Author Topic: Minimum of Explicit Truths Necessary for Belief (Read 863 times)

trad123 · « **on:** September 08, 2010, 09:06:43 PM »

From the Holy Office Letter:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

Quote

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him"

Mons. Fenton comments on this:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=324

Quote

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.”

Still, the teaching of the letter must be seen against the backdrop of the rest of Catholic doctrine. And it is definitely a part of the Catholic doctrine that certain basic revealed truths must be accepted and believed explicitly, even though other teachings contained in the deposit of faith may, under certain circuмstances, be believed with only an implicit faith. True and supernatural faith, we must remember, is not a mere readiness to believe, but an actual belief, but an actual belief, the actual acceptance as certainly true of definite teachings which have actually been revealed supernaturally by God to man.11 Furthermore, this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man.

As to those who hold the minimum to be the first 2 truths, while believing the other 2 implicitly--I have no idea where this originated from. However, I think this school of thought came to be before the 1900's.

I think one of the most strongest reasons for rejecting that, besides declarations from the Church, is that the first two doctrines can be known through natural reason alone, but that's not supernatural faith. As Mons. Fenton says, it's believing revealed statements on the authority of God, and it's impossible for anyone to learn of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ through purely natural reason.

trad123 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 09, 2010, 12:36:07 AM »

DecemRationis, you mention in another thread:

Quote

When one reads Pius IX's statement that God will not allow someone who lacks "voluntary fault" to suffer everlasting punishment, one can conclude only one of two things with regard to the Jєω or Muslim who denies Christ: that denial is the product of some fault on their part (eliminating their "good faith"), or God will not let them die in that error if they in fact have "good faith," and they will then be illumined by the Holy Ghost before death to accept Our Savior as both God and man.

In looking at his encyclical here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm

Quote

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.

I agree with that interpretation, and it agrees with what St. Thomas taught:

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer14.htm

Quote

Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)

And articles 7 & 8: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7

DecemRationis · « **Reply #2 on:** September 10, 2010, 02:13:07 PM »

Trad,

Thank you for providing those sources . . . a great resource.

Quote

I think one of the most strongest reasons for rejecting that, besides declarations from the Church, is that the first two doctrines can be known through natural reason alone, but that's not supernatural faith. As Mons. Fenton says, it's believing revealed statements on the authority of God, and it's impossible for anyone to learn of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ through purely natural reason.

That's a very astute observation. At least as to half of it, believing that God is. Of course, St. Paul's letter to the Romans backs you up. But . . . what about God as rewarder? Can one gather that from "natural reason" alone?

DR

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2010, 06:08:21 PM »

See also:

CLEMENT XI, Concerning Truths which Necessarily Must be Explicitly Believed * [Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703]

Denz. 1349a (Denz.-Schon. 2380 ): Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.

Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

[Response of the Sacred Office, May 10, 1703]

Denz. 1349b (Denz.-Schon. 2381): Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder'; [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.

Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma14.php

http://www.catho.org/9.php?d=byc#cug