Author Topic: "Implicit Faith" Heretical? (Read 3580 times)

DecemRationis · « **on:** June 05, 2011, 09:27:09 AM »

Quote

Catechism of Catholic Church

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Compendium of the Catechism

262. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?

1258-1261
1281-1283

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

I am thinking that the CCC is heretical is saying one can be saved "without knowing Christ." St. Thomas, for example, himself taught that in these days, after the promulgation of the Gospel, all men must have explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation to be saved.

In any event, in discussions with others, I have referred to the Athanasian Creed. In every case I believe - I don't remember a single argument or attempt to avoid the point - my "opponent" did not address the argument for explicit faith in Christ and the Catholic faith from the AC, and ignored it.

People quibble and "redefine" terms with regard to the Bull Cantate Domino - such as the definition of Jєω and Pagan therein - but the AC corners them in no uncertain terms, and they simply ignore the "inconvenience" of addressing it.

I have not heard any dispute that the AC is infallible. I have not heard anyone offer any type of articulated evasion of its clear and straightforward, infallible terms. We all know what it says, but I print it here again:

Quote

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

The CE says this about the "damnatory" or "miniatory" clauses (no salvation without the Catholic faith) of the AC:

Quote

The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths. They are but the credal equivalent of Our Lord's words: "He that believeth not shall be condemned", and apply, as is evident, only to the culpable and wilful rejection of Christ's words and teachings. The absolute necessity of accepting the revealed word of God, under the stern penalties here threatened, is so intolerable to a powerful class in the Anglican church, that frequent attempts have been made to eliminate the Creed from the public services of that Church. The Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury has already affirmed that these clauses, in their prima facie meaning, go beyond what is warranted by Holy Scripture. In view of the words of Our Lord quoted above, there should be nothing startling in the statement of our duty to believe what we know is the testimony and teaching of Christ, nor in the serious sin we commit in wilfully refusing to accept it, nor, finally, in the punishments that will be inflicted on those who culpably persist in their sin. It is just this last that the damnatory clauses proclaim. From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundamental truths with which it deals, is all we need to know.

The CE simply asserts that is "evident" that this only applies to a culpable or willful rejection. No, it is not "evident." St. Thomas did not think it evident; St. Augustine did not think it "evident" - and they could see pretty well. The traditional teaching of the millenia is that faith, regardless of one's culpability in lacking it, is necessary to remove, for example, the taint of original sin, and that while one may not be guilty of not having this faith if one hasn't heard the gospel, the lack of the faith still prevents salvation to those who lack it, and who need it (as all do) for salvation. And, as St. Thomas and St. Augustine teach, in the age of the New Covenant, one must have explicit faith in Christ. The AC embodies this.

I have also argued that Trent pointed out this difference in the economy of faith since the promulgation of the gospel, and that indeed that is why the translation to justification since "cannot be effected" without baptism or the desire for the same, which "desire" must include explicit faith in Christ, otherwise there's no difference between those who, like Adam (and one person I discussed this with mentioned Adam's "implicit" faith in Christ in "clinging to his wife," which St. Thomas mentioned as example of how the need for faith in Christ was met implicitly before the promulgation of the gospel), lived before the gospel promulgation, and those living now, since.

Quote

Council of Trent, Session VI

CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Any observations as to the application of the AC and the lack of the Catholic faith as only applying to the "culpable," or on the issue of the sufficiency of "implicit faith" in Christ being sufficient since the promulgation of the Gospel, would be appreciated.

Please cite Magisterial authority for your points, thank you.

JPaul · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2011, 08:41:06 PM »

The CCC is without doubt heretical in numerous places. In the Conciliar church, everyone is saved.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus, Magisterial authority....... "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned". Jesus Christ the Lord

Every man is obliged to use the grace which God gives to all men. And, he is to be dilligent in seeking the truth. A man who is truly seeking God will not be prevented, but by his own fault.

The CCC is a sentimental Judaized book which is poison to a Catholic soul.

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:21:55 PM »

I don't think it is heretical. In fact, the theory tries to affirm something that cannot be affirmed, that a true, supernatural faith can be implicitly contained in some other more general truth. Thus, it is not a denial that divine faith is necessary for salvation, but what constitutes the barest form of it. The question would be then, is it true to say an assent to such and such a truth contains an implied faith in Jesus Christ? An implication is something that is necessarily contained in or derived from something else. Your answer is no, there can be no such thing as an implied faith Christ during the new covenant. This would appear to be Catholic doctrine. But even Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, following Thomas' interpretation of St. Paul, asserted that at very least one needs to believe that God is, and that He is a rewarder and punisher. I do not think this amounts to true supernatural faith, nor do I think St. Thomas asserted it either. One also has to keep in mind the notion of a soul in extremis as opposed to one who lives an ordinary life and neglects both grace and conscience. For the former, there is a minimum of explicit truths to which he must assent with supernatural faith, whereas the latter is condemned as an unbeliever through neglect or some other sin that detained him in ignorance of the true faith even though he may have adhered explicitly to certain truths of revelation. In the end, he had not true divine faith, but mere human opinion which never saved anyone.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2011, 09:01:44 AM »

I think the only way one can be saved without having true devine faith would be if one was Baptized on their deathbed and didn't know their Faith well yet wanted to become Catholic. So I would say that it is not necessarily heretical to say one can be saved without true devine faith. However, in most cases it would be wrong to say one doesn't need true devine faith.

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2011, 09:13:40 AM »

No, that is not correct. Possessing the theological virtues is absolutely necessary in every single case to attain salvation. It is intrinsically impossible to reach the Beatific Vision without possessing true supernatural faith. The controversy is what is the minimum content and whether it can be implied in something else.

Caminus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2011, 09:17:17 AM »

The problem comes about when theologians prescind from concrete circuмstances. The man who is in the extreme of life is in a profoundly different condition than a man who, while living an ordinary life, neglects the promptings of grace and does not come to possess the Catholic faith even when he believes certain things explicitly. But attempting to posit certain principles based upon exigent circuмstances is simply bad methodology.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2011, 02:13:21 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

No, that is not correct. Possessing the theological virtues is absolutely necessary in every single case to attain salvation. It is intrinsically impossible to reach the Beatific Vision without possessing true supernatural faith. The controversy is what is the minimum content and whether it can be implied in something else.

I guess I should clarify on that. I was under the impression that if one had never known the Catholic faith before but wanted to become Catholic before death, he/she could be saved without grasping a firm understanding of Traditional Catholicism and certain dogma considering they probably wouldn't have much time to do so before death. But I admit that I am no theologian, and am wrong sometimes. Sorry for the mis-understanding. I need to work on being a bit more precise in my posts. Thanks for the correction, Caminus.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2011, 08:20:32 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I think the only way one can be saved without having true devine faith would be if one was Baptized on their deathbed and didn't know their Faith well yet wanted to become Catholic.

Since Caminus has addressed the second part of your post, I shall attempt to address this first part.

If I understand you correctly, in this case wherein the individual receives the Sacrament of Holy Baptism on their death-bed would indeed posses the supernatural virtue of faith, for by means of Holy Baptism the Holy Ghost infuses into the soul the three theological virtues, the infused moral virtues and His seven gifts.

This is why baptized children who die before the age of reason (whereat they begin to be morally responsible for their voluntary acts and thoughts) are regarded by Holy Church as being already in the possession of the Beatific Vision, as can be seen in the funerary rites for children as contained in the Roman Ritual. The Priest is vested in white and the votive Mass of the Angels may be said (never the Requiem Mass the rest of us would get, please God), and the head of the deceased child is wreathed with flowers and accompanied to the cemetery with the chanting of the Canticle of the Three Children Benedicite.

In the hypothetical case you mention, if the person is an adult who has the use of reason, he must consent to be baptized and know the very basic rudiments of the faith (the Apostolic Symbol) if circuмstances forbid a full and proper catechetical instruction. I think that a quick instruction in the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation would suffice in extreme circuмstances (as when the person is about to die at any moment by reason of horrible wounds, or when an army is tearing down the doors and about to shoot everyone in the premises) in order for the person to be baptized quickly with natural water and know the faith he is embracing.

This is why every Catholic should be well instructed in their faith and in the proper procedure for administering emergency Baptism (which even layfolk can do): you never know whose soul you might just save.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** June 09, 2011, 08:41:56 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

The problem comes about when theologians prescind from concrete circuмstances. The man who is in the extreme of life is in a profoundly different condition than a man who, while living an ordinary life, neglects the promptings of grace and does not come to possess the Catholic faith even when he believes certain things explicitly. But attempting to posit certain principles based upon exigent circuмstances is simply bad methodology.

You've been reading too much again :)

This is a forum read by ALL kinds of people -- not a classroom at the Angelicuм.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2011, 09:23:02 PM »

Thanks, Hobble. My mistake.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2011, 12:04:24 AM »

Caminus,

I appreciate your thoughtful post. I understand your point, but question whether a false understanding as to what suffices minimally for the necessary supernatural faith after the advent of Christ has certain untoward implications - for the magisterium of the Conciliar Church.

Do you agree that it is at least erroneous to say that, after the advent of Christ, one can be saved without coming to an explicit faith in Christ before one dies?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2011, 12:42:50 AM »

DR, what constitutes the minimum that must be believed to have supernatural faith is unknown. St. Thomas said belief in Christ was necessary, but later theologians say that the belief need only be implicit. Even St. Thomas said something about implicit faith somewhere.

Someone who has implicit faith DOES have a belief in Christ, you know. It's just an implicit belief in Christ. Just as his membership in the Church is one of desire.

You ask if false understandings of the minimum that must be believed to have supernatural faith have implications for the Magisterium. If the answer is "yes," the implications are caused not by those who believe in implicit faith, but those who deny it i.e. the Feeneyites. It is very possible that, since Pius IX, the idea of implicit faith is a dogma ( it's hard to say ). But the trend over time is definitely towards the idea that belief in a God who is a Rewarder is the minimum that's necessary.

There is an apparent connection in many minds between Vatican II heresy and implicit faith, which almost seems like some kind of "lead-in" to Vatican II. Father Feeney is thus painted as a kind of Cassandra trying to stop the Greeks from accepting the Trojan horse. But when I say this is an "apparent" connection, I use the word advisedly, since "apparent" is not the same as "real."

Actually the two concepts -- implicit faith and Vatican II heresy -- are totally distinct. Implicit faith has been discussed by theologians going back to the Salamanca school and probably before. You could even say it is "implicit" in the very idea of baptism of desire. Vatican II heresy also has deep roots, even deeper roots you might say. These are roots that go right back to Judaization and the mystery of iniquity.

But they are nevertheless two totally different concepts. Implicit faith says that someone who is in invincible ignorance may be disposed to believe in Christ, and may thus be a member of the Church by desire, even without knowing it. Vatican II heresy comes in different forms, for instance, they say or imply that other churches have salvific value in themselves, or are somehow part and parcel of the Catholic Church without knowing it, thus blurring them together, or that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, etc. This is not the same as implicit faith. The concept of implicit faith does not say "A Protestant is saved by the Protestant church." It says "A Protestant may be a Catholic without knowing it, presuming he's never heard of the Catholic Church yet is internally disposed to be a Catholic."

I really don't understand why this bothers some people, or why it used to bother me. People act as if the idea of implicit faith means there is no point to engage in missionary activity, like it sucks the purpose out of going to far-flung, dangerous places and baptizing people. How so? We don't know if two people or two billion people are saved in this way, by being members of the Church by desire only. But we do know that it is an extraordinary way that someone can be saved, and certainly not something to count on.

The point is, God CAN save someone this way if He chooses, but how often does He choose to do it? This is what we don't know and will never know. There is no reason to leave people in ignorance thinking they'll be better off, because we do know that to be baptized is much better than not to be baptized, don't we? Not only do you get the mark on your soul, not only is it a sacrament that makes one an explicit member of the Church, but someone who is baptized has the chance to develop in the faith and is likely to attain a much higher place in heaven than someone who only has implicit faith...

It is better to be baptized, a "duh" statement if there ever was one. This remains true even if God saves a certain number of others -- a number known only to Himself -- without baptism. God does what He does, we do what we can do, which is to spread the faith. If God chooses to save some people in an extraordinary way that doesn't require our intervention, that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and do nothing, because His will dictates that in other circuмstances, in all likelihood MOST circuмstances, He does require our intervention.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #12 on:** June 11, 2011, 12:27:39 PM »

Raoul,

Thanks for the reply. I saw your signature tag, and was particularly hoping you'd weigh in on this.

Can I ask you specifically what convinced you to stop believing "implicit faith" was heretical?

Quote

I really don't understand why this bothers some people, or why it used to bother me.

For me it's a question of truth, and consistency.

To that end, I'll specifically like your thoughts about the Athanasian Creed. I read
it as saying that the Catholic faith is necessary for salvation, and that this necessitates, at a minimum, belief in the Trinity and Incarnation. I believe also that the AC is infallible and can not be contradicted.

Comments?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #13 on:** November 14, 2012, 08:06:34 PM »

Monsignor Joseph Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, February, 1951, pages 124-143:

Quote

The idea that a votum, that is a desire or an intention, of entering the Church can bring a man “within” the Church sufficiently to allow for the possibility of his salvation is one of the dominant factors in recent theological writing on the Church’s necessity. The notion itself is a part of Catholic doctrinal tradition, although this particular terminology, or, to be more exact, the application of this terminology to the thesis that there is no salvation outside the Church, goes back only to the latter part of the sixteenth century, to the time of Stapleton and St. Robert. [57] Now the idea, and to a lesser extent the terminology itself, is definitely a standard part of the scholastic treatment of this thesis.

Likewise, and by force of the very content of Catholic theology, it is standard scholastic teaching that the votum or desire of entering the Catholic Church may be merely implicit and still sufficient to bring a man “within” the Church so as to make his salvation possible. Salvific faith must be explicit on four points. No man can believe in God as he must believe in order to possess the life of sanctifying grace without distinctly acknowledging the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God thus rewards the good and punishes evil, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mystery of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Catholic Church is not one of these facts which must be believed explicitly in salvific faith.

http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=420&sid=18ce7ada68b9a368d56494eea4c56761

bowler · « **Reply #14 on:** November 15, 2012, 04:19:59 PM »

Relative material to the discussion, from someone who does not believe there has ever been anyone whom the Lord has predestinated for water baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them:

St. Augustine: “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)

Quote from: bowler

If God Predestined Some Persons to be Saved by Baptism of Desire, Then:

He also predestined that it would never be revealed infallible for 2000+ years.

He predestined that His dogmatic decrees on EENS should be meaningless, since the Church has infallible declared that only the water baptized are members of the Church (and all who die outside outside of the Church are damned). He predestined that His clear language really does not mean what he said like the 9 dogmas and creeds that say:

- that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil
- nobody at all [/u]is saved
- outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin
-every human creature
-no one at all is saved
-no one can be saved
-none can be saved
- Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.

In other words, not only did God predestine that he would not reveal infallible that some persons will be saved by baptism of desire, but He also predestined to teach us infallible something that says the complete opposite of baptism of desire. If we can't trust God's infallible revealed dogmas, who can we trust, certainly not theological speculations? If the clear language of those dogmas can be twisted to mean the opposite, then nothing is safe.

St. Augustine: “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)

Quote from: bowler

Quote
St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma:
“‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”

Notice that St. Alphonsus affirms that only those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved.

That quote from Alphonsus Ligouri is from the early 1700's. The "more common and truer opinion" of the theologians for more than one century now, is that the explicit belief of these articles is not necessary as a means for salvation. In other words, no longer does a person need to desire explicitely to be baptized, or to be infused by God with the knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation (belief in Jesus Christ), nor do they need to know or want to know anything about being a Catholic. Now a person can be saved by "making an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire", as quoted from a traditionalist bishop.

Dear Nishant,

So much for the "more common and truer opinion" of the theologians. You can keep that theory of yours. I'll stick with dogma and the Providence of God.

God Bless,