Author Topic: Salvation by Implict Faith in Christ (Read 2670 times)

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** September 15, 2013, 04:03:20 PM »

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #6 on:** September 16, 2013, 10:43:33 AM »

Quote from: bowler

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.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** September 16, 2013, 12:15:50 PM »

My comments in red. It is better that you go to the other thread entitled "SSSPX Teaches Salvation for Non-Catholics"

Quote from: Nishant

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. (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 )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 (the doctors and saints also teach that one must be baptized to be saved. So do all the dogmas on the subject) , so we should hold the same (yes I hold the same as the dogmas as they are written, and the saints which coincide 100% with the dogmas) ?, but all agree the other is permitted (who's this "all"? Certainly not all the popes, who never mentioned it in any dogma, nor any of the doctors and saints who believed John 3:5, as it is written).

Nishant · « **Reply #8 on:** September 17, 2013, 05:55:57 AM »

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. 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.

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, 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.

Jehanne · « **Reply #9 on:** September 17, 2013, 06:41:26 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

And, this is a huge, huge problem, when the Catholic Church has a string of Popes of questionable orthodoxy; how can the traditional Catholic faithful know what is and is not acceptable in terms of theological opinion? With respect to the Holy Office Letter, it was not one grand ex cathedra statement. Its sole appeal to infallibility would be the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. But the sole condemnation in the Holy Office Letter was not Father Feeney's theology but the following:

Quote

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Note that Father Feeney's theological views and opinions were never condemned; rather, his attacking of other diocesan publications (such as the Baltimore Catechism) is what earned him his condemnation. If he would have simply published his views at the level of theological opinion and tried to win the "hearts and minds" of churchmen and Pope Pius XII, there would have likely never been a "Holy Office Letter."

Finally, does the Holy Office Letter contain any theological opinion whatsoever? Or, is it all fides ecclesiastica teaching? In any case, the Letter does not discuss at all sacramental Baptism or explicit faith, the two "hot button" topics of our day and this board. Are there folks right now in Paradise who lack the character of Baptism since such became obligatory at Pentecost? The Holy Office Letter does not say.

Even if Pope Pius XII was the last true Pope, it is difficult to imagine why Father Feeney's The Bread of Life, which he sent to the Holy Father and to every living Cardinal of the Catholic Church, including, the Prefect of the Holy Office, did not merit a single condemnation. It seems strange that such a book could pass under the "theological radar" if its contents were so blatantly heretical.