Here is a very good explanation of the difference between the BOD of St. Thomas Aquinas (which required explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation) and that of Suarez (and Fr. Garrigou Lagrange) that does not require any belief in those mysteries.

.. 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. ...
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,

Quote from: AER, Dec.1952, Msgr. Fenton, The Holy Office Letter On The Necessity Of The Catholic Church

...

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.... the gist of it is summarized thus,

Quote from: Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, quoting St. Alphonsus

‘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.

Quote from: Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, The Theological Virtues, I: On Faith, “Second part of the third opinion.

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.

Quote from: Francisco Suarez, De fide theologica

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.

Now my simple question to Nishant, PereJoseph, Ambrose, Hobbledehoy and SJB:

Are you strict Thomists, do you restrict your belief in BOD to St. Thomas's teaching? Do you disagree with the more liberal opinion of Fr. Garrigou Lagrange?

The above question has already been answered.

If it has been answered by you, then here is your chance to show me, because I never saw it. Simple answer the two questions.

Quote from: SJB

The above question has already been answered.

If it has been answered by you, then here is your chance to show me, because I never saw it. Simple answer the two questions.

I answered it immediately in the original thread where the question originated. I'm not your nanny, bowler ... go find it yourself.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB

The above question has already been answered.

If it has been answered by you, then here is your chance to show me, because I never saw it. Simple answer the two questions.

I answered it immediately in the original thread where the question originated. I'm not your nanny, bowler ... go find it yourself.

It would have been easier for you to simply type the answer than to send this reponse.

Far easier to clean up after your young children than get them to do it.

Heh. I should have known.

If I did not believe it, Bowler, why did I type out such a post solely to argue in favor of the position? Did you not see after that PereJoseph and Ambrose in that very thread say expressly that they also believed that at a minimum explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation was necessary to be saved, along with St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus et al? I saw SJB say it too, I think, but I'll leave that between you and him.

Yes, I do believe explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. That should be obvious from what I'd said, if you copied my post above, but still don't know where I stand, then I don't know what more to say. I only disagree with the way you usually go about making your case, insulting people who hold the other opinion, which is certainly not going to win any adherents to the position, sorry to say.

And, since you keep saying you've met only one person in 20 years who believes so, (I think if you explained clearly the theological state of the question, showing the question remains open, and which is the majority opinion among the Doctors, Saints and theologians, then you'd have at least a majority of traditional Catholics who hold to it) did it not occur to you to make this thread a poll?

re: I only disagree with the way you usually go about making your case, insulting people who hold the other opinion, which is certainly not going to win any adherents to the position, sorry to say.

Show a specific example, I didn't "insult" people, I just told them that they don't the wherewithal to discuss this subject, and I say it again, except for you and PereJoseph, had you two not come into the discussion, it would have never gotten anywhere.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB

The above question has already been answered.

If it has been answered by you, then here is your chance to show me, because I never saw it. Simple answer the two questions.

I answered it immediately in the original thread where the question originated. I'm not your nanny, bowler ... go find it yourself.

It would have been easier for you to simply type the answer than to send this reponse.

He will not answer the two clear questions in favor of St. Thomas and opposing Garrigou Lagrange, because believes both. For in his mixed up mind, He believes that doctrine developed from St. Thomas to Garrigou Lagrange's. All the BODers are the same, scarcely any restrict their belief to St. Thomas. I've only met one in my life, and now it looks like Nishant is the second, though he is not militantly against the more liberal BOD of Garrigou Lagrange as the ONE thomist that I knew years ago. That Thomist sided more with so-called Feeneyites , logically, since their belief that God would teach the person that he needed to be baptized is really close to St. Thomas's teaching. While the BOD of Garrigou Lagrange is in another planet, right next to Karl Rahner's Anonynomus Christian.

Notice that not one person steps up to be counted as strict Thomists, to answer the two simple questions, support St. Thomas, reject the opposing more liberal view that opens the door to salvation of anyone.

In my long experience debating on the subject of BOD, I have met a total of ONE person who was a strict Thomist. One, in 20 years.
Here's the problem, and why I discuss the problem:

Quote from: bowler

Find a person who limits his belief in BOD to a catechumen or a martyr for the Faith, and you have someone with common sense. That person can have the confidence that he is supported by St. Thomas and many other Saints and Doctors after the time of St. Thomas. (I've only known one person who only restricted his belief in BOD to these examples. There should be many more out there, but there just isn't. I think it is because it BOD is like a harmless drug that leads to stronger drugs)

Find a person who believes in John 3:15  and the dogmas on EENS and baptism as they are written, literally that is, and you have a person with the support of the Fathers, doctors and saints that came before St. Thomas. And you can read the dogmas as they were intended to be read, as the final word.

Or you can go with the BOD Hypocrites and go against all the Fathers, Doctors, saints and the Athanasian Creed. In other words become a fool.

I would have to greatly disagree with Fr. Lagrange because he dissented from St. Thomas on a central issue. I have answered this question somewhere else its a very real recent post with regards to the BOD issue.

I think the main problem is whether you would consider Fr. Lagrange a heretic for holding the non-Thomist position. He certainly is not advocating universal salvation or completely making it into a meaningless formula. His position is so elaborate that it makes it impossible for a Universalist understanding. I think he was venturing like many good Holy men in a topic that is difficult to understand like grace/justification/salvation issue. Think of the Molinism dispute that was not allowed to be disputed by the Pope, ohh boy talk about a can of worms! I certainly would not recommend anyone to read St. Augustine one their own! A very good Dominican Father Albert told me this, and he was near finishing all of St. Augustine's writings (this was many years ago so it can be safely assumed that he did finish it by now).

I don't think anyone argues that the whole implicit BOD is a more modern phenomena and as such can be rejected as the novelty of our age, no one is free from the errors of their age completely. Think of Bossuet and how he sided with the Gallicans.

Implicit BOD does certainly has so many schools of thought that it is difficult to find what the proper Catholic doctrine that is really what the Church taught.