Author Topic: Saint Thomas on implicit faith. (Read 6142 times)

Jehanne · « **Reply #15 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:13:18 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Jehanne
If what you so is true, then the coming of Christ would have been a disaster for any pagan alive at His coming who was in possession of implicit faith with divine charity. Such individuals would have immediately fallen from grace without any conscious act on their part.

Your beef is with St. Thomas and not with me.

Your theology turns the Church in general to a "disaster" for anyone. Far from being necessary for salvation, you have turned it into an impediment to salvation.

You "pick and choose" from Saint Thomas:

Quote
It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace. (ST, Ia IIae, q.89, a.6)

It is you who pick and choose. There is not one writer on BOD that teaches that St. Thomas taught implicit faith. It is only your interpretation.

Bowler,

Read what Saint Thomas is teaching in the above:

1) When a human being comes to the age of reason (around 7 years of age),

2) His/her first act is to "direct himself (or herself) to the due end",

3) If successful, he/she will receive the remission of original sin, by the means of grace.

Clearly, Saint Thomas is not talking about someone who was sacramentally baptized in his/her infancy! Exactly who, then, do you think that he was talking about?!

bowler · « **Reply #16 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:14:37 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: Ladislaus
this false doctrine has absolutely destroyed missionary zeal

Sorry, but this isn't so. Fr. Arnold Damen won back to the Church some 12,000 Protestants. Like innumerable missionaries of the greatest repute before and since, he believed Church teaching on the subject, as will be seen even in his very persuasive sermons here, exhorting his hearers to return to the only true fold. Like other great priests, he taught nothing on his own but only what he had received.

Quote from: OLRL
Little wonder, for his majestic presence and force of eloquence, Father Damen as a missionary rose to a success that surpassed anything ever before or since known in America.

The fiery apostolic zeal of this beloved and pious priest can only scarcely be measured by the twelve thousand conversions to Catholicism for which he was responsible, often receiving as many as sixty or seventy souls into the Church in one day.

Besides the great Doctors of the Church exhibited throughout their lives a great sanctity and missionary zeal that are beyond question.

Unapproved rigorism by contrast, leads to how many conversions exactly? How many souls are Feeneyites converting daily, in proportion to their numbers? Would it be comparable to what Fr. Damen did by himself? The answer is no.

Not a one Father, Doctor, or Saint believed in salvation by implicit faith, the subject of this thread. So, your whole posting is the usual BODer smokescreen of using BOD of the catechumen to teach salvation for people with no explicit desire to be baptized, martyred, Catholic, nor belief in Christ.

bowler · « **Reply #17 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:24:23 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Jehanne
If what you so is true, then the coming of Christ would have been a disaster for any pagan alive at His coming who was in possession of implicit faith with divine charity. Such individuals would have immediately fallen from grace without any conscious act on their part.

Your beef is with St. Thomas and not with me.

Your theology turns the Church in general to a "disaster" for anyone. Far from being necessary for salvation, you have turned it into an impediment to salvation.

You "pick and choose" from Saint Thomas:

Quote
It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace. (ST, Ia IIae, q.89, a.6)

It is you who pick and choose. There is not one writer on BOD that teaches that St. Thomas taught implicit faith. It is only your interpretation.

Bowler,

Read what Saint Thomas is teaching in the above:

1) When a human being comes to the age of reason (around 7 years of age),

2) His/her first act is to "direct himself (or herself) to the due end",

3) If successful, he/she will receive the remission of original sin, by the means of grace.

Clearly, Saint Thomas is not talking about someone who was sacramentally baptized in his/her infancy! Exactly who, then, do you think that he was talking about?!

I repeat, no teacher of BOD says that St. Thomas taught salvation by implicit faith, so you are just seeking teachers according to your own desires. It is obvious that you are seeking teachers according to your own desires, because you deny the clear dogma of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, and implicit faith is not supported by ANY Father, Doctor or saint.

Jehanne · « **Reply #18 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:30:02 PM »

What can't you answer my question, Bowler:

Quote

Clearly, Saint Thomas is not talking about someone who was sacramentally baptized in his/her infancy! Exactly who, then, do you think that he was talking about?!

Nishant · « **Reply #19 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:30:40 PM »

Yes, Jehanne, understanding the Old dispensation correctly is really the key to seeing why modern rigorists have got it wrong. John of St. Thomas and several others whom the Church has signally honored comments precisely in that vein on the passage you cite. Bowler does not know what he is talking about.

At the same time, with St. Thomas and other Doctors, we should say, as a pious and probable opinion, if anyone sincerely loves God, in the New dispensation, although he can be immediately justified, still God will lead Him to explicit faith in Jesus, at least by an interior illumination, before the end of his life. But we are informed by every single authority who has written on the question, including after and before the Magisterial teaching of Pius IX on the subject, that this is only a point of pious and probable belief.

bowler · « **Reply #20 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:40:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I am so frustrated with you people.

You do nothing but turn into a crusade the promotion of ideas that serve to undermine EENS and which lead to religious indifferentism.

You serve no other purpose. This thinking leads to all the modern errors, leads to the destroying of missionary zeal, and does absolutely no good whatsoever except to appease your own consciences.

NOT ONE SOUL WILL EVER BE SAVED AS A RESULT OF YOUR IDLE SPECULATIONS. On the contrary, this false doctrine has absolutely destroyed missionary zeal and has undermined Catholic ecclesiology and soteriology.

May God have mercy on your souls.

Welcome to the conciliar church, where sedevacantes and SSPXers complain about Vatican II, but agree with everything that it precisely was set up to teach, salvation by implicit faith in Christ.

If they had only done the Novus Ordo in Latin and left all the vestments, incense, marble and reverence alone, all theses sedes and SSPXers would have not noticed anything "wrong" with Vatican II.

Quote from: Bowler

The clear uncompromising teaching of the doctrine that one must at least believe explicitly in the Incarnation (=Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without at least this doctrine, assented to absolutely, and the condemnation of the opposing view, Traditionalists have no case nor argument against anything in Vatican II. Anyone who says they "don't condemn" the opposite opinion, by the very act, approve it, and thus become like the salt that looses its flavor, neutralized, precisely where the enemies of the Church want them to be neutralized.

Quote

But whoever dares to say: “Outside the Church is no salvation”, ought to be driven from the State
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book IV, Ch. 8

( http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/rousseau/social-contract/ )

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #21 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:47:34 PM »

So...if I always believed in Christ as son of God made man and redeemer of all mankind, even when everyone I knew told me otherwise, and I died before I had the opportunity to be baptized, I'm damned? That's wrong. God wouldn't damn people who love Him. Maybe limbo, maybe but definitely not damnation.

If on the other hand, they were made aware of the truth and chose to deny Christ, well that's their choice and they are obstinate. They've condemned themselves to hell, no matter how much we wish that they would see sense.
There were people who saw Christ and not only denied Him, but abused Him and murdered Him as well, so I guess He knows that there are going to be certain people who choose not to love Him.

But I think it is incorrect to say that anyone who loves Christ would be damned.

bowler · « **Reply #22 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:48:07 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

..
At the same time, with St. Thomas and other Doctors, we should say, as a pious and probable opinion, if anyone sincerely loves God, in the New dispensation, although he can be immediately justified, still God will lead Him to explicit faith in Jesus, at least by an interior illumination, before the end of his life. But we are informed by every single authority who has written on the question, including after and before the Magisterial teaching of Pius IX on the subject, that this is only a point of pious and probable belief.

Except St. Thomas did not say that Implict Faith was a pious and probable opinion, and no Father, Doctor, or Saint taught salvation by implicit faith, and it is directly opposed to the dogma of Florence and the Athanasian Creed.

With "friends" like you who needs enemies? You are no different that any progressivist modernist on this matter. You are CLEARLY defending salvation with no explicit desire to be baptized/martyred/or Catholic, nor explicit belief in Christ.

Nishant and all BODers say:

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #23 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:57:42 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Nishant
..
At the same time, with St. Thomas and other Doctors, we should say, as a pious and probable opinion, if anyone sincerely loves God, in the New dispensation, although he can be immediately justified, still God will lead Him to explicit faith in Jesus, at least by an interior illumination, before the end of his life. But we are informed by every single authority who has written on the question, including after and before the Magisterial teaching of Pius IX on the subject, that this is only a point of pious and probable belief.

With "friends" like you who needs enemies? You are no different that any progressivist modernist on this matter. You are CLEARLY defending salvation with no explicit desire to be baptized/martyred/or Catholic, nor explicit belief in Christ.

Nishant and all BODers say:

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I'm assuming saved refers to saved from hell, in which case I agree with the BODers. I do not believe it is necessary to have explicit belief in the Holy Trinity to be saved from hell, and I suppose that is what limbo is for. Sure, you'll never glory in God's presence, but you won't necessarily burn in hell for all eternity either. Not if you die still seeking after God.

But I think also that you must be seeking after God to be saved from hell. You must love and desire to serve Him, even if you don't understand Him.

bowler · « **Reply #24 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:59:48 PM »

Quote from: Mama ChaCha

So...if I always believed in Christ as son of God made man and redeemer of all mankind, even when everyone I knew told me otherwise, and I died before I had the opportunity to be baptized, I'm damned? That's wrong. God wouldn't damn people who love Him. Maybe limbo, maybe but definitely not damnation.

If on the other hand, they were made aware of the truth and chose to deny Christ, well that's their choice and they are obstinate. They've condemned themselves to hell, no matter how much we wish that they would see sense.
There were people who saw Christ and not only denied Him, but abused Him and murdered Him as well, so I guess He knows that there are going to be certain people who choose not to love Him.

But I think it is incorrect to say that anyone who loves Christ would be damned.

Did you read what I posted about predestination before you wrote this? This thread is not about a person who explicitly "believed in Christ as son of God made man and redeemer of all mankind ... and I died before he had the opportunity to be baptized". This thread is about the BODers Jehanne and Nishant defending the teaching that a person who had no explcit desire to be baptized/martyred, or to be a Catholic, nor has explicit belief in Christ, can be saved! Jehanne and Nishant defending that Vatican II teaching.

If after reading my posting on predestination, you still want to believe that a catechumen could die by accident before he is baptized, then by some "super desire" for baptism in his last seconds save himself, go ahead and believe it. If you want to believe that a martyr for Christ could die unbaptized and be saved by his blood, go ahead and believe it. Personally I've never known anyone who knew a catechumen or a martyr who died before being baptized. Me, I believe:

Quote

John 3:5 as it is written and St. Augustines quote perfectly describes what I believe:

Quote:
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

Quote

Quote:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

Nishant · « **Reply #25 on:** April 14, 2014, 01:02:34 PM »

Here is St. Alphonsus' teaching on perfect love of God. Do you agree?

Quote from: St. Alphonsus

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."

Quote from: Bowler

With "friends" like you who needs enemies?

I care less about being your friend or enemy than I do with being the friend or enemy of the Church. By all means feel free to condemn me, but to be consistent, you have to condemn the Doctors too. I believe exactly as Doctors like St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, also for that matter like St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure and the rest believed, after the baptism of desire issue was settled in the Middle Ages, in the Catholic schools, and by the medieval pronouncements of Pope Innocent II and III, as all unanimously have held since then.

What is it that the Doctors personally held on this matter? That should be obvious from the citations provided.

They hold personally that no one in fact will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, but they also say this is only a point of probable belief, and not a dogma. I don't really know if you are able to make this distinction, but it is that distinction precisely which all these authorities among thousands of others make.

Quote from: St. Pius X

17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #26 on:** April 14, 2014, 01:06:31 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Mama ChaCha
So...if I always believed in Christ as son of God made man and redeemer of all mankind, even when everyone I knew told me otherwise, and I died before I had the opportunity to be baptized, I'm damned? That's wrong. God wouldn't damn people who love Him. Maybe limbo, maybe but definitely not damnation.

If on the other hand, they were made aware of the truth and chose to deny Christ, well that's their choice and they are obstinate. They've condemned themselves to hell, no matter how much we wish that they would see sense.
There were people who saw Christ and not only denied Him, but abused Him and murdered Him as well, so I guess He knows that there are going to be certain people who choose not to love Him.

But I think it is incorrect to say that anyone who loves Christ would be damned.

Did you read what I posted about predestination before you wrote this? This thread is not about a person who explicitly "believed in Christ as son of God made man and redeemer of all mankind ..., and I died before I had the opportunity to be baptized". This thread is about the BODers Jehanne and Nishant defending the teaching that a person who had no explcit desire to be baptized/martyred, or to be a Catholic, nor has explicit belief in Christ, can be saved! Jehanne and Nishant defending that Vatican II teaching.

Except that everything they post says that implicit desire is the starting point of salvation, so I fail to see your argument. Only a fool would think that someone who rejects Christ would be saved. But they don't seem to be saying that at all.

Cantarella · « **Reply #27 on:** April 14, 2014, 01:08:50 PM »

Quote from: Mama ChaCha

So...if I always believed in Christ as son of God made man and redeemer of all mankind, even when everyone I knew told me otherwise, and I died before I had the opportunity to be baptized, I'm damned? That's wrong. God wouldn't damn people who love Him. Maybe limbo, maybe but definitely not damnation.

If on the other hand, they were made aware of the truth and chose to deny Christ, well that's their choice and they are obstinate. They've condemned themselves to hell, no matter how much we wish that they would see sense.
There were people who saw Christ and not only denied Him, but abused Him and murdered Him as well, so I guess He knows that there are going to be certain people who choose not to love Him.

But I think it is incorrect to say that anyone who loves Christ would be damned.

First, why try to play God by asking ourselves if a God's command is fair or not according to our own judgment? Were you there when God set up His Church?. Did God ask you council when establishing His Laws? Who exactly are you to pronounce judgment against God's ways? God's ways are not subject to our own subjective perception of "justice" or what is right or wrong. Truth is exclusive and it lives for ever regardless of your own personal interpretation and definitions of justice. God owes us nothing. We are wretched hopeless creatures. It is only through God's infinite mercy that we have a chance to live. We should adhere to what God has revealed to us and be obedient. It is the eternal questioning of God's ways a main reason for heresies.

Again, we should only be preoccupied to what has been revealed to us. It is part of being humble to accept revealed Truth instead of unceasingly question if that is "right" or "wrong" until we accommodate Truth according to our own desires and methods of reasoning. This is precisely what has happened throughout the Church history, in which fallible human errors pretend to hide Divine infallible truth. The main root of heresy, human pride! here resides the importance of accepting divine dogma AS IS, not was we want it to be.

Second, those in Limbo are part of the damned. Limbo is part of Hell. Heaven is the vision and eternal presence of God. Please take into consideration that Hell has different levels. Perhaps the invincible ignorant is in not torment for any actual sin and goes to a place similar than the one for unbaptized infants. Perhaps he misses the Beatific Vision but does not really suffer. The invincible ignorant cannot be in Heaven though, according to God's Laws. When you think of the "damned" as something gloomy, keep in mind the different levels of Hell. I think this is very important because the general ignorance of the reality of Hell is to partly to blame for the aversion of most people to the infallible truth of "only Catholics go to Heaven".

Cantarella · « **Reply #28 on:** April 14, 2014, 01:15:23 PM »

Quote from: Mama ChaCha

Only a fool would think that someone who rejects Christ would be saved. But they don't seem to be saying that at all.

A Protestant or Orthodox does not reject Christ but they still cannot be saved since they are outside the Church Christ founded and they are also not subjected to the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth. Simply, they are not part of Christ, have not the Spirit, and therefore cannot enter Heaven.

bowler · « **Reply #29 on:** April 14, 2014, 01:18:26 PM »

My comments in red:

Quote from: Mama ChaCha

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Nishant
..
At the same time, with St. Thomas and other Doctors, we should say, as a pious and probable opinion, if anyone sincerely loves God, in the New dispensation, although he can be immediately justified, still God will lead Him to explicit faith in Jesus, at least by an interior illumination, before the end of his life. But we are informed by every single authority who has written on the question, including after and before the Magisterial teaching of Pius IX on the subject, that this is only a point of pious and probable belief.

With "friends" like you who needs enemies? You are no different that any progressivist modernist on this matter. You are CLEARLY defending salvation with no explicit desire to be baptized/martyred/or Catholic, nor explicit belief in Christ.

Nishant and all BODers say:

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I'm assuming saved refers to saved from hell, in which case I agree with the BODers. I do not believe it is necessary to have explicit belief in the Holy Trinity to be saved from hell, and I suppose that is what limbo is for (this only applies to infants and people who never reached the age of reason. There is no "limbo" of adults, only limbo of infants. Limbo of infants is part of hell by the way. There are also different degrees of hell, the worst fires are reserved for Catholics and the least of punishments for adults could indeed be a relatively speaking "mild" hell like living in the Tropics without air conditioning and DDT). Sure, you'll never glory in God's presence, but you won't necessarily burn in hell for all eternity either. Not if you die still seeking after God. (this only applies to infants and people who never reached the age of reason. Since the Ascencion of Our Lord, there is no "limbo" of adults, only limbo of infants. Limbo of infants is part of hell by the way. There are also different degrees of hell, the worst fires are reserved for Catholics and the least of punishments for adults could indeed be a relatively speaking "mild" hell like living in the Tropics without air conditioning and DDT, or living in Siberia in the Winter)

But I think also that you must be seeking after God to be saved from hell. You must love and desire to serve Him, even if you don't understand Him.

When BODers say someone is saved it means they will at least end up in Purgatory, and they always think heaven. Not a one believes it is a mild hell. If that were the case there would be no argment from any strict EENSer against "salvation to a milder hell by implicit faith."