Author Topic: Summa on BoD and BoB (Read 5294 times)

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #5 on:** December 22, 2011, 11:50:46 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
Nadie,

Instead of assuming that everybody who fails to fall before your quote-floods is wrong-headed, why don't you say what, if anything, you don't accept from St. Thomas?

What I wrote is very clear, don't twist what I wrote. It is you who reject St. Thomas's clear opposition to your theories on invincible ignorance and implicit faith. He and St. Alphonsus Ligouri and all the theologians before them, rejected your liberal erroneous theory that invincible ignorance is salvific, and your so-called "implicit faith".

Well, they don't reject anything I believe, because I learned from them what I believe.

Invincible ignorance is not salvific. No approved theologian says that, and I have no idea why you think that they do say that. My best guess is you've never seen an approved theology book.

Implicit faith, as St. Thomas explains, is the faith we all have in those doctrines that the Church teaches but which we, in our ignorance, do not know about. There's a great deal of it about, and (I hope) especially in you, dear Nadie.

Implicit faith in the case of somebody in invincible ignorance of some of the things necessary for salvation (such as baptism itself) would be the perfect willingness to accept baptism if the ignorant person knew about it. Such an ignorant person, to be saved, must have supernatural faith in at least the existence of God and the fact that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked. The better theologians (St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus included) say that in addition to these truths, a man must believe explicitly in the Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption. In any case whatever the actual objects of faith which are necessary for salvation, the remainder of the objects of faith are believed by such a person who has supernatural faith in an implicit manner.

This is not "liberal" or difficult to understand. It's simply the clear doctrine of the Church.

Btw, I was debating Michael Malone over a decade ago. He was absolutely hopeless, God love him, and may he rest in peace. We liked each other. I certainly preferred him, despite his complete incompetence on this question, to the liberals who make EENS an empty phrase. Throw his book out.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #6 on:** December 23, 2011, 07:53:27 AM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

nadieimportante said:
Implicit faith was invented in the 1600's ... It's not Catholic, universal, it's only the theologians of the 20th century that made it the "standard'.

Gertrude responds: Transubstantiation was "invented" in the Middle Ages. Theology develops. The Holy Ghost, permanently united to the Church (He is the Soul of the Church) guides her and ensures that she never errs.

nadieimportante said: Transubstantiation was invented? what a lousy example. You might as well also tell me that the term Immaculate Conception was also invented. Both terms are just naming what was always believed.

Gertrude responds:Good, so your argument against "implicit faith" is demolished. It is what has always been believed.

nadieimportante said: Is that how you read your theology books, how you just misread my simple sentence? Let me spell it out for you:

Transubstantiation was invented? what a lousy example. You might as well also tell me that the term Immaculate Conception was also invented. Both Transubstantiation and Immaculate Conception are terms that just naming what was always believed. Implicit faith was truly invented in the 1600's it was not believed by any Fathers or St. Thomas or any other Saint. The implicit faith and invincible ignorance (they are tied together) theories opens the door to ecuмenism and false religious freedom, and the non-exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation. People who preach this theory have not a leg to stand on when opposing Vatican II on those subjects (oh, let me spell it out again for you, ecuмenism and false religious freedom, and the non-exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation EENS). Here's a good example:

This is just an excerpt from Bishop Fellay's latest letter #79, if people read the entire letter they wiill find that in practically every point in the letter touches on the same point I'm making here , that "The implicit faith and invincible ignorance (they are tied together) theories opens the door to ecuмenism and false religious freedom, and the non-exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation. People who preach this theory have not a leg to stand on when opposing Vatican II on those subjects"

Bishop Fellay #79: "Another consequence, which follows directly from what has just been said, can be seen in the practice of ecuмenism. On pretence of being able to be closer to our “separated brethren”, Catholics not longer proclaim these truths, which are nonetheless salvific, because they are difficult for them to hear. Catholics no longer even deliberately seek to convert them. Ecuмenism NO LONGER WANTS TO MAKE CONVERTS. This word has been banished; it is still tolerated, but in the name of religious liberty! Where, then, is the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Where has the pride of Catholics gone? And their leaders are the ones who are making them faint-hearted! As everyone could observe recently in France, when they should have condemned some blasphemous dramas. If similar offenses had been committed against the Moslems, the country would have been set on fire and drenched in blood! The Christians today have become so soft that they allow anything to happen! People are attacking the honor, not of a worldly king, but of the King of kings, the Lord of Lords, our Savior from whom we have received everything!

Quite obviously we have at heart the salvation of all those souls that are so dear to the Heart of Our Lord and their return to the fold, since He redeemed them at the price of His life! But the current way of doing things no longer has anything in common with the concern for the unity of the Church in past centuries. The whole world is supposed to be good and, consequently, the prospect that some of them could be eternally damned causes the wise of this world to inveigh against the scandal. They preach that hell is empty, or nearly so. The teaching of the Church is entirely different…."END

nadieimportante said:
Theology develops in the same sense and the same judgement (read St. Vincent of Lerins that I posted, and Vatican I), like a mustard seed develops into a Mustard Tree. It does not change into something else. Your implicit faith being "the development" of EENS, which requires incorporation into the Body, is analogous to the mustard seed growing up to be a mango tree.

Gertrude wrote : Please don't use that mustard seed metaphor about the development of dogma. It's a misapplication of the metaphor about the Church by Our Lord. Stinking liberals love that misapplication. A tree contains a great deal of material not originally contained in the seed. Sacred doctrine contains no new material. It isn't the growth from a seed, but merely the explanation of what was there in its entirety in the beginning. I'm surprised to see you attacking liberals when you are clearly enamoured of a major LIBERAL idea yourself.

Nadie responds: the mustard seed, the oak seed they are metaphors that describe what I said St. Vincent of Lerins and Vatican II taught about the developement of doctrine in the same sense and the same judgement. Your "developement" has a missing link, more than that, since an ape and man appear similar, when your theory is like a squirrrel and man. It is part of the vortex of confusion described by St. Augustine. Your God is powerless to convert anyone, or get anyone to water to him and say 8 words.

nadieimportante said:
The implicit faith saved theory is a person who does not want to be a Catholic or baptized or anything else.

Gertrude responds:Find me an approved theologian who says that. No wonder you're confused, you don't even know what you're arguing against.

Nadie responds: You are in denial. You've been hoodwinked by your liberal theologians sophisms on "implicit".

Gertrude responds When called on your assertion, you dodge. No approved theologian states what you claim that they state. I repeat, no wonder you're confused, you don't even know what you're arguing against.

nadieimportante writes: I posted a ton of quotes from St. Alphonsus Ligouri what are you talking about? I'd like to see you post one Saint or Doctor or Father of the Church saying that a Moslem can be saved in their religion, by implicit faith or ignorance.

Implicit faith = a Muslim, Jew, pagan, animist, Mason, any non-Catholic, who is "sincere in his belief", can be saved in his religion, because by an unknown to him implicit faith, he is really a Catholic.

Example of explicit faith

"....God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church” (Abp Lefevbre)

From : Christ Among Us[/i], by Fr. Anthony Wilhelm. The major religious text for Catholic High School students and for adult education in America. First published in 1967 by Paulist Press, it has sold over 2,000,000 copies:

"There are other ways of being united to God besides baptism. Most of the human race has never heard of or cannot believe in Christ or baptism. As the world population increases, Christians become proportionately less. The Christian life begun by baptism is becoming more and more the privilege and responsibility of a few. Most of humanity is united with God in other ways. (op. cit., p. 199).

Many men come to God in this way through other, non-Christian religions ... So, too, one who cannot believe in a personal God, through no fault of his own, but is committed to following his conscience, receives God's grace presence God lives within many unbelievers, though they may oppose him or those who try to work for him. (p.200).

Theology has no complete answer as to how, or even whether anyone may be damned forever.(p. 289)

Now explain to us if my cut to the chase definition "The implicit faith saved theory is a person who does not want to be a Catholic or baptized or anything else Catholic.", is not spot on. Do any of these people want to be baptized, or Catholics? You are in denial, you are in the vortex of confusion:

“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)

nadieimportante · « **Reply #7 on:** December 23, 2011, 07:54:25 AM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

You are in the vortex of confusion described by St. Augustine. Your God is powerless to move a person to convert to the true faith, His grace is powerless to move anyone to baptize the person during non-baptized person's entire life, His power in incapable of keeping the person alive for whatever time is necessary till God wills to give him the grace of conversion. Your God from the beginning of time was not thinking about this person which He created so dense and out of reach, that God can't use the ordinary means of salvation that Jesus Christ (God) taught us to use.

My God is the God described by St. John the Baptist who can turn stones into Catholics with His grace:
"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." (Mat 3:9)

Pope Paul III (A.D. 1534-1549) Sublimus Deus (or Sublimus Dei), May 29, 1537:

"To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office "Go ye and teach all nations." He said "all," without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith. [/b]

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #8 on:** December 23, 2011, 07:55:22 AM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

God Wills their Ignorance - a Satirical Response

So it is the will of God that men of good will (who, btw, if they cooperate, are moved/assisted by prevenient/sufficient grace to come to the knowledge of the Truth, to desire baptism and to enter the only Ark of salvation);

it is the will of God that these ignorant men of good will remain in their false religion; it is the will of God that they remain ignorant of the Gospel, and it is the will of God that these ignorant men die in a state of sanctifying grace; a state of saving grace effected by an implicit faith, an implicit love of the true God, an implicit baptism of desire and an implicit mental incorporation. In this way they become “part of the Church” (would that be the implicit Church?)

How does that work again? Oh yeah, they belong to the “Soul of the Church”; in other words, the Holy Ghost cleanses the faithless and ignorant Muslim/Jew/Pantheist/Animist/Atheist/Pagan of his original sin solely on the merit of his “good will”.

He also infuses the ignorant faithless soul with the supernatural virtues of … wait, strike that; He infuses him with the implicit supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity, and then takes up His substantial abode (as St. John Eudes said, in the flesh) within the ignorant faithless

Muslim/Jew/Pantheist/Animist/Atheist/Pagan who continues on his merry blissful ignorant way towards salvation, even when blaspheming the name of our Lord and even when persecuting Christians.

And this is the state of justification Trent defined as a re-birth into a new creature and a translation into a son of God and heir to the kingdom. Yes indeed.

You see, this is what our Lord “wills” for His ignorant faithless elect who are of such good will that they can’t seem to hear the voice of our Lord, let alone crawl out from under the weight of their false beliefs. All that “static”, you know?

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2011, 07:59:28 AM »

Gosh, thanks for re-posting those quote-floods. I might have missed them the first time, so it was helpful to have them re-posted just in case I did. :)