Quote from: misericordianos

Let me answer my own question. St. Thomas mentions implicit baptism of desire:

Quote

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 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 afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 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." (III, Q. 69, Art. 4)

So we do have the concept out there before St. Alphonsus.

What is clear is that the concept has been abused beyond what St. Thomas meant, since St. Thomas required explicit faith, as I think St. Alphonsus did. And what is not clear is that Trent endorsed the concept of implicit desire for baptism. If it did, that would actually confirm, for me, that it was clear on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for justification.

When St. Thomas spoke of implicit Baptism of Desire, he meant:

"I want to be a Catholic." (implicit is the desire to be Baptized)  But he still taught that explicit faith in Jesus and the Holy Trinity were prerequisites for supernatural faith and salvation.

When modernists speak of implicit Baptism of Desire, they mean:

"I worship the Great Thumb and desire to do his will."  (implicit -- I would become a Catholic if Great Thumb told me to; implicit -- I would then be baptized) -- two steps removed implicit

Trent didn't teach Baptism of Desire at all.  Catechism of Trent may have implied it.  That is all.

If you look at all the even quasi-authoritative or quasi-Magisterial sources on Baptism of Desire, it's ALWAYS in the context of a catechumen.  Pay no attention to the modernist/heretic Jesuits from the 17th century on.

St. Augustine / St. Ambrose -- speaking of catechumens (St. Augustine later retracted, St. Ambrose most likely was referring to BoB in the case of Valentinian)

most Church Fathers REJECTED BoD

Innocent II / Innocent III -- priest not Baptized and Jew self-baptism, both cases of people who explicitly wanted to be Catholics

Catechism of Trent -- speaking of catechumen

St. Thomas -- explicit faith in Holy Trinity and Incarnation

St. Robert Bellarmine -- catechumen (asked the question, "Whether a catechumen who dies before Baptism can be saved?")

St. Alphonsus -- explicit faith in Holy Trinity and Incarnation

1917 Code of Canon Law -- catechumen

Even if one wants to believe in BoD, the Church has never endorsed the heretical Jesuit excrement about Great Thumb worshippers being saved through BoD.

I agree with just about everything you said - except your saying Trent didn’t allow for justification by a desire for baptism.

I note that explicit desire for baptism of, say, the catechumen, maintains the necessity of the sacrament as a necessity of means. Obviously, without the sacrament, you could not have an explicit, conscious desire for the sacrament.

To say the sacrament of baptism or penance is necessary as a necessity of means without an explicit desire for the sacrament(s) is just blowing smoke, a necessary “blowing” because the implicit desire sufficient school is bound by the Magisterial statements and Tradition, and haunted by specter of inconsistency, which marks anything it touches as patently false.

The fact that not even explicit faith is now thought necessary by the stewards of the Church and its theologians shows how far the apostasy has gone.

To say the sacrament of baptism or penance is necessary as a necessity of means without an explicit desire for the sacrament(s) is just blowing smoke, ...

Yes, this is a crucial point that needs to be emphasized more.  Trent taught that the instrumental cause of justification is the Sacrament of Baptism, and every theologian (I know not of a single exception) has held that Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means for salvation.  How the SACRAMENT ITSELF can be the instrumental cause of justification in the scenario of someone who doesn't even have explicit faith is absolutely beyond me.

Cantarella,

The position is that God will make sure that all who is justified receives the water Baptism required for entering Heaven, before death.  

Yes. I don’t think even LoT would argue that that view is heretical.

We may be dealing with mere hypotheticals, but, hypothetically, if one were to die with explicit faith, a desire to join the Church - the five requisites noted by Karam - that would be sufficient for salvation.

LoT seems to think “Feeneyites" don’t believe that salvation would result in that hypothetical. I’ve show him Karam’s article which was reviewed and supported by Father Feeney, which doesn’t deny such a hypothetical.

Father Feeney may have made some comments later about justification but not salvation without the water of baptism, but he may have been just indicating something along the lines of your thought - all who receive such a justification before baptism will make it to the font, or else reject their prior justification and not die in a state of justification. I don’t know.

The point is, when the Holy Office letter was published, it was in reference to the position expressed by Karam and in From the Housetops at the time. It wasn’t addressed to Father’s Feeney’s later thought, whatever that was precisely.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

St. Alphonsus mentioned but did not embrace the Jesuit implicit BoD.  He mentioned it because the Jesuits started to promote that junk by his day.

But Vatican I put an end to "Rewarder God Faith" speculation by teaching the supernatural faith has as its object matters that can ONLY be known through revelation and cannot be acquired through natural reason.  Existence of Rewarder God, however, CAN be known through natural reason.  Jesuits had speculated that even though the object is attainable through natural reason it can still be held on authority (the authority of faith) when you're not entirely convinced through natural reason; that flies in the face of Vatican I on many levels, so that opinion must be discarded.  In addition, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium had taught for 1600 years and no one anywhere contested it, that explicit faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation.  Consequently it's a dogmatic teaching of the OUM; I consider the implicit faith via Rewarder God theory to be heretical ... simply awaiting the Church's formal definition to render its proponents formal heretics.

Interesting. You’ve inspired me to go back and read Vatican I about supernatural faith.

I would say it goes beyond the OUM - the necessity of explicit faith. How does one read Trent’s “after the promulgation of the Gospel” language with regard to justification now requiring baptism or the desire for “it”? Presumably, “before” the promulgation of the Gospel baptism (of course) or an explicit faith would not have been required. Before, an implicit faith in Christ and baptism (if you want to look at it that way) would have been enough.

Clearly, according to Trent, something changed after the promulgation of the Gospel as to justification. What might that be? Explicit faith, and baptism or an explicit desire for it.

Then there’s the Athanasian Creed - is that OUM? Infallible at any rate. And the weasels have to come up with all kinds of nonsense to say it doesn’t require a Catholic Catholic faith, but some other faith that they can shoe into a category called “Catholic" faith.

The Holy Ghost cannot possibly effect sanctification in a person apart from any sacrament or "visible sign". In the Old Law, for example, sanctification came to men by means of circuмcision, sacrifices and other practices. Since the coming of Christ, sanctification comes by means of the seven sacraments of the Church.

Justification, therefore, and sanctifying grace, can come to a person before the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism, provided explicit faith in Christ, explicit purpose to receive the sacrament and to join the Catholic Church, and perfect charity are not lacking. An example of this is the story of Cornelius, who the Bible tells us that was already in the state of sanctifying grace before the actual reception of water baptism, but would not have been saved if he had not sent for Peter to be baptized by him, because the reception of the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

On the necessity of Baptism, letter against the semi-pelagians:

Therefore the beginnings of faith have a certain similarity to conceptions, for in order to attain life eternal, it is not enough to be conceived, but one must be born. And none of these is without the grace of the mercy of God, because when works are good, they follow that grace, as was said, they do not precede it.

The Catholic Faith is the foundation of all Justification.

From Trent:

Session 6, Chapter VI, Decree Concerning Justification (January 13, 1547):

Now, they are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing, they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism; finally, when they resolve (desire) to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.

Session 6, Chapter VIII, Decree Concerning Justification (Jan. 13, 1547):

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons;…

How does one read Trent’s “after the promulgation of the Gospel” language with regard to justification now requiring baptism or the desire for “it”? Presumably, “before” the promulgation of the Gospel baptism (of course) or an explicit faith would not have been required. Before, an implicit faith in Christ and baptism (if you want to look at it that way) would have been enough.

Clearly, according to Trent, something changed after the promulgation of the Gospel as to justification. What might that be? Explicit faith, and baptism or an explicit desire for it.

This is an excellent point, one that I had not considered before.

Then there’s the Athanasian Creed - is that OUM? Infallible at any rate. And the weasels have to come up with all kinds of nonsense to say it doesn’t require a Catholic Catholic faith, but some other faith that they can shoe into a category called “Catholic" faith.

They'll try to interpret this away; that's how it works.  Then the Magisterium intervenes to close the door on false interpretations.  That's how it always works.  There has been no new dogma or doctrine since Public Revelation closed with the death of St. John.