfortunately CathInfo is not able to firmly decide anything; it can only sway our opinions one way or the other. Sheesh, I'm starting to sound like John Lane.

I know. This is, after all, an Internet discussion board, so we can be expected to discuss issues ad nauseam. The Athanasian Creed was elevated to ex cathdera status at the Council of Florence. Settled and Done.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2009, 12:40:14 AM »

I'll look into that, Jehanne. I suspect it's not as simple as you're making it out to be, or else this argument wouldn't be happening all over the web, but I hope that it is. You also didn't give me a link.

We do have the statement of Pius X regarding Confucius, that we should never say those who died as infidels would be saved. But then why were the likes of De Lugo and Suarez not censured precisely for saying the opposite? Why did St. Alphonsus entertain the possibility that you could be saved with only a vague idea of God if this was all cleared up at the Council of Florence? Many, many, MANY theologians since the Council of Florence have held to the idea of implicit faith and they were not rebuked for it.

De Lugo even anticipated Lumen Gentium and said Muslims worship the one true God! ( Supposedly Pope Gregory VII said this in a letter to a Muslim leader -- no, he said they worship one god, not the one true God. )

All week I've been drafting articles in my head and on the computer about Monsignor Fenton, the Baltimore Catechism, Suprema Haec Sacra, and Pius XII, who implies salvation in other religions in Mystici Corporis Christi. Something kept me from posting them; they were overconfident, perhaps. I was about to slam implicit faith as the second biggest heresy of the 20th century ( the first being NFP, sorry Jehanne ). Then I found out that, if no Pope taught implicit faith, they also didn't teach AGAINST it exactly, or at least I couldn't find any evidence they did.

Pius XII however was the first to make it something like a dogma. If a Pope or "Pope" attempts to take a grudgingly tolerated but controversial opinion that is borderline heretical and make into a dogma, does that finally make it a heresy?
At any rate, this once again shows how radical Pacelli was.

Actually Pius XII more than implies salvation in other religions -- more than once -- but that article will have to wait until at least Monday. Mystici Corporis Christi is sort of like a Quanto Conficiamur Moerere on steroids, where Pacelli crosses the line that Pius IX only dared to approach. Pacelli was good at crossing lines.

This all ties in with the events around Father Feeney, who some say actually was fighting at first against the heresy I quoted from the Baltimore Catechism -- not necessarily BoD. Reading about that time period, even if you don't agree with Father Feeney, as I do not, will show you just how deeply the Church was in the grip of a liberal/communist stranglehold in the so-called golden age of the 40's and 50's. What makes it more fascinating is that Pacelli is directly implicated through "Archbishop" Cushing.

And even more fascinating is that through all of this not a soul mentions the radical new doctrine of NFP, not Father Feeney, not Monsignor Fenton, not anyone. Maybe all the rest of it was just a distraction so that that could be pushed through without a peep, and they were all in it together ( hey, it's the way I think, so shoot me ).

P.S. Sorry about my cheesy crack about the Muslims and their reward of the virgins. I'm not saying that it's what I would consider a reward, but I know that it is a reward in their scuzzy mindset.

CM · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2009, 01:51:09 AM »

Settled and done.

...unless you're a heretic Mike.

Jehanne · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2009, 08:53:15 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I'll look into that, Jehanne. I suspect it's not as simple as you're making it out to be, or else this argument wouldn't be happening all over the web, but I hope that it is. You also didn't give me a link.

Geesh. This is all of the Internet:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/Florence.htm#3 (Scroll down to Session 8)

"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.

It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Simple words which modernist heretics love to twist!

Jehanne · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2009, 08:54:52 AM »

"all over the Internet..." (Probably a little hyperbole on my part, but you can find this text in a number of different places. My apologies for being a little testy.)

Pope Augustine · « **Reply #14 on:** December 06, 2009, 10:55:46 AM »

A message from the Apostolic See:

The Holy Office of Pope Augustine has already addressed this issue in detail, in further clarification of the response that was given to Father Feeney by his predecessor Pope Pius XII.

It is indeed possible, according to present dogmatic teaching, to assert that a man might be saved by implicit faith. But this must be a supernatural faith that believes in God and all that God has revealed (even if unknown), without wavering.

Therefore, if ever a pagan were to explicitly believe, or even explicitly consider as possible, something in contravention to the Trinity and Incarnation, there is no way he could be holding these truths even implicitly. For to deny or doubt these basic dogmas, rather than to hold them, casts one outside of the Church. There is virtually no pagan in existence who has not entertained an idea that contradicts the Trinity and Incarnation (and thus doubted these basic dogmas).

See the decree of Pope Augustine's Holy Office regarding "Ignorant Jungle Men and Baptism of Desire/Blood".

Of course, Pope Augustine could further define how explicit faith in the basic dogmas must be, and then the obligation to hold this decision of the Holy Office would change. But for now, the teaching of the Holy Office of Augustine's predecessor is upheld.

This in no way supports Vatican II, which holds that those who explicitly or implicitly deny dogmas can be saved.

The Apostolic See