I retract saying that Mgr. Fenton was a liar.  He might have just exaggerated to make his at least materially-heretical point.  But considering that his writings all revolve around trying to prove salvation despite invincible ignorance, due to implicit faith, it is hard not to accuse him of malice aforethought.

Mgr. Fenton always bruited about that he was restoring the EENS dogma, but he taught exactly the same thing as all of those who had rendered it meaningless.  That there were many who had rendered the EENS dogma meaningless were the hypocritical words of Pius XII himself, Caminus, in Humani Generis, so if you disagree with me that this is a heresy, how do you explain that your Pope essentially said as much himself in one of his double-minded moments?  I say double-minded because Pius XII himself rendered it meaningless by excommunicating Father Feeney instead of any one of the innumerable pestiferous ranks of blatantly heretical theologians who swarmed around at that time, as well as being the first Pope or "Pope" to teach the invincible ignorance idea himself -- hopefully in a fallible capacity.  

Caminus said:

"No one has ever asserted that such a man visibly separated from the Catholic Church as a Jєωs, Muslim, Pagan, etc. can be saved."

Let me guess, you are saying that they are not saved "as" a Jєω, Muslim, pagan, etc. but that they are saved despite being a Jєω, Muslim, pagan, etc., even if they die in a state where they are rejecting Christ.  

If you really have the Catholic doctrine, invincible ignorance people, if your theory is legit and orthodox, why don't you just come out and say it?  Why are you ashamed of it?  Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay aren't ashamed of it.  They are shameless heretics.  I guess it shows a little hope for you that you are obviously embarrassed about your own untenable theories, but it's hard to argue with a shadow that doesn't even know what it believes.  And no idea could be more shadowy than that someone is joined in voto membership to the Catholic Church by a desire they don't even know they possess.  

Caminus said:

It doesn't even touch the presumption of the judgment according to the external forum.  What they are postulating is a theoretical circuмstance prescinding from all other accidental considerations."

When someone dies as a Jєω, pagan, heretic, etc. who expresses no desire to be Catholic, whether invincibly ignorant or not, we MUST judge and presume they are damned.  That is dogma.  I'm not interested in prescinding anything or engaging in casuistry.  Any theory that goes beyond that is not permissible, which is why Pius IX said it is not lawful to proceed further in inquiry.

Caminus said:

What Msgr. Fenton referred to was that the doctrine of implicit desire was recognized at the time.

Yes, and that is either a lie or exaggeration because implicit desire was nowhere close to a doctrine at that time, although I see you are trying to diminish the sense of the word "doctrine." You are trying to downgrade "doctrine" to a synonym for "tenet" or "opinion."

No.  What Mgr. Fenton SAID was that it was a doctrine i.e. DOGMA that at the time of the Council of Florence that the pagans, Jєωs, heretics and schismatics Florence refers to could be saved by an implicit desire, thus granting an imaginary exemption from the hellfire promised by that decree.  One throwaway comment by St. Thomas does not a doctrine make.  Not only that, but Fenton is extrapolating his own modern idea of implicit faith from St. Thomas' idea of implicit baptism of desire, and then forcing it by violence onto the Fathers of Florence, who had a theology utterly alien to Fenton's.

I agree that we cannot read decrees literally as the Feeneyites do, but the sense of the Council of Florence quite clearly does not accommodate invincible ignorance or salvation in false religions, nor was it taken in that sense at the time, as you can see in that the invincible ignorance heresy POST-DATED Florence.  

The Fathers of the Church unanimously held that you must hear the Gospel to be saved.  This is also what is meant by the various decrees saying that no one is saved outside the Catholic faith.  Does someone in invincible ignorance have the Catholic faith?  Forget about outside the Chuch there's no salvation; outside the Catholic faith there is no salvation.

Also, Ladislaus correctly shows that the speculation of implicit baptism of desire, which was pretty much limited to this aforementioned one throwaway comment of St. Thomas, IS NOT the same as what people are now calling the doctrine of implicit faith.  Fenton and many others yoke the two together, to try to make it look like this is a natural revelation of an idea that can be traced back to the Apostles, which is bunk.  Even this limited idea of implicit baptism of desire was by no means a "doctrine" at the time of the Council of Florence.  While St. Thomas' theory of limbo took off, who else do you know of that followed him on implicit baptism of desire in the next couple centuries?  

St. Thomas' teaching on implicit baptism of desire, if you can even call it that, was an erroneous interpretation of the example of Cornelius, and that's it, which unfortunately a bunch of sentimentalists and/or occult heretics seized on to try to drive open a wedge through which they can save heathens, an offense to the Catholic faith.  The Church did not want to openly embarrass the eminent men who taught this error, so they allowed it to rage unchecked -- and now look at where we are.  But St. Thomas himself said explicit faith was necessary and would be horrified if he could see how people have distorted his innocent mistake into a plague of epidemic proportions.

Caminus said:

On the other hand, firstly, Newman was referring to the doctrine of invincile ignorance, which is nothing more than a postulate of moral theology.  Secondly, what he asserted was that the Pope was the first Pope to teach the doctrine formally and authoritatively.  So on two counts your accusations of contradiction fall flat.  

What I was trying to show is that Mgr. Fenton is the only theologian I know of who dares to try to yoke together Florence with the modern, heretical pre-VII version of EENS, salvation by implicit faith, by somehow imputing these relatively modern ideas to  the Council Fathers at Florence.  Yes, he only says that they were teaching "implicit desire" -- ridiculous in itself -- and not implicit faith.  But in the context of his book, the two are intertwined.

Newman, on the other hand, knew that these ideas caught fire with certain Jesuits of the 16th century, and hence justified them as a sort of development of doctrine or "modification" as he puts it.  Other theologians admit there has been a radical break with the past and with what was taught at Florence, which they pretend was just part of the medieval mindset that has been superseded, rather than a fundamental article of faith.

Fenton knows that this won't satisfy certain Catholic minds who know that dogmas don't change, so he tries to establish a red thread from Florence to Pius XII to make them appear consistent with each other when they are not.  That is the whole strategy of his book.

You need to demonstrate how the doctrine of implicit faith denies a dogma.  Because as it stands, it is rather attempting to affirm the necessity of faith itself.  Those orthodox theologians who entertained this opinion based themselves on St. Paul who said that in order to come to God one must at least supernaturally believe that God is and is a rewarder.  They deduce from this an implied faith in Christ.  Whether or not such a deduction is warranted is another question, but the point is that they were attempting to preserve faith's necessity while inquiring about cases in the extreme.  That's all, nothing more.  So in light of this, you need to drop the shrill, insulting name-calling of good and holy prelates and theologians and start demonstrating how this affirmation is actually a denial of dogma.  Tell us, how is saying that something implies something else is actually a denial thereof, Mr. Double-Mindedness?    

Well, let's have it Mike.  

"... to refer to Pius XII because I have not decided if he is an anti-pope or not"

We are on the edge of our pews waiting for The Pronouncement.
 

 

I enjoyed the "diarrhea of the mouth" quip.

I on the other hand feel that it was completely uncalled for and contrary to fraternal charity.

Could we please stop beating up on Raoul?  There's really no need for that.  Disagree with him and charitably rebuke him if you must, but the insults serve no purpose either in terms of helping to correct him where he might be mistaken or in terms of building the virtue of charity in your own souls.

Consult WHICH priest, Emerentiana?  You're oversimplifying the problem.  Perhaps if he were to consult the same priest you consult, he might end up with the same positions you hold.  Otherwise, there are probably dozens of permutations of opinions on various theological issues among the "priests".

Are you and Caminus (and I) not also acting as "lay theologians" by posting on this forum?  Or are we all just trying to find our way in a terrible crisis?  Since the shepherd has been struck, the sheep are now inevitably scattered.

You laud Carminus for his "accurate defense of the faith".  How is Caminus not also one of these "lay theologians".  You praise him because he defends the same positions or theological opinions you happen to uphold.  And, in pronouncing his defense of the Faith to be "accurate", you yourself are acting as if you can stand in judgment of what's accurate and what isn't in your own capacity as lay theologian.