Re-Retraction

Started by In.Christo, May 31, 2018, 08:20:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PerEvangelicaDicta

As always, I respect and appreciate your comments Gardener.

I won't hijack In.Christo's thread any further (thank you for your patience I.C.) or into a debate that Kaes kindly tolerates to a certain degree when we venture "there", so I'll just say that I've read the saints and sources you've quoted, quite extensively. Oh if you only knew the hours I've devoted to this most important issue. 
Not to be argumentative - I promise!- but I was raised Novus Ordo and in the modern "invincible ignorance" mode of thinking.  It carried over into our family change to traditional, because trads believe it too.  It was part of my psyche, and I often used it in discussion with my many non Catholic Christian friends years ago. 

Then I read some very good, very robust debates, starting with threads on Cathinfo.  The back and forth, saint quotes on both sides of argument, Church dogma, and modern drastic change in Church teaching motivated me to explore many other excellent sources. 

I'll leave it there.  I just want to go on the record that I did - still do - my due diligence, made a 180 and am wholly confident in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in this regard. 

Thank you for "listening"  :)

Respectfully yours,
They shall not be confounded in the evil time; and in the days of famine they shall be filled
Psalms 36:19

John Lamb

#16
I don't think that Feeneyism should be banned as a topic, because it's a very interesting one, perhaps THE most interesting theological topic of our day. Though I agree it should be limited to one corner of the forum because of how controversial it is.

The problem is that Fr. Feeney himself sidetracked the issue quite a bit by denying baptism of blood/desire, when the more interesting and important topic is the question of explicit/implicit faith. Of course, if there is no baptism of desire then implicit faith is done for anyway, because you need explicit faith in the Trinity & Christ to receive the sacrament of (water) baptism. However, the fact is that baptism of blood/desire has been so universally held by theologians since the middle ages, that it's just silly to dismiss it as heretical as the Feeneyites do. And no, Trent obviously did not resolve the matter, because you still have theologians of the caliber of St. Alphonsus teaching baptism of blood/desire, well after Trent.

The real question is over explicit/implicit faith, which is a theological debate that began in earnest during the Counter-Reformation period, although there are statements by the Fathers / earlier theologians which are relevant to it. The question is over which truths are absolutely necessary for all (well-functioning) adults to explicitly believe, in order to be capable of eliciting an act of supernatural faith. Kreuzritter rightly asserts that supernatural faith is necessary for justification (and therefore salvation), but he's just begging the question of which truths must be explicitly believed in order for an act of supernatural faith to be possible; he assumes that an explicit belief in Christ is necessary for all, but he doesn't demonstrate it.

The two positions are:
Explicitism - all four of these truths must be held with an explicit belief: 1. there is a God, 2. He is a supernatural Rewarder, 3. the Holy Trinity, 4. the Incarnation of the Word.
Implicitism - the first two truths must be held with an explicit belief, but the second two can be held with a merely implicit belief in the case of those excused by ignorance ignorance.

I think Karl Rahner tried to formulate a position where even 1. and 2. could be held with an implicit belief (i.e. salvation for well-meaning, apparently invincibly ignorant atheists), but that is a fringe position as far as I'm aware. The classical implicitist view is the one I mentioned, where 1. and 2. are held explicitly, and 3. and 4. implicitly. It would be wrong to say that an implicit faith is no faith at all, because a child Catholic who has been taught to believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, but who has not yet been taught to believe in the Eucharist, still has an (implicit) faith in the Eucharist, because he has that habit of mind (faith) which makes him willing to accept what God has revealed. In fact, an infant Catholic who has been baptised has implicit faith in all four, because while the sacrament gave him the supernatural habit of faith, he is not yet capable of making any explicit act of faith and so is fully excused by invincible ignorance; the question is over what responsibility a normal adult, who has full possession of his faculties, has to believe in the truths of faith, and Pius IX said about this: "Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors?"

Most 20th century theologians have been implicitists. Even traditional writers like Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey, and Abp. Lefebvre, have been implicitists. Explicitists tend to see this as a sign of widespread liberal infiltration into the Church, if not outright apostasy, and a disaster for evangelisation because apparently nobody sees belief in Jesus Christ as necessary for salvation any more. But then the liberal infiltration must be seen as going back quite far, seeing as St. Alphonsus lists the implicitist view as probable, but the explicitist view as more probable.

My mind has gone back & forth over this issue, and I've mostly favoured explicitism until recently where I've been more favouring implicitism. Implicitism does not do away with the need for faith for salvation, because to be saved the person must be an implicit Christian, motivated by divine charity with a love for God and their neighbour, with perfect contrition for their sins, with a mind willing to accept whatever God has revealed, and a supernatural hope to be united to God in the afterlife. It doesn't do away with the need for evangelisation either, because someone who is not a formal member of the Catholic Church has a much more difficult time making these supernatural acts, because they have neither the intrinsically efficacious aids (e.g. the sacraments) nor the extrinsically efficacious aids (e.g. the Church's dogmatic teaching) which lead one on the path of salvation. They are at an immense disadvantage. And implicitism does not do away with EENS either, because the implicit Catholic is joined to the Church by desire, and receives the grace to do so and to be saved: from the Church and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

"And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."

"And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him."

"And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind. And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard: and they said unto him: Are we also blind? Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth."
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Michael Wilson

J.L. Stated:
QuoteAnd no, Trent obviously did not resolve the matter, because you still have theologians of the caliber of St. Alphonsus teaching baptism of blood/desire, well after Trent.
John,
Trent taught B.O.D.
Quote
Decree "On Justification," rendered at the sixth session (13 January 1547):
Chapter IV: In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation, however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...."
Again, in the seventh session, (3 March 1547) in the canons "On the Sacraments in General":   Canon 4. If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Also, the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Quote And, also in the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pars II,  Caput II, No. 36):
   ... it is nevertheless not customary for the Church to confer the Sacrament of Baptism on men immediately, but rather at fixed times appointed for this.  For the delay is not a danger as is said it would be over a child, for those with the use of reason, the resolution and plan of receiving Baptism and the full repentance for the bad acts of life endows them with grace and justice if suddenly some misfortune impedes so that they are not able to be washed with the saving water.  On the contrary, this delay appears to bring forth some usefulness ....
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Xavier

#18
I sympathize with different sides here. Baptism of Desire is certainly Catholic doctrine. The necessity of explicit Catholic Faith (i.e. firm belief in and knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation) united to at least an act of contrition in the hour of death, could be regarded as definable teaching. It was held by most theologians as well as the Doctors and is based on very solid natural and supernatural reasons and has excellent grounds for its definability. Also, the modified position of St. Benedict's centre is permissible - let me quote: "God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized." http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html This does not deny Baptism of Desire, and was pronounced acceptable by Pope Benedict XVI.

It is because some questions here are not fully clarified that much of the confusion has come up. Fr. Mueller's articles on the subject are excellent and recommended reading, he mentions the consensus, the two opinions and the one Father considers to be proven true, and how souls can be saved in ways unknown to us - but not without having become Christians from being pagans and believed in Our Lord Jesus Christ at least before death came. This is an excellent doctrine, one very much in accord with reason and faith, that gives the greatest impetus to the Church's missionary activity, and on account of the unbelief or neglect of which, urgency, zeal and seriousness in Christian Faith almost inevitably suffers in the long run. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm

QuoteQ. Are all those who are out of the Church equally guilty and damnable before God?

A. No; some are more guilty than others.

Q. Who are least guilty and damnable?

A. Those who, without any fault of theirs, do not know Jesus Christ or His doctrine at all.

Q. Who are most guilty and damnable?

A. Those who know the Catholic Church to be the only true Church, but do not embrace her faith, as also those who could know her if they would candidly search, but who, through indifference and other culpable motives, neglect to do so.

Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance ... Q. What do you mean by this?

A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

Let's never forget that when converts were received, they always professed, "At the same time I condemn and reprove all that the Church has condemned and reproved. This same Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, I now freely profess and I truly adhere to it. With the help of God, I promise and swear to maintain and profess this faith entirely, inviolately, and with firm constancy until the last breath of life. And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and publicly professed by all who depend on me and over whom I shall have charge." https://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/61-appendix-reception-of-converts-profession-of-faith.html

I like a recent Remnant article on the subject which, without theological trappings, shows the simple faith of some little Catholic girls that led their young Protestant friend to the Faith about half a century ago. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3931-where-have-all-the-catholics-gone
Quote"Let me tell you what that teaching meant to me a long time ago, when I was just a little girl. It was nothing less than an invitation from Heaven.

I was not born Catholic, although I didn't quite understand that. After all, I knew the Nicene Creed by heart and dutifully recited it at Christ Episcopal Church, proudly proclaiming my belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I was no Protestant, that was for sure. But it took my fourth grade Catholic friends to set me firmly on the Road to Salvation ... We used to stand in a circle at recess at Southwestern School, hoping the teacher wouldn't notice and make us play kickball or Red Rover or some other boring game. We had important things to discuss. There were five of us—Dolores, Mary Kay, Anne, Barbara, and me ... They looked at each other, shook their heads, then looked sadly at me.

"But you can't go to Heaven," they said.

"Why not?"

"'Cause you're not Catholic."

"What do I have to do to be Catholic?"

"You have to go to Catechism."

Those words struck my heart like an arrow. Even though I was not able to actually "go to Catechism" until I was a sophomore in college, I made up my mind right then. I would be Catholic. A real one, not just one saying the Nicene Creed in the whitewashed Episcopal Church, wondering how I could believe in the One Holy Catholic Church and not be in it.

Those nine-year-old girls possessed the Truth, and they didn't hesitate to let me know it. They told me what was necessary for salvation because I was their friend. They didn't dilute the doctrine. I didn't need to know about the exceptions. I just needed to be Catholic.

Please spare me the nuances. They exist, I understand that. There can be people in Heaven that we didn't think would be there. That's good. I have no idea how the Lord goes about rescuing people at the last minute who didn't enter the Church during their life. I don't pretend to know how grace burns the unbelief from their minds before their souls depart this world, but I don't have to know those extraordinary things. That's God's business.

All I know is that every human being on this earth needs to be rescued from Hell. Our Lord died to secure a place for us in Heaven. He founded a Church, the One True Church which is necessary for the salvation of souls.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Michael Wilson

#19
Re. "This does not deny Baptism of desire"; It most certainly does:
QuoteThe Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized.
It is certain that many have died that desired to receive the Sacrament but were unable to. But the 'modified' Feeneyite position, denies that such people exists; or that if they do, that they are saved.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

John Lamb

#20
Below is an article by St. Albert the Great - Doctor of the Church and the teacher of St. Thomas - on the subject of implicit faith. It is a valuable article, because as you will see he formulates an understanding of implicit faith which he himself designates as "Without precedent . . ." It shows how the theologians have been developing their understanding of this subject down the ages.

I think Implicitism may be an authentic "development of dogma", just as Christological and Trinitarian dogma was authentically developed at Nicaea and Chalcedon. That means: not a change of doctrine (heresy, modernism), but a more exact theological exposition of one and the same doctrine. Basically all the popes and bishops of the last 100 years have been implicitists, and you could take that as a sign of doctrinal decadence and even apostasy, but it may just be a sign that the theological schools have come to a deeper understanding of the notion of faith and the human intellect (with invincible ignorance). That wouldn't be absurd, because just as the conflict with the Arians forced the Church to develop her doctrine on the Incarnation, and just as St. Augustine's conflict with the Pelagians forced him to develop the Church's doctrine on grace & free-will, so the modern attack upon the very notion of faith has forced the theologians to examine the nature of faith and develop a more exact account of it. Granted that there are countless statements from the Fathers and the theologians that favour explicitism, and magisterial statements with an explicitist flavour, and scriptural texts that lean towards explicitism - yet, implicitism has never been entirely ruled out or declared heretical, is held by most modern popes and bishops, and can also find support in the words of the Fathers, theologians, and scripture. The letter of the Holy Office to Fr. Feeney is explicitly Implicitist, but Feeneyites deny its magisterial authority. Personally, I currently lean towards accepting its authority, if not as an infallible document (it isn't an ex cathedra statement of the Roman pontiff) at least as one establishing that the Implicitist thesis is one that can be legitimately held by Catholics, and not heretical.

-

Article 4
Whether an article [of faith] binds one to believe explicitly or implicitly?

To the fourth is sought, when it is said that an article binds one to believe, whether it binds one to believe explicitly or implicitly?

Now it seems that it binds one to believe implicitly.

1. By authorities: for man is not bound to believe those things said which in no way are made clear to the understanding, from which proceeds everything believable, as was established above. But what even the angels do not know, in no way are clear to man. "Who is this who comes from Edom?"(Isaiah 63:1) A gloss of Jerome says on this: "It is declared openly, that certain angels did not fully know the mystery of the incarnation, until it was accomplished."

2. The same [is shown] from the letter to the Ephesians: "That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the princes and powers in the heavens, etc." (Ephesians 3:10) Therefore it seems that neither is man bound to know this explicitly.

3. The same [is shown] from Chrysostom in his third homily upon John: "We are greatly honored, because the angels learned together with us by the voice of John."

4. The same [is shown] by the verse "Collect the fragments which abound lest they be wasted," (John 6:12) the Gloss says: "The fragments are the sacred mysteries, which the common people cannot grasp." Therefore it seems that one is not bound to believe the articles [of faith] explicitly.

5. The same [is shown] from the letter to the Ephesians "What is the dispensation of the mystery hidden from eternity in God," (Ephesians 3:9) the Gloss says "I.e, kept secret from every age of creatures, and existing only in the knowledge of God."

6. The same [is shown] by reason thus: In the demonstration of knowable things, something happens to be known implicitly in the universal, which nevertheless can be doubted in the particular; just as we know universally that every triangle has three angles equal to two rights, and nevertheless I am able to doubt of this wooden triangle whether it has three angles equal to two rights. Therefore much more can this happen in faith, which is wholly above reason.

7. The same [is shown thus]: if it should be said that the articles [of faith] bind to explicit belief, already many would have been damned, and would be damned even today, who do not know the distinction of the articles [of faith].

8. Furthermore, according to this even other things than the articles [of faith] would bind to belief: because it is said "By faith we understand the world to have been framed by the word of God, that from invisible things visible should be made."

9. The same [is shown thus]: By faith Moses, having been born was hidden for three months, etc. Also by faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with the unbelievers, and there are many of these sort of thing which do not belong to the articles [of faith], and nevertheless they are received under faith as following faith. Therefore it seems that someone is not bound to believe explicitly.

10. Furthermore, this is said in the letter in the second part of the distinction.

Sed Contra:

1. Boethius says that evil is not avoided unless known: but one is bound to avoid infidelity against any article [of faith]. Therefore one is bound to know something explicitly.

2. The same [is shown from the verse] "But I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to perform the whole law." Therefore likewise, to the one receiving faith it is necessary to believe all the articles [of faith] explicitly.

3. The same [is shown thus]: if it sufficed one to believe implicitly omnipotence and redemption in any manner one wishes, then all the philosophers and many heretics had implicit faith: but this is false. Therefore explicit faith is required.

4. The same [is shown from Leviticus]. it is said of the cleansing of the leper, "He shall offer for his own cleansing a sextarium of oil" and the Gloss says, that the sextarium of oil is the measure of faith, which if it is more, overflows, but if less, it is deficient. Therefore one is bound to offer the whole measure of the articles [of faith].

5. The same [is shown from Deuteronomy]. Moses is commanded that clearly and openly he should write upon the rocks, and the Gloss says that the rocks are the common people. Therefore one is bound to believe the articles [of faith] clearly and distinctly.

6. Likewise, faith is from hearing, but hearing through the word of Christ, as it is said in Romans X, 17. But hearing explains all things, and similarly the word of God proposes nothing implicitly: therefore it seems that the faithful also ought to believe something explicitly.

7. Likewise, we see that common people are held and examined about the most hidden articles of Faith: and if they are found to fall away and to be ignorant, they are considered as heretics: therefore it seems that they are bound to know and believe explicitly.

8. Likewise, let us suppose that a certain simple old and pious person, who has reverence for his pastor, of whom he knows no evil, hears heresy from his own pastor and believes it, because he thinks whatever he says ought to be believed. Surely we would not say that he is damned if he dies in such a state? Or if it becomes known, surely he would not be burned as a heretic? It seems not, because ignorance excuses from the whole. But if you should say that he should be burned, it follows that he will be bound to know the articles [of faith] explicitly, even if not taught by another: because if he should be taught, it will be necessary for him to be taught by his own pastor.

9. Likewise, Charity concerns loving God and neighbor, and it is necessary to know both distinctly. Therefore since Faith is related in a similar way to the articles [of Faith], it seems that faith ought to know distinctly the articles [of Faith].

Solution. Without precedent, I say that neither before the coming [of Christ], nor after, is one bound to explicitly know the articles [of Faith] without divine revelation and teaching, but implicitly; but with this supposition [held] most certainly without doubt: that revelation belongs to the Church, and is always made by the Church. And whoever are greater, are called such because by them others are instructed: And this is done in one way now, in another way formerly. For formerly revelation was made for the manifestion of the articles[of Faith], but now it is made for their exposition, because everything has been declared which is necessary to be believed. Therefore simple people before and after the coming, are not bound to believe explicitly, but implicitly only, except inasmuch they are taught by greater people, and are able through teaching to perceive with understanding. Those who preceded [the coming] were less bound on account of the teaching which was then in shadow, but those who came after are more bound on account of the open teaching of the truth.

It should be said therefore to the first against what is objected, that Boethius speaks the truth. But there is a twofold knowledge, namely, explicit and implicit. For it is not necessary for me to know every evil in particular, but only under the counsel of the wise, so that if something should happen which is uncertain whether it is evil, I may go to the wise, and I will avoid [making] this judgment. Likewise, if a new doctrine is proposed in the Faith, I may go to a priest, and I may believe his judgment, or not.

To the next it should be said that he is a debtor to the whole of Faith implicitly, so that he may disbelieve nothing of the whole.

To the next it should be said that philosophers and heretics do not believe implicitly, because they disbelieve. But the man who believes implicitly does not disbelieve any article, although he does not know them explicitly.

To the next it should be said that the measure is filled by not disbelieving anything, as was said.

To the next it should be said that this is a caution to explain often and clearly to the laity. But this can be done now in the time of grace, and nevertheless because they have a dull sense, they are not bound to understand explicitly just as it is explained to them. For they receive the explanation according to the power of their own understanding, and not according to the will of the one explaining. But before the coming this could not happen except as the time then permitted, namely in shadows and types. And these were bound less than those.

To the next it should be said that although faith is received distinctly in hearing, nevertheless by the simple that which is heard is not understood, except under a covering, and not distinctly, just as was said before.

To the next it should be said that the laity should not be considered heretics because they do not know to distinguish some articles. But they should be considered heretics when they pertinaciously contradict them when they are explained to them. For they cannot be considered heretics unless they have already received something from heretics contrary to the articles of faith; for if they should be burned because they do not know to distinguish or explicate the articles, the inquisitors themselves ought to be burned, since neither do they know many things well.

To the next it should be said that, in this case the Doctors answer in doubt; but nevertheless all are in agreement that it is a mortal sin to disbelieve an article pertinaciously. But if someone doubts an article while being prepared to change, they say that it is a human temptation. Whence certain persons said that if such a one should persevere in pius works, insofar as he is able, God would illumine her to not believe the priest in such a teaching. But if she does not do whatever she can, then it would be imputed to her own blindness. But this response is uncertain, and cannot be supported by any reason. Therefore others said differently, that if it is about a clear articles which is solemnized in the Church, then she ought to speak to other people, to see whether it is commonly said. For faith is not of an individual, but held in common. And thus she could be instructed. However, if it concerns some more hidden teaching, as for example that fornication is not a sin, or that the body of Christ is not on the altar, but is signified, she ought not to receive this because it is above her own powers, [to understand whether or not it is true] except under the condition that the universal church believes this. And thus she would remain in implicit faith, especially in the case concerning the body of Christ, since in the case of fornication, even the very baseness of its act shows that it is a mortal sin. Nevertheless, this latter case happens often in confession, on account of the lust of the priest who tries to persuade women of this.

To the last it should be said that the case is not similar with charity. For charity is not concerned with the account [of God and neighbor], but only with the object, and it does not distinguish [between God and neighbor], since it loves neighbor only materially; but faith is mixed with a certain knowledge and understanding, and not all are capable of this understanding.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Michael Wilson

Yes, if "explicit'' faith were demanded of the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation for salvation after the Passion and Death of Our Lord, then those who never heard the Gospel preached to them would infallibly be lost. The "sending of an Angel" is a solution, but as Fr. Most stated, "The Extra ordinary must never become ordinary or else the ordinary loses its meaning"; in reference to the length that God will go to save souls. So that in the case of the millions upon millions that never heard of the Gospel after the Redemption, the only means of salvation would be ordinarily explicit faith in a God who exists and who rewards good and evil deeds, per St. Paul He. 11.6: "But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him."
That is one must have a 'supernatural faith' .
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

John Lamb

I tend to agree, Michael, and if you think about it, to "believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him", is already a sufficient motive for a supernatural act of faith, hope, and charity. If you believe that there is a good God that rewards those that seek Him, then you can believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him. The doctrines of the Trinity & Incarnation provide a stronger motive for loving God, because they reveal His nature as the Divine Love of Three Co-Eternal Persons, and the Redeemer of Mankind who shed His Precious Blood for our sake; however, even though these latter two doctrines provide the most perfect basis for supernatural acts of faith, hope, and charity, to state that such acts are impossible since the Ascension of Our Lord on merely legalistic grounds - "because the New Law says so" - seems like very poor reasoning.

I think all the admonitions to accept the Gospel contained in scripture are addressed to, (1) those who cannot be excused by invincible ignorance, and who culpably reject the Gospel precisely due to a lack of divine faith, hope, and charity, e.g. the Pharisees; (2) those who do have the basis of divine faith, hope, and charity, but who are actively seeking a more perfect fulfillment of these, e.g. Cornelius. But in-between (1) and (2), i.e. between those who willfully reject the Gospel and those who are blessed to receive it, you have those souls of good-will but who are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. To say that God will infallibly lead these to accept the Gospel, like He did Cornelius and the Ethiopian, is a plausible thesis; but, on the other hand, that God will accept these people as they are, despite them lacking the fullness of the supernatural life & virtue, like He did the just men of old, is also plausible.

On a practical level, we can all imagine an old man or an old woman on their death bed, who are not baptised Christian, but who feel a sincere sorrow for the sins of their former life, and who express a hope of redemption and life after death. Is Christ going to reject these people because they lack an explicit knowledge of Him? Feeneyites could say that, if they are truly of good will, God shall provide an interior illumination for them to accept the Trinity & the Incarnation, and get them baptised in some miraculous way. But, even though we can never tell what goes on in a human soul in its last moments on earth, we don't find abundant evidence that this takes place. So either God really does damn all souls such as these, or He accepts their hope & contrition as salvific, an implicit desire to be united to Christ the Redeemer.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Michael Wilson

J.L. I agree and St. Paul states that one cannot believe the faith unless it is preached to them:
Quote [14] 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? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers