http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/novus-ordo-vs-resurrection.htm#at_pco=smlre-1.0&at_tot=4&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=3

Joseph Ratzinger
This man shouldn't need much introduction. Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was known in the Conciliar Sect as "Pope Benedict XVI" and currently sports the made-up title "Pope Emeritus". Suspect of heresy by the real Holy Office in the 1950s under Pope Pius XII (source), Ratzinger hasn't exactly eliminated this suspicion - to the contrary. Ratzinger has been a big name in Novus Ordo circles since his behind-the-scenes work at the Second Vatian Council (1962-65), when he was the theological "expert" adviser to Cologne's liberal Cardinal Joseph Frings. No doubt Ratzinger is the most-widely-read of the three Modernists examined here. As far as the dogma of the Resurrection is concerned, Fr. Ratzinger has not exempted it from his habitual "reinterpretation" along Modernist lines. In a nutshell, Benedict XVI denies the Catholic dogma of the Resurrection by misrepresenting the orthodox teaching, belittling it, and then replacing it with something supposedly "more profound". The following quotes are taken from several of his books, both before and after his claim to the papacy.

First, Fr. Ratzinger tells us that the statement "Jesus is risen" expresses an experience on which our Faith is grounded - as opposed to referring to a historical fact: "The sentence 'Jesus has risen' thus expresses that primitive experience on which all Christian faith is grounded..." (Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 184).

That the Resurrection is a historical event in the same way that the Virgin Birth and the Crucifixion were historical events, Ratzinger denies - that's just not 'deep' enough for him, even though this is professed by the entire Church: "Thus the Resurrection cannot be a historical event in the same sense as the Crucifixion is. For that matter, there is no account that depicts it as such, nor is it circuмscribed in time otherwise than by the eschatological expression 'the third day'" (Principles, p. 186). Ah! Even though the Bible relates the facts about Christ's Resurrection the way it does all the other facts about Our Lord's life, this isn't proof for Ratzinger that the Resurrection is a historical fact. Got it. Plus, the fact that Ratzinger calls "the third day" an eschatological expression indicates that he does not necessarily even affirm that Christ's Body actually rested in the tomb for some time on Good Friday, all day Holy Saturday, and the early hours of Easter Sunday, as is the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

Next, the German Modernist tackles the nature of the Resurrection itself: "Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us. For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors" (Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem to the Resurrection [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011], p. 243). This is a perfect example of what we said earlier, namely, that Modernists first distort an orthodox teaching, then belittle it, and then replace it with something "deeper." Ratzinger here distorts the true teaching, which holds not only that Christ's Body came back to earthly life (which, by the way, no doctor could have done), but that His Body was now in a state of glory, not subject to earthly limitations. He then belittles the teaching ("it would ... be of no concern to us", etc.) and instead offers something much more "enlightened"--such as an evolutionary ontological "leap":

"...Jesus’ Resurrection was not just about some deceased individual coming back to life at a certain point, but ... an ontological leap occurred, one that touches being as such, opening up a dimension that affects us all, creating for all of us a new space of life, a new space of being in union with God” (Jesus, p. 274). What proof or argumentation does Ratzinger offer for this totally-unheard-of claim? Absolutely none. Instead, he pushes more and more of his modernistic theses: "The Resurrection accounts certainly speak of something outside of our world of experience. They speak of something new, something unprecedented — a new dimension of reality that is revealed" (Jesus, p. 244).

Sounds profound, huh? Benedict XVI then has the guts to claim that though Christ rose, He didn't come back from the dead but somehow - probably quite dynamically and profoundly - from the living: "Jesus, however, does not come from the realm of the dead, which he has definitively left behind: on the contrary, he comes from the realm of pure life, from God…" (Jesus, p. 269). Of course, this sounds much cooler, much more "Spirit-filled" than the morbid "He rose again from the dead". Unfortunately for Benedict, "He rose again from the dead" is Catholic dogma.

The testimony of Holy Scripture regarding Our Lord possessing a physical Body as before, but now glorified, is very clear in Luke 24:36-44: "Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to you; it is I, fear not. But they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them: Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and feet. But while they yet believed not, and wondered for joy, he said: Have you any thing to eat? And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them."

Ratzinger accuses St. Luke of exaggerating [!] and has no qualms about blasphemously asserting that there is a contradiction in the sacred text: "Most exegetes take the view that [St.] Luke is exaggerating here in his apologetic zeal, that a statement of this kind seems to draw Jesus back to the empirical physicality that had been transcended by the Resurrection. Thus Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative, in which Jesus appears suddenly in the midst of the disciples in a physicality that is no longer subject to the laws of space and time” (Jesus, p. 269).

This is how Ratzinger treats Sacred Scripture, God's very own Speaking!

But not enough. The German heretic also calls the language of Scripture regarding the Resurrection "mythological": "The mythological language expresses, on the one hand, the Lord’s closeness, as he reveals himself in human form, and, on the other hand, his otherness, as he stands outside the laws of material existence” (Jesus, pp. 267-268). In case you're not sure what "mythological" means, it means "imaginary; fictitious" (Dictionary.com).

Ratzinger is an enemy of the Faith! Under the guise of a "profounder understanding", he destroys Catholic teaching at its very foundations and insults God and the Church in the process.

In contrast to the modernistic drivel from Kasper, Muller, and Ratzinger, the Roman Catechism, edited by St. Charles Borromeo and promulgated by Pope St. Pius V, also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, explains the orthodox Catholic teaching on the Resurrection (Our Lord's as well as our own after the Last Judgment) quite beautifully. Here are some excerpts regarding the resurrection of the body on the last day:

    "That in this Article the resurrection of mankind is called the resurrection of the body, is a circuмstance which deserves special attention. It was not, indeed, so named without a reason for the Apostles intended thus to convey a necessary truth, the immortality of the soul. Lest anyone, despite the fact that many passages of Scripture plainly teach that the soul is immortal, might imagine that it dies with the body, and that both are to be restored to life, the Creed speaks only of the resurrection of the body. Although in Sacred Scripture the word flesh often signifies the whole man, as in Isaias, All flesh is grass, and in St. John, The Word was made flesh; yet in this place it is used to express the body only, thus giving us to understand that of the two constituent parts of man, soul and body, one only, that is, the body, is corrupted and returns to its original dust, while the soul remains incorrupt and immortal. As then, a man cannot be said to return to life unless he has previously died, so the soul could not with propriety be said to rise again. The word body is also mentioned, in order to confute the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus, who, during the lifetime of the Apostle, asserted that whenever the Scriptures speak of the resurrection, they are to be understood to mean not the resurrection of the body, but that of the soul, by which it rises from the death of sin to the life of grace. The words of this Article, therefore, as is clear, exclude that error, and establish a real resurrection of the body.
    "But as it is of vital importance to be fully convinced that the identical body, which belongs to each one of us during life, shall, though corrupt and dissolved into its original dust, be raised up again to life, this too is a subject which demands accurate explanation.... It is a truth conveyed by the Apostle when he says: This corruptible must put on incorruption, evidently designating by the word this, his own body. It is also clearly expressed in the prophecy of Job: In my flesh I shall see my God, whom I myself shall see, and mine eyes behold, and not another. Further, this same truth is inferred from the very definition of resurrection; for resurrection, as Damascene defines it, is a return to the state from which one has fallen. Finally, if we bear in mind the arguments by which we have just established a future resurrection, every doubt on the subject must at once disappear. We have said that the body is to rise again, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil. Man is, therefore, to rise again in the same body with which he served God, or was a slave to the devil; that in the same body he may experience rewards and a crown of victory, or endure the severest punishments and torments.
    "But the members especially, because they belong to the integrity of human nature, shall all be restored at once. The blind from nature or disease, the lame, the maimed and the paralysed in any of their members shall rise again with entire and perfect bodies. Otherwise the desires of the soul, which so strongly incline it to a union with the body, would be far from satisfied; but we are convinced that in the resurrection these desires will be fully realised. Besides, the resurrection, like the creation, is clearly to be numbered among the principal works of God. As, therefore, at the creation all things came perfect from the hand of God, we must admit that it will be the same in the resurrection. These observations are not to be restricted to the bodies of the martyrs, of whom St. Augustine says: As the mutilation which they suffered would prove a deformity, they shall rise with all their members; otherwise those who were beheaded would rise without a head. The scars, however, which they received shall remain, shining like the wounds of Christ, with a brilliance far more resplendent than that of gold and of precious stones. The wicked, too, shall rise with all their members, even with those lost through their own fault...."

(Roman Catechism, Part I, Article XI: "The Resurrection of the Body")


Joseph Ratzinger does not believe these things. In fact, he says the following: "It now also becomes clear that the real heart of faith in resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of the body, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible" (Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity [New York: Herder and Herder, 1970], p. 270). Did you get this? The Resurrection is "not at all" the restoration of the body, "to which", he claims, "we have reduced [!] it in our thinking." Who "reduced" it to this? No one -- it is the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church! Holy Scripture itself clearly teaches this, and Ratzinger admits it: "even though [!] this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible." Pertinacity is rarely stated more clearly. Ratzinger is quite aware that God's own Revelation contradicts him, yet he clings to his modernistic thesis anyway, dissing the truth of Scripture as a mere "pictorial image" which does not bind him in the least.

Compare what you just read above from the Roman Catechism, so beautifully clear and straightforward, with what Ratzinger says in the next two quotes: "...the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval; their aim is to tell men that they, they themselves, live on; not by virtue of their own power but because they are known and loved by God in such a way that they can no longer perish" (Christianity, p. 273); and further: "...the essential part of man, the person, remains; that which has ripened in the course of this earthly existence of corporeal spirituality and spiritualized corporeality goes on existing in a different fashion. It goes on existing because it lives in God’s memory" (Christianity, p. 274).

This flatly contradicts Catholic teaching, especially as found in the excerpts from the Roman Catechism above. It is precisely the reunion of the immortal soul to the decomposed, to-be-glorified body -- after a more or less long interval -- that is the essence of the resurrection of the body which we profess in the Creed (for the damned, of course, the resurrected body will be a little less than glorious). Ratzinger's reference to people living "in God's memory" is reminiscent of the German (another one!) pantheist philosopher Georg Hegel (d. 1831), for whom everything evolves within and as a part of Absolute Spirit -- perhaps he borrowed from him.

But Ratzinger has more to say, with his usual modernistic cynicism: "Experience of the risen Christ is something other than a meeting with a historical man, and it must certainly not be traced back to conversations at table and recollections which would have finally crystallized in the idea that he still [?] lived and went about his business. Such an interpretation reduces what happened to the purely human level and robs it of its specific quality" (Christianity, p. 236-237). Like all Modernists, he is primarily concerned with experience (as in "encounter") rather than facts, and he belittles anyone who would refer back to Christ meeting the Apostles at table and eating with them as support for the truth of the Resurrection. You see, Ratzinger is just "too smart" for such peasanty dimwit Catholicism, as all Modernists think they are: "It is pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows them to regard themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say, elated and inflated with presumption, 'We are not as the rest of men,' and which, lest they should seem as other men, leads them to embrace and to devise novelties even of the most absurd kind" (Pius X, Pascendi, par. 40).

As Ratzinger firmly rejects the idea of the resurrection of the body as a resuscitation of a dead man who then comes back to life, it is very instructive to consider that in the Spanish language, for example, the word "resurrect" is resucitar, and "risen" is rendered as resucitado or resucitó. What a tragic coincidence this must be to anyone who was looking for some ontological leap cognate instead.

In an unusually candid moment, Fr. Ratzinger fully admits that he does not believe in the separation of the soul from the body at death, which then waits for its reunion with the body at the resurrection of the dead: "[T]he idea of the anima separata (the "separated soul" of scholastic theology) has in the last analysis become obsolete" (Christianity, p. 272), he writes. Ah, yes. Like the "separated soul" was just an idea of scholastic theology - you can just dismiss it with no real consequences to Catholic teaching on anything.

But it turns out that Pope Benedict XII defined the following: "According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints..., immediately after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification..., since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense [sic] with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence. Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment" (Pope Benedict XII, Constitution Benedictus Deus, 1336; italics added).

Eight letters for you, Fr. Ratzinger: A-N-A-T-H-E-M-A.

So why does Ratzinger pronounce the "scholastic" teaching of the separated soul "obsolete"? Because it doesn't fit in with his dynamic ontological leap heresy, that's why. Wisely did the great Pope St. Pius X say about the Modernists: "They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method" (Pius X, Pascendi, par. 42).

As if to ensure that we definitely won't mistake him for being an orthodox Catholic, Ratzinger re-emphasizes his error at the end: "To recapitulate, Paul teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the ‘fleshly body’, that is, the biological structure, an idea which he expressly describes as impossible (“the perishable cannot become imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord" (Christianity, p. 277). Thus says Joseph Ratzinger -- in contrast to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and all her saints and martyrs. It is the body that rises on the last day, not the soul, and not the "person", for the person implies the soul. Is it any surprise that Fr. Ratzinger's book Introduction to Christianity was banned by the Archbishop of Warsaw, Poland, upon its publication in 1968? "In 1968, when Ratzinger’s best-selling book, Introduction to Christianity, came out, it was still considered liberal enough that Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski banned it in his diocese of Warsaw" (Gary Wills, "A Tale of Two Cardinals", The New York Review of Books, April 26, 2001).

It is noteworthy - and very revealing - that Ratzinger never even attempts to prove any of his novel claims; he merely makes assertions, and (apparently) expects them to be taken as the truth, as though he himself were God's Anointed One (cf. Matt. 7:29): "It is pride which fills Modernists with that self-assurance by which they consider themselves and pose as the rule for all" (Pius X, Pascendi, par. 40). Real Catholic theologians, on the other hand, always seek to prove what they teach, as is clear from perusing any theological manual, for they are but the servants of the truth, not the Master.

To see more of Ratzinger's errors on the Resurrection dissected and refuted, please download this PDF file: Modernism Resurrected: Benedict XVI on the Resurrection by Bp. Donald Sanborn (2011).

Now, remember, it will not do to say that these Modernists simply have a greater, wider, or more profound grasp of the same dogma of the Resurrection, since, as we saw at the beginning of this post, Catholic dogma must be believed exactly as once defined: "[T]hat meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding" (Vatican I, Dei Filius, Ch. 4; Denz. 1800).

The Catholic Church has no need of anyone - certainly not a Walter Kasper, a Gerhard Muller, or a Joseph Ratzinger - to improve on her 2,000-year-old teaching, which she received from her Divine Lord and which she will preserve to the end, even this worst onslaught of heretical filth notwithstanding. Deo Gratias!

Resurrection Reality Check:

    "The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts." --CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane (1907), error no. 36
    "And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins." (1 Cor 15:17)
    "Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to you; it is I, fear not. But they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them: Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and feet. But while they yet believed not, and wondered for joy, he said: Have you any thing to eat? And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them." (Luke 24:36-43)
    "Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." (John 20:27-29)
    "Early on the morning of the third day after His death, that is, on Sunday, His soul was reunited to His body, and thus He who was dead during those three days arose, and returned again to life, from which He had departed when dying.... By the word Resurrection, however, we are not merely to understand that Christ was raised from the dead, which happened to many others, but that He rose by His own power and virtue, a singular prerogative peculiar to Him alone. For it is incompatible with nature and was never given to man to raise himself by his own power, from death to life. This was reserved for the almighty power of God.... This divine power, having never been separated, either from His body in the grave, or from His soul in hell, there existed a divine force both within the body, by which it could be again united to the soul, and within the soul, by which it could again return to the body. Thus He was able by His own power to return to life and rise from the dead." (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Article V).
    Modernism Resurrected: Benedict XVI on the Resurrection [PDF] by Bp. Donald J. Sanborn
    The Novus Ordo religion also attacks the Resurrection by means of the hideous and irreverent sculpture in the Vatican's Paul VI Hall (see big photo at top of post). This sculpture, created by Pericle Fazzini, shows a distorted Christ figure that is repulsive to behold and does not inspire people to pious thoughts. In fact, the whole sculpture looks downright sinister (which makes it very appropriate for the Vatican II religion, actually). In a future blog post, we will take a closer look at this frightening effigy and examine it in detail.


Papal Warnings against Modernist Language & Tactics:

    "In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.... [This] cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it." --Pope Pius VI, Constitution Auctorem Fidei (1794)
    The heretic Nestorius "expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed." --Pope Pius VI, Constitution Auctorem Fidei (1794)
    "Our Apostolic Mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious." --Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique (1910)
    "Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all hut fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy." --Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), par. 3http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/novus-ordo-vs-resurrection.htm#at_pco=smlre-1.0&at_tot=4&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=3

The language of modernism is soul destroying stuff. Thanks for posting this LoT.

You bet.  It is a most basic teaching.  And Bergolio is worse than Ratzinger overall, by far when it comes to understanding what the true Church always taught and in regards to taste and an appreciation of history!!!  Ratzinger knows the true teaching and rejects this guy seems ignorant and has animosity towards tradition.

Makes sense to me.  Though I thought he was perspertized in 1970?  

Some will say he is ignorant and therefore Pope.  As if knowing what the Church teaches is a matter of indifference when it comes to being the head of that Church.  

Thank you so much for this!

Thomas Aquinas was better at bringing up opponents objections than they were and then he would systematically refute them.  A great way of teaching.  If I had a son his middle name would be Thomas.  First name John.  Ego problem.

I reposted it with some spacing for easier reading:

N.B.: bolded text

From : Questiones Disputatae de Veritate

TRUTH
by
Thomas Aquinas

Questions 1-9
translated by Robert W. Mulligan, S.J.
Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1952

Questions 10-20
translated by James V. McGlynn, S.J.
Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953

Questions 21-29
translated by Robert W. Schmidt, S.J.
Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1954

Html edition by Joseph Kenny, O.P.


Q. 14: Faith

ARTICLE XI

In the eleventh article we ask:
Is it necessary to believe explicitly?

[ARTICLE I Sent., 33, 5; III Sent., 25, 2, 1, sol. 1, 2; S.T., II-II, 2, 5.]

Difficulties

It seems that it is not, for

    1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit belief is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary.

2. We have no obligation to that which is not within our power. But to believe something explicitly we have to hear it from within or without, for “faith comes by hearing,” as is said in Romans (10:17). However, hearing is within the power of a person only if there is someone to speak. Thus, to believe something explicitly is not necessary for salvation.

3. Very subtle matters should not be taught to the uneducated. But there is nothing more subtle or more exalted than things which are beyond reason, such as the articles of faith. Therefore, such things should not be taught to the people. Therefore, at least not everybody is required to believe something explicitly.

    4. Man is not bound to know that which even the angels do not know. But before the Incarnation the angels did not know the mystery of the Incarnation, as Jerome seems to say. Therefore, the men of those times, at least, were not bound to know or believe something explicitly about the Redeemer.

5. Many Gentiles were saved before the coming of Christ, as Dionysius says. However, they could know nothing explicitly about the Redeemer, since the prophets had not come to them. Therefore, explicit belief in the articles about the Redeemer does not seem necessary for salvation.

    6. One of the articles of faith about the Redeemer concerns the descent into hell [that is, limbo]. But, according to Gregory, John doubted about this article when he asked: “Are you he that is to come? “ (Mat 11:3). Therefore, since he is one of the greater men, for no one is greater than he, as is said in the same passage, it seems that even the greater men are not bound to know explicitly the articles about the Redeemer.
    To the Contrary

    1. Explicit belief in everything seems necessary for salvation, for everything pertains to faith in the same way. So, everything has to be believed explicitly for the same reason that one truth has to be believed explicitly.

    2. Everyone is bound to avoid all errors which are against the faith. This can be done only by having explicit knowledge of all the articles which the errors oppose. Therefore, we have to have explicit belief in all the articles.

    3. As commands direct our action, so articles direct our belief. But everyone is bound to know all the commandments of the Decalogue, for a man is not excused if he commits some sin through ignorance of the commandments. Therefore, everyone is also bound to believe all the articles explicitly.

4. just as God is the object of faith, so, also, He is the object of charity. But we should not love anything implicitly in God. Therefore, neither should we believe anything implicitly about Him.

      5. A heretic, however uneducated, is questioned about all the articles of faith. This would not be done if he were not bound to believe all of them explicitly. This brings us to the same conclusion as before.

        6. The habit of faith is specifically the same in all believers. If, then, some of the faithful must believe everything explicitly, all are bound to the same thing.

7. Formless faith is not enough for salvation. But to believe implicitly is to have formless faith, for superiors on whose faith depends the faith of uneducated people, who believe implicitly, often have formless faith. Therefore, to believe implicitly is not enough for salvation.

    REPLY
   
Properly speaking, that is called implicit in which many things are contained as in one, and that is called explicit in which each of the things is considered in itself. These appellations are transferred from bodily to spiritual things. When a number of things are contained virtually in one thing, we say they are there implicitly, as, for instance, conclusions in principles. A thing is contained explicitly in another if it actually exists in it. Consequently, one who knows some general principles has implicit knowledge of all the particular conclusion. One, however, who actually considers the conclusions is said to know them explicitly. Hence, we are also said explicitly to believe certain things when we affirm those things about which we are actually thinking. We believe these same things implicitly when we affirm certain other things in which they are contained as in general principles. Thus, one who believes that the faith of the Church is true, implicitly in this believes the individual points which are included in the faith of the Church.

    We must note, accordingly, that there are some matters of faith which everyone is bound to believe explicitly in every age. Other matters of faith must be believed explicitly in every age but not by everyone. Still other matters everyone must believe explicitly, but not in every age. And, finally, there are things that need not be believed explicitly by everyone nor in every age.

    That all the faithful in every age must believe something explicitly is evident from the fact that there is a parallel between the reception of faith with reference to our ultimate perfection and a pupil’s reception of those things which his master first teaches him, and through which he is guided to prior principles. However, he could not be so guided unless he actually considered something. Hence, the pupil must receive something for actual consideration; likewise, the faithful must explicitly believe something. And these are the two things which the Apostle tells us must be believed explicitly: “For he that comes to God must believe that He is, and is the rewarder to them that love Him” (Hebrews 11:6). Therefore, everyone in every age is bound explicitly to believe that God exists and exercises providence over human affairs.

    However, it is not possible for anyone in this life to know explicitly the whole of God’s knowledge, in which our beatitude consists. Yet it is possible for someone in this life to know all those things which are proposed to the human race in its present state as first principles with which to direct itself to its final end. Such a person is said to have faith which is completely explicit. But not all believers have this completeness; hence, there are levels of belief in the Church, so that some are placed over others to teach them in matters of faith. Consequently, not all are required explicitly to believe all matters of faith, but only those are so bound who are appointed teachers in matters of faith, such as superiors and those who have pastoral duties.

And even these are not bound to believe everything explicitly in every age. For there is a gradual progress in faith for the whole human race just as there is for individual men. This is why Gregory says that down the ages there has been a growing development of divine knowledge.

Now, the fullness of time, which is the prime of life of the human race, is in the age of grace. So, in this age, the leaders are bound to believe all matters of faith explicitly. But, in earlier ages, the leaders were not bound to believe everything explicitly. However, more had to be believed explicitly after the age of the law and the prophets than before that time.

Accordingly, before sin came into the world, it was not necessary to believe explicitly the matters concerning the Redeemer, since there was then no need of the Redeemer. Nevertheless, this was implicit in their belief in divine providence, in so far as they believed that God would provide everything necessary for the salvation of those who love Him. Before and after the fall, the leaders in every age had to have explicit faith in the Trinity. Between the fall and the age of grace, however, the ordinary people did not have to have such explicit belief. Perhaps before the fall there was not such a distinction of persons that some had to be taught the faith by others. Likewise, between the fall and the age of grace, the leading men had to have explicit faith in the Redeemer, and the ordinary people only implicit faith. This was contained either in their belief in the faith of the patriarchs and prophets or in their belief in divine providence.

However, in the time of grace, everybody, the leaders and the ordinary people, have to have explicit faith in the Trinity and in the Redeemer. However, only the leaders, and not the ordinary people, are bound to believe explicitly all the matters of faith concerning the Trinity and the Redeemer. The ordinary people must, however, believe explicitly the general articles, such as that God is triune, that the Son of God was made flesh, died, and rose from the dead, and other like matters which the Church commemorates in her feasts.

Answers to difficulties [...]

Answers to Contrary Difficulties

1. All things which pertain to faith do not have the same rational connection with the direction of man to his final end, for some are more obscure than others and some are more necessary to it than others. Therefore, some articles rather than others must be believed explicitly.

    2. One who does not believe all the articles explicitly can still avoid all errors because the habit of faith keeps him from giving assent to things against the articles which he knows only implicitly. Thus, for instance, if something unusual is proposed, he is suspicious of it and delays assent until he gets instruction from him whose duty it is to decide about doubtful matters of faith.

    3. The commandments of the Decalogue deal with things that are dictated by natural reason. Therefore, everyone is required to know them explicitly. A similar argument cannot be used for the articles of faith, which are above reason.

4. Love is distinguished into implicit and explicit only in so far as it follows faith. For love terminates at some individual thing existing outside the soul, whereas knowledge terminates at that which is within the perception of the soul, which can perceive something in general or in particular. Therefore, faith and charity do not work in the same way.

5. An uneducated person who is accused of heresy is not examined on all the articles of faith because he must believe them all explicitly, but because he must not obstinately maintain the opposite of any of the articles.

    6. That some of the faithful must believe explicitly what others have to believe only implicitly does not come from a difference in the habit of faith, but from different duties. For one who is made a teacher of the faith should know explicitly those things which he must or ought to teach. And the higher his position is, the more perfect a knowledge of matters of faith he should have.

    7. Ordinary people do not have implicit faith in the faith of some particular men, but in the faith of the Church, which cannot be formless. Furthermore, one is said to have implicit faith in the faith of another, because of an agreement in belief, and not because they have the same mode of informed or formless faith.



And to answer you question of the Francis' date of ordination in the new rite , the sources I find indicate it was on December 13, 1969.

Thanks for that.  Was it (the new Rite) instituted on the first Sunday of Advent.