Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Jehanne on April 14, 2014, 09:17:20 AM
-
I posted this many weeks ago, but Saint Thomas, clearly, taught the idea of implicit faith being salvific:
It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Mat. 28:19: “Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.8 )
Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): “I know that my Redeemer liveth.” The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: “Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again”. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.7, ad 3)
-
He was clearly talking about old dispensation, before "grace was revealed".
People continue to muddy the waters on the subject of EENS due to simple lack of reading comprehension skills.
-
Yes, St. Thomas is right of course, and those who oppose him are mistaken. The just of the OT could have been saved by implicit faith. Therefore, it would follow that it is not intrinsically impossible to obtain the minimal requisite of salvation, which is sanctifying grace, by explicit faith in God, implicit faith in Christ, and perfect love of God.
In the New Covenant, no one is saved without explicit faith in Christ. But this shows that this is so only by divine dispensation, not by intrinsic necessity. And this is exactly how all Doctors, Saints and authorities post St. Thomas explain it as well, and why they deem the minority opinion, even when disagreeing, to be permissible.
St. Alphonsus in his epic work on moral theology says,
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
St. Robert discourses in the same sense.
-
Yes, St. Thomas is right of course, and those who oppose him are mistaken. The just of the OT could have been saved by implicit faith. Therefore, it would follow that it is not intrinsically impossible to obtain the minimal requisite of salvation, which is sanctifying grace, by explicit faith in God, implicit faith in Christ, and perfect love of God.
In the New Covenant, no one is saved without explicit faith in Christ. But this shows that this is so only by divine dispensation, not by intrinsic necessity. And this is exactly how all Doctors, Saints and authorities post St. Thomas explain it as well, and why they deem the minority opinion, even when disagreeing, to be permissible.
Christ came to abolish the Old Law and establish a New Law of Salvation.
The constant teaching of the Church, repeated and solemnly confirmed by Florence, had been that everyone needs to be a member of the Church (this is the mystical body of Christ) to be saved. Implicit Faith is not sufficient. Whether ignorance of the Gospel on the part of the non-Catholic is vincible or invincible, culpable or inculpable, is basically irrelevant. For these souls are damned anyway, on account of original and actual sins, if they don't believe explicitly in Christ before death and are joined to the visible Church submitted to the Roman Pointiff.
Sacred dogmas are to be maintained as they were declared by Holy Mother Church. Searching for a deeper understanding was condemned in Vatican I. "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema".
-
Therefore, it would follow that it is not intrinsically impossible to obtain the minimal requisite of salvation, which is sanctifying grace, by explicit faith in God, implicit faith in Christ, and perfect love of God.
It most certainly does NOT follow. Otherwise, St. Thomas would not have taught that in the new economy of salvation, no one is saved without EXPLICIT belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. But perhaps he wasn't smart enough to realize that he was contradicting himself from one paragraph to the next.
-
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.
-
I know I'll get down-thumbed like crazy for asking this, but why wouldn't God save people who didn't know about Him if He wanted to? Isn't that really up to Him?
-
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 (http://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml), 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.
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.
-
Therefore, it would follow that it is not intrinsically impossible to obtain the minimal requisite of salvation, which is sanctifying grace, by explicit faith in God, implicit faith in Christ, and perfect love of God.
It most certainly does NOT follow. Otherwise, St. Thomas would not have taught that in the new economy of salvation, no one is saved without EXPLICIT belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. But perhaps he wasn't smart enough to realize that he was contradicting himself from one paragraph to the next.
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.
-
I know I'll get down-thumbed like crazy for asking this, but why wouldn't God save people who didn't know about Him if He wanted to? Isn't that really up to Him?
Precisely, Mama Chacha. If God wants to, He can save whoever he wished to. He can draw any soul to Himself and so He most certainly will.
We only need to be preoccupied to what has been revealed to us though Christ Lord and His Holy Church: Nobody goes to the Father without Christ. Only Christ goes to Heaven. We must be part of Christ in order to go too. Christ established only ONE Church outside of which everyone perishes. Christ and the Church are one. Baptism is the entrance to the Church and the life in Christ, the rebirth of man, as a son of God. Beyond that, we cannot presume to know any further.
We cannot go to God OUR WAY. We can only go to Him His way. Christ already established His way of Salvation. We just need to follow.
-
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.
-
The idea of an invisible Church (via BOD, invisible ignorance, implicit Faith, etc) is condemned by Christ Himself. The Catholic religion is visible and tangible and is concerned with the externals, which Christ Himself emphasized. He is not only spirit, He is body too. That is what we do with the Sacraments and Holy Eucharist! We need to be visible members of His Body in order to be saved.
Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts> See My hands....handle and see, for a spirit, hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have (Luke 24:38)
Popes have also condemned this heretical notion that one can be part of the Church invisibly (again, via last minute BOD, invisible ignorance, implicit faith, etc).
The Church is visible because she has a body. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen, something merely "spiritual" as they say, a Churh in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of bond invisible to the senses, How griveoulsy are they mistaken who have imagined a hidden and invisible Church according to their own devices!
Pope Pius XII
Those who arbitrary conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in griveous and pernicious error.
Pope Leo XIII
-
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:
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)
-
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:
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.
-
I know I'll get down-thumbed like crazy for asking this, but why wouldn't God save people who didn't know about Him if He wanted to? Isn't that really up to Him?
Read this and let me know if you still think that God could create a person that was predestined for salvation, but that He could not reach him.
" Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation;along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.
Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.
Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to The Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circuмstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!
The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.
The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
-
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:
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?!
-
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 (http://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml), 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.
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.
-
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:
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.
-
What can't you answer my question, Bowler:
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?!
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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/ )
-
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.
-
..
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.
-
..
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.
-
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:
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:
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)
-
Here is St. Alphonsus' teaching on perfect love of God. Do you agree?
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."
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
My comments in red:
..
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."
-
Why won't you answer my question, Bowler? Anyone else can answer it, also.
-
St. Thomas may be talking about implicit desire as starting point on the way of Salvation or a necessary part for justification in the case of adults and children above the age of reason. From that, to say that Implicit Desire suffices for Salvation is a LONG, long, long, long way. Another classical Modernist twist to allows salvation for non-Catholics.
-
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.
They are saying just what I say. They have been clearly and adamantly defending that teaching for some time now. Salvation by implicit faith in Christ is what it is called. They say that a person who believes in a God that rewards is implicitly believing in Christ and the Trinity. They are saying that a person who had no explicit desire to be baptized/martyred, or to be a Catholic, nor has explicit belief in Christ, can be saved!
-
Why won't you answer my question, Bowler? Anyone else can answer it, also.
What for? You deny all the clear dogmas on EENS in your teaching that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or martyred, or to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ. There is not a Father, Doctor or saint that teaches that. You are in total denial. You are saying that ocean water is not salty, why should I answer further such an absurdity?
-
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.
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.
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/ )
-
St. Thomas may be talking about implicit desire as starting point on the way of Salvation or a necessary part for justification in the case of adults and children above the age of reason. From that, to say that Implicit Desire suffices for Salvation is a LONG, long, long, long way. Another classical Modernist twist to allows salvation for non-Catholics.
Saint Thomas, clearly, states that a non-baptized child who reaches the Age of Reason can have original sin cleansed from their soul as a result of grace, if they cooperate with that grace:
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. (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.89, a.6)
If the soul of such a child is cleansed of original sin, then that person would have to sin mortally to lose his/her salvation. Correct?
-
wait a second ...
wait a second ...
I feel this one coming on.
St. Thomas teaches that, in the new dispensation, everyone must have explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation in order to be saved.
But they can implicitly have explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
Just as someone can invisibly belong to the visible Church.
Someone with implicit explicit faith can become an invisible part of the visible Church.
If it weren't so tragic, this would be comical.
-
But they can implicitly have explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
What about those folks who lived prior to the dogma of the Holy Trinity being defined but who lived after the coming of Christ?
-
Mama Chacha, what I cited in my first post is from the Church's Doctor of moral theology in his Theologia Moralis. St. Pius X and Pius XII among several other pontiffs expressly accord this work unparalleled praise, showing that it reflects the mind of the Church, and especially approve this holy Doctor's teaching in it as a strongly recorded norm and entirely safe to teach and follow.
Even beside that, St. Pius X himself personally teaches the same in his Catechism anyway, that when baptism cannot be had, an act of perfect love of God produces the baptismal effect, which is justification.
In a justified soul, nothing else is required for salvation than that he die in grace. But we can piously believe that no soul who has persevered in the grace received will fail to be enlightened by God about Jesus before the end of his life. A few theologians deny this last point. That is, in essence, the difference between the two opinions St. Alphonsus discusses and what he favors as more probable.
-
But they can implicitly have explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
What about those folks who lived prior to the dogma of the Holy Trinity being defined but who lived after the coming of Christ?
That dogma of the Holy Trinity was taught from the very beginning by the Church, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
-
St. Thomas may be talking about implicit desire as starting point on the way of Salvation or a necessary part for justification in the case of adults and children above the age of reason. From that, to say that Implicit Desire suffices for Salvation is a LONG, long, long, long way. Another classical Modernist twist to allows salvation for non-Catholics.
Saint Thomas, clearly, states that a non-baptized child who reaches the Age of Reason can have original sin cleansed from their soul as a result of grace, if they cooperate with that grace:
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. (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.89, a.6)
If the soul of such a child is cleansed of original sin, then that person would have to sin mortally to lose his/her salvation. Correct?
Only Baptism (in water) remits Original Sin. Then St. Thomas's statement is erroneous. It would not be the first time the Angelic Doctor was in error. This teaching of St Thomas does not represent de fide Catholic teaching, only his personal opinion.
Also, it is important to remember that by the time St Thomas was alive and held these opinions, the Church had not defined the dogma of water Baptism for salvation which happened at the Council of Florence in 1439, almost two hundred centuries after the Angelic Doctor died.
Pius XII, Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953: “The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth.”
-
If the soul of such a child is cleansed of original sin, then that person would have to sin mortally to lose his/her salvation. Correct?
Only if you're a Pelagian.
-
This is a total lie, subterfuge by Nishant, typical modernist double speak, see my points in red.
Mama Chacha, what I cited in my first post is from the Church's Doctor of moral theology in his Theologia Moralis (Nishant quoted St. Alphonsus Ligouri, who taught that to be saved, one must as a minimum believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, and saying that there existed at his time another lesser opinion) and the . St. Pius X and Pius XII among several other pontiffs expressly accord this work unparalleled praise (a smokescreen, no such "praise" for salvation without belief in Christ exists among any Father, Doctor, or saint. Not a one teaches it!), showing that it reflects the mind of the Church, and especially approve this holy Doctor's teaching (Smokescreen, that holy doctor St. Alphonsus does not teach salvation by implicit faith)in it as a strongly recorded norm and entirely safe to teach and follow.
Even beside that, St. Pius X himself personally teaches the same in his Catechism anyway (smokescreen, St. Pius X "personally" does not even have a catechism. Nor has he taught salvation by implicit desire), that when baptism cannot be had, an act of perfect love of God produces the baptismal effect, which is justification.
In a justified soul, nothing else is required for salvation than that he die in grace (in other words, they are not required to have an explcit desire to be baptized/martyred/or be a catholic, nor believe in Christ), . But we can piously believe that no soul who has persevered in the grace received will fail to be enlightened by God about Jesus before the end of his life (no one teaches this, revelation from Christ himself seconds before death. Nishant is winging it with his "feelings".) teaching from . A few theologians deny this last point. That is, in essence, the difference between the two opinions St. Alphonsus discusses and what he favors as more probable. (smokescreen, totally modernist double speak. Nishant knows that no father, Doctor, Saint, nor St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught salvation by implicit faith, so he switches to saying that St. Alphonsus "only favors as more probable" that one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarantion.
Nishant pumps out the smokescreen
(http://bluejacket.com/usn/images/sp/oth/w1_destroyer_smoke-screen.jpg)
-
Heh. You still lack understanding on this matter and lack seriousness on it. You've been shown wrong, from St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X all of whom teach that love of God suffices for justification when baptism cannot be had. Do you believe this?
Otherwise, be upfront and frankly state you think they all got this wrong.
Not only do St. Pius X and Pius XII completely approve the work which teaches the same, each of them individually teach that the absence of baptism can be supplied by an act of perfect love of God.
If you don't recognize this, there's no point explaining to you the difference between what the Doctors teach is a means and a precept, nor of the theological grades of certitude they attach to different propositions.
-
Heh. You still lack understanding on this matter. You've been shown wrong, from St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X all of whom teach that love of God suffices for justification when baptism cannot be had. Do you believe this?
Not only do St. Pius X and Pius XII completely approve the work which teaches the same, each of them individually teach that the absence of baptism can be supplied by an act of perfect love of God.
If you don't recognize this, there's no point explaining to you the difference between what the Doctors teach is a means and a precept, nor of the theological grades of certitude they attach to different propositions.
Not even you believe that.
-
..
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, what I cited in my first post is from the Church's Doctor of moral theology in his Theologia Moralis. St. Pius X and Pius XII among several other pontiffs expressly accord this work unparalleled praise, showing that it reflects the mind of the Church, and especially approve this holy Doctor's teaching in it as a strongly recorded norm and entirely safe to teach and follow.
Even beside that, St. Pius X himself personally teaches the same in his Catechism anyway, that when baptism cannot be had, an act of perfect love of God produces the baptismal effect, which is justification.
In a justified soul, nothing else is required for salvation than that he die in grace. But we can piously believe that no soul who has persevered in the grace received will fail to be enlightened by God about Jesus before the end of his life. A few theologians deny this last point. That is, in essence, the difference between the two opinions St. Alphonsus discusses and what he favors as more probable.
It is not a huge concern for me, I was just curious about what the actual issue of the famous debate really was. I trust in the mercy of God, even though I know that most people will choose to love and serve themselves over loving and serving God, and I don't for one second believe that God would deny anyone who really loved and wanted to serve Him. Call it stupidity or inherent knowledge or whatever anyone wants to call it, I have more confidence in God's grace than I do in man's ability to apply it.
-
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.
Meanwhile they ignore all the clear dogms, creeds, Fathers, Doctors, and saints:
The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.
This is why I have always held that the opinion that the existence of God as rewarder cannot suffice for supernatural faith. Vatican I here finishes off holding to that opinion once and for all.
It confirms the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, it was the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was clearly infallible decreed at the Council of Florence:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence , Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
[/b] [/size]
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
-
Not even you believe that.
What is this supposed to mean? What is the point of explaining anything to you I fail to see. Maybe I should just spam quotes in the absurd way you do from now on.
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."
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.
An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism
-
It is not a huge concern for me, I was just curious about what the actual issue of the famous debate really was. I trust in the mercy of God, even though I know that most people will choose to love and serve themselves over loving and serving God, and I don't for one second believe that God would deny anyone who really loved and wanted to serve Him. Call it stupidity or inherent knowledge or whatever anyone wants to call it, I have more confidence in God's grace than I do in man's ability to apply it.
Glad to hear it, Mama Chacha. I would obviously call it the latter. God bless you.
-
But they can implicitly have explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
What about those folks who lived prior to the dogma of the Holy Trinity being defined but who lived after the coming of Christ?
That dogma of the Holy Trinity was taught from the very beginning by the Church, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
To this I may compare the case of Theology except that it proceeds the reverse way. For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions. For the matter stands thus. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated. For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues. And indeed it is by little and little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority. Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name. He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send, then again, I will send,--His own dignity. Then shall come, the authority of the Spirit. (St. Gregory of nαzιanzus, Oratio theologicae 5, 26)
-
Only Baptism (in water) remits Original Sin. Then St. Thomas's statement is erroneous. It would not be the first time the Angelic Doctor was in error. This teaching of St Thomas does not represent de fide Catholic teaching, only his personal opinion.
Well, at least your honest about it; problem is, of course, that this "opinion" of the Angelic Doctor was promulgated in all the major catechisms and theological manuals from his time until ours, and as others have noted, even Pope Pius XII agreed, explicitly, with Saint Thomas on this very question.
-
Not even you believe what you write. What you wrote below is total subterfuge. Either you are schizophrenic or someone else is writing under your name. These are really flagrant lies!
Not even you believe that.
What is this supposed to mean? What is the point of explaining anything to you I fail to see. Maybe I should just spam quotes in the absurd way you do from now on.
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." (The Athanasian Creed, the Fathers, doctors and saints, the Council of Florence, and St. Thamas Aquinas and St. Alphonus Ligouri all taught that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must at a minimum believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Your posting this out of context quote is just pure subterfuge)
(this is a total lie, St. Pius X did not say that. Besides this quote nowhere teaches salcvation by implicit faith. Once again you are throwing out a smokescreen of baptism of desire and BOB of the catechumen)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.
(post the quote, you deny the clear infallible dogma of Florence and the ancient Athanasian Creed, with an obscure FALLIBLE quote which you expect someone to follow, when you deny ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints.)[/color]
-
I should have taken a leaf out of your book long ago, and never bothered with explanations, at least to those like you who are either unwilling or incapable of understanding it.
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.
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."
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.
An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism
-
Not even you believe what you write. What you wrote below is total subterfuge. Either you are schizophrenic or someone else is writing under your name. These are really flagrant lies! Not even you believe that.
What is this supposed to mean? What is the point of explaining anything to you I fail to see. Maybe I should just spam quotes in the absurd way you do from now on.
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." (The Athanasian Creed, the Fathers, doctors and saints, the Council of Florence, and St. Thamas Aquinas and St. Alphonus Ligouri all taught that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must at a minimum believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Your posting this out of context quote is just pure subterfuge)
(this is a total lie, St. Pius X did not say that. Besides this quote nowhere teaches salcvation by implicit faith. Once again you are throwing out a smokescreen of baptism of desire and BOB of the catechumen)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.
(post the quote, you deny the clear infallible dogma of Florence and the ancient Athanasian Creed, with an obscure FALLIBLE quote which you expect someone to follow, when you deny ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints.)[/color]
-
Bowler,
You can't (or won't) answer who Saint Thomas was writing about (answer: an unbaptized child who had just reached the Age of Reason), and yet you continue to quote him as an authority who, supposedly, supports your POV. So, it is clear that while you can read you simply cannot comprehend what you are reading or that you are not willing to admit that you are appealing to an authority who does not support your position.
-
Bowler,
You can't (or won't) answer who Saint Thomas was writing about (answer: an unbaptized child who had just reached the Age of Reason), and yet you continue to quote him as an authority who, supposedly, supports your POV. So, it is clear that while you can read you simply cannot comprehend what you are reading or that you are not willing to admit that you are appealing to an authority who does not support your position.
No, you just believe what you want to believe. Like I keep telling you & Nishant, you are denying the clearest dogma on EENS from The Council of Florence, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, the clear teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the dogmatic decree of Vatican I, to name a few, and you can quote no Father, Doctor or Saint or council that teaches what you and Nishant are defending here :
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
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.
That's what your teaching is in the raw, unmasked and naked, that is what you are teaching, a contradiction:
(http://images.clipartof.com/thumbnails/1048403-Royalty-Free-RF-Clip-Art-Illustration-Of-A-Cartoon-Sun-Burned-Man-In-A-Speedo.jpg)
DOGMA -Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence ,
Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Athanasian Creed
[b]1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. [/b]
St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
Dogma Vatican I:
"The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation".
-
Bowler,
As I have pointed out to you ad nauseam, the Council of Florence also said this:
By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
"Game over!" Bowler. You can't quote the Council of Florence against itself!
-
Bowler,
As I have pointed out to you ad nauseam, the Council of Florence also said this:
By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
"Game over!" Bowler. You can't quote the Council of Florence against itself!
That's it exactly "game over". To you this is a game. The same with all the false BODers, you find one line and you deny ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Athanasian Creed, and councils. You are always seeking anything that you can twist to your own desires, in this case a line from Florence that can be used to negate ALL of Florence, and all that just to teach a naked contradiction:
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
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.
-
You are always seeking anything that you can twist to your own desires, in this case a line from Florence that can be used to negate ALL of Florence, and all that just to teach a naked contradiction:
It's not one line, Bowler, but two:
1) By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters.
2) On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.
How many times does a Council need to repeat itself?
-
You are not right in the head.
-
But they can implicitly have explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
What about those folks who lived prior to the dogma of the Holy Trinity being defined but who lived after the coming of Christ?
That dogma of the Holy Trinity was taught from the very beginning by the Church, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself.
I'm still at a loss here. Every Catholic believes that the dogma of the Holy Trinity was taught from the very beginning of the Church by the Apostles. If at a later time additional clarifications were made by the Magisterium (in condemning various erroneous VIEWS of the Holy Trinity), that doesn't mean that early Christians had no explicit faith in the Holy Trinity. You're gravely mistaken on this point.
-
You are not right in the head.
A "cheap shot," Bowler:
The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following. The human nature in Christ is really Christ. The human nature in Christ is the person of Christ. The intimate cause that determines the human nature in Christ is not really distinguished from the nature that is determined. The human nature in Christ is without doubt the person of the Word; and the Word in Christ, once the nature has been assumed, is really the person who assumes. The human nature assumed by the Word in a personal union is truly God, natural and proper. Christ according to his created will loves the human nature united to the person of the Word as much as he loves the divine nature. Just as two persons in God are equally lovable, so the two natures in Christ, the human and the divine, are equally lovable on account of the common person. The soul of Christ sees God as clearly and intensely as God sees himself.
Perhaps, Bowler, I am "invincibly ignorant" in not understanding words which I read. I am sorry for my disorder; it appears that the rest of the universal Catholic Church is suffering from the same disorder which is plaguing me.
-
Jehanne, it's quite clear that you don't understand the quotes you're posting because they have absolutely nothing to do with BoD.
The errors being condemned above involve asserting that only the elect (those predestined to be saved) are members of the Church.
Even the BoDers would admit that more than "charity" is required to be a member of the Church. You're taking this stuff totally out of context.
-
I'm still at a loss here. Every Catholic believes that the dogma of the Holy Trinity was taught from the very beginning of the Church by the Apostles. If at a later time additional clarifications were made by the Magisterium (in condemning various erroneous VIEWS of the Holy Trinity), that doesn't mean that early Christians had no explicit faith in the Holy Trinity. You're gravely mistaken on this point.
It was taught but not in the fullness which the Church herself understood it in later centuries. This is why Saint Thomas taught that such truths could be believed implicitly:
"It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: 'Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'" (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.8)
One is not bound to believe in the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity but only "once grace had been revealed." It is a necessity of precept as opposed to a necessity of means. What you are trying to argue is that explicit faith in the mysteries of the Incarnation and Blessed Trinity are a necessity of means, which means embracing the following absurditiy:
On the Day of Pentecost, numerous pagans who had implicit faith in Christ fell from grace without their knowledge and/or consent.
In other words, the First Coming of Jesus Christ was a disaster for any virtuous pagans.
-
Jehanne, it's quite clear that you don't understand the quotes you're posting because they have absolutely nothing to do with BoD.
The errors being condemned above involve asserting that only the elect (those predestined to be saved) are members of the Church.
Even the BoDers would admit that more than "charity" is required to be a member of the Church. You're taking this stuff totally out of context.
If a person is united to Christ through "the bonds of charity," then the Council of Florence is, clearly, saying that "no other union is needed", which means that love, hence, obedience, to the commands of God are all that is needed for a person to be united to Christ, who is God, and hence, His Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore, if a person, through no fault of his own, is simply ignorant of the commands of Christ (namely, to be baptized and submit himself/herself to the Roman Pontiff), then such a person could be in a state of grace through his/her implicit desire to receive the Sacraments, out of their love for God, who is Christ. That is what the Council of Florence is teaching.
-
One is not bound to believe in the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity but only "once grace had been revealed." It is a necessity of precept as opposed to a necessity of means. What you are trying to argue is that explicit faith in the mysteries of the Incarnation and Blessed Trinity are a necessity of means
No, knowledge of these mysteries required as the matter for suprenatural faith, as per the Vatican I quote; theologians who hold that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation do not teach that this is by necessity of precept only. Otherwise, this position becomes completely meaningless ... as you are desperately trying to make it.
-
On the Day of Pentecost, numerous pagans who had implicit faith in Christ fell from grace without their knowledge and/or consent.
In other words, the First Coming of Jesus Christ was a disaster for any virtuous pagans.
Take up your objections with St. Thomas Aquinas ... and with God.
God allows every soul to be born in a certain time at a certain place with a certain purpose. Any truly "virtuous" pagans would have been appropriately evangelized by the Apostles and the disciples, and God would have kept them alive long enough to receive the Gospel.
You turn the Catholic Church into a disaster, something which is an impediment to salvation rather than a help.
-
If a person is united to Christ through "the bonds of charity," then the Council of Florence is, clearly, saying that "no other union is needed", which means that love, hence, obedience, to the commands of God are all that is needed for a person to be united to Christ, who is God, and hence, His Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore, if a person, through no fault of his own, is simply ignorant of the commands of Christ (namely, to be baptized and submit himself/herself to the Roman Pontiff), then such a person could be in a state of grace through his/her implicit desire to receive the Sacraments, out of their love for God, who is Christ. That is what the Council of Florence is teaching.
No, the Council of Florence is teaching nothing of the sort. As with every other quote you take it out of context. See my previous post. Ask your fellow BoDers; the unbaptized are not members of the Church.
Like all the BoDers you simply believe what you want to believe because YOU have decided that anything else would be unfair for God to do.
Thus you illustrate the only theological premise behind BoD, your human judgments about what God should or should not do. What incredible hubris.
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)
-
Except, Bowler, that I didn't do anything beside quote and underline. I've given up on trying to explain things to you. So your problem is with the quoted authorities, and not with me.
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.
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."
I underline because you still dubiously claim these quotes are about catechumens, as I would expect just about everyone beside you can see that they are not. If you still can't see that however, then I suggest going back to your 8th grade English grammar.
Unlike you, the others who agree with you have at least frankly stated that they disagree with these Doctors on this point. Whenever you come around, you should do the same.
By the way, if theologians want to say justification happens only by explicit faith, as indeed it does after the Gospel has been promulgated in a particular place, they say love of Christ in particular, and not love of God in general.
Pope Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XII teach the same as these Doctors above, that where baptism cannot be had, an act of perfect love of God can supply the baptismal effect.
-
One is not bound to believe in the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity but only "once grace had been revealed." It is a necessity of precept as opposed to a necessity of means. What you are trying to argue is that explicit faith in the mysteries of the Incarnation and Blessed Trinity are a necessity of means
No, knowledge of these mysteries required as the matter for suprenatural faith, as per the Vatican I quote; theologians who hold that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation do not teach that this is by necessity of precept only. Otherwise, this position becomes completely meaningless ... as you are desperately trying to make it.
The subject of the salvation of sincere non-Catholics was on the agenda of the Vatican Council. For this purpose the two docuмents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance were quoted in extenso and the essential terms were fully explained. “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” [25] Moreover the saving clause on invincibility was incorporated into a proposed definition, namely, “It is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. However, those who labor in invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church are not to be punished for this ignorance with eternal pains, since they are not burdened with guilt on this account in the eyes of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny His grace to the person who does what he can, to enable him to attain to justification and eternal life. But this salvation no one attains, who leaves this life culpably separated from the unity of faith and communion of the Church.” [26] Consequently, although the doctrine of Pius IX remained part of the unfinished business of the Vatican Council and was not formally defined, it is certainly definable and may be called proxima fidei or “practically of faith.”
However, the council did manage to express itself more directly on the subject in another context. The final draft of the Constitution on the Faith (infallibly defined) includes two successive statements. First an exposition of the object of faith, that “by divine and Catholic faith all those things must be believed which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which are proposed by the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary magisterium, as having to be believed.” Then a declaration on the necessity of faith, that “Since without faith it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children, therefore, without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.” [27] The essential word in the second statement is evidently “faith.” But what kind of faith is meant. If it means an explicit Catholic faith, then Pius IX is wrong; if it means anything less, then his position on the prospective salvation of non-Catholics is implied in a solemn conciliar definition. Fortunately we do not have to resort to conjecture because the proceedings of the Vatican Council settle the question beyond dispute.
In the original draft of the dogmatic constitution, the pertinent passage, describing the necessity of faith, was logically connected with the preceding paragraph on the scope of Catholic belief. After giving the object of the Catholic faith, the docuмent continued: “This is that faith without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children. Wherefore, just as without it justification never comes to anyone, so, no one, unless he shall have persevered in the same unto the end, will obtain eternal life.” [28]
But before the final and definite form was drawn up and presented to the council for acceptance, an important emendation was made and the reason for the change explained to the assembly by the delegate for the Commission De Fide. “We have made a substitution,” he said, “in the paragraph which begins, ‘This is that faith…’ The emendation of the beginning of this paragraph is the following, namely, that instead of the words, ‘This is that faith…’ there be substituted the following words, ‘Since, without faith, it is impossible to please God…Unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.’ I explained to you yesterday, Most Reverend Fathers, our reason for this change. The reason, to repeat in brief, is this: to remove the close connection between this and the preceding paragraph, lest it appear that an act of the Catholic faith is necessary for salvation, for all people. For this is false. I ask you, therefore, to accept the formula modified by us.” [29] They accepted the revised formula, verbatim, and the reason for the change, we may infer, was also accepted by the Vatican Council to be solemnly confirmed by Pius IX, that a person can reach heaven by professing that faith without which no one can please God, but not necessarily the explicit faith of the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm
-
Jehanne, you're just spamming unrelated material that you think proves your point without addressing each of my posts.
-
If a person is united to Christ through "the bonds of charity," then the Council of Florence is, clearly, saying that "no other union is needed", which means that love, hence, obedience, to the commands of God are all that is needed for a person to be united to Christ, who is God, and hence, His Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore, if a person, through no fault of his own, is simply ignorant of the commands of Christ (namely, to be baptized and submit himself/herself to the Roman Pontiff), then such a person could be in a state of grace through his/her implicit desire to receive the Sacraments, out of their love for God, who is Christ. That is what the Council of Florence is teaching.
Implicit Faith in Christ does not suffice for salvation. In this paragraph there is a total denial of the absolute need of the Church and Her Sacraments for salvation, her very reason for being. With all due respect, this paragraph may as well be written by a heretical protestant. The Council of Florence did not teach that, on the contrary, it taught infallibly the necessity of water Baptism for entrance to the Church, that is to say, to Christ. We cannot be inserted into Christ through desire, charity, or good works only.
Statements like this demonstrate a total ignorance on the extent of the original sin, which can only be remitted through water baptism and the absolute need for the Church and her priesthood to dispense the Sacraments imposed by Christ Lord Himself.
Pope Pius X repeatly said that the first thing the devil attacks in the Church is original sin, for if it is done away with, there is no reason for the Incarnation, we then have no need for the supernatural.... The Church has taught infallibly that there is only ONE Baptism for the remission of sin. To say otherwise is not only erroneous, but is actually condemned.
-
Even a schimatic Orthodox would be more loyal to the necessity of Sacraments for Salvation, I'm afraid. A Roman Catholic saying this non sense is painful.
-
The subject of the salvation of sincere non-Catholics was on the agenda of the Vatican Council. [/b].
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm
This is not a docuмent from Vatican I. We post dogmas, you post rejected agendas. That's why I say you are not right in the head.
-
Except, Bowler, that I didn't do anything beside quote and underline. I've given up on trying to explain things to you. So your problem is with the quoted authorities, and not with me.
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.
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."
I underline because you still dubiously claim these quotes are about catechumens, as I would expect just about everyone beside you can see that they are not. If you still can't see that however, then I suggest going back to your 8th grade English grammar.
Unlike you, the others who agree with you have at least frankly stated that they disagree with these Doctors on this point. Whenever you come around, you should do the same.
By the way, if theologians want to say justification happens only by explicit faith, as indeed it does after the Gospel has been promulgated in a particular place, they say love of Christ in particular, and not love of God in general.
Pope Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XII teach the same as these Doctors above, that where baptism cannot be had, an act of perfect love of God can supply the baptismal effect.
You are misreading those two quotes, they say nothing about what we are talking about, what the Council of Florence clearly defined, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers as declared in the Athanasian Creed , as as taught by St. Thhomas and all the saints and doctors in his time, that to be saved, one must at a minimum have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Everyone knows that St. Thomas taught that at a minimum one must believe explicitly in the Trinity and that St. Alphonsus followed the same. You are saying that ocean water is not salty. You false BODer modernist find one obscure quote taken out of context and you make it a dogma, but yet you reject every clear dogma.
No, you just believe what you want to believe. Like I keep telling you, you are denying the clearest dogma on EENS from The Council of Florence, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, the clear teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the dogmatic decree of Vatican I, to name a few, and you can quote no Father, Doctor or Saint or council that teaches what you are defending here a total contradiction. You are insane!:
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
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.
-
You are always seeking anything that you can twist to your own desires, in this case a line from Florence that can be used to negate ALL of Florence, and all that just to teach a naked contradiction:
It's not one line, Bowler, but two:
1) By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters.
2) On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.
How many times does a Council need to repeat itself?
Meanwhile, at the time of Florence, there was not one Father, Doctor, or Saint that taught that non-Catholics could be saved without belief in Christ and the Trinity. The unanimous opinion of the Fathers, Doctors, Saint was the Athansian Creed, hence it is the model for what was dogmatically, infallible declared. That is why I say you are insane. You ignore all of St. Thomas's quotes where he directly addresses the subject that to be saved by BOD, one must at a minimum have belief in Christ and the Trinity, and you misquote him and use a clause from Florence that could be used to cancel everything said at Florence, with just one quote from some non-Father/Doctor/Saint theologian. Not a one Father, Doctor, Saint ever taught your contradiction:
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
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.
-
You're as woefully incorrect as ever, and you seem to believe the ends justify the means. But no, Bowler, you can't tell a lie to save the world.
You are in clear and complete denial that neither St. Thomas nor St. Alphonsus is speaking of catechumens. Unlike the others who have the honesty to admit this, you don't want to.
On the justification of a pagan child who, when he arrives at the full use of reason, does what lies in his power, with the help of actual grace, to love God above all things.
St. Thomas writes, Ia IIae, q. 89, a. 6: “When a child begins to have the use of reason, he should order his acts toward a proper end, to the extent that he is capable of discretion at that age.” And again in the answer to the third objection: “The end is first in the intention. Hence this is the time when the child is obliged by the affirmative command: ‘Turn ye to Me. . . .’ But if the child does this, he obtains the remission of original sin.” It is an excellent form of baptism of desire. St. Thomas and Thomists reconcile this doctrine with the legitimate interpretation of the axiom: “To one who does what in him lies (with the help of actual grace), God does not deny habitual grace,” ... (Cf. especially on this subject John of St. Thomas, De praedestinatione, disp. 10, a. 3, nos. 40-41, and the thesis of Father Paul Angelo, O.P., La possibilità di salute nel primo atto morale per il fanciullo infedele, Rome, the Angelicuм, 1946.)
John of St. Thomas is one of the greatest ever Thomists, whom the Church has also signally honored, as his title indicates, so once more you prove you have no idea of what you speak of. Nor have any humility to learn from these holy and eminent men.
St. Pius X and Pius XII not only personally approve of the teaching of St. Alphonsus that the question of whether explicit faith is necessary as a means or a precept is still open by authorizing the work Theologia Moralis and commanding it to be taught as a strongly recommended norm, they expressly themselves teach that when baptism cannot be had, an act of love of God supplies the baptismal effect.
This shows these Popes fully approve and personally authorize the teaching that "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."
All your denials aside, these Papal teachings show how wrong you are. You reject these Papal teachings to follow your own desires.
-
Even a schimatic Orthodox would be more loyal to the necessity of Sacraments for Salvation, I'm afraid. A Roman Catholic saying this non sense is painful.
Cantarella, most PROTESTANTS hold that it's heretical to say that someone can be saved without explicit belief in Jesus.
We see here how the enemies of the Catholic Church have successfully undermined the Faith.
-
I know far more people in the Novus Ordo who actually believe in EENS, and I must say that I feel more of an affinity towards them than I do towards all these Traditional Catholics who uphold that we must have the correct size of lavabo cloth by a necessity of means but then do not believe in the necessity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity for salvation.
-
To explain further,
"John of St. Thomas is aligned with us in supporting the following proposition as probable. The medial necessity we have analyzed as binding per se may not always be verified. It is probable that exception may occur in territories where the Gospel has not been sufficiently preached. This, however, is per accidens. It’s ‘an exception that proves the rule.’ For this reason the rule is couched in a manner that provides for it, through the modifying phrase: ‘After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel ...under the New Law, it is only per accidens, that is, a pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification without having explicit faith in Christ."
The same will be seen in the question St. Alphonsus considers, especially when the entire passage in Theologia Moralis is read.
They are not talking of those who live among Christians, but only of those who have never heard the Name of Jesus Christ, where the Gospel has not been preached.
-
To explain further, "John of St. Thomas is aligned with us in supporting the following proposition as probable. The medial necessity we have analyzed as binding per se may not always be verified. It is probable that exception may occur in territories where the Gospel has not been sufficiently preached. This, however, is per accidens. It’s ‘an exception that proves the rule.’ For this reason the rule is couched in a manner that provides for it, through the modifying phrase: ‘After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel ...under the New Law, it is only per accidens, that is, a pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification without having explicit faith in Christ."
The same will be seen in the question St. Alphonsus considers, especially when the entire passage in Theologia Moralis is read.
They are not talking of those who live among Christians, but only of those who have never heard the Name of Jesus Christ, where the Gospel has not been preached.
There's no point in discussing this with you since you are totally obsessed with denying every reality to teach the False BODer contradiction. You make a dogma out of one obscure quote and deny all the dogmas in order to teach that total contradiction. Your effort is just another smokescreen and so I'm no going to bother posting what everyone knows, that St. Thomas, the Council of Florence, ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints taught that at a minimum, belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity are required for salvation. ?:
Below is the bottom line of your efforts, all your postings since the beginning, all subterfuge (talking about catechumens and martyrs and St. Thomas's belief in BOD of the catechumen) to teach what you really wanted to teach, but were afraid to clearly state because not even you believe it. You just can't believe that these so it appears to you "good" people who have no explcit belief in Christ could be lost, and lost they are, as all the dogmas clearly teach, and so you grasp at anything you can get ahold of, THE total contradiction, which you don't even believe, but you have no choice, you have nothing else:
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
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.