Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46]

Author Topic: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism  (Read 6326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #225 on: Yesterday at 07:54:15 AM »
Quote from: Lazarus on Yesterday at 06:48:45 AM
Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 2, a. 6

"Whether all are equally bound to have explicit faith?"


"The unfolding of the articles of faith has been made with the passage of time... For the state before Christ, the faith of the ancients was founded upon the belief that God would deliver the human race, as appears from Job 19:25: 'I know that my Redeemer liveth.' [...] The minor ones, however, were not bound to explicit belief in these mysteries, as the 'majors' were; they were bound only to believe implicitly, in the faith of their elders."


Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 2, a. 7

"Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?"

"After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation... As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office."

"If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him."

De Veritate, q. 14, a. 11, ad 1

"If someone were raised in the forest or among wolves, and did what was in his power [facit quod in se est], God would provide for him what is necessary for salvation, either by inward inspiration, or by sending him a preacher of the faith, as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)."

Facienti quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam
This is related to the old law.  The New Testament law is different.  The old law was much more focused on faith.  The new law is more focused on actual charity of God.  Under the  old law, God was much more of a mystery.  The new law is God revealed fully.  The old law allowed implicit faith because it was a foreshadowing of the fully revealed, new law, which requires explicit faith.  

None of this has anything to do with BOD.  There is no saint or council which promotes implicit faith for salvation.  Only modernists do this. 
Logged

Offline Lazarus

Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #226 on: Yesterday at 08:48:09 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Yesterday at 07:54:15 AM
This is related to the old law.  The New Testament law is different.  The old law was much more focused on faith.  The new law is more focused on actual charity of God.  Under the  old law, God was much more of a mystery.  The new law is God revealed fully.  The old law allowed implicit faith because it was a foreshadowing of the fully revealed, new law, which requires explicit faith. 

None of this has anything to do with BOD.  There is no saint or council which promotes implicit faith for salvation.  Only modernists do this.
Implicit faith is a conditional theological concept that only exists if "invincible ignorance" exists. 

Because no one can define fully what it means to be in "invincible ignorance", this theological hypothesis has been used by modernists to pretend that since we cannot know with certainty it's the same as "everyone can be saved" technically. Then, from that, they hastily generalize based on pure sophistry that anyone who studied logic would easily spot, but not the average emotional person. 

However, if someone actually begins to wonder about the conditions for invincible ignorance, it begins to be clear that, they are extremely restrictive. Humans have free will after all, and "through no fault of his own" on the course of an entire lifetime isn't something many people can achieve. 

If invincible ignorance exists at all, we can deduce that something similar to the "implicit faith" of the Old Law exists too. 

The way "implicit faith" has been defined is to argue that, if someone does not have access to any information or any priest or any christian who could teach him the explicit articles of the faith, and they try their best to obey the natural law, they also have an "implicit faith" in whatever God's will is. Their ignorance of what exactly God's will entails would not be a sign of guilt in the eyes of God.

This excludes the possibility of the Providence of God directly intervening in order to give what is necessary for salvation to the person. Why am excluding this principle?

It is quite simple : if someone knows the Truth, they are also obligated to teach the Truth to others in order to save their souls. If such a thing were possible, we should have seen plenty of historical evidence of people who have never been in contact with priests or monks and who still knew all the articles of the Catholic faith somehow. Do we have any evidence of such a thing ever happening?
If such a thing exists, we should have lots of evidence of prophets who spontaneously began to teach the True Faith, even before the apostles and their disciples could even reach them. Do we have such evidence?

I do not know how exactly this is supposed to work, but at the very least we have Popes who defined the concept and it's taught in the Catechism. 

In any case, this concept is inconsequential for most of the human race. 


Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #227 on: Yesterday at 09:50:14 AM »
Quote from: Lazarus on Yesterday at 08:48:09 AM
Implicit faith is a conditional theological concept that only exists if "invincible ignorance" exists.

Because no one can define fully what it means to be in "invincible ignorance", this theological hypothesis has been used by modernists to pretend that since we cannot know with certainty it's the same as "everyone can be saved" technically. Then, from that, they hastily generalize based on pure sophistry that anyone who studied logic would easily spot, but not the average emotional person.
Agree. 

Quote
However, if someone actually begins to wonder about the conditions for invincible ignorance, it begins to be clear that, they are extremely restrictive. Humans have free will after all, and "through no fault of his own" on the course of an entire lifetime isn't something many people can achieve.
Invincible ignorance is a temporary state.  As St Thomas said (and also the pope who mentioned it...Pius XII?) that if an ignorant person has good will, they will be led by God to the Truth.  Anyone who listens to conversion stories knows that every. single. story. is. different.  God works in each person's life differently and miraculously.  But He always leads those of good will to Truth.

If one dies ignorant, then (as St Thomas says) it's their own fault, as ignorance is a punishment for sin.  Thus they die in VINCIBLE ignorance (i.e. culpable).  But most people only have TEMPORARY ignorance, as God gives them the Truth at some point.

Quote
The way "implicit faith" has been defined is to argue that, if someone does not have access to any information or any priest or any christian who could teach him the explicit articles of the faith, and they try their best to obey the natural law, they also have an "implicit faith" in whatever God's will is. Their ignorance of what exactly God's will entails would not be a sign of guilt in the eyes of God.
I don't believe that anyone of good will dies with implicit faith only.  That would mean that God didn't enlighten them, or that they never crossed paths with someone to speak of religion.  That's the exact OPPOSITE of what St Thomas and Pius XII told us.

Quote
It is quite simple : if someone knows the Truth, they are also obligated to teach the Truth to others in order to save their souls. If such a thing were possible, we should have seen plenty of historical evidence of people who have never been in contact with priests or monks and who still knew all the articles of the Catholic faith somehow. Do we have any evidence of such a thing ever happening?
Most people (i.e. american native indians, as an example) did NOT follow the natural law -- they were warring, violent people who practiced witchcraft.  Bad will = ignorance = punishment for sins.  Those native indians who had good will WERE visited by the saintly nun who taught them the faith.


Quote
If invincible ignorance exists at all, we can deduce that something similar to the "implicit faith" of the Old Law exists too.
Implicit faith does exist, but it's not salvific, that's the point.  It's temporary, until God gives them the full Truth, which St Thomas, Pius XII (and Scripture) infallibly declares will happen.


Quote
This excludes the possibility of the Providence of God directly intervening in order to give what is necessary for salvation to the person. Why am excluding this principle?
To exclude this principle, you are denying exactly what St Thomas explains below.  You are denying Scripture and a myriad of stories which prove that God will send the Truth to those of good will.  To deny providence of this kind is a heresy.

"If someone were raised in the forest or among wolves, and did what was in his power [facit quod in se est], God would provide for him what is necessary for salvation, either by inward inspiration, or by sending him a preacher of the faith, as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)."
Logged

Offline Lazarus

Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #228 on: Yesterday at 02:26:23 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Yesterday at 09:50:14 AM
Agree. 
Invincible ignorance is a temporary state.  As St Thomas said (and also the pope who mentioned it...Pius XII?) that if an ignorant person has good will, they will be led by God to the Truth.  Anyone who listens to conversion stories knows that every. single. story. is. different.  God works in each person's life differently and miraculously.  But He always leads those of good will to Truth.

If one dies ignorant, then (as St Thomas says) it's their own fault, as ignorance is a punishment for sin.  Thus they die in VINCIBLE ignorance (i.e. culpable).  But most people only have TEMPORARY ignorance, as God gives them the Truth at some point.
I don't believe that anyone of good will dies with implicit faith only.  That would mean that God didn't enlighten them, or that they never crossed paths with someone to speak of religion.  That's the exact OPPOSITE of what St Thomas and Pius XII told us.
Most people (i.e. american native indians, as an example) did NOT follow the natural law -- they were warring, violent people who practiced witchcraft.  Bad will = ignorance = punishment for sins.  Those native indians who had good will WERE visited by the saintly nun who taught them the faith.

Implicit faith does exist, but it's not salvific, that's the point.  It's temporary, until God gives them the full Truth, which St Thomas, Pius XII (and Scripture) infallibly declares will happen.

To exclude this principle, you are denying exactly what St Thomas explains below.  You are denying Scripture and a myriad of stories which prove that God will send the Truth to those of good will.  To deny providence of this kind is a heresy.

"If someone were raised in the forest or among wolves, and did what was in his power [facit quod in se est], God would provide for him what is necessary for salvation, either by inward inspiration, or by sending him a preacher of the faith, as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)."
The problem with the feyneite position are the following : 
_"Baptism of blood" doesn't exist. (This is heresy)
_"Baptism of desire" doesn't exist. (This is heresy) 

Logical consequence : 

Those weren't able to hear about the Revelation during their lifetime or showed no signs of it are all automatically going to hell. (This goes against what we know about God's Justice)

As long as you admit that baptism can be done invisibly by an angel (baptism of blood) or for catechumens who explicitly desire it before their death (baptism of desire), the problem disappears. The reason is that as long as someone led a just life (just in the eyes of God, not just according to human standards), even if no member of the Church reached them during their lifetime, God will give them the explicit requirements of the faith through a miracle. That is, according to this idea, God would ensure they became catechumens just before they die through a miracle.

With this position, salvation through "implicit faith" is impossible, because if anyone had the requirements for implicit faith, God would naturally grant them a chance to get the explicit faith as well before their death.  

This is the position argued by St Thomas Aquinas. 

This is perfectly orthodox and that reasoning is better than the one I suggested, where I exclude God's intervention because I have not found proof of it in historical records. 






Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #229 on: Today at 05:05:25 AM »
Quote from: Lazarus on Yesterday at 02:26:23 PM
The problem with the feyneite position are the following :
_"Baptism of blood" doesn't exist. (This is heresy)
_"Baptism of desire" doesn't exist. (This is heresy) 
_ Then you should be able to prove they exist, just as easily as we can prove the sacrament exists.


Quote
Logical consequence :

Those weren't able to hear about the Revelation during their lifetime or showed no signs of it are all automatically going to hell. (This goes against what we know about God's Justice)

I don't know where you come up with your ideas, but it is clearly taught in Trent that the requirement for the sacrament was made mandatory "since the promulgation of the Gospel."  Regardless that we do not know exactly when that was, you should never concern yourself with those who "weren't able to hear about the Revelation during their lifetime...." The reason for this is because Trent mentions no such disclaimer for a very specific reason - and neither should we.   

Trent:
"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46]
« previous next »