"No Salvation outside the Catholic Church"

[USMC]

Matt16_18:

OK.

Where do you differ with the Feeneyites?

Feeneyites deny baptism of desire and baptism of Blood. I do not. They also deny that a person can be united to the soul of the Church without being united to the Body. I don’t believe that either.

Those are the two distinguishing teachings of the Feeneyites and I reject both of them.

 

[stanley123]

jimmy:

Walter Kasper is not the Church. .

Regardless of what you say, this is what is being taught today by Cardinal Kasper and I don’t see where anyone in the Vatican has asked him to retract this statement. If it is wrong, do you have a declaration from a Vatican official to this effect, and that a retraction was called for? Was not Cardinal Kasper authorised by the Pope to oversee certain aspects of Jewish Catholic relations?

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

In prior discussion about this with USMC, I agree that he does not assert Feeneyism. I think many have jumped to a hasty conclusion about what he believes.

He and I both wonder, however, where explicit faith is absolutely necessary.

Dave,

In our previous discussion from several months ago, we discussed whether or not explicit, or merely implicit faith was necessary for salvation. At the time I was leaning towards the necessity of explicit faith, whereas you were leaning towards merely implicit faith, but I think we were both open to the otherside’s argument. I have since run accross a dogmatic statement from the council of Florence that teaches the necessity of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. Based on that, I now hold the necessity of explicit faith.

Since this is such a minut detail of theology, and since there may be something that I missed, I am open to hearing you thoughts.

I posted the quote above in my respons to Matt 16_18. I’d be interested in your comments on it.

I also want to state that my adherence to the necessity of explicit faith does not cause a problem with the teachings of Pope Pius IX regarding invincible ignorance. I don’t see any contradiction with his words, since they could be interpreted as saying that the invincibly ignorance are brought to faith by a divine inspiration, which is what St. Thomas says God will do with one who is invincibly ignorance and following the inspirations of actual grace.

If you recall our previous discussion from several months ago, I discussed the teaching found in “The Diologue of Catherine of Seinna” regarding the general order and particular order, which parallels the objective and subjective orders. Although I hold to the necessity of explicit faith, I wonder it this could be true only in the general order, whereas there could be an exception in the particular order. It doesn’t seem likely for several reasons, but I hold out that possibility.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

jimmy:

Can you give me the reference for this in St. Thomas? I would like to read it.

Sure. It is spread throughout his works, however I can give you some excerpts…

St. Thomas Aquinas on the lack of culpability for **invincible ignorance **(“invincible” is from the Latin which means “unconquerable”)

"…it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin." (Summa Theologica, IIa, 76,2)

St. Thomas on vincible ignorance…**

vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ibid.)

St. Thomas on mortal and venial sin…

… a sin which is generically mortal, can become venial by reason of the imperfection of the act, because then it does not completely fulfil the conditions of a moral act…This happens by a kind of subtraction, namely, of deliberate reason. And since a moral act takes its species from deliberate reason, the result is that by such a subtraction the species of the act is destroyed. (ST IIa, 88, 6)

St. Thomas on ignorance which can cause involuntariness (non-deliberate ignorance)…

"If ignorance causes involuntariness, it is in so far as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of voluntariness… (ST, IIa, 6, 8)

St. Thomas on things done through fear which may be part voluntary and part involuntary…

Gregory of Nyssa in his book on Man (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx), such things are done through fear “are of a mixed character,” being partly voluntary and partly involuntary. (ST, IIa, 6, 6)

Yet, some ignorance can be deliberate or “affected ignorance” that is, voluntarily caused ignorance…

Ignorance is “consequent” to the act of the will, in so far as ignorance itself is voluntary…First, because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin, or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: “We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.” And this is called “affected ignorance.” … ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it regards that which one can and ought to know…And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called “ignorance of evil choice,” and arises from some passion or habit: or when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence. (ST, IIa, 6, 8)

St. Thomas on ignorance that diminishes sin…

“Whatever is a reason for sin to be forgiven, diminishes sin. Now such is ignorance, as is clear from 1 Tim. 1:13: “I obtained . . . mercy . . . because I did it ignorantly.” Therefore ignorance diminishes or alleviates sin.” (ST, IIa, 76, 4)

St. Paul clearly was not **invincibly ignorant **in the context of 1 Tim 1:13, because he was not incapable of knowing, but it also doesn’t appear from Scripture that he deliberately caused his own ingnorance. Such is then called “vincible ignorance.” He was shown mercy by God “because [He] did it ignorantly.” Another Scriptural example are those Jesus prayed for from the cross who rejected Him and crucified Him. Jesus prayed for their forgiveness for “they know not what they do.” Were they incapable of knowing (invincibly ignorant)? It doesn’t seem so. Yet, mercy is shown to even vincible ignorance, even though it may not completely alleviate sin.

In the OT, those sins done in ignorance were atoned for by the High Priest. Those who sinned defiantly, however, were “cut off” from the people."

Numbers 15:27-30

The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven… 'But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.

This foreshadows the justice and mercy of the New Covenant. Mortal sins must be deliberately reasoned sins or the “species of the act is destroyed” as St. Thomas put it.

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

The question you asked really boils down to this: To have supernatural faith, is it necessary for a person to have explicit, or merely implicit, faith.

I have raised the example of the man born in the Lakota Sioux nation in the year AD 500. Does such a man need to confess explicit faith in the Dogma of the Trinity in order to be saved? You seem to be saying that he must do this, and if he did not confess explicit belief in the Dogma of the Trinity before he died, that we can know with certainty that he is condemned to Hell. Which would mean that we can pretty much assume that every member of the Lakota Sioux that died between AD 31 and AD 1500 must be condemned to Hell since there is no evidence at all that the Sioux believed in the Dogma of the Trinity before the first missionaries arrived in North America. Billions of people around the world that never heard the Gospel preached to them that never were “inspired” to believe the Dogma of the Trinity before they died must be in Hell too! Frankly, I find such a belief little different that that of the Fundamentalist Protestants who teach that unless a man explicitly confesses Jesus his Lord that we can know with certainty that he is damned.

Your understanding of salvation leads me to ask how the OT saints were saved since they could not possibly have had an explicit belief in the Dogma of the Trinity. Why did God not condemn the OT saints to Hell for not believing in the Dogma of the Trinity?

St. Thomas, whose authority has been highly praised by many Popes, teaches that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation now that grace has been revealed.

Belief in the Trinity is necessary for those who have heard and understood the Gospel!

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

So, according to St. Thomas who is recognized as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, theologians of the Church, explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary.

How did you draw the conclusion that St. Thomas Aquinas is teaching that a person that has never heard the Gospel preached to him must be given the “inspiration” to believe in the Dogma of the Trinity? All Aquinas is saying is that for an invincibly ignorant man to be saved that he must believe in what is necessary for his salvation. What you are arguing is that there is no such thing as invincible ignorance!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence …

The Council of Florence did not address the question of men who were invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. This is why Fr. Donovan makes the point that “the Magisterium ALONE” has the authority to definitively interpret the teaching of the Magisterium.

 

[USMC]

Matt16_18:

I have raised the example of the man born in the Lakota Sioux nation in the year AD 500. Does such a man need to confess explicit faith in the Dogma of the Trinity in order to be saved? You seem to be saying that he must do this, and if he did not confess explicit belief in the Dogma of the Trinity before he died, that we can know with certainty that he is condemned to Hell. Which would mean that we can pretty much assume that every member of the Lakota Sioux that died between AD 31 and AD 1500 must be condemned to Hell since there is no evidence at all that the Sioux believed in the Dogma of the Trinity before the first missionaries arrived in North America. Billions of people around the world that never heard the Gospel preached to them that never were “inspired” to believe the Dogma of the Trinity before they died must be in Hell too! Frankly, I find such a belief little different that that of the Fundamentalist Protestants who teach that unless a man explicitly confesses Jesus his Lord that we can know with certainty that he is damned.

Your understanding of salvation leads me to ask how the OT saints were saved since they could not possibly have had an explicit belief in the Dogma of the Trinity. Why did God not condemn the OT saints to Hell for not believing in the Dogma of the Trinity?

Belief in the Trinity is necessary for those who have heard and understood the Gospel!

How did you draw the conclusion that St. Thomas Aquinas is teaching that a person that has never heard the Gospel preached to him must be given the “inspiration” to believe in the Dogma of the Trinity? All Aquinas is saying is that for an invincibly ignorant man to be saved that he must believe in what is necessary for his salvation. What you are arguing is that there is no such thing as invincible ignorance!

The Council of Florence did not address the question of men who were invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. This is why Fr. Donovan makes the point that “the Magisterium ALONE” has the authority to definitively interpret the teaching of the Magisterium.

Dave and I had a long discussion on this topic. If I answered you here, I would have to go back and forth between this link and that to cut and past the quotes. Instead, why don’t you just read this link, where all the quotes can be found in support of exactly what I wrote.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=62238

PS. I don’t thing Colin Donovan is a Priest. Unless I am mistaken, he is just an ordinary laymen.

 

[stanley123]

jimmy:

Walter Kasper is not the Church. I think the document “Dominus Jesus” which was put out by Cardinal Ratzinger shows the actual teaching.

William Cardinal Kasper, is the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is part of the Roman Curia. He was chosen by Pope John Paul II. I don’t see where anyone in the Vatican has asked him to retract anything he said or did as a member of the Roman Curia. Quite the contrary, he is quoted all the time.

See:

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/news/kasper_biographyl.htm

“The only thing I wish to say is that the Document Dominus Iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God.”

“Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”

“The aim of dialogue is not for Jews to become Christians or Christians to stop being Christians, giving up some of the essential elements of their individual traditions. Dialogue sets partners before one another, each with their own identity.”
Do you dissent from what is now being taught by the President of this Pontifical Council which is part of the Roman Curia?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC,

If I remember correctly, I held that one must have explicit faith in ALL the dogmas of Catholicism insofar as they are capable. In other words, given that there are no impediments to will and intellect in their assent, they must have explicit faith in all dogmas. What they are culpable for is based upon voluntariness. Which is the context, I believe, of the Council of Florence, as the Catholic theology even before Florence insisted that grave moral sins can become venial if they lacked deliberate reason.

USMC:

the council of Florence that teaches the necessity of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation.

Yes, but I believe both St. Thomas and Florence had objective order in mind, without getting into the complicated theology of the condition for voluntariness as is well-treated elsewhere.

I think most people see how invincible ignorance (unconquerable) is without culpability, and is rather rare. However, I believe vincible ignorance can be partly voluntary and partly involuntary, depending upon the impediments to one’s intellect and will that may be present.

Invincible ignorance is unconquerable because of impediments to capability, time, and opportunity to conquer the ignorance. Clearly, infants who are baptized cannot have explicit (expressed) faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation, and so St. Thomas and Florence cannot have them in mind, right? So it seems that neither Florence nor St. Thomas were speaking of absolute necessity for every human soul, no matter their subjective condition.

Vincible ignorance is conquerable given sufficient capability, time, and opportunity. It is ambiguious whether Florence and St. Thomas have these in mind in their teaching. It seems more probable, given the authentic teaching of the magisterium since Florence that formal mortal sin is intended (sin having the right “form”, which includes the subjective conditions for mortal sin).

I believe vincible ignorance is the “gray area” where justice meets mercy. I also hold as St. Pius X, grave sin must have full advertence and perfect consent or it is not mortal. This is the context in which Florence and St. Thomas’ teaching must be interpreted.

 

[USMC]

stanley123:

William Cardinal Kasper, is the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is part of the Roman Curia. He was chosen by Pope John Paul II. I don’t see where anyone in the Vatican has asked him to retract anything he said or did as a member of the Roman Curia. Quite the contrary, he is quoted all the time.

See:

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/news/kasper_biographyl.htm

“The only thing I wish to say is that the Document Dominus Iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God.”

“Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”

“The aim of dialogue is not for Jews to become Christians or Christians to stop being Christians, giving up some of the essential elements of their individual traditions. Dialogue sets partners before one another, each with their own identity.”
Do you dissent from what is now being taught by the President of this Pontifical Council which is part of the Roman Curia?

Stanley,

The council of Florence defined infallibly that the Jewish religion is null and void and will not save anyone.

In addition, the Jewish religion of the Old Testament is no more; it doesn’t exist. It was destroyed by God during the first century. They no longer have a their temple; they no longer have their sacrifices; and they no longer even know who belongs to the priestly tribe of Levi. The descendants of Levi were the priests of the Old Testament. These lineal records are long since gone. The Old Covenant is not practiced by the Jews today. They have a new religion that evolved after the first century and it is not the Old Covenant of the Bible.

I understand that these are confusing days for Catholics. Although we cannot always trust the teachings of those in leadership positions today, we can always trust the infallible declarations from the dogmatic councils. That is our sure source of truth in this day of error, contradiction, and confusion.

I’m sure you can locate the pertinent texts from the council of Florence that discussing the Old Covenant being void. You ought to read over them.

 

[cynic]

USMC:

Dave,

the invincibly ignorance are brought to faith by a divine inspiration, which is what St. Thomas says God will do with one who is invincibly ignorance and following the inspirations of actual grace.

and yet there is no evidence for any divinely inspired tribesman spontaneousely preaching Christianity . There is no evidence of that at all. So you must conclude that God intended these people to go to hell. God did not wish their souls to be saved, otherwise they would have been given the opportunity. That is what it boils down to.

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

Instead, why don’t you just read this link, where all the quotes can be found in support of exactly what I wrote.

What I see you doing is giving the usual Feeneyite arguments that I have seen many times before. That is why I asked you where you differ from the Feeneyites.

The **LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE ** that you quoted in this thread clearly speaks about the baptism of implicit desire. "… that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."A catechumen that desires to receive the Sacrament of Baptism has must have an explicit belief in the Dogma of the Trinity (indeed, he must accept EVERYTHING that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches). But you are arguing that an invincibly ignorant man that implicitly desires baptism must also have an explicit understanding of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith through “inspiration” . I see this as nothing other than an assertion that the LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE is teaching that the baptism of implicit desire is really the baptism of explicit desire, since both the invincibly ignorant man and the instructed catechumen must have exactly the same understanding of the Catholic Faith in order to be saved. I find such a reading of this letter to be absurd.

 

[stanley123]

USMC:

Stanley,

The council of Florence defined infallibly that the Jewish religion is null and void and will not save anyone.

In addition, the Jewish religion of the Old Testament is no more; it doesn’t exist. It was destroyed by God during the first century. They no longer have a their temple; they no longer have their sacrifices; and they no longer even know who belongs to the priestly tribe of Levi. The descendants of Levi were the priests of the Old Testament. These lineal records are long since gone. The Old Covenant is not practiced by the Jews today. They have a new religion that evolved after the first century and it is not the Old Covenant of the Bible.

I understand that these are confusing days for Catholics. Although we cannot always trust the teachings of those in leadership positions today, we can always trust the infallible declarations from the dogmatic councils. That is our sure source of truth in this day of error, contradiction, and confusion.

I’m sure you can locate the pertinent texts from the council of Florence that discussing the Old Covenant being void. You ought to read over them.

Yes. It does look like according to the Council of Florence the Old Covenant is void. However, it looks like the exact contrary is being taught today by Catholic authorities in high positions in the Roman Curia. Judging from the statements quoted (and links given leading to other declarations on this issue) in post #67, it looks like the teaching has been changed.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

People can be saved outside of “visible” member ship in the Catholic church, by a God-given implicit baptism of desire. Note that I said GOD GIVEN. You must have sanctifying grace within your soul. To the extent that you DO have it, you are a Catholic, even if you don’t realize it.

NO ONE can be saved “AS” a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Moslem, etc or BY those religions. But to the extent that INDIVIDUALS within those religions have the Grace of God working in them as noted above, they are in voto members of the Catholic Church and are saved “AS” Catholics.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

 

[Matt16_18]

cynic:

and yet there is no evidence for any divinely inspired tribesman spontaneousely preaching Christianity . There is no evidence of that at all. So you must conclude that God intended these people to go to hell. God did not wish their souls to be saved, otherwise they would have been given the opportunity.

The Dutch Calvinist fighting in the Boer wars in Africa, and the Southern Baptist slave owner in antebellum America would heartily affirm this conclusion!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jaypeeto3:

People can be saved outside of “visible” member ship in the Catholic church, by a God-given implicit baptism of desire. Note that I said GOD GIVEN. You must have sanctifying grace within your soul. To the extent that you DO have it, you are a Catholic, even if you don’t realize it.

NO ONE can be saved “AS” a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Moslem, etc or BY those religions. But to the extent that INDIVIDUALS within those religions have the Grace of God working in them as noted above, they are in voto members of the Catholic Church and are saved “AS” Catholics.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

I agree, they aren’t saved “AS,” they are saved “WHILE,” by the things IN their churches/ecclesial communities that derive from the Catholic Church. As Domine Jesus says, their communities are still deficient.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC,

Here’s the doctrine from Florence…

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

I don’t believe the above intends to consider those who are joined to the Church in soul yet not perhaps in body, do you? Those joined in soul are inside the ark of salvation, right?

According to Florence (and the Council of Orange), the Church taught that only those who die impenitent of mortal sin or original sin descend immediately to hell. It seems to me the pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics referred to above are simply ANY who die in mortal or original sin (Catholics implicitly included). Yet, we know that baptism or its desire remits all sin. Thus, those who in body are pagan or Jews may be in soul joined to the Catholic Church. Also, with regard to heretics and schismatics who have been baptized, we can only be speaking of impenitence in mortal sin as their original sin is remitted… We know that there are conditions for mortal sin, which apply even to the mortal sin of heresy and schism, which are subjective and dependent upon the impediments to voluntariness within each persons intellect and will. I don’t interpret Florence to be attempting to even address these questions, so I don’t see it as proof that explicit faith is absolutely required without exception.

Not all who appear in body to be outside the Church, are indeed outside the Church in soul, as Pope St. Pius X affirms, but may be joined by implicit desire.

As we have both affirmed, implicit desire alone is not salvific, nor is ignorance alone. One must have supernatural faith, hope, and charity.

The question still remains–and I don’t think there’s any de fide or sententia certa from the magisterium on this, sot it remains free opinion–what of those joined to the Church by implicit desire? For these, is implicit (unexpressed) supernatural faith sufficient so long as it worketh charity?

As I stated earlier, I think subjectively speaking, implicit faith can be sufficient*** if*** impediments to voluntary explicit assent of faith are present. Voluntary refusal to give explicit assent of faith is another issue altogether, since we are all called objectively to have explicit faith in all the dogmas of Catholcisim.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

stanley123:

Yes. It does look like according to the Council of Florence the Old Covenant is void. However, it looks like the exact contrary is being taught today by Catholic authorities in high positions in the Roman Curia. Judging from the statements quoted (and links given leading to other declarations on this issue) in post #67, it looks like the teaching has been changed.

Stanly123,

I don’t believe the official teaching has changed. No Acta Apolostoicae Sedis seems to agree with the notion that Jews don’t need to be born again in Christ to be saved. Not that I could find anyway.

I recommend a view contrary to that of Cardinal Kaspar by Cardinal Avery Dulles…

Covenant and Mission by Cardinal Avery Dulles
sfarchdiocese.org/dulles.html

Also from Envoy Magazine…

Jews don’t need Jesus? by Carl Olsen
envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/083002.htm

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

USMC,

Here’s the doctrine from Florence…

I don’t believe the above intends to consider those who are joined to the Church in soul yet not perhaps in body, do you? Those joined in soul are inside the ark of salvation, right?

According to Florence (and the Council of Orange), the Church taught that only those who die impenitent of mortal sin or original sin descend immediately to hell. It seems to me the pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics referred to above are simply ANY who die in mortal or original sin (Catholics implicitly included). Yet, we know that baptism or its desire remits all sin. Thus, those who in body are pagan or Jews may be in soul joined to the Catholic Church. Also, with regard to heretics and schismatics who have been baptized, we can only be speaking of impenitence in mortal sin as their original sin is remitted… We know that there are conditions for mortal sin, which apply even to the mortal sin of heresy and schism, which are subjective and dependent upon the impediments to voluntariness within each persons intellect and will. I don’t interpret Florence to be attempting to even address these questions, so I don’t see it as proof that explicity faith is absolutely required without exception.

Not all who appear in body to be outside the Church, are indeed outside the Church in soul, as Pope St. Pius X affirms, but may be joined by implicit desire.

As we have both affirmed, implicit desire alone is not salvific, nor is ignorance alone. One must have supernatural faith, hope, and charity.

The question still remains, and I don’t think there’s any de fide or sententia certa from the magisterium on this–what of those joined to the Church by desire? For these, Is implicit (unexpressed) supernatural faith sufficient so long as it worketh charity?

As I stated earlier, I think subjectively speaking, implicit faith can be sufficient if impediments to voluntary explicit assent of faith are present. Yet we are all called objectively to have explicit faith in all the dogmas of Catholcisim.

I agree with everything you said except for the last paragraph. I started to respond to your previous post about implicit faith, but I need to find a quote before I post it.

When I said in a previous post to read the quote from the Council of Florence, I was referring to a different quote. Not the one you commented on. The quote I am referring to says that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation.

I will give the quote again in the post I will be sending in a minute.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC:

I agree with everything you said except for the last paragraph. I started to respond to your previous post about implicit faith, but I need to find a quote before I post it.

When I said in a previous post to read the quote from the Council of Florence, I was referring to a different quote. Not the one you commented on. The quote I am referring to says that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation.

I will give the quote again in the post I will be sending in a minute.

Oh…

I don’t think my view changes though. If one has impediments to voluntary assent of explicit faith, then their culpability is diminished and sometimes alleviated. Infants can’t have explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. I don’t think Florence intends to pronounce an absolute necessity in that regard.

Dr. Ludwig Ott also seems to disagree, as he asserts in his *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *that at a minimum, only explicit faith in the existence of God and that he is a rewarded of those that seek him is required (cf. Heb 11:6)…

***Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace…As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Heb 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held…with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. ***(pg. 241)

Thus, as I stated earlier, I believe we lack de fide or sententia certa on the matter.

PS. I updated my last paragraph while your were writing your last post.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

Vincible ignorance is conquerable given sufficient capability, time, and opportunity.

By definition, vincible ignorance can be overcome.VINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Lack of culpable knowledge for which a person is morally responsible. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence.

One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one’s lack of effort to clear up the ignorance.

That person is crassly ignorant when the lack of knowledge is not directly willed but due to neglect or laziness; as a result the guilt is somewhat lessened, but in grave matters a person would still be gravely responsible.

A person has affected ignorance when one deliberately fosters it in order to not be inhibited in what one wants to do; such ignorance is gravely wrong when it concerns serious matters.

(Eytm. Latin vincibilis, easily overcome; ignorantia, want of knowledge or information.)

INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Lack of knowledge, either of fact of law, for which a person is not morally responsible. This may be due to the difficulty of the object of the knowledge, or scarcity of evidence, or insufficient time and talent in the person, or any other factor for which he is not culpable.

(Etym. Latin in, not + vincibilis, easily overcome: invincibilis.)

Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S.J

I think most people see how invincible ignorance (unconquerable) is without culpability, and is rather rare

I think that there are billions of people on earth that are living now, or who have lived in the past, that have never heard an explicit exposition of the Gospel. These people are not culpable for the sin of rejecting the dogma of the Trinity (i.e. culpable for the sin of formal heresy).

I also believe that no one that has reached the age of reason lacks a knowledge (however imperfect) of the natural law. This knowledge of the natural law is a knowledge of absolute truth – which means, in a way, a knowledge of the Word of God. It is a knowledge of the Word of God that is implicit because it is knowledge of what is written on the heart. It is not an explicit understanding that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us that is given by “inspiration” apart from the preaching of the Gospel to men by the evangelists of the Catholic Church.

I held that one must have explicit faith in ALL the dogmas of Catholicism insofar as they are capable. In other words, given that there are no impediments to will and intellect in their assent, they must have explicit faith in all dogmas. What they are culpable for is based upon voluntariness. Which is the context, I believe, of the Council of Florence, as the Catholic theology even before Florence insisted that grave moral sins can become venial if they lacked deliberate reason. … I believe both St. Thomas and Florence had objective order in mind, without getting into the complicated theology of the condition for voluntariness as is well-treated elsewhere. … Clearly, infants who are baptized cannot have explicit (expressed) faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation, and so St. Thomas and Florence cannot have them in mind, right? So it seems that neither Florence nor St. Thomas were speaking of absolute necessity for every human soul, no matter their subjective condition …

I agree.

The Council of Florence was NOT teaching that there is no such thing as invincible ignorance, and that a Jew that was living in some remote village in Abyssinia that lacked an explicit knowledge of the Gospel is condemned to Hell for not becoming a formal member of the Catholic Church before he died. The Council of Florence is talking about people who KNOW what the Catholic Church teaches and who reject that teaching. Vatican II teaches this also:… men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as a necessity" (Lumen Gentium14).Knowing is the key word here.