We all agree that explicit Faith i.e. a supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation. This Faith also must be based upon God revealing.
Also most people say above fourteen or so can make basic distinctions once they are explained to them so long as they are objective and unbiased.
I have mentioned before that there are different types of necessities.
1. A necessity of precept.
2. A necessity of means which are of the two types below
a. of relative necessity
b. of absolute or intrinsic necessity.
We agree that a supernatural faith based upon God revealing is absolutely necessary for salvation to be possible. There is no such thing as faith by desire.
We would all agree that all Catholics must believe in God and that He rewards and punishes and in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity and that anyone who rejects any of this teachings cannot be saved.
I have said this before and it has been conveniently ignored in regards whether belief in at least two or all four are absolutely necessary for all people in all circuмstances in order to have a supernatural faith that I accept whatever the Church teaches on the issue.
I have not seen where it has been defined what the minimal necessary qualifications of belief are in order to have a supernatural faith.
What I have learned, and this right up until V2 as late as I'm willing to look is that the issue had not been settled yet. This was stated by Monsignor Fenton in 1958 after having researched all that was taught on the issue in their original languages. This was implied in the authoritative Suprema haec letter with infallible teachings which is the clearest teaching on BOD to date.
I sit at the feet of the masters and accept what they teach. I don't stand over them and call them erroneous. I do not define that which has not been defined. I do not put into heaven those who do not belong nor keep out those who do belong.
Some theologians teach that two truths must be believed with a necessity of means and others teach that four must be believed. Still others teach that four are only required in places where the Gospel has been preached but only two are required in other places. It all depends on how God willed it. He could have willed to require explicit faith in all four truths or only in two, but in either case He will infallibly grant to each soul the opportunity to arrive at explicit faith in these 2 or 4 truths as the case may be. In the Old Testament, clearly explicit faith in the Trinity was not required.
As far as I know intrinsic necessity applies to whatever truths were so basic that faith would be impossible without them. For example, one clearly cannot have any virtue of faith whatsoever if he did not even believe that God exists, since faith is a firm assent of the intellect to the truths revealed by God. How could one accept a truth revealed by a God whom he denies exists?
The necessity of believing all 4 truths may still be by necessity of means even though not through intrinsic necessity. Baptism is a necessary means of salvation, but it is a relative necessity, i.e. it is a necessary means because God has willed it to be so; it is a means -- not merely a precept -- but a means because willed by God as a means. However, it is not intrinsically necessary so that God could never grant salvation without it. He can make exceptions to His own plan of salvation, i.e. to the ordinary means: Baptism. Similarly, Mary is necessary for our salvation as a necessary means of obtaining grace, but this is a relative necessity, i.e. she is a necessary means of getting to heaven because God has willed it to be so. Her intercession is not intrinsically or absolutely necessary as St. Louis de Montfort explains in True Devotion. However, God makes no exception to the need for Mary's intercession to get to Heaven; He does make exception to the need for Baptism, and possibly He makes exception to the need to know the Incarnation and Trinity (if we follow the opinion of some theologians).
Remember if the issue is not settled I do not pretend to settle it myself. I do not insist on what has not been defined or even authoritatively clarified. I would accept the more probable opinion if it was authoritatively stated that there was a more probable opinion. I accept all the Church teaches and reject nothing she teaches. There is no personal preference with me or bias as there is with those who basically spit on the authorized teachers of the faith when what they teach goes against their preconceived notions and what they have been brainwashed to believe in their reaction to the heresy of universal salvation.
The Church in teaching BOD keeps God's Justice and Mercy intact. He does not damn that person that is justified by desire and dies guilty of no mortal sin. He does not save the member of the Catholic Church who dies in a state of mortal sin. This is elementary. It is elementary that a supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation. I don't pretend to define the minimal qualifications necessary for supernatural Faith. I accept whatever the Church teaches. The feeneyites who side with the excommunicated and the angry lay boys will condemn me for this. But I am in most excellent company and I hope the Sainted Fathers, Doctors and any theologian or pope who taught me what I believe on the issue is praying for me in heaven right now. I do not rely on myself to settle thorny issues. It takes a humongous pride to declare all the above mentioned authorities to be in error on the issue of BOD.
The closest the Church has ever come to answering whether all four beliefs were necessary was in the reply of a Roman Congregation that said one cannot baptize even a dying person without first instructing them in all four truths. However, theologians agree that this reply was not a definitive answer to the debate but only a norm for practice.
Obviously it is intrinsically or absolutely necessary to die within the Church for salvation to be possible.
Further in order to respond to the Feeneyites objection that we can ignore a letter from the holy office because it is not infallible, to reiterate once again that the minimum amount of articles necessary for one to have the supernatural Faith necessary for salvation to be possible, and whether Jєωs, Muslims and pagans can be saved I answer as follows:
The "authority" who accepts Suprema Haec Sacra included everyone in the Catholic Church at the time except for Fr. Feeney and his followers - Fenton, for example, certainly accepted it, and why shouldn't he? It was a letter from the Holy Office, whose head is the Pope, and Pius XII himself approved the explanation given. All Catholics are obliged to accept authoritative docuмents, which the letter certainly is, with an interior ascent. To refuse to believe it would be a mortal sin. Further the entire letter is laced with infallible teachings from beginning begging to end in its doctrinal section. For instance the letter teaches that their is no salvation outside the Church. Would the Feeneyites have us reject this teaching because it is "not infallible"?
The question is whether it is possible for Jєωs, Muslims, and pagans to possess the virtue of Faith. I do not see how it is possible, but from what I recall Bishop Sanborn saying, this was something that was still being disputed among theologians, at least as far as the details. Please read Fr. Riccardo Lombardi, "The Salvation of the Unbeliever" (1956) and Fr. Maurice Emynian, "The Theology of Salvation" (1960), for a deeper understanding of this issue. Oftentimes these questions are quite thorny and not so easily resolved. There is a reason why the Church commissions specially trained theologians and not just anyone to tackle such questions.
The Suprema Haec Sacra does not say that Jєωs, Muslims, or pagans can be saved. On the contrary, it suggests that they cannot, inasmuch as it says that supernatural Faith is required for an implicit desire for baptism.
There is NO question that the virtue of Faith is necessary by an absolute i.e. intrinsic necessity of means. That is indisputable.
Lay people are quite welcome to study the distinctions but should not come to definitive conclusions and "authoritatively" bind on others their personal conclusion on issues that have not been settled by the Church such as whether there are two or four minimal beliefs we must have in order to have supernatural Faith.
I tend to believe all four beliefs are necessary but I do not insist others believe what has not been definitively settled in an authoritative way.
To summarize, I accept whatever the Church teaches on the issue. I believe a supernatural Faith and perfect charity are intrinsically necessary for salvation to be possible. I do not pretend to settle what the approved theologians did not settle. For this the Feeneyites will condemn and claim "I" teach that anyone can be saved apart from supernatural faith or that "I" "insist" that one only has to believe two basic revelations in order to have a supernatural faith (when in fact I'm inclined more to go with the four). They will call me all sorts of names and thumb me down for this. I eat this merit like candy because the constant insults, calumny an detractions are a great boon to my soul and it is not "me" insisting on anything. The Feeneyites get mad when I quote the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes on the issue because it puts their heresy in the true light. It is them that are forced to either redefine Justification or insist on the "no salvation apart from water error" or claim Trent teaches the opposite of what it teaches. It is they who claim to interpret the Bible and the Councils better than the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes did. It is these holy scholars that they disparage as I am repeatedly on record stating that I accept what they teach on the issue. If I am condemned for that it speaks more to those who do the condemning than the ones condemned. I very much want to be condemned in their company.
Topic: What Lover of Truth Believes about Salvation of non-Catholics (Read 3287 times)