Problems with Invincible Ignorance

[itsjustdave1988]

Reformed Rob,

St. Thomas certainly taught that God was not bound by the visible performance of the sacraments, let me set forth what I’ve seen that leads me to believe that he, correctly or incorrectly, taught that even w/o the reality (*in re) *of the sacrament of baptism (ie. only the voto of it), he still taught that a person must have explicit Christian faith.

Let’s look at two exceptional examples and consider what St. Thomas teaches about them:

1. Those who have received some knowledge of the Christian faith, but have less than a “fuller instruction in the faith.”
2. Those who have not received “any revelation” in the faith.

Example #1 - Some knowledge about God’s Word, but less than a “fuller instruction in the faith”:

The God-fearing pagan centurian, Cornelius (Acts 10), did not have explicit Christian faith before he was sanctified in the Holy Spirit. Yet, he was not truly an unbeliever before he met Peter, right? His prayers and good works were acceptable to God, seemingly based upon merely implicit faith.

St. Thomas says of Cornelius:

"…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." (ST IIb, 10, 4)

What did Peter tell him? Appearantly Cornelius already knew about Jesus Christ and what he had preached to Israel, as Peter says to them at the beginning of his instruction, “You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ” (v. 36). Yet, it seems Cornelius needed fuller instruction in the faith. In the middle of Peter’s “fuller instruction,” before expressing any explicit Christian belief in Jesus Christ, Cornelius and the others received the grace of the Holy Spirit. Was he saved then? I think so. The essence of salvation is forgiveness of sins. St. Thomas states:

"man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also *before Baptism *Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit" (ST, III, 69, 4)

When did he have explicit Christian faith? Is there evidence in Scritpure that Cornelius ever expressly chose Jesus as his Lord and Savior before the Holy Spirit was poured upon him? Did his sanctification in the Spirit come from implicit or explicit faith? If the latter, what evidence suggests this?

Can justifying faith be manifest in a believer who expresses his faith in Christ without words (as with Cornelius), in the manner in which one submits his life humbly to the will of God as it is revealed more fully to him?

Are there others like Cornelius out there right now, who have yet to become expressly professed Christians, who are struggling to do God’s will with a less than “fuller instruction” in the faith, yet whose prayer and works are acceptable to God base upon an implicit faith? What would happen to others like Cornelius if they should die prior to receiving the fuller instruction on the faith? Do you suppose God will send the Cornelius-like non-Christians into everlasting punishment? Or, does lack of obstinacy couple with an incomplete or poor instruction in Christianity diminish culpability?

St. Thomas teaches that although some materially sin against that which they are bound to explicitly believe, their guilt may be diminished or removed due to certain barriers to proper understanding so long as obstinacy is lacking. Thus, he states:

If, however, [some simple persons are]*** found that they are free from obstinacy in their heterodox sentiments, and that it is due to their simplicity, it is no fault of theirs.*** (ST IIb, 2, 6)

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

to be continued…

Example #2 - Those who have not received “any revelation” in the faith

In response to the objection that “many gentiles obtained salvation through the ministry of the angels…[yet] it would seem that the gentiles had neither explicit nor implicit faith in Christ, since they received no revelation.”

St. Thomas responds:

If, however, some [Gentiles] 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, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth" (ST, IIb, 2, 7)

Note that St. Thomas does not assert that Gentiles ARE saved who do not receive any revelation, but he does not deny this is a possibility. In fact, elsewhere St. Thomas asserts, “No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit.” (ST, IIa, 106, 1).

Consequently, it appears that we will be judged by the gifts we are given. Those given greater gifts are held to a higher standard of faith than those given less than a “fuller instruction in the faith” or those who may be saved “without receiving any revelation.” Supernatural grace comes through faith in Christ, either explicit or implicit.

I argue that implicit Christian faith (that worketh in charity) is sufficient for salvation, for him who lacks obstinacy, with respect to those articles of Christian faith which still remain unclear whether they are contained in the true doctrine of faith. Thus, St. Thomas insists, “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.” (ST, IIb, 2, 5). For those articles of faith which are clear to him who lacks obstinacy, he is bound to believe explicitly.

As I said before, you can’t fake ignorance with God. Thus, what is clear to you (and binding upon you) is known to Him, who also knows when you are being obstinant.

 

[USMC]

Rob,

Great thread and great questions. I will ad my two cents worth.

As you have correctly shown, both St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught that invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin, and that the “invincibly ignorance” will be damned, not due to their ignorance, which was invincible (not their fault), but rather due to some other sin.

As you have also correctly shown, St. Thomas taught that “implicit faith” will not suffice for salvation. According to St. Thomas a person must have explicit faith to be saved.

This teaching of St. Thomas is, of course, not infallible, but we do have an infallible teaching of the Church that says a person must have the Catholic Faith to be saved.

I am unaware of the Church ever defining de fide that implicit faith will suffice for salvation. Catechisms are not protected by infallibility, but dogmatic councils are, and the Council of Trent taught that, in order to be saved a person must have the “Catholic Faith, without which it is impossible to please God,…” (Session 5, The Decree Concerning Original Sin (June 17, 1546):

It also taught the following in Session 6, Chapter VIII: “But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons;…” (Decree Concerning Justification (Jan. 13, 1547):

So, it is a defined doctrine of the Church that a person must have the Catholic faith to be saved. If this is so (and it is), how can a person who does not have the faith (invincibly ignorant) be saved? That would certainly seem to be a contradiction.

Personally, I am of the opinion that explicit faith is necessary for salvation, but it may be possible that implicit faith could suffice. I can’t say for sure.

In the encyclical, Acerbo Nimis, Pope Saint Pius X quoted his predecessor, Pope Benedict XIV as saying that ignorance was the reason for the damnation of the greater number of those who are lost:

“And so, Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV had just cause to write: ‘we declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect’."(Acerbo Nimis, April 15, 1905)

Above, Pope St. Pius X certain seems to be saying that explicit faith is necessary for salvation.

Pope Pius IX is often quote in support of the possibility of salvation for those who are invincibly ignorant. But actually, he does not say that such a person will be saved withouth faith. It may be that he is saying God will bring them to the faith. This seems probable when one reads the entire context of the often quoted passage:

Pope Pius IX: “Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.”

Notice that the Pope qualifies this by saying the invincibly ignorant person must not be guilty of any deliberate sin. So here we are dealing with a virtually impossible situation: a person who is truly invincibly ignorant, and has never committed a deliberat sins. That is virtually about impossible. Also, the Pope does not say the person will be saved without the faith, he just says that such a person is able to attain to eternal life. This no one denies, for God will certainly reveal the truth to such a person. It is very easy for God to send a missionary to a person who has been perfect for their entire life, and declare to them the Catholic faith “without which it is impossible to please God”. Not only would that be easy for God, but that would be expected.

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

to be continued…

Example #2 - Those who have not received “any revelation” in the faith

In response to the objection that “many gentiles obtained salvation through the ministry of the angels…[yet] it would seem that the gentiles had neither explicit nor implicit faith in Christ, since they received no revelation.”

St. Thomas responds:

Note that St. Thomas does not assert that Gentiles ARE saved who do not receive any revelation, but he does not deny this is a possibility. In fact, elsewhere St. Thomas asserts, “No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit.” (ST, IIa, 106, 1).

That quote from St. Thomas applied during the days of the Old Testament. He taught that today explicit faith was necessry:

St. Thomas: Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?

"I answer that, As stated above (5;1, 8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons.

“After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ”

 

[Reformed_Rob]

USMC:

That quote from St. Thomas applied during the days of the Old Testament. He taught that today explicit faith was necessry:

Thanks there USMC. That’s an important distinction in time. The thinking goes that, since early Christians thought that perhaps some OT Gentiles could be saved with simple “Hebrews 11:6” faith, but they didn’t apply that to NT non-Christians, well, maybe we should rethink some psychological elements and say that maybe some post-Christ people could be saved with simple “Hebrews 11:6” faith.

In case you didn’t get through all the thread, and I know it’s getting long, I’ll fill you in:

I’m not Catholic, yet, and this Extra Eccl. Nulla Sanctum, invincible ignorance, and such “Traditionalist” type issues are red flags to me. Like, should I consider such things as just on the level of the Protestant Reformers who said basically “The Church Fathers didn’t teach what the Papists teach now, they taught what we believe and teach?” Ok, so, I want to at least try to understand this aspect of “modern” Catholicism. Which, I realize, is a development of Jesuit thinking post-Trent.

Coming from a Calvinistic background, it’s hard to do. The “traditional” Catholic view that you set forth just makes more sense, and seems more “Catholic.” But I’m not giving up.

Anyways, it’s late, and I’ve got to get some sleep.

-Rob

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As you have correctly shown, both St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught that invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin, and that the “invincibly ignorance” will be damned, not due to their ignorance, which was invincible (not their fault), but rather due to some other sin.

I disagree. One has to ignore the other portions of the Summa Theologica to accept this conclusion.

The invincibly ignorant will not necessarily be damned, according to St. Thomas. If the invincibly ignorant do not have faith working in charity, they certainly will be damned (same with Catholics), according to St. Thomas. Yet the invincibly ignorant can be saved by implicit faith if, lacking obstinancy, they lack explicit faith in article that are not understood to be among the essential articles of faith.

Where those lacking obstinacy are bound to have explicit faith, according to St. Thomas is, “*** when it is clear to him* that they are contained in the doctrine of faith.**” (ST, IIb, 2, 5).

As you have also correctly shown, St. Thomas taught that “implicit faith” will not suffice for salvation.

Implicit faith that worketh in love is sufficient, according to St. Thomas, for those lacking obstinacy, except for those article of faith which are clearly a part of the essential doctrines of faith.

So, St. Thomas could deny the Immaculate Conception, which is an essential article of faith. Yet I cannot.

According to A TOUR OF THE SUMMA By Msgr. Paul J. Glenn, explicit faith is necessary for those who are capable of it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit.” (ST, IIa, 106, 1).

That quote from St. Thomas applied during the days of the Old Testament.

That may be your own personal view, but that is not what St. Thomas himself asserted. Instead, St. Thomas asserted, as MSgr Glenn’s commentary on the Summa confirms, **explicit faith is necessary for those who are capable of it. **

St. Thomas, elsewhere asserts:

The unfolding of matters of faith is the result of Divine revelation: for matters of faith surpass natural reason. Now Divine revelation reaches those of lower degree through those who are over them, in a certain order; to men, for instance, through the angels, and to the lower angels through the higher, as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. iv, vii). (ST, IIb, 2, 6)

St. Thomas in no instance says that this only applied in the OT period. “Those who are over them” certainly includes the magisterium of the Catholic Church, but the Divine revelation delivered to some in this world may still yet be incomplete, lacking the “fuller instruction” that Cornelius has the blessing to receive.

What is your understanding of Cornelius’ faith? Was it explicit? If so, when?

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree. One has to ignore the other portions of the Summa Theologica to accept this conclusion.

The invincibly ignorant will not necessarily be damned, according to St. Thomas. … the invincibly ignorant can be saved by implicit faith if, lacking obstinancy, they lack explicit faith in article that are not understood to be among the essential articles of faith.

Where those lacking obstinacy are bound to have explicit faith, according to St. Thomas is, “*** when it is clear to him*** that they are contained in the doctrine of faith.” (ST, IIb, 2, 5).

When we read the entire paragraph we can see what St. Thomas was talking about when he said a person is only “bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith”. He was not saying that a person did not have to have explicit faith in the primary articles of faith to be saved; what he said is that explicit faith in “other points of faith” is only necessary for salvation when the person has been taught those finer points.
St. Thomas::

“Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, 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.”

The “such things” he is referring to are the “other points of faith”, not the “primary points or articles of faith” which he said “man is bound to believe”. In other words, St. Thomas is dealing with two different thing: the primary points of faith, which man must believe; and “other points of faith”, which man only needs to implicitly believe if such things haven’t been explained to him. For example, a person may believe Jesus to be God, but not fully understand the hypostatic union of the humanity with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. If such a person was told of the doctrine of the hypostatic union, he would then be bound to believe it; but before this was taught to him, he would only be required to believe it implicitly. In other words, by believing that Jesus is God, the person implicitly believes those finer theological points that pertain to the doctrine. Thus, those of greater learning are bound to believe more doctrines explicitly, as St. Thomas said “The unfolding of the articles of faith is not equally necessary for the salvation of all, since those of higher degree, whose duty it is to teach others, are bound to believe explicitly more things than others are”.
In the same section the above quote came from, St. Thomas raises the objection that man is not bound to believe anything explicitly, then refutes it:
St. Thomas:

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 (Rm. 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.

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.]).

This is very clear: Those who are not given the grace to believe are, according to both St. Augustine and St. Thomas, being punished. Thus “invincible ignorance”, according to St. Thomas is a punishment for sin.

see next post

 

[USMC]

continuation of last post.

Regarding invincible ignorance as being, not a sin, but rather a punishedment for sin, St. Thomas wrote:
St. Thomas:

If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is a result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief

That sounds pretty similar to what I wrote:

USMC:

As you have correctly shown, both St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught that invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin, and that the “invincibly ignorance” will be damned, not due to their ignorance, which was invincible (not their fault), but rather due to some other sin.

More from St. Thomas:

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

I answer that, As stated above (5;1, 8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons.… 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, of which we have spoken above (1, 8). 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.

In another place, St. Thomas explains that explicit faith in the Trinity is necessary for salvation:
St. Thomas:

Whether it is necessary for salvation

to believe explicitly in the Trinity?

I answer that, It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Mt. 28:19: “Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”
So, according to St. Thomas explicit faith in the Mystery of Christ – which include the Incarnation and Trinity – are necessary for salvation. He addressed this point explicitly, so we don’t need to try to “read into” other things that he said to determine what he thought.

see next post

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

Implicit faith that worketh in love is sufficient, according to St. Thomas, for those lacking obstinacy, except for those article of faith which are clearly a part of the essential doctrines of faith.

As we have seen, St. Thomas directly addressed the necessity of explicit faith in the Mystery of Christ, which include the Incarnation and the Trinity.

St. Thomas: "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 and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation." And again: "…once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity."
Let’s be honest and not deny what he clearly said in order to support our position.

itsjustdave1988:

So, St. Thomas could deny the Immaculate Conception, which is an essential article of faith. Yet I cannot.

St. Thomas did not have implicit faith regarding the Immaculate Conception. A person who denies something does not have any kind of faith in it. St. Thomas was in error regarding the Immaculate conception, but, since it was not a doctrine of the faith at the time, this was not heresy, but an error. And the error was actually pretty slight. St. Thomas thought that Mary was conceived in sin, then immediately cleansed of sin. He was wrong by a split second, but he was wrong. Since he explicitly denied that Mary was conceived without sins, he did not have implicit faith regarding it, anymore than a person who denied that Jesus was God implicitly believes He is.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC,

We will have to agree to disagree. I tend to trust my own interpretation as it is corraborated by Msgr Paul Glenn’s highly regarded commentary on the Summa.

I’m still curious as to when you think Cornelius had explicit Christian faith. Your view seems inconsistent with the account in Acts 10.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Thomas did not have implicit faith regarding the Immaculate Conception.

St. Thomas’ views on the immaculate conception is at best ambiguous. In his Summa he seems to deny it, but in his Commentary on the Sentences, he seems to affirm it. Thus, I think your conclusion about what he believed implicitly is merely speculative.

St. Thomas Aquinas asserted in his Commentary on the Book of Sentences:

“Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.”

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

St. Thomas’ views on the immaculate conception is at best ambiguous. In his Summa he seems to deny it, but in his Commentary on the Sentences, he seems to affirm it. Thus, I think your conclusion about what he believed implicitly is merely speculative.

St. Thomas Aquinas asserted in his Commentary on the Book of Sentences:

I am glad St. Thomas said that about the Immaculate Conception. His belief, as expressed in the Summa, was refuted very clearly by someone (I forget who). Maybe St. Thomas changed his mind when he read what the other person said.

I don’t have time to give you a good post regarding Cornelius. I will just say this: He was not guilty of any sin of unbelief, since his ignorance was invincible (but that certainly does not mean he was in a state of justification). Therefore he was not an “unbeliever” strictly speaking, since he did not NOT believe. He was ignorant of the Mysteries of faith, but did not reject them. He was probably very holy and certainly had implicit faith (which is all that could be expected of him at the time). But again, this does not mean he was in a state of justification.

What was God’s response to this holy person with implicit faith? He sent him a missionay and cured his ignorance. God did not leave him in his ignorance but rewarded his “implicit faith” by sending St. Peter to him. Thus, Cornelius was brought to explicit faith.

It is very easy for God - Whose Providence controls all things - to cure the invincible ignorance of one who has implicit faith and is living properly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Something else to consider…

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *

***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)

As I understand it, explicit faith in God and a just afterlife is required, (ie., God fearing, a Cornleius-like faith). But according to Dr. Ott, does one need explicit faith in the essential articles of Christianity, such as the Trinity and Incarnation, or does an implicit faith suffice?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But again, this does not mean he was in a state of justification.

But if you read Acts 10, he was in a state of justification before becoming sacramentally baptized or expressing any desire for baptism or any assent that would indicate an explicit Christian faith (other than a God-fearing faith). It seems his faith in Jesus was never explicit, according to Scripture, prior to his sanctification in the Holy Spirit (justification).

St. Thomas tells us that Cornelius, like others were forgiven their sins (ie., justified) based upon implicit desire for baptism. He certainly had faith, which is why his prayers and works of charity were acceptable to God. But that faith was “implicit faith” according to St. Thomas.

Thus, Cornelius was brought to explicit faith.

I’m sure he was. But neither Holy Writ nor St. Thomas asserts that he had explicit Christian faith before being sanctified in the Spirit, which is the moment of his initial justification.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to the Catechism of St. Pius X:

If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Let’s break down and explain this assertion by St. Pius X…

“through no fault of his” = invincibly ignorant, as such ignorance is the only form that is non-culpable.

“if he is in good faith.” “Good faith” means, “the mental and moral state of honest, even if objectively unfounded, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition…One who is in this condition, so far as the violation of positive law, or even, in certain junctures, of the natural law, is concerned, is said to labour under an invincible error, and hence to be guiltless…This consideration is often invoked in behalf of those who are outside of the visible affiliation of the Catholic Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Good Faith). So, just as St. Thomas asserts, they may honestly hold to heterodox convictions, but may be guitless in doing so.

**"received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism" **this means that the desire for baptism need not be explicit, such as that of a Catechumen, but can be merely implicit. Pius XII describes this as “a certain unconscious yearning and desire.”

"he sincerely seeks the truth," ie. lacks obstinacy and negligence.

**"does God’s will as best he can", **ie. bound to live in accord with the doctrines of faith and morals as he understands them

**"united to the soul of the Church" **this affirms they are saved in the unity of the “ark of salvation,” just as St. Augustine asserted: “it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:28:39)

*"consequently is on the way of salvation" *ie.,are within the same ark of salvation as those joined in body and soul to the Church, but have no more assurance of final perseverence than Catholics.

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

According to the Catechism of St. Pius X: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

That was a great quote from Pius X to support what you are saying. Personally, I go back and forth on the “invincible ignorance” theory. Whatever the Church teaches is what I will believe.

St. Thomas certain taught that explicit faith in the Incarnation and Trinity were necessary for salvation. That is what I was showing in my earlier posts. That does not mean I believe what he said as an article of faith. I understand there are things that take place in the Providence of God that are beyond our understanding, and sometimes there may be exceptions to the rules. The Old Testament says “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but that which he has revealed belong to us and to our children, that we may walk in the laws of God” (Duet 29:29)

In the book "The Diologue of Catherine of Sienna (which everyone should read), Our Lord speaks to her of a “general order” and a “particular order”. He explains that all laws are given in the general order, but that exceptions can take place in the particular order. He actually says that in the particular order it is possible for a person without science (and by that he means the truth), to attain to eternal life. That certainly seems to imply, at least to me, that it is possible for a person who lives an extraordinarily holy life, yet who is truly ignorant through no fault of his own, can attain eternal life; probably by being given the grace of perfect contrition for past sins and the grace of making a perfect act of chairty.

Based on the above quote from Pius X, I would be inclined to say that it is possible, but that is not what St. Thomas taught. He explicitly taught the contrary.

It may be that, generally speaking (in the general order) it is true to say that all must have explicit faith to be saved, but that there can be particular exceptions. Again, when we get into these very fine points of theology we cannot know for certain unless the Church defines the matter for us.

But we should also realize how rare it probably is for a person to lead a very holy life without the true faith to help guide them. It is hard enough to do the right thing with the faith and sacraments. How much more difficult would it be to live properly without the sacraments and the light of faith. Virtually impossible, in my opinion. Maybe one in a billion.

Regarding Cornelius, I will have to read through Acts 10 again before I can respond.

God Bless and thanks for the quote from Pius X.

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

According to the Catechism of St. Pius X: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

I just thought of something regarding the above quote. The Pope does not “explicitly” mention a person who does not believe in the Trinity and Incarnation. He speaks of one who implicitly desires baptism, and says that they must sincerely seek the truth, but he does not say if he is referring to a non-Catholic Christian, or a pagan. A non-Catholic Christian would believe in the Incarnation and Trinity, whereas a pagan would not.

I was going to quote St. Alphonsus in my reply to RefromedRob yesterday to show that he believed an invincibly ignorant person could attain salvation; but when I re-read what St. Alphonsus wrote, he actually only referred to implicit baptism of desire and not to invincible ignorance.

The same applies to the quote from Pius X. At least in the portion you quoted, he may not be referring to a person who does not have faith in the two doctrines that St. Thomas spoke of as necessary (the Incarnation and the Trinity).

Maybe you can review the section of the Catechism and see if you can tell who he is referring to. Maybe he is referring to one who is invincibly ignorant, but from the quote you provided it is not clear.

 

[TOME]

First, seeing todays threads (diologue in the best sense) I have to say thanks to everyone for this learning experience. I want to add a couple of things about St. Thomas’ teachings and it may help give a little further insight - perhaps it was already said and I just plain miss it. I would like to talk about a couple of terms from Thomas’ works and these terms are Intellect, Reason, and Sin.
According to Thomas our Intellect is the faculty to know things directly, to know without any sense experience. Angles, being pure spirit can only know through their intellect. Reason, on the other hand, allows us to know to grasp something, using our sense experiences. God has given us the capacity to know by our power of inductive and deductive reasoning experience. Therefore we are like the angels in that we can know directly without any sense experience (Inspiration of the Holy Spirit being the prime example) and directly through sense experience like the rest of the animal world but of coarse with some fundelmental differences amoug which we have a Will. Also, remember which is the Object of our Intellect and Reason - the ONE, True, Beautiful and GOOD that is God.The last point is about Sin. For Thomas, Sin actually is not a “Thing” rather sin is a Lack or absence of a virtue. I could go into this and may have to to explain better what I mean but I think looking at Sin as an “Absence” of a “Good” may help us to understand how Thomas could say Ignorance is a Sin, because ignorance is an absence of knowledge. Then comes the question I think we are more comfortable with which is about the Culpability this Sin namely - why is there this absence of knowledge.

 

[TOME]

Just a quick clarification. I think in my effort to keep it simple and revelant I may have been not as accurate as I wanted to be. I’m refering to my use of the term SIN. Actually Aquinas was refering to Evil as a lack - a lack of Good. I just want you to know I knew this. However I believe the underlining principle is the same. So I’ll continue to use SIN and EVIL (as nouns) synonymously. But if my doing so is thought by others as inaccurate or just plain wrong - if I missed the mark, I will gladly adapt my terms.