From another thread:

Two different animals, both have only one thing in common, the word implicit

A)The theory of salvation by implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the  belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. Example: a person who desires to be a Catholic, and believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, but he has no one to baptize him, or he does not know that he needs to be baptized, and he dies.

F) The theory of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ,  which DOES NOT required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the  belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. Example: A Jew, Muslim, or Bhuddist who worships his god in all love and belief can be saved, although he does not believe in Christ or his Church. (place your own example here if you don't like mine)

For anyone that understands the difference in the theological speculations explained above, I ask a question:

I believe that the original theory of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ was conceived in the 1500's and on, by some theologians, as an answer to the question of what happened to those savages in the New World (the Indians of the Americas) before priests ever arrived to preach the gospel. In other words, it only applies to people that the Church could not physically reach.

When did this theory start to apply to every person around us, all Jews, Mohamedans, Bhuddists, Protestants, and  whatever?

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle Doctor & theologian, who lived long before the 15th-century taught implicit faith:

No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament. (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.106, a.1, ad 3)

Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith. (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.5)

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)

Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith. (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.10, a.4, ad 3)

Though all do not know explicitly the power of the sacrifices, they know it implicitly, even as they have implicit faith, as stated above (q. 2, AA 6,7). (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.85 a.4, ad 2)

As stated above (a. 1, ad 2; q. 68, a. 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but aferwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.” (Summa Theologica, IIIa q.69, a.4, ad 2)

Venial sin is never forgiven without some act, explicit or implicit, of the virtue of penance, as stated above (a. 1): it can, however, be forgiven without the sacrament of Penance, which is formally perfected by the priestly absolution, as stated above (q. 87, a. 2). Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is required for the forgiveness of venial sin, for although this infusion takes place in every sacrament, it does not occur in every act of virtue. (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.87, a.2, ad 2)

As stated above (a. 2), no infusion of fresh grace is required for the forgiveness of a venial sin, but it is enough to have an act proceeding from grace, in detestation of that venial sin, either explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently to God. Hence, for three reasons... (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.87, a.3)

Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at least implicitly. (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.66, a.6, ad 2)

Problem with denying the existence of implicit faith in Jesus Christ, His Incarnation, and the Blessed Trinity is this:

What about the pagans who were alive at the First Coming of Jesus Christ, say, those living in North America at the time?

Did they all of sudden "fall from grace" on the Day of Pentacost?  If so, then the Coming of Jesus Christ would have been a disaster for these pagans!

Okay, what about the folks (however few) who were in a state of grace while living at the time of Pentecost in North America?  Did they automatically fall from grace the moment that the Law of Baptism went into effect?

Quote from: Jehanne

Okay, what about the folks (however few) who were in a state of grace while living at the time of Pentecost in North America?  Did they automatically fall from grace the moment that the Law of Baptism went into effect?

No one needed to be in a state of grace (as we understand it today) to make it to paradise of the patriarchs. Anyhow, where are you going with this? It sounds like a discussion about what happened to the person that died one minute after Christ's law came into effect.

Bowler, what do you mean by this? No one was saved unless they departed this life in grace. "Nor should one think that any man was made just, either before the law or under the law, by another grace or another faith than the grace and the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” St. Prosper of Aquitane

The fathers of old had to depart this life in grace, which they received by faith in God and in Christ to come. In this way, the defect of person was healed. The defect of nature would be cured only at the coming of Christ. St. Thomas says some of the just had implicit faith in Christ by having explicit faith in divine Providence, believing firmly that God would deliver humanity in whatever way was pleasing to Him.

You need to understand supernatural faith. It is a divine light that enlightens the mind, given from above, to one who is willing to believe everything that God has revealed. It is manifested by explicit faith in the primary articles of faith and implicit faith in every other article. Supernatural faith (together with supernatural charity) has always and everywhere been necessary to attain to the state of sanctifying grace.

Now, after Christ, the question therefore is, Whether explicit faith in Christ is necessary by means to make an act of supernatural faith? Or could implicit faith suffice, as it had for many of the Gentiles who lived outside Israel, and even some members of Israel? The Doctors and the Saints teach the former, so we should hold the same, but all agree the other is permitted.

As for your question, John de Lugo, who held to implicit faith, said in the 17th century, “One who is baptized as an infant by heretics, and is brought up by them in false doctrine, when he reaches adulthood, could for some time not be guilty of sin against the Catholic faith, as long as this had not been proposed to him in a way sufficient to oblige him to embrace it. However, if the Catholic faith were subsequently proposed to him in a way sufficient to oblige him to embrace it and to abandon errors contrary to it, and he still persisted in his errors, then he would be a heretic.” He discourses in the same way of others who have not heard of Christ either. His arguments in my opinion are not convincing but others like Suarez and John of St. Thomas have held the same earlier as well.

(From the God that can turn stones into sons of Abraham, however, in your mind he can't do that for some people nor keep them alive long enough to teach them and have them baptized by anyone )

You clearly are unable to stick to your own topic.

It is God's good pleasure to save some souls by baptism of desire, no one has claimed He could not have done otherwise. We already know of souls who were saved by baptism of desire, including as I've shown you a women who died practically as a catechumen in the time of St. John Vianney, so your reply won't wash. This is a case of you having no intention to submit to the divine will.

Now, if God had instead willed to save by water baptism alone, then of course all Catholics would submit to it.

By the way, when Pope Pius IX says "they are able to attain eternal life through the efficacious virtue of divine light", he is speaking of supernatural faith, not sacramental baptism which is not a virtue. The First Vatican Council says, "This faith ... the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue". Trent discourses in the same sense.

(the doctors and saints also teach that one must be baptized to be saved. So do all the dogmas on the subject)

The sacramental effect of baptism, no less than penance, can be had in desire. This is clearly taught in Trent, where desire is used for both, as the Holy Office Letter also points out in its reference.

(yes I hold the same as the dogmas as they are written, and the saints which coincide 100% with the dogmas)

You don't even hold what Florence taught, evidently, in more than one place. Florence followed St. Fulgentius word for word, including where he spoke of being "joined to the Church" (by an extraordinary means of baptism) rather than becoming a member of the Church, by sacramental baptism.

(who's this "all"? Certainly not all the popes

Yes, all the Popes, who did not become Popes without first being instructed in theology as seminarians and priests, and fully adhering to everything they had learnt, and commanding this to be taught. There have been many Magisterial affirmations of baptism of desire, all of which you reject, including of souls saved by it, which goes against all versions of Feeneyism.

who never mentioned it in any dogma, nor any of the doctors and saints who believed John 3:5, as it is written

Do you know why St. John says, the spirit, the water, the blood are one, and compares triune baptism to the Triune God? Where the one is present, all are present in their effects. Obviously you don't see that, but Christ Himself explained it to St. Catherine of Sienna, and that is in full agreement with Scripture, Tradition, St. Thomas in particular, and the Magisterium.

The caliber of your contributions took a deep fall into the abyss of unauthoritative self opinions with this posting. I won't waste time answering all, for they all have the same thing in common, they are made up self opinions and ideas. See my comments in red.

Quote from: Bowler

(From the God that can turn stones into sons of Abraham, however, in your mind he can't do that for some people nor keep them alive long enough to teach them and have them baptized by anyone )

You clearly are unable to stick to your own topic.

It is God's good pleasure to save some souls by baptism of desire, no one has claimed He could not have done otherwise.(made up theology. Was it also "His pleasure" to have ALL his revelations become meaningless? John 3:5, meaningless after ALL the Fathers believed it as it is written. ALL the clear dogmatic decrees on baptism and EENS, meaningless. ALL meaningless, since persons who are unbaptized and don't explicitly desire to be Catholic or baptized, and believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation (Christ), and even fight his Church, all of them can be saved. What a fickle God you have).  

We already know of souls who were saved by baptism of desire, including as I've shown you a women who died practically as a catechumen in the time of St. John Vianney, so your reply won't wash.(WOW, now you resort to private revelation to deny ALL of God's revelation. During the time of the apparitions at Lourdes, it is docuмented that over 100 false apparitions took place throughout Europe, the work of the devil. St. John of the Cross, one of the Church's greatest mystics, asked Our Lord not to appear to him anymore because he could not tell the difference between Our Lord and the apparitions of the devil.  Yet you say you have one private revelation "case" of baptism of desire. Big deal, it its likely the devil. If you want to talk private revelations, the Church through it's 2000 years has 1000's of cases of people being brought back from the dead just to be baptized then they die again. The missionaries have hundred of thousands of accounts of people unnaturally hanging on to life for an unheard of long time, only to die instantly right after the missionary arrives and  baptizes them. Yet you bring up one private revelation "case" of  BOD and expect people to "submit" to YOUR will. What a joke. That's all that I have the inclination to answer, your entire posting follows the same pattern just your own made up ideas ) This is a case of you having no intention to submit to the divine will.

Now, if God had instead willed to save by water baptism alone, then of course all Catholics would submit to it.

By the way, when Pope Pius IX says "they are able to attain eternal life through the efficacious virtue of divine light", he is speaking of supernatural faith, not sacramental baptism which is not a virtue. The First Vatican Council says, "This faith ... the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue". Trent discourses in the same sense.

Quote

(the doctors and saints also teach that one must be baptized to be saved. So do all the dogmas on the subject)

The sacramental effect of baptism, no less than penance, can be had in desire. This is clearly taught in Trent, where desire is used for both, as the Holy Office Letter also points out in its reference.

Quote

(yes I hold the same as the dogmas as they are written, and the saints which coincide 100% with the dogmas)

You don't even hold what Florence taught, evidently, in more than one place. Florence followed St. Fulgentius word for word, including where he spoke of being "joined to the Church" (by an extraordinary means of baptism) rather than becoming a member of the Church, by sacramental baptism.

Quote

(who's this "all"? Certainly not all the popes

Yes, all the Popes, who did not become Popes without first being instructed in theology as seminarians and priests, and fully adhering to everything they had learnt, and commanding this to be taught. There have been many Magisterial affirmations of baptism of desire, all of which you reject, including of souls saved by it, which goes against all versions of Feeneyism.

Quote

who never mentioned it in any dogma, nor any of the doctors and saints who believed John 3:5, as it is written

Do you know why St. John says (now you self interpret scripture. Amazing!) , the spirit, the water, the blood are one, and compares triune baptism to the Triune God? Where the one is present, all are present in their effects. Obviously you don't see that, but Christ Himself explained it to St. Catherine of Sienna, and that is in full agreement with Scripture, Tradition, St. Thomas in particular, and the Magisterium.

I don't understand what you are saying, relative to our times. From the time of Adam and Eve till the after Our Lords resurrection, everyone that was saved, including the Holy Innocents, and the Good Thief, were saved without baptism. From the time that of Christ's resurrection , the sacrament of baptism became mandatory for all who were to be saved.

St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church, clearly states that the Good thief was saved through baptism of desire. You need to stop making up your own Catholicism, Bowler:

The Seven Books of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Ch 22: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."

Ch23: "But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting."

Ch24: "And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity..."

Ch25: "By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man's salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting. But when either of these requisites is wanting intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but, with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it has been despised."

Quote from: bowler

I don't understand what you are saying, relative to our times. From the time of Adam and Eve till the after Our Lords resurrection, everyone that was saved, including the Holy Innocents, and the Good Thief, were saved without baptism. From the time that of Christ's resurrection , the sacrament of baptism became mandatory for all who were to be saved.

St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church, clearly states that the Good thief was saved through baptism of desire. You need to stop making up your own Catholicism, Bowler:

St. Augustine also rejected baptism of desire in his later years, and you must believe he was wrong on that since you believe that even those who have no desire to be Catholics can be saved.

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)

Regarding my comment, just how many times do we need to post for you the Catechism of Trent's line on the subject? I don't know if you have a bad memory or you are a closet EENSer just setting me up to look good.

Catechism of Trent

BAPTISM MADE OBLIGATORY AFTER CHRIST'S RESURRECTION

 The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.