Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

St. Thomas Aquinas

Quote

Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
   "I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
   "Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "

Is this in any way different than the quotes that I posted?

Yes.

No

You did not include the quote I provided, so YES, they are "different than the quotes" you posted.

Maybe this will explain it to you SJB:

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: bowler

Your quote by St. Alphonsus proves my point that you like all of the pro-BOD posters on CI (except Nishant) do not know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently.

I repeat below what I told you before twice and you ignore, because you do not know the subject. St. Alphonsus taught that to be saved by explicit or implicit baptism of desire one must have explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, for he taught what he got from St. Thomas Aquinas.

I understand the distinction.  There is the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism itself  attended with the necessity of explicit belief in supernatural truths versus a certain vague desire to follow the will of God that is not necessarily attended by belief in supernatural truths but only requires belief in naturally accessible truths about God.  Baptism of desire in the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus would come from the desire for the Sacrament proper, but explicit belief in the Incarnation and Trinity are still necessary for salvation.  

I have dealt with this a bit already.  Garrigou-Lagrange simply does not agree and seems to hold that the desire for the laver of regeneration is implicit in an implicit faith that is truly founded on the will cooperating with actual graces and inspirations in the fulfillment of the natural law.  I can also see why Garrigou-Lagrange's reliance on the anthropological accounts of Louis Massignon and others would be seen as problematic, but I think the issue is more complicated than that.  The objection to this theory seems to come from a misgiving about the thought of a man being saved in the new dispensation without explicit knowledge of and belief in Our Lord.  The obvious counterpoint, however, is that supernatural element is still present in Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation, since grace is what prompts the cooperation in the first place.  Furthermore, God is not bound to the New Testament and can justify souls that seek Him as He pleases.  It was the Logos, after all, Who created and sustains the natural law in the first place, so there is a certain relation to Christ in that.

I certainly have been and am inclined towards the formulation of SS. Thomas and Alphonsus, but I limit my personal belief and speculation according to what has been established by the Church.  If the Church sees the natural law and the means by which a man is prompted to obey it as being the work of God in such a way that a soul can obtain habitual grace by cooperating with God according to the best of her ability in her circuмstances (as per Garrigou-Lagrange's formulation), then that is how the Church sees it.  And I want my understanding to conform to the mind of the Church.  It's that simple.

Follow the boldened "map" above. What church are you talking about, since it is opposed to ALL of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, the REVELATION of John 3:5, The Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, all dogmas on EENS and baptism, in other words it is opposed to ALL of tradition?

All that you are left with is a letter from 1949 with no AAS number, which was not published for the public till 1952 after its writer had died, versus EVERYTHING THAT IS THE CHURCH.

#1

St. Thomas says "
God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him
They "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",
all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity

#2  

... the teachings taught today and believed by all of you BODers that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved by his belief...

#3

That teaching  is opposed to St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, the Athanasian Creed, and that is what you people believe.

1. Please provide the reference for the quote you provided.
2. Please refrain from broad and sweeping generalizations.
3. Please discontinue your use of straw-man type fallacies.

and with regard to your last post

4. Please stop your argumentum ad nauseam

I'm sorry, if you do not know what I am writing about and PereJoseph is responding to, I can't help you.

I asked you for a reference and requested you refrain from employing logical fallacies in your manner of discussion.  With regard to your helping me, "how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye? Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother's eye."

Starting with the quote you provided

St. Thomas says "
God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him
They "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",
all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity

It may be that you have partly used Saint Thomas Aquinas' Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate, where question 14 on Faith under article 11 it is asked "Is it necessary to believe explicitly? where in answering difficulties it says,

Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).

The second part of your crafted quote comes from the second part of St. Thomas' Summa Theologica in the second question Of The Internal Act of Faith where it says,

After grace had been revealed both learned and simple folk bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly 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 QI A 8 As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office.

How would you explain yourself in this obvious deception you have crafted?

Do you deny that St. Thomas taught that God would send a preacher or would enlighten directly, or do you deny that the person must as a minimum explicitly believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (believe in Jesus Christ explicitly)?

You are asking two questions, on two different topics, and I provided you referenced quotes for both.  So it seems silly that you would ask if I deny that St. Thomas taught them.  

...Saint Thomas Aquinas' Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate, where question 14 on Faith under article 11 it is asked "Is it necessary to believe explicitly? where in answering difficulties it says,
"Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20). "

...second part of St. Thomas' Summa Theologica in the second question Of The Internal Act of Faith where it says,
"After grace had been revealed both learned and simple folk bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly 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 QI A 8 As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office."

It may be prudent for you to re-read the quotes to which you are referring with especial attention to the first five words of the second quote here above.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler

St. Thomas says " God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him

They "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",

all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity

How would you know if God revealed to him through internal inspiration?

St. Thomas said "God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him". How would you know from there if the person really was saved by baptism of desire, there is no way to know, nor if anyone has ever been saved by baptism of desire. It's your belief not mine.

Now, the logical way that I would think that you would know if God revealed to him through internal inspiration, would be that he was not taught by a preacher, or anyone else, yet he knows and believes  " 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 and the Trinity".

Yes, but the person in question IS NOT a member of the Church, which destroys all the original arguments you've made here. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to know exactly what you believe, as you've said many contradictory things. You may hold that explicit belief in the four articles mentioned is required, but holding only to the two isn't condemned.

Do you admit to the bolded part, bowler?

The nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church is this: There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, while a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) the existence of a single God,
(ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) the triune nature of God and
(iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.

A minority of more recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred.  

You may hold that explicit belief in the four articles mentioned is required, but holding only to the two isn't condemned.

Do you admit to the bolded part, bowler?

Your point is that your belief in the first two articles as sufficient for salvation has not been condemned, so shut up Bowler.

My point is that that belief of yours is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also opposed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri  and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century.  In other words it is not supported by anything. You are throwing out ALL the sources of tradition and replacing it with some novel method of finding truth "Well it is not condemned by the Church" (or maybe the 1949 letter with no AAS number or references to any
Fathers, Saints , Doctors, Creeds, councils)

"Well, it is not condemned by the Church", does not exist in the Church's methodology of finding truth. Here is St. Vincent of Lerins , Father of the Church. ( I don't see your method mentioned):

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ] <p>
[Author - Vincent shows himself also as a man of such remarkable perception that there is a certain timelessness to his writing. What he has to say of preserving the faith and of keeping to the rule of faith fits any period and all times, and might have been written yesterday.  

Vincent develops the notion that our faith is based on the authority of divine Law, which must be understood and interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. And this Tradition, if it need be discovered, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est: what has been believed in the Church everywhere, always, and by all.  Vincent’s doctrinal principle does not exclude progress and development; but it does exclude change. For Vincent, progress is a developmental growth of doctrine in its own sphere; change, however, implies a transformation into something different.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS says: <p>

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.  I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.  [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic.  That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement.  And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.

To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.

He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.

"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition;  a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing.  O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.

But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion.  The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.

We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers,   not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.<p>

1.   This is the famous line: In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.