"No Salvation outside the Catholic Church"

[itsjustdave1988]

Matt16_18,

I think we agree. My point to USMC is that it is clear that invincible ignorance lacks culpability, but what is at the margin is how much culpability does *vincible *ignorance have? The answer… it may or may not be diminished depending upon the voluntariness of the ignorance.

Fr. John Hardon (and St. Thomas) both include “affected ignorance” among vincible ignorance whereas I have chosen to set it apart. However, it seems clear to me that St. Paul’s ignorance (1 Tim 1:13) was neither invincible nor affected but among what Fr. John Hardon described here: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.

Each of the kindgs of vincible ingorance above may have diminished the voluntariness of the human act and as such, is met with mercy to the extent that it may diminish some but not all culpability. Is such ignorance compatible with the conditions for mortal sin? I don’t believe so. Thus, penalty for guilt remains insofar as the guilt of lack of effort is present, but I believe full advertence and pefect consent in grave sin is lacking with the above kinds of ignorance.

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

USMC,
I believe invincible 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.

I agree that grave matter must have full consent, but we are not talking about the loss of sanctifying grace due to mortal sin, but rather to initial justification. Two different things.

The point about the child is a good one to consider. However, as we know, a child receives supernatural faith through the sacrament of baptism. Even before they are able to intellectually adhere or understand any dogmas of the faith, they have supernatural faith infused into them along with Hope and Charity. The faith they receive is referred to as a “seed” of faith, but it is true supernatural faith.

The Catechism of Trent teaches that a child has no other means of attaining justification than Baptism since they cannot have explicit faith, nor the desire for baptism.

Catechism of Trent: "It may not be doubted that in Baptism infants receive the mysterious gifts of faith. Not that they believe with the assent of the mind, but they are established in the faith of their parents… “The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…”

The infant, not being able to make an act of faith, is nevertheless justified by the infusion of faith and charity at baptism.

But we are speaking of an adult who does not have faith infused at baptism, and who lacks faith due to ignorance. Even though his ignorance may not be culpable, he would still be in the state of original sin, and thus not justified.

We know that to obtain the state of grace, faith is required. Now, is merely implicit faith, or explicit faith necessary?

I think this is answered by the council of Florence, which says the following (this is the quote I was referring to earlier):

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith… But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity…. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…"

Again, the child receives faith through baptism, and is therefore not required to adhere to the two required doctrines until they are capable. But the invincibly ignorant saint living on a deserted island who is following the inspirations of God in an extraordinary way (has such a person ever existed?) does not have baptism, but does have the capability to make an act of faith.

What the saint on the desert island lacks is the intellectual knowledge. But the intellectual knowledge is what is required to have faith. "How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? Or how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14).

At this point I will have to agree with St. Thomas in saying that if an invincibly ignorant saint lived on a desert island, God would either send him a missionary, or enlighten him internally.

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.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1:

Objection "It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.

Reply: “It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”.

That is what I tent to believe. It is not difficult task for God to send a missionary, or enlighten a person who is following the inspirations of actual grace and the light of reason. The difficulty is in finding such a person. It is hard enough to live a sinless life with the sacraments: how much more so without them.

If there is such a person who is able to live better than 99.999% of the Catholics, without the sacraments, I’m sure God will see to it that they are brought into the fold one way or another.

 

[cynic]

USMC:

But we are speaking of an adult who does not have faith infused at baptism, and who lacks faith due to ignorance. Even though his ignorance may not be culpable, he would still be in the state of original sin, and thus not justified.

So God puts no value on their souls…

USMC:

That is what I tent to believe. It is not difficult task for God to send a missionary, or enlighten a person who is following the inspirations of actual grace and the light of reason.

but that doesn’t appear to happen does it, and most of us become christians by hearing christianity first, then obeying, not the other way round. Your opinions are barely different from Calvanism, except you’ve replaced christian with Catholic as the necessity.

USMC:

If there is such a person who is able to live better than 99.999% of the Catholics, without the sacraments, I’m sure God will see to it that they are brought into the fold one way or another.

so in your mind, you’re sure that every one of the billions of people who lived and died, never hearing of Christianity would have rejected it anyway.

 

[mosher]

jimmy:

Both sides are in error. The Feeneyites ignore the council of Trent and all the saints writings to get what they teach. The other side, which are basically pelagians, have ignored the constant teaching of the necessity of baptism. They have also ignored the teaching that we can only be saved through grace and assumed that man can save himself by being good.

I have seen the error a lot on this forum. People desire to see all saved, and it is a great thing to hope for, but they ignore the teachings of the Church. There is a modern indifferentism that has lead many Catholics to believe that it really doesn’t matter if you are Catholic. They say that if you die a hindu you will be a "c"atholic in heaven. It’s denying the teaching.

Perfect. I would also comment that reason for this is not as the OP stated that we have a broader understanding of what it means to be Catholic (first of all because we don’t and second because it doesn’t matter). The formulation of the Dogma is Extra Ecclesia Non Solus - Apart from the Church there is no Salvation. What we believe today about those who are not properly Catholic entering into heaven is what was proclaimed at Trent. We believe that a person who is not baptized could be saved because of God’s justice or ignorance to a level that would make his error sfficiently mitigated for not being catholic. However, such things are up to God. There is also perfect intention and forms of martyerdom that are other extraordinary means of salvation. However, we must always hold that Baptism and confession of the Catholic faith are the Ordinary means of salvation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC:

I agree that grave matter must have full consent, but we are not talking about the loss of sanctifying grace due to mortal sin, but rather to initial justification. Two different things.

I was trying to attend to both. However, strictly treating those who are yet to be baptized, baptism or its desire remits all sin and justifies.

The Catechism of Trent teaches that a child has no other means of attaining justification than Baptism

I agree this is the necessary sacramental means available to the Church, I disagree this omits other extra-sacramental means by God Himself. St. John the Baptist was baptized extra-sacramentally in the womb, as what St. Mary. St. Bernard held that there may be extra-sacramental means for infant baptism, such as the vicarious desire of the godparent, as did Cardinal Cajetan before Trent, who included the possibility of the vicarious desire by the Church.

But we are speaking of an adult who does not have faith infused at baptism, and who lacks faith due to ignorance. Even though his ignorance may not be culpable, he would still be in the state of original sin, and thus not justified.

All those in a state of original sin, no matter how naturally moral or immoral they are, since they are not born from above they are not, therefore, on the way of salvation.

However, I am referring to those baptized by desire which remits all sin, to include original sin. So, I’m saying that one who may appear *outside *in our eyes may indeed be inside the Church in God’s eyes, through extra-sacramental baptism. Extra-sacramental baptism of desire justifies and infuses supernatural faith, hope, and charity. For these, only those who die impenitent of mortal sin descend immediately to hell. Grave sin has subjective conditions that must be met to be formally mortal sin. We also know that “love covers all offenses” (Prov 10:12)

We know that to obtain the state of grace, faith is required. Now, is merely implicit faith, or explicit faith necessary?

Hmmmm… I don’t think I’d word it that way. According to Trent, “we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.”

Instead, of the gratuitous gift of justification, Trent teaches, “no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.”

We receive faith, hope, and charity consequent to the receipt of the gift of justification.

I think instead that, like Cornelius of Act 10, persons are true believers even before expressing explicit faith in the Incarnation or the Trinity. God reveals himself in many ways, through angels, through people like Peter, or simply “in the things that have been made.” (Rom 1:20). They are accountable to believe that which God has written in their hearts or otherwise revealed to them. They will be judged by the gifts they have been given.

St. Thomas said of Cornelius, “it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.” We are called, like Peter, to give fuller instruction. Yet even before Peter instructed him, Cornelius was a believer who had implicit faith, right? Are believers with merely implicit faith damnable?

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

The only pope that I have found to address this is John Paul II, who taught, “In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied.” (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope). This, like St. Thomas’ Summa is a mere work of theology, not an Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Therefore, it remains free opinion. I’ve not found any magisterial texts which contradict this opinion, however. I interpret the texts that you have quoted as referfing to the objective order, not the subjective order. It is clear that in the objective order, it is necessary that every dogma of Catholicism be explicitly believed with the assent of faith. But those who have mere implicit faith are also joined to us as “believers,” as St. Thomas asserts. St. Gregory too asserts, speaking of his late father, “***He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us…there are many of those outside who belong really to us.” ***(St. Gregory of NaNazianzus, AD 374, citation from William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, p. 29).

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

At this point I will have to agree with St. Thomas in saying that if an invincibly ignorant saint lived on a desert island, God would either send him a missionary, or enlighten him internally.

To save an invincibly ignorant man God could do this. But the question is must God do this to save an invincibly ingnorant man? The Church teaches that there is NO necessity in God.

It seems to me that you are asserting is that the Catholic Church teaches that it is impossible for a man to enter heaven and also die invincibly ignorant of the dogmas of the Catholic Church. She doesn’t teach this.

It is a mistake to assert that God is “bound by his sacraments.”**Catechism of the Catholic Church

THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 ** The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. Where is the Catechism teaching that the invincibly ignorant man must be given an explicit knowledge of the dogmas of the Catholic faith in order to be saved?

jimmy:

We know no way of salvation other than water baptism.

The CCC says this: “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.”

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

I’m saying that one who may appear outside in our eyes may indeed be inside the Church in God’s eyes, through extra-sacramental baptism. Extra-sacramental baptism of desire justifies and infuses supernatural faith, hope, and charity.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

DECREE ON ECUMENISM - UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

 

[USMC]

I agree with most of what you wrote, and only have a few comments.

USMC:

We know that to obtain the state of grace, faith is required. Now, is merely implicit faith, or explicit faith necessary?

itsjustdave1988:

Hmmmm… I don’t think I’d word it that way. According to Trent, “we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.”

I wasn’t saying that faith merits justification, only that faith is a necessary prerequisite for justification in adults. In other words, faith is necessary for the reception of baptism.

Dave:

I think instead that, like Cornelius of Act 10, persons are true believers even before expressing explicit faith in the Incarnation or the Trinity.

St. Thomas said of Cornelius, “it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.”

We are called, like Peter, to give fuller instruction. Yet even before Peter instructed him, Cornelius was a believer who had implicit faith, right? Are believers with merely implicit faith damnable?

But was Cornelius, before Peter revealed the truth to him, a true believer? A non believer? Or an unbeliever? There is a difference.

You have discussed a believer and an unbeliever; but what about a non beleiver?

A true believer is one who believes the truth. But in order to believe the truth, the truth must have been made known. In other words, a true believer must have explicit faith.

An unbeliever is one who rejects the truth, and therefore has no faith an all.

But a non believer is one who does not yet explicitly believe the truth (because it has not been revealed to them), yet has not rejected anything. The non believer could have implicit faith. That is, they might believe all that God has revealed to them, and be so disposed that they will believe the truth when it is revealed to them (like Cornelius); but until the truth is revealed to them they cannot truly be called a believer, for they are ignorant of that which they are required to believe!

Such a person would have implicit faith, but not explicit faith

I would say Cornelius was a non believer; that is, he rejected nothing; was properly disposed; but the truth had not yet been revealed to him.

If you disagree, think about it. If someone would have approached Corneluis before Peter arrived, and asked if he beleive in the Trinity and Incarnation of Jesus, what would he have said? He would have said “Jesus who?” because those truths had not yet been revealed to him. Therefore he could not truly be called a believer, but at most a non believer who had implicit faith. He was certainly not an unbeliever, since he had rejected nothing, but he also was not a believer, since the truth had not yet been made known to him.

 

[cynic]

USMC:

But a non believer is one who does not yet explicitly believe the truth (because it has not been revealed to them), yet has not rejected anything. The non believer could have implicit faith. That is, they might believe all that God has revealed to them, and be so disposed that they will believe the truth when it is revealed to them (like Cornelius); but until the truth is revealed to them they cannot truly be called a believer, for they are ignorant of that which they are required to believe!

Such a person would have implicit faith, but not explicit faith

I would say Cornelius was a non believer; that is, he rejected nothing; was properly disposed; but the truth had not yet been revealed to him.

If you disagree, think about it. If someone would have approached Corneluis before Peter arrived, and asked if he beleive in the Trinity and Incarnation of Jesus, what would he have said? He would have said “Jesus who?” because those truths had not yet been revealed to him. Therefore he could not truly be called a believer, but at most a non believer who had implicit faith. He was certainly not an unbeliever, since he had rejected nothing, but he also was not a believer, since the truth had not yet been made known to him.

well duh. So if someone dies in this state they go to hell. End of story, no other possibility. God would not consider what they would have done had they heard it, their predispostion. They are simply in hell. That apparently is justice.

 

[Photini]

USMC:

At this point I will have to agree with St. Thomas in saying that if an invincibly ignorant saint lived on a desert island, God would either send him a missionary, or enlighten him internally.

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.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1:

Objection "It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.

Reply: “It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

…If there is such a person who is able to live better than 99.999% of the Catholics, without the sacraments, I’m sure God will see to it that they are brought into the fold one way or another.

Well, this is exactly what happened to Cornelius, a Gentile man:

"At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, ‘Cornelius!’

Cornelius stared at him in fear. ‘What is it, Lord,?’ he asked.

The angel answered, ‘Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.’

When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa…" (Acts 10:1-8)

“Then Peter began to speak: 'I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all…” (Acts 10:34-36)

“(Jesus) commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that He is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.” (Acts 10:42-43)

I don’t know if any of you have heard of (Evangelical) apologist Ravi Zacharias. He had a rather “Cornelius” type conversion himself. So did I, as a matter of fact!

As the book of Acts demonstrates, if one is truly seeking God, God WILL lead that individual to Jesus, for “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

As for no longer evangelizing the Jews, my goodness-- haven’t these Church higher-ups ever read the Book of Hebrews, for crying out loud?!? If we really love our Jewish brothers and sisters, we will, in humility and charity, SHARE THE GOSPEL WITH THEM!!!

My heart is so grieved by many things I have read on this forum this afternoon, e.g., well-meaning Blessed (Mother) Teresa telling Hindus to just go and “be good Hindus.” I think it was the link to those all-roads-lead-to-Heaven stained glass windows, however, that pushed me right over the edge.

I had no idea these things were going on in the Church!! I am seriously re-considering my reversion!!!

 

[Matt16_18]

Photini:

As the book of Acts demonstrates, if one is truly seeking God, God WILL lead that individual to Jesus …

Among billions of people in the last two-thousand years that never expressed an explicit faith in Jesus, not a single one of them was truly seeking God. This is a Fundamentalist Protestant belief, not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.”

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

A true believer is one who believes the truth.

Obviously - a true believer believes the truth that he knows.

But in order to believe the truth, the truth must have been made known.

Any man is capable of learning more truth if more of what is true is revealed to him.

If a man does not have knowledge of all the truth that is divinely revealed, it does not logically follow that he possesses no knowledge of anything that is true. The OT saints were saved without a knowledge of all the divine truths that God wished to reveal.

In other words, a true believer must have explicit faith.

All men know the truth of the natural law because it is written on their hearts. The Catholic Church does not teach that one must explicitly know the Gospel to know the truth that one must neither murder nor steal, and that one should worship God.

An unbeliever is one who rejects the truth, and therefore has no faith an all.

All damned men know some truth. It is because they act against the truth that they know that they are damned.

But a non believer is one who does not yet explicitly believe the truth (because it has not been revealed to them), yet has not rejected anything.

The Sioux man of AD 1000 is invincibly ignorant that Jesus is the Word made flesh that dwelt among us. He can’t possibly have rejected that truth since it has never been taught to him. But he would still know the truth of the natural law, and since the natural law is knowledge of the absolute, it is also knowledge of the Word of God. A Sioux man could, by the following the natural law, aided by grace, be saved - even if he never expressed an explicit faith that Jesus is the Word made Flesh. The Sioux man that follows the natural law is really following the Word of God, since the Word of God is the Truth.

People are damned because they lead wicked lives and die unrepentant of mortal sin, not because they are ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life … [God] by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

Quanto conficiamur moerore

The non believer could have implicit faith.

See itsjustdave’s post # 86:“In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied.” (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope)

 

[amor]

The meaning of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is a practical one. It is directed against those who would suppose to find salvation anywhere else. It means that if you want to find salvation, the only place where it is to be found is in the Church, the one Catholic Church.

So I think supposing that salvation can be found anywhere else would directly contradict that teaching.

dave:

“In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied.”

You bolded this but I do not think you realize what it is saying. “Necessary condition” is not the same thing as “sufficient condition.” If a condition is necessary that means without it, that for which it is a necessary condition, cannot be realized. It does not mean that with it, that for which it is a necessary condition, will undoubtedly be realized – that would be a sufficient condition, not (merely) a necessary one. This is not something I made up; it is taught in both philosophy and mathematics and since the Holy Father had a degree in philosophy, I’m fairly sure he would have been aware of this distinction when making such comments.

 

[USMC]

Matt16_18:

Obviously - a true believer believes the truth that he knows.

Any man is capable of learning more truth if more of what is true is revealed to him.

If a man does not have knowledge of all the truth that is divinely revealed, it does not logically follow that he possesses no knowledge of anything that is true. The OT saints were saved without a knowledge of all the divine truths that God wished to reveal.

Merely natual knowledge is not enough for salvation; nor is it enough to be considered a Christian believer. Man must possess supernatural knowledge; that is, after the incarnation and redemption, man possess and adhere to knowledge that is above the natural level. The two articles of belief (supernatural truth) that the Church and St. Thomas teach are necessary, are the Trinity and Incarnation. All Dogmas don’t have to be explicitly believed unless they have been known to a person; however, the Trinity and Incarnation are the two supernatural mysteries that must be beleived to have faith “without which it is impossible to please God”, unless, of course, that faith was infused into them at baptism as with infants. The following is St. Thomas’ answer to the point you raised.

NOTE: St. Thomas starts each topic by raising objections. After the objections have been raised he will usually say “on the contrary” and give a short, one or two sentence refutation. Then he answers the question; then lastly, he directly answers the objections he first raised.

St. Thomas: Whether man is bound to believe anything explicitly?

*Objection 1. It would seem that man is not bound to believe anything explicitly. For no man is bound to do what is not in his power. Now it is not in man’s power to believe a thing explicitly, for it is written (Romans 10:14-15): “How shall they believe Him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” Therefore man is not bound to believe anything explicitly.

On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 11:6): "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him."

**I answer that, ** The precepts of the Law, which man is bound to fulfil, concern acts of virtue which are the means of attaining salvation. Now an act of virtue, as stated above (I-II, 60, 5) depends on the relation of the habit to its object. Again two things may be considered in the object of any virtue; namely, that which is the proper and direct object of that virtue, and that which is accidental and consequent to the object properly so called. Thus it belongs properly and directly to the object of fortitude, to face the dangers of death, and to charge at the foe with danger to oneself, for the sake of the common good: yet that, in a just war, a man be armed, or strike another with his sword, and so forth, is reduced to the object of fortitude, but indirectly.

Accordingly, just as a virtuous act is required for the fulfilment of a precept, so is it necessary that the virtuous act should terminate in its proper and direct object: but, on the other hand, the fulfilment of the precept does not require that a virtuous act should terminate in those things which have an accidental or secondary relation to the proper and direct object of that virtue, except in certain places and at certain times. We must, therefore, say that the direct object of faith is that whereby man is made one of the Blessed, as stated above (1, 8): while the indirect and secondary object comprises all things delivered by God to us in Holy Writ, for instance that Abraham had two sons, that David was the son of Jesse, and so forth.

Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith [the Trinity and Incarnation], man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith. *

Reply to Objection 1. If we understand those things alone to be in a man’s power, which we can do without the help of grace, then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and our neighbor, and likewise to believe the articles of faith. But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help “to whomsoever it is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original, sin,” as Augustine states (De Corr. et Grat. v, vi [Cf. Ep. cxc; De Praed. Sanct. viii.]).

continue…

 

[USMC]

continuation

Matt16_18:

People are damned because they lead wicked lives and die unrepentant of mortal sin, not because they are ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

That is the seat of your error. People are not damned only because they live wicked lives. You are reasoning as though man comes into this world justified, as though grace is his to lose. That is false. Man comes into this world damned. If he does not receive grace, even if he doesn’t commit a mortal sin (which is unlikely), he is damned.

That is what the quote from St. Thomas (who was quoting Augustine) says. It says that those who die in ignorance are not damned due to their ingnorance, which is not culpable, but due to some sin they have committed, or original sin. “to whomsoever it (grace) is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original, sin as Augustine states” (St. Thomas).

Man has no right to grace. That is a common error of the modernist. No man comes into this world justified, and no man becomes justified without faith. That is what the Church teaches and that is exactly what St. Thomas said above.

If you dare to argue with that, you are not arguing with me, but with the objective truth taught by the Church.

 

[USMC]

Dave:

The only pope that I have found to address this is John Paul II, who taught, **“In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied.” ** (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope).

Amor:

You bolded this but I do not think you realize what it is saying. “Necessary condition” is not the same thing as “sufficient condition.” If a condition is necessary that means without it, that for which it is a necessary condition, cannot be realized. It does not mean that with it, that for which it is a necessary condition, will undoubtedly be realized – that would be a sufficient condition, not (merely) a necessary one. This is not something I made up; it is taught in both philosophy and mathematics and since the Holy Father had a degree in philosophy, I’m fairly sure he would have been aware of this distinction when making such comments.

That was an excellent point.

What is interesting is this: Dave said that the only Pope he has found that says implicit faith suffices in John Paul II. But according to what you wrote, that is not what John Paul II actually said.

What does this tell us? It tells us that no Pope has ever taught that merely implicit faith will suffice for justification, however, it was infallibly defined at the Council of Florence that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation ARE necessary for salvation.

So, those who teach that merely implicit faith can suffice are not teaching what the church has officially taught; and are in fact teaching the exact contrary.

Council of Florence: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith… But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity…. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…"

The Church defined this inallibly and, according to Dave, no Pope has ever taught otherwise. Therefore, those who do teach that implicit faith will suffice, are teaching their own opinion, and the exact opposite of what the defined infallibly.

It would seem to me that we are a very solid foundation by believing that explicit faith is necessary, and on a very dangerous foundation believing otherwise.

 

[Photini]

Matt16_18:

Among billions of people in the last two-thousand years that never expressed an explicit faith in Jesus, not a single one of them was truly seeking God. This is a Fundamentalist Protestant belief, not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.”

Hi, Matt,

Did you read the passage in its entirety? *How * does God accept these men from every nation who fear Him and do what is right? By leading them to His Son. That’s the whole point St. Peter is making. We don’t know how this happens-- perhaps sometimes this occurs supernaturally at the deathbed…?

Also, God desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth, yet in His omniscience already knows beforehand who will receive the Gospel and who will not.

Regarding the salvation of OT Saints, please see the fourth chapter of Romans, and the eleventh chapter of Hebrews.

Peace be with you.

Respectfully,
Photini

 

[jimmy]

JKirkLVNV:

Demonstrate this assertion from the Catechism, please. It’s plainly talking about those who have never heard the Gospel at all.

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

(cont)

.

This explicitely says that protestants do not belong to the Church even though there is some mystical bond between them and the Church. The only reason why it does not mention invincible ignorance in reference to the protestants though is because it does not deal with their salvation. It is very clear that protestants are not part of the Church when it says things like.

"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."

When the Catechism of St. Pius X says the below it is very clear that protestants are not part of the Church.

**9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church? **

A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

**12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ? **

A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

amor and USMC,

You have misunderstood me. Let me help clarify…

amor:

…
You bolded this but I do not think you realize what it is saying. “Necessary condition” is not the same thing as “sufficient condition.”

Yes, I do relealize this. Faith alone is not sufficient, whether implicit or explicit. That’s what he meant by necessary versus sufficient.
amore:

If a condition is necessary that means without it, that for which it is a necessary condition, cannot be realized.

Sometimes, but not always. “The word “necessity” is employed in many ways.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 82, 1). For example, both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine teach the “necessity” of the Incarnation. However, they do not connote absolute necessity, as Almighty God could have redeemed us in many number of ways. Instead when they say “necessary” they mean “most fitting” as a horse is most fitting for a journey. “This is called ‘necessity of end,’ and sometimes also 'utility.'” (ibid.; cf. *Summa Theologica, *III, 1, 2). So I don’t accept that “necessary” has only one sense as you have implied, as in patristics, magisterial texts, and theology, this is not the case. The Eucharist, for example, is “necessary” for salvation, but not “absolutely necessary” (cf. *Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, *

Agree.

It does not mean that with it, that for which it is a necessary condition, will undoubtedly be realized – that would be a sufficient condition, not (merely) a necessary one.

I agree. Repentence, faith, love, hope, regeneration, all of these are also necessaril conditions. But you are off point. What kind of faith meets the necessary condition for faith, implict, or explicit, or both?

This is not something I made up; it is taught in both philosophy and mathematics and since the Holy Father had a degree in philosophy, I’m fairly sure he would have been aware of this distinction when making such comments.

As am I, since I too studied philosophy and math in college.

I think you have presumed too much about what I’ve asserted. I am not saying that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. I’m saying that faith is necessary for salvation, and that neither the Church nor Scripture seems to connote “explicit faith” is necessarily for those with implicit desire for baptism. It doesn’t it make any sense that one can have as Pius XII states, a “certain unconscious desire” to be baptized, yet must have explicit faith in merely two articles of faith and not all others. ??

Dr. Ludwig Ott’s in his Fundamentals of Catholci Dogma holds the view that only implicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation “suffices” but in context, he is not setting up a sufficient condition.

Dr. Ott asserts one thing (pre-Vat II source), USMC asserts another. I believe John Paul II is saying that implicit desire fulfils the necessity for salvific faith. I tend to agree with him, and don’t find any other magisterial texts which address this question, let alone contradict John Paul II’s opinion.

USMC:

Dave said that the only Pope he has found that says implicit faith suffices in John Paul II.

Errrrr…no. I think you need to read again, what I wrote.

itsjustdave1988:

I believe that at least implicit faith is absolutely necessariy for salvation.

USMC:

it was infallibly defined at the Council of Florence that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation ARE necessary for salvation.

The Council says nothing of the sort. This is your interpretation, and it clearly differs from Dr. Ludwig Ott pre-Vat II text, doesn’t it?

I believe that in the objective order explicit faith in ALL Catholic dogmas is necessary, but in the subjective order, impediments to will and intellect may dimish culpability and that supernatural faith need not be explicit in the absolute sense. Infants are an obvious exception, and not just because of their age, but due to impediments to the will and intellect. This same exception applies to all souls, not just really young ones.