Well, wow. Thanks Hobbledehoy for the excellent scans.
I've avoided posting in this thread so far, but anyway. Bowler, I agree with you as you know, on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. That position cannot be condemned, and it is still the majority opinion, not only among Doctors and Saints, where it is practically unanimous, but even among theologians, even after the Holy Office Letter, as of around 1950. More on this in a moment, but, I do not think you do yourself or the position any favors by being insulting, condescending or rude toward Ambrose, SJB, Hobbledehoy and others, all of whom are excellent and intelligent posters in their own right. You are arguing from a position of strength, so why do you want to be mean and uncharitable? I think you are used to arguing from a position of weakness, as I do not know what else to make of you needlessly insulting those who hold the opposite view.
Don't get me wrong, you post much useful material, you make good points, but, if I may say so without you taking it in the wrong way, you argue too unreasonably for anyone to take your arguments seriously, which is unfortunate, because they have merit.
Actually, PereJoseph, the view of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, also that of St. Robert, St. Bernard and other Doctors, that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, was not condemned by the Holy Office Letter.
Both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus taught implicit desire for baptism, but not implicit faith in Christ. The Holy Office Letter, on the question of implicit faith, declared nothing. Msgr. Fenton helpfully notes,
...
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
The Athanasian Creed also does have weight, but some think it declares a mere necessity of precept, not one of means when it declares faith in the Trinity and Incarnation necessary for salvation. St. Alphonsus considers the question,
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.
Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…
Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion…
Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.
Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, ‘But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.’ They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire…”
So in following the history of this disagreement among the teachers of the faith in the Church, one can see for oneself, I think, that explicit faith is the better supported teaching. Therefore, we who are students learning the faith ought to incline to holding it ourself, since the authority of Doctors is preferable by far to those who are not.
In case someone doesn't want to read all that, the gist of it is summarized thus,
‘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.’
It is true many excellent and reputed teachers, like Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, Tanqueray, Scheeben, are either equivocal in not taking a position on explicit and implicit faith in Christ or favor the latter, but all of them clearly express that as an opinion and are well aware the contrary is taught and held in the Church as well.
John of St. Thomas is aligned with us in supporting the following proposition as probable. The medial necessity we have analyzed as binding per se may not always be verified. It is probable that exception may occur in territories where the Gospel has not been sufficiently preached. This, however, is per accidens. It’s ‘an exception that proves the rule.’ For this reason the rule is couched in a manner that provides for it, through the modifying phrase: ‘After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel.’ ... An infidel swelling among Mohammedans, for instance, and habitually doing what his conscience judges to be right, may have no better help than an interior inspiration to keep good. He may have no knowledge whatever of revelation strictly so called, nor of an immediate intervention bordering on the miraculous. He simply follows along that traces of a lost revelation that still survive, and trusts in a God ‘who is, and who rewards.’ Implicitly the infidel would be making room for faith in Christ ...
We may join with the Salmanticenses (De Fide, n. 79) and Suarez in maintaining that ‘it is possible for a catechumen to have had nothing proposed to him for belief but God, the supernatural author and end of man. No explicit knowledge of Christ the Lord has reached his ears. Nevertheless, the catechumen conceives a definite faith in God as his supernatural author and supernatural end, not believing explicitly in Christ of whom he has never heard. For the fact that his new faith is firm in God as supernatural beginning and end, he is capable of loving God through charity, and therefore may be justified. Therefore, under the New Law, it is only per accidens, that is, a pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification without having explicit faith in Christ.’
So Fr. Garrigou Lagrange points out he holds Suarez' opinion, which was the minority even in its day.
It is better, then, to respond with the distinction between necessity in re and in voto; thus, no one can be saved who does not enter this church of Christ either in reality or at least in wish and desire. That is how Bellarmine responds. Now it is obvious that no one is actually in this church without being baptized, and yet he can be saved, because just as the desire of baptism can suffice, so also the desire of entering the church. Now we are saying the same thing with regard to anyone who has faith in God, and sincere repentance for sin, but who is not baptized, whether he has arrived at explicit or only implicit faith in Christ. For, with implicit faith in Christ he can have an implicit desire for baptism…”
St. Robert, like St. Bernard and the other great medieval scholastics and Doctors in the ages of the faith all spoke of the necessity of explicit faith in Christ, even along with implicit desire for baptism.
Coming back to explicit faith, if I remember correctly, this is how Cornelius Lapide also exegetes Heb 11:6, not as being faith by itself, but as being a good disposition in response to which God enlightens the sincerely seeking soul about Christ with the light of faith. That was how most theologians read Pius IX as well, some supernatural revelation happening at least by an internal illumination. Note well that Fr. Michael Mueller, full at once of both evangelistic zeal and holy obedience, as every true missionary of Christ must be, never published an article or other piece of literature without receiving the express approval of two of his Redemptorist superiors, so that all that he wrote is fully in accord with the teaching of the Church in his day. Msgr. Fenton was cited earlier saying the same thing about explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. So this is unbroken Tradition right from the Fathers and Doctors to the present day, leaving aside the Council and its aftermath for now.
So, Ambrose is right in saying the Church has never defined dogmatically what must be explicitly believed, but the more common opinion among the Saints, Doctors and other authorities of great weight is that explicit belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ is required, which the Holy Office Letter did not in any way contradict, but simply sidestepped without pronouncing anything on. So, PereJoseph, I agree with you very much we must always seek to conform with and submit our intellect and will to Holy Mother Church, but clearly, then, such conformity with and submission to the mind of the Church therefore does not and cannot require us to abandon this and arguably rather in fact requires us to hold the same.
Topic: Consider the Following (Read 13734 times)