Author Topic: What exactly does implicit faith means? (Read 5633 times)

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2013, 07:50:35 PM »

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

I thought this was about implicit faith as it pertains to invincible ignorance. Of course a Catholic would have implicit faith in the dogmas that he is not aware of. As the first post states, this was about whether implicit faith in the basic dogmas of the Church by a person not Baptized, was enough to save them. Of course the answer is no. Explicit faith is necessary in these Dogmas. That's what Jesus taught explicitly and that's what the Magisterium teaches explicitly.

Just to clarify my previous post, I am talking about an adult who has the use of reason. This would exclude mentally retarded people (whether by birth or accident), people below the age of reason, or any other case of humans who lack the use of reason.
In the case of these, water baptism would be all that is needed. Baptism is called the sacrament of faith, so these individuals would receive the faith through the sacrament.

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God..."

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”

SJB · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2013, 07:12:26 AM »

Quote from: StCeciliasGirl

Quote from: SJB

One must have supernatural faith to be saved. That faith must be explicit in a certain minimum way yet it is likely implicit over a broad range of articles of the faith.

The baptized infant has the infused virtue of faith, yet his faith isn't explicit in the sense you might be referring to. Every Catholic has implicit faith in all dogmas of which he may be unaware.

Where did you get your ideas about what implicit means?

A priest, regarding a Catholic who was brain damaged in an accident, and who after the accident didn't pray or exhibit any outward signs of the faith (her brain was scrambled pretty good; she had no recollection about Church, the Holy Mother, her scapular, the Rosary, etc); but before her accident, she had been very faithful. (Catholic school, uni, everything!)

Plus, our parish is filled with mostly old people, and some get depressed and stop coming to Mass or even saying their Rosary. Not sure if it's Alzheimer's or what, and many octogenarians are there and are fine (lucid), so I find it disturbing to see an elderly person forget the Faith. I was told because their minds are going or gone, they still have faith deep down, even if it doesn't seem that way. Like a baby.

Is that right? (When I would try to get a group of ladies to go visit with the homebound and say the Rosary with her, the homebound lady might get angry, or want to do something else. The priest at that time said to respect her wishes, and that she was covered.) If it's not right, I need to know.

No, I believe you are describing the loss of the use of reason.

SJB · « **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2013, 07:49:33 AM »

Quote

As the first post states, this was about whether implicit faith in the basic dogmas of the Church by a person not Baptized, was enough to save them. Of course the answer is no. Explicit faith is necessary in these Dogmas. That's what Jesus taught explicitly and that's what the Magisterium teaches explicitly.

This is what the "first post" asked:

"Is there an official and precise definition as to what "implicit faith" means with regard to the Trinity, Incarnation, Baptism, the Church etc.?"

The common opinion is that explicit faith is required in the following:

(1) the existence of a single God, (2) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked, (3) the triune nature of God and (4) 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 while this view is not condemned, the contrary doctrine is preferred.

What Issac is saying is something else; that the sacrament of Baptism is also required in all cases. He condemns the more recent theologians for their acceptance less than 4 explict articles yet himself adds something.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2013, 09:09:28 AM »

One must have supernatural faith in order to be saved. This can be acquired without water baptism. But anyone who knows that water baptism is necessary by necessity of precept in order to be cleansed or Original Sin but either refuses to be baptized or culpably and needlessly puts off baptism will be damned.

Jehanne · « **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2013, 11:24:58 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
As the first post states, this was about whether implicit faith in the basic dogmas of the Church by a person not Baptized, was enough to save them. Of course the answer is no. Explicit faith is necessary in these Dogmas. That's what Jesus taught explicitly and that's what the Magisterium teaches explicitly.

This is what the "first post" asked:

"Is there an official and precise definition as to what "implicit faith" means with regard to the Trinity, Incarnation, Baptism, the Church etc.?"

The common opinion is that explicit faith is required in the following:

(1) the existence of a single God, (2) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked, (3) the triune nature of God and (4) 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 while this view is not condemned, the contrary doctrine is preferred.

What Issac is saying is something else; that the sacrament of Baptism is also required in all cases. He condemns the more recent theologians for their acceptance less than 4 explict articles yet himself adds something.

What about the pagans who were living at the time of Jesus Christ?

SJB · « **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2013, 01:13:30 PM »

Quote

What about the pagans who were living at the time of Jesus Christ?

What specifically are you asking?

Jehanne · « **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2013, 01:59:53 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
What about the pagans who were living at the time of Jesus Christ?

What specifically are you asking?

If a pagan living in 25 AD was in a state of grace via implicit faith, would that individual have fallen from grace on the Day of Pentecost?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2013, 02:35:41 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Quote
What about the pagans who were living at the time of Jesus Christ?

What specifically are you asking?

If a pagan living in 25 AD was in a state of grace via implicit faith, would that individual have fallen from grace on the Day of Pentecost?

Would the following apply to your question:

Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only Ark of salvation, and that the one who does not enter it is going to perish in the deluge. But, nevertheless, we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that [ignorance] be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to indicate the extent of such [invincible] ignorance according to the nature and the variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things? For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold most firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. It is wrong to push our inquiries further than this. (SINGULARI QUADAM, Pope Pius IX)

The person who is invincibly ignorant of the true religion, and who sedulously obeys the natural law, lives an honest and upright life, and is prepared to obey God, can be saved through the workings of divine light and grace. (Father Fenton)

You answer the questions:

Was he invincibly ignorant of the true religion?

Did he persevere in obeying the natural law?

Did he live an honest and upright life?

Was he prepared to obey God?

If the Pagan did all these things it was possible for him to be saved. If not it was not possible.

Cathedra · « **Reply #23 on:** July 23, 2013, 11:13:10 PM »

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

Implicit faith in regards to invincible ignorance, is a lie and in no way is a means or way to gain salvation. One need not look any farther than words of Scripture.

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”

John 3:36: “He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

John 17:3: “Now this is life everlasting, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

John 8:23-24: “And he said to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore, I said to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.”

John 14:6: “Jesus saith to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”

John 10:14: “I am the good shepherd, and I know mine, and mine know me.”

John 10:16: “And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.”

John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”

Pretty clear isn't it? Only those who believe in Him or know him, have everlasting life. He is the only way to the Father. Only those who hear His voice will be saved and if a person does not hear His Voice, they are not of the Truth.
This implicit faith novelty is contrary to Scripture. It never says that if one is ignorant of the Gospel but leads a "good" life, they can attain salvation. Instead, Scripture says the exact opposite as shown above.
The Magisterium and Scripture Teaches that EXPLICIT Faith must be had to gain salvation.

How is it then that the Protocol 122/49 comes along, and says that someone in invincible ignorance can be saved by implicit faith, and the Church does nothing to correct or explain this?

The website that was linked to in the first posts clearly shows that this Protocol didn't even correctly say what Pope Pius XII actually said in Mystici Corporis Christi, in fact it distorted what he actually said.

Cathedra · « **Reply #24 on:** July 23, 2013, 11:18:46 PM »

Quote from: SJB

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

Is it possible to know what this number may be? Or any kind of estimate? How many were in the majority and how many in the minority?

Cathedra · « **Reply #25 on:** July 23, 2013, 11:22:59 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

...water baptism is necessary by necessity of precept in order to be cleansed or Original Sin...

Where has the Church taught this? That the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of precept like Confession and going to Mass are?

Cathedra · « **Reply #26 on:** July 23, 2013, 11:25:17 PM »

Correction:

I said, "The website that was linked to in the first posts clearly shows that this Protocol didn't even correctly say what Pope Pius XII actually said in Mystici Corporis Christi, in fact it distorted what he actually said."

But actually that was in another thread, not on this one.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #27 on:** July 24, 2013, 07:06:13 AM »

Quote from: Cathedra

Quote from: Lover of Truth
...water baptism is necessary by necessity of precept in order to be cleansed or Original Sin...

Where has the Church taught this? That the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of precept like Confession and going to Mass are?

This simply means that Christ commanded it, but it is not by intrinsic necessity. The Church teaches it many places where in the same paragraph will say that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-members can be saved.

An example would be that eating from the tree is not a mortal sin by intrinsic necessity, but if God told you not to or you would die the death then it becomes a mortal sin by Divine Precept. But the willful murder of the innocent is a mortal sin by intrinsic necessity. It goes against Divine nature itself.

Cathedra · « **Reply #28 on:** July 24, 2013, 07:20:56 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

This simply means that Christ commanded it, but it is not by intrinsic necessity. The Church teaches it many places where in the same paragraph will say that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-members can be saved.

An example would be that eating from the tree is not a mortal sin by intrinsic necessity, but if God told you not to or you would die the death then it becomes a mortal sin by Divine Precept. But the willful murder of the innocent is a mortal sin by intrinsic necessity. It goes against Divine nature itself.

Yeah, BOD/BOB.

Of course i know that there has been the mention of these two as substitutes but i was just wondering if there was any place where someone said it was only necessary by precept because i have never seen that word used. I have seen it for the things i told you and many other things but never for baptism.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #29 on:** July 24, 2013, 07:43:48 AM »

Quote from: Cathedra

Quote from: Lover of Truth
This simply means that Christ commanded it, but it is not by intrinsic necessity. The Church teaches it many places where in the same paragraph will say that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-members can be saved.

An example would be that eating from the tree is not a mortal sin by intrinsic necessity, but if God told you not to or you would die the death then it becomes a mortal sin by Divine Precept. But the willful murder of the innocent is a mortal sin by intrinsic necessity. It goes against Divine nature itself.

Yeah, BOD/BOB.

Of course i know that there has been the mention of these two as substitutes but i was just wondering if there was any place where someone said it was only necessary by precept because i have never seen that word used. I have seen it for the things i told you and many other things but never for baptism.

I will get you quotes when I get time. But for now you should be able to see the difference between intrinsic necessity and a divine precept. Water is not necessary to cleanse the soul of Original Sin by intrinsic necessity. But it is intrinsically necessary for the soul to be cleanses of Original Sin in order for it to obtain the Beatific Vision. God does the cleansing with or without the water. But Jesus Christ did in fact make this command, so it is indeed necessary, with a necessity of precept (the command of Christ), and those who are aware (or culpably unaware) of this precept and refuse to follow it they will be damned.

Where ever the Church has taught that non-members can be saved within the Church it is implied that those not baptized with water can be saved within the Church (they do not add the qualification "so long as they were validly baptized by someone somewhere" it is simply that non-members can be saved within the Church).

But just having an understanding of what a precept is over intrinsic necessity helps. God commanded the Israelites to be circuмcised in order to be saved. But this was certainly not necessary by intrinsic necessity but simply because God imposed it on them. Once they were aware of this command they were obliged to follow it. He also imposed about 612 precepts on them, many of which would appear unnecessary to us and are not imposed on us now.