I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other, however, from the rib of the man [cf. Gen 2:7], will then rise again and stand before the Judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or bad [Rom 14:10, 2Cor 5:10]; and indeed by the very bountiful grace of God he will present the just, as vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory [Rom 9:23], with the rewards of eternal life; namely, they will live without end in the society of the angels without any fear now of their own fall; the wicked, however, remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for destruction [Rom 9:22], who either did not know the way of the Lord, or knowing it left it when seized by various transgressions, He will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn without end. This, then, is my faith and hope, which is in me by the gift of the mercy of God, in defence of which blessed Peter taught [cf. 1 Peter 3:15] that we ought to be especially ready to answer everyone who asks us for an accounting.
– Pope Pelagius I, Humani Generis, 557 [D228a/DH443]
Laodicea 
March 5, 2017 at 10:47 am
This doesn’t appear to be a “Solemn Definition of Explicitism.” All agree that with regard to some dogmas, explicit belief is an indispensable means of salvation for all adults (“dogmata necessaria” or “necessary dogmas”), while with regard to other dogmas, implicit belief suffices under some circumstances (“dogmata non-necessaria” or “non-necessary dogmas”). The only question is where to draw the line. Implicitists accept only two necessary dogmas, while explicitists accept two additional ones; let’s call them the “controversial” dogmas.
The expression “who […] did not know the way of the Lord” settles the debate in favor of explicitism only if you make the following two assumptions:
(1) The expression “the way of the Lord” refers to at least one of the two controversial dogmas (i.e., the Trinity and the Incarnation), but not to any of the uncontroversially non-necessary ones.
(2) The verb “know” refers only to explicit knowledge.
You could say that (2) is a natural assumption, since it is in line with the common way of speaking; but (1) still has to be proved.
On the one hand, one could argue that “the way of the Lord” refers to the Catholic faith in its entirety. If that is true, then the verb “know” must refer both to explicit and to implicit knowledge, because nobody thinks that all those are damned who don’t explicitly know the entire canon of Scripture by heart.
On the other hand, one could argue that “the way of the Lord” refers to some subset of the Catholic faith; then it is possible to argue that the verb “know” refers only to explicit belief. But it isn’t obvious from your quote alone which subset that would be. You would have to carefully study all of Pelagius’s writings to show that he always used “the way of the Lord” to refer to a specific subset of the Catholic faith.
March 5, 2017 at 11:48 am
“[T]he wicked […], who either did not know the way of the Lord, or knowing it left it when seized by various transgressions, He will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn without end.”
If this means that all those who “knowing [the way of the lord] left it when seized by various transgressions” will burn in hell, then “transgressions” must mean “mortal transgressions,” and “left it” must mean “left it without ever returning.” But if the second part of the relative clause contains some unspoken restrictions, then the same might apply to the first part (“who either did not know the way of the Lord”).
Also, Pelagius cannot mean that all those “who […] did not know the way of the Lord” will burn in hell, because those who died as babies will not go into the inextinguishable fire (even unbaptized babies will go to limbo at worst)–except if “did not know” means “culpably did not know.” The latter interpretation is supported by the phrase “remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for destruction.”
I would interpret the passage as follows: Pelagius teaches that the “wicked” will go into the fire of hell. In order to explain why this is just, he says that the “wicked” are wicked “by choice of their own.” This he proves by noting that “wickedness” consists either in culpable ingorance of the Divine law or in knowingly transgressing it.
If my interpretation is correct, the passage has little to do with the implicit/explicit debate.
March 6, 2017 at 9:50 pm
“[T]he inextinguishable fire” is the poena damni to which the inhabitants of limbo are subject (although they experience no torment thereby).
March 6, 2017 at 10:50 pm
That would be a extremely unusual manner of speaking.
In hell (outside of limbo), there is the pain of loss and the pain of sense. The latter is caused in part by a material substance customarily called “fire.” There are also some who understand “fire” as a metaphor for emotional suffering.
Can you name even a single reputable theologian before Vatican II who used “fire” as a term for the pain of loss, considered apart from any suffering?
March 6, 2017 at 11:01 pm
Jesus (Matthew 25:41)! The primary sense of the ‘fire of hell’ is the poena damni as this is penalty to which the (immaterial) fallen angels are subject. It is not even clear that Catholic theologians are obliged to hold that the fire of hell is material, at least at the moment.
March 7, 2017 at 2:10 pm
This interpretation is contrary to the Roman Catechism, which says:
“The first words, depart from me, express the heaviest punishment with which the wicked shall be visited, their eternal banishment from the sight of God, unrelieved by one consolatory hope of ever recovering so great a good. This punishment is called by theologians the pain of loss, because in hell the wicked shall be deprived forever of the light of the vision of God. […]
“The next words, into everlasting fire, express another sort of punishment, which is called by theologians the pain of sense, because, like lashes, stripes or other more severe chastisements, among which fire, no doubt, produces the most intense pain, it is felt through the organs of sense.”
Christ’s words show that demons (just like the disembodied souls of the damned before the resurrection) suffer not only the pain of loss, but are also, as an additional punishment, tormented by fire, even though they don’t have sensory organs. How this is possible is a disputed question among theologians; see St. Thomas’s discussion of this issue:
http://newadvent.org/summa/5070.htm
March 7, 2017 at 2:32 pm
The Archbishop of Los Angeles asked that Vatican II define that the fire of hell are material which implies he thought it was still undefined. The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees “from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion. Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation.” John Paul II also holds this “The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a ‘pool of fire’ those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a ‘second death’ (Rv. 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for ‘eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might’ (2 Thes 1:9).” I am not suggesting there is no material fire merely that the physical pains are expressive of the essential pain and it is this essential to which the councils refer.
March 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
Those who do not believe in a material fire think that “fire” refers to some kind of spiritual suffering. I am not aware of any competent theologian who thinks “fire” refers to the mere exclusion from heaven, considered apart from any suffering.
At any rate, the Roman Catechism (which I quoted) teaches that “fire” refers to something other than the pain of loss.
Pius VI taught the following about limbo:
“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.” (D1526)
March 7, 2017 at 7:52 pm
I am not claiming that fire means the deprivation of the beatific vision exclusive of positive torment. I am saying that it refers to the punishment of the damned in general so it includes the pain of sense but if one is subject to the principal part of that punishment (exclusion from the vision of God) then it is still true to say one is subject to the fire of damnation even if (as with the souls in limbo) this does not involve positive torment. The distinction made in the proposition condemned by Pius VI is precisely made in a condemned proposition so I don’t think one can read too much into it. Surely you concede that the literal material fires of hell themselves symbolise the poena damni? John Paul II clearly considers the figurative sense of ‘fire’ legitimate.
March 5, 2017 at 5:28 pm
You interpretation is absurd. He clearly means positive Christian revelation and therefore not things knowable by reason or under the old dispensation. The babies point is a red herring. They receive the virtue of faith by infusion through the sacrament of baptism.
March 5, 2017 at 8:00 pm
“You[r] interpretation is absurd.”
Even an explicitist could agree that my interpretation at the end of my second comment is quite plausible.
“He clearly means positive Christian revelation and therefore not things knowable by reason or under the old dispensation.”
You cannot claim that every detail of “positive Christian revelation” must be explicitly believed as an indispensable means of salvation for all adults, including the fact that Christ washed his disciples’ feet or that He spent some time in Capernaum.
Maybe you want to argue that “knowing something” means “having at least partial explicit knowledge of it.” But even those who don’t explicitly believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation can have partial explicit knowledge of “positive Christian revelation.”
I find it more natural to interpret “the way of the Lord” as referring not only to Christian revelation, but to natural law plus Old-Testament revelation plus Christian revelation. Christ not only brought new revelation, but also confirmed and interpreted old revelation and even some aspects of the natural law; all this is therefore part of His “way.” Under this interpretation, implicitists can agree that adults who lack even partial explicit knowledge of “the way of the Lord” will burn in hell.
As far as I see, your argument works only if “not knowing the way of the Lord” has precisely the following meaning: “not explicitly believing in the Trinity and the Incarnation, even though you have acquired the use of reason.” You cannot seriously claim that this complex definition is clearly the only possible meaning of the phrase “not knowing the way of the Lord.”
“They receive the virtue of faith by infusion through the sacrament of baptism.”
This doesn’t help your case for two reasons:
(1) If having the infused virtue of faith is enough in order not to count as someone “who […] did not know the way of the Lord,” you can no longer use the Pelagius quote against implicitism, because implicitists claim that some adults who don’t explicitly believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation may have the infused virtue of faith.
(2) Unbaptized babies don’t have the infused virtue of faith, but they don’t receive “the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire” if they die. Therefore, you cannot claim that all those “who […] did not know the way of the Lord” will receive “the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire”—except if the phrase “did not know” is understood as meaning “culpably did not know.” But then the Pelagius quote is compatible with implicitism.
As I see it, the basic problem with your argument is as follows: The debate is about a very narrow and specific question, namely, where exactly to draw the line between necessary and non-necessary dogmas. You cannot answer this question by quoting magisterial texts which talk in a very broad and general manner about the necessity of faith or of knowing “the way of the Lord,” etc. You tend to understand such texts as endorsements of explicitism because you interpret them through an explicitist lense. However, the debate can only be solved by quoting texts which address precisely the issue at hand.
March 5, 2017 at 8:53 pm
‘The Way of the Lord’ is a technical term which precisely refers to the Christian revelation as contrasted with the Old Testament (and a fortiori natural reason). See: Acts 9:2; 16:17; 18:25;18:26;19:9;19:23;24:14 & 24:22.
The essence of saving faith consists in the Dogma of the Trinity as St Thomas explains “Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.” Since the Fall it has also been necessary to believe in the Redemption in the ways which differ on either side of the passion, as we have discussed before.
‘Implicit faith’ either means:
a) Faith in the authority of someone to teach in a certain area without error and thus faith in whatever that person(s) teaches even if one does not know it oneself.
or
b) Faith in a series of premises whose conclusions include further truths one has not personally extrapolated.
Now it is solemnly defined by Florence that ‘integral and inviolate’ faith in the Trinity and Incarnation in required for salvation. It is not possible to believe in the Incarnation without believing in the Trinity and there are no premises that would include faith in the Incarnation as a conclusion. This eliminates b). If a) were imagined to be reducible to a mere willingness to believe whatever God might reveal through whatever means He might reveal it then a) is contained in the natural law apart from any positive revelation and if this sufficed to bestow participation in the Divine Nature that would entail pantheism. So, understood in that way a) must be false. Thus the only scenario available is that a genuine preacher licensed by the successors of the apostles appears to some pagan and says ‘I need to inform you of a Divine Revelation’ and the pagan says ‘say no more I believe in all you are about to say regardless of what it is’. According to you at that moment the pagan is justified by his ‘implicit faith’. For a start this is impossible because in oder to make an act of supernatural charity at any stage in salvation history the hearer would have to be told of God’s offer of friendship (His supernatural providence) so this ‘blank cheque to the bishop’ version of ‘implicit faith’ is inherently inadequate. Secondly, no one holds to this view. The implicitists are concerned precisely to make the salvation possible of people who no preacher (even angelic) has reached. The idea of salvation through submission to a preacher who never gets to the point is a bizarre scenario in which no one is interested.
Baptised infants are baptised with a profession of explicit faith and are given the infused habit of that faith. They no more have implicit faith than a sleeping adult Catholic does.
March 5, 2017 at 10:42 pm
“‘The Way of the Lord’ is a technical term which precisely refers to the Christian revelation as contrasted with the Old Testament (and a fortiori natural reason). See: Acts 9:2; 16:17; 18:25;18:26;19:9;19:23;24:14 & 24:22.”
These passages show that “the way of the Lord” includes the new revelation brought by Christ, but not that it excludes the previous revelation and the natural law (which were confirmed by Christ). Suppose someone believed in all of Christ’s teachings except those which had already been revealed previously and those which are accessible to natural reason. Such a (confused and inconsistent) person would not be a believer in “the way of the Lord,” right?
“According to you at that moment the pagan is justified by his ‘implicit faith’.”
No, because an adult cannot be justified without making an act of supernatural faith, and such an act must have as its content at least one Divinely revealed proposition (which doesn’t have to be about the Trinity or the Incarnation). This presupposes explicit knowledge of some piece of genuine Divine revelation, not just a general willingness to believe whatever God has revealed.
Implicitists don’t claim that completely implicit faith can justify.
“For a start this is impossible because in oder to make an act of supernatural charity at any stage in salvation history the hearer would have to be told of God’s offer of friendship (His supernatural providence) […]”
Yes, the implicitists agree with that (I’m referring to the respected pre-Vatican II theologians who defended implicitism, not to modernists).
“Secondly, no one holds to this view. The implicitists are concerned precisely to make the salvation possible of people who no preacher (even angelic) has reached.”
This is false. Implicitists like Cardinal de Lugo, Francisco Suarez, Matthias Scheeben, Cardinal Billot, Adolphe Tanquerey and Ludwig Ott are entirely clear that adults, in order to be saved, have to explicitly believe in at least one proposition which is inaccessible to natural reason and that their faith has to be based on Divine revelation.
“The idea of salvation through submission to a preacher who never gets to the point is a bizarre scenario in which no one is interested.”
If the implicit/explicit debate has no practical meaning, this is fine with me. I am only concerned with adopting the position that is most consistent with the relevant magisterial texts. If I didn’t believe that the magisterium has endorsed implicitism since 1949 or at least 1965, I would still be an explicitist (partly because explicitism seems a more natural interpretation of some scriptural and patristic passages, partly because it is more clearly an antidote to indifferentism). But the magisterium has more authority than my private interpretations.
However, the debate might be relevant to the issue of the salvation of (religious) Jews. The Hebrew Bible is Divinely revealed, and it contains the two necessary dogmas. Therefore, the answer depends on whether the Divine origin of the Hebrew Bible and its teaching of the two necessary dogmas can be “sufficiently proposed” to a Jew (i.e., in such a manner that he cannot prudently doubt what is proposed to him). If so (as it would appear), he can arguably make acts of supernatural faith, hope and charity and be saved.
I have no desire to downplay the evil of Talmudic Judaism, and the modernist claim that there is a separate path to salvation for Jews is clearly heretical and a disgusting betrayal of Christ. The question is whether Jews, while remaining Jews, can be saved through Christ. I would never adopt a theological position merely because it is “good for the Jews” (the “perfidi Judaei”).
One could argue that even if implicitism is true, Jews cannot be saved because of the Council of Florence’s teaching about the prohibition of the Mosaic ceremonies.
March 5, 2017 at 11:49 pm
Fenton, who was Ottaviani’s peritus at Vatican II, explicitly denied that the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston in any way entailed implicitism. Dulles also conceded that nothing said by Vatican II excludes explicitism. The Jewish point is determinative for St Paul and for all time. It is the defined teaching of the Church as well as the doctrine of St Thomas that faith expressed through the forms of the Old Law lost its efficacy at the moment of Christ’s death. This is expressly not because of a new precept prohibiting the exercise of those rites but because in and of themselves they lost their efficacy due to the consummation of the Passion. If this is true of the Old Law it is true of any other imperfect creed. The essence of the faith is not those things contingently unknowable to natural reason (like the number of sacraments) but that truth in itself unknowable to any creature’s natural intelligence i.e. the Trinity and the indispensable means appointed to attain to the vision of the Blessed Trinity i.e. the Incarnation. As St Thomas says: “Some things are proposed to our belief are in themselves of faith, while others are of faith, not in themselves but only in relation to others: even as in sciences certain propositions are put forward on their own account, while others are put forward in order to manifest others. Now, since the chief object of faith consists in those things which we hope to see, according to Hebrews 11:2: ‘Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for,’ it follows that those things are in themselves of faith, which order us directly to eternal life. Such are the Trinity of Persons in Almighty God, the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation, and the like: and these are distinct articles of faith. On the other hand certain things in Holy Writ are proposed to our belief, not chiefly on their own account, but for the manifestation of those mentioned above: for instance, that Abraham had two sons, that a dead man rose again at the touch of Eliseus’ bones, and the like, which are related in Holy Writ for the purpose of manifesting the Divine mystery or the Incarnation of Christ: and such things should not form distinct articles.”
March 6, 2017 at 6:52 pm
Firstly the document presented above is correctly “De consummatione Mundi” and not Humani Generis as ascribed. Secondly the English translation is at fault, for when one looks at the original Latin; “voluntatis propriae vasa irae apta in interitum permanentes, qui viam Domini aut non agnoverunt aut cognitam diversis capti praevaricationibus reliquerunt” it reads thus; “by voluntary choice remaining vessels of wrath fitted in ruin, who the way of the Lord did not acknowledge, nor did acknowledge the multitude of the transgressions upon their head, and thus relinquished it.”
March 6, 2017 at 7:25 pm
De consummatione mundi is a sub-heading in the text of Humani Generis indicating that this is part of the Fides Pelagii concerning eschatology. None of the three published English translations agree with your translation. This is the Ignatius Press translation in their version of Denzinger-Hunermann:
“I believe and confess… That just as he ascended into heaven, he will also come to judge the living and the dead. Indeed, all men, that is, who have been born and have died from the tie of Adam up to the consummation of the world, along with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, one form the earth, the other, however, from the rib of the man, will then rise again and ‘stand before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense according to what was done in the body, whether good or bad’ and, indeed, by the superabundant grace of God, he will present the just, as ‘vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory’, with the rewards of eternal life; and certainly they will live without end in the company of the angels without any fear that they could fall again: the wicked however remaining by their own choice as ‘vessels of wrath fit for destruction’, who either did not know the way of the Lord or, knowing it abandoned it when seduced by various transgressions, he will hand over by a most just judgement to the punishment of the eternal and inextinguishable fire, so that they may burn without end.”
March 6, 2017 at 7:30 pm
My translation agrees with the French, “qui soit n’ont pas reconnu la voix du Seigneur,” as well as with the original Latin as far as I am aware, thus rending the other English translations irrelevant. Humani Generis, while it may be the title given by Denzinger, is not the historical title of the document, which would be best ascribed, the Letter of Pelagius to Childebert.
March 6, 2017 at 7:33 pm
See also the German; “die den Weg des Herrn entweder nicht erkannten”
March 6, 2017 at 7:37 pm
A better rending of the translation I presented above:
“by voluntary choice remaining vessels of wrath fitted in ruin, either who the way of the Lord did not acknowledge, or did acknowledge but were captured by the diversity (or “by a diversity”; “by various”) of their transgressions, and thus relinquished it”
March 6, 2017 at 8:20 pm
Humani Generis is the incipit, De consummatione mundi is a sub-heading. The Latin does not at all imply a positive encounter with Gospel followed by a rejection it is neutral (neutral not ambiguous) between culpable or inculpable failure to recognise. (I can’t speak for the German but one should never do theology in German). To interpret it as referring to a conscious rejection of actual preaching would be an absurd reading as that would then mean that everyone had either heard and rejected the Gospel or accepted it and fallen away. No one has ever held this.
March 6, 2017 at 8:41 pm
The Latin verb is “agnoverunt” which is the third-person plural perfect active indicative of agnoscō, which is a contraction of “ad noscō” which means specifically “to recognize, to acknowledge” that is to recognize as true that which one is acquainted with. The French “reconnu,” past participle of reconnaître, has exactly this sense, as has the German “erkannten. I prefer the German (or High Austro-Bavarische) as it is best suited to the subtleties of theology (matched only by Latin in this regard), which English and French are sadly not (being only portmanteaus of Latin, Greek and Old Low German/Franconian German).
As to the interpretation of the passage, it refers only to the damned, and consistent with the Magisterium of Church, that only those who consciously reject God’s grace are damned. It may seem absurd to someone unacquainted with the actual dogmas of the Church to read her documents in light of each other; it does not seem so to the Faithful Catholic.
March 6, 2017 at 9:03 pm
It is solemnly defined by the Council of Florence that those who die in original sin only go immediately to hell so the unqualified claim “only those who consciously reject God’s grace are damned” is a heresy.
March 6, 2017 at 10:15 pm
It is also the teaching of the Church that all who die in the state of Original Sin have chosen to remain in that state. Those who have not chosen are subject to a special grace, as was expounded by St. John Paul in Redemptor Missio; “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.
For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.”
March 6, 2017 at 10:35 pm
No. Unbaptised children who die before reason have not chosen to remain in original sin and yet are excluded from the beatific vision (so suffer the poena damni and are in hell). As to the quote from John Paul II, it is true that salvation is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church it is also granted to some who explicitly believe in Christ and have not entered the Church.
March 6, 2017 at 10:38 pm
No. The consistent teaching of Pope Pius IX, Pius XII, and other pontiffs has rejected this.
March 6, 2017 at 10:42 pm
“this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly [i.e. implicitly] at work.”
March 7, 2017 at 12:24 am
P.S. it cannot be the teaching of the Church that “all who die in the state of Original Sin have chosen to remain in that state” because Florence defines that “those who die in original sin only go immediately to Hell”. If they had chosen to remain in original sin they would not be in “original sin only” as that choice would itself be an additional sin.
March 7, 2017 at 3:02 am
“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; *for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.*”- Bl. Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore
March 7, 2017 at 3:11 am
Not “the light of divine grace” as you have it but “divine light and grace” – “divinae lucis et gratiae operante virtute”. Not an insignificant alteration to the text! Pius IX is obviously referring to people who have attained the age of reason and so could not be in original sin only. It is most odd furthermore that you should seek to set aside the dogma of an Ecumenical Council with a letter to the bishops of Italy!
March 6, 2017 at 9:19 pm
“Vani autem sunt omnes homines in quibus non subest scientia Dei; et de his quae videntur bona, non potuerunt intelligere eum qui est, neque operibus attendentes agnoverunt quis esset artifex”
Wisdom 13:1
March 6, 2017 at 10:03 pm
“But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have *acknowledged* who was the workman:”
Wisdom 13:1 Douay-Challoner translation
March 6, 2017 at 10:31 pm
Precisely, their lack of ‘acknowledgment’ coincides with a lack of knowledge.
March 6, 2017 at 10:35 pm
It is the meaning of the verb, and not the condition of it’s fulfilment that you have disputed.
March 6, 2017 at 8:46 pm
The incipit is “Credo igitur in unum Deum”; the phrase “humani generis” appears in the middle of the document.
March 6, 2017 at 9:07 pm
No. Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Epistolae, Volume 3, Page 77.
March 6, 2017 at 8:07 pm
“Fenton, who was Ottaviani’s peritus at Vatican II, explicitly denied that the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston in any way entailed implicitism. Dulles also conceded that nothing said by Vatican II excludes explicitism.”
Did Fr. Fenton and Cardinal Dulles give reasons for their assertions? If so, I would be very interested in learning them. Can you provide a link?
“It is the defined teaching of the Church as well as the doctrine of St Thomas that faith expressed through the forms of the Old Law lost its efficacy at the moment of Christ’s death. This is expressly not because of a new precept prohibiting the exercise of those rites but because in and of themselves they lost their efficacy due to the consummation of the Passion.”
What passage by St. Thomas are you alluding to? In Summa Theologiae, I-II, Question 103, Articles 3 and 4, he essentially only says that the Mosaic ceremonies ceased at the coming of Christ because they were a kind of profession of faith that was no longer in line with reality. This has no bearing on the implicit/explicit debate.
Are you alluding to any other magisterial document besides the “Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites” (D703-715, especially 712-713)?
If the Council of Florence’s assertions are to be taken litterally, they mean that Divine Providence ensures that those who are predestined to eternal glory will not participate in the Mosaic ceremonies (at least not until death). This tells us nothing about the salvation of non-Jewish non-Christians.
But they could also be understood to refer only to those who culpably participate in such ceremonies. When St. Paul says that “adulterers […] shall [not] posess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9.10), he clearly does not refer to someone who sleeps with his wife’s twin sister whom he sincerely mistakes for his wife. Similarly, when the Council of Florence says “that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally” (D712), we arguably have to except the invincibly ignorant, since Catholic doctrine requires full knowledge and full consent for mortal sins.
Concerning the the ceremonies’ loss of efficacy, I have the following thoughts:
The Mosaic ceremonies never had any efficacy for justification and salvation in and of themselves, but only inasmuch as they expressed interior acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition etc.; in addition, they caused an exterior ritual purity (see Summa Theologiae, I-II, Question 103, Article 2). Therefore, Florence’s assertion that the Mosaic ceremonies “ceased to be efficacious” (D713) can be interpreted in two ways:
(1) They ceased to cause ritual purity, since the distinction between ritual purity and impurity was abolished in the eyes of God.
(2) Faith in the false propositions which are now expressed by the Mosaic ceremonies is merely natural (since supernatural faith cannot refer to falsehoods) and therefore cannot justify (since only supernatural faith justifies).
Both interpretations are consistent with implicitism.
The remaining question is: Can those who have a merely natural faith in falsehoods which they (through invincible ignorance) believe to be Divinely revealed simultaneously have supernatural faith based on genuine Divine revelation?
March 6, 2017 at 8:49 pm
St Thomas explains in the De Veritate that all acts of faith involve assent to propositions and all such assent is time indexed (is, was or will be). The interior acts of faith expressed by the rites of the Old Law ceased to justify because they became false. Thus, an act of faith with no time reference is indeterminate and useless. If the Old Testament is inadequate for justifying implicit faith then nothing else is.
The forgiveness of sins requires actual adherence to Jesus of Nazareth. Belief in Balder or Hercules does not constitute adherence to Christ just because these fictional individuals are supposed to in some vague sense be ‘divine’. If an unauthorised preacher preached Christ crucified as the Second Person of the Trinity and the hearer inferred or the preacher claimed infallible warrant and the hearer believed him on all points then (all other things being equal) that would be justifying faith.
Supernatural faith (able to divinise and ground charity) essentially needs to consist in faith in absolutely supernatural realities. Your favourite baroque theologians do not presumably imagine individuals claiming to represent an infallible church teaching single articles of (per imposibile) per se revealed doctrine other than the Trinity and so justifying pagans. Thus, the implicitism faces insuperable problems of warrant and inadequate matter.
Dulles:
“Brian Harrison is a very acute reader of magisterial documents. He is correct, I believe, in saying that Vatican II does not reject the positions I have ascribed to Thomas Aquinas. … Harrison’s minority position is internally consistent and fully orthodox.”
Avery Cardinal Dulles, (First Things, May 2008)
Fenton:
“Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
Joseph Clifford Fenton, (American Ecclesiastical Review, December, 1952, pages 450-461.)
March 6, 2017 at 9:55 pm
You confuse the following two propositions:
(1) People can no longer be justified by the beliefs expressed in the Mosaic ceremonies.
(2) To be justified, people must now explicitly believe in more than is taught in the Old Testament.
(1) is true, (2) is false. The belief that the Mosaic ceremonial law is still in force is a false interpretation of the Old Testament. You cannot be justified through a false interpretation of the Old Testament; but it doesn’t follow that therefore you need more than the Old Testament for justification.
“The forgiveness of sins requires actual adherence to Jesus of Nazareth.”
Yes, and it also requires actual adherence to the Catholic Church, but people can be saved without conscious adherence to the Church.
“Belief in Balder or Hercules does not constitute adherence to Christ […]”
Nobody claims that it does. Obviously, nobody is saved through false beliefs. The question is: Under which conditions can individuals be saved despite having some false beliefs?
“Supernatural faith (able to divinise and ground charity) essentially needs to consist in faith in absolutely supernatural realities.”
Yes, but isn’t God’s offer of supernatural beatitude an absolutely supernatural reality? Pius XII appears to teach this in Humani Generis.
“Your favourite baroque theologians do not presumably imagine individuals claiming to represent an infallible church teaching single articles of (per imposibile) per se revealed doctrine other than the Trinity and so justifying pagans.”
But God’s offer of supernatural beatitude is “per se revealed,” isn’t it?
The Fenton quote is irrelevant, because it doesn’t discuss the most interesting passage from the Holy Office’s letter, which is the one about the distinction between intrinsic necessity and necessity based on Divine positive law; things that are necessary in the second sense can be replaced by an implicit desire for them.
The famous sentence from Lumen Gentium #16 about the salvation of non-Christians has a footnote referring to the 1949 letter. If Lumen Gentium is merely saying that non-Christians can be saved by converting to Christianity, what is the point of the footnote?
March 6, 2017 at 10:29 pm
The claim: “To be justified, people must now explicitly believe in more than is taught in the Old Testament” is the express basis for St Thomas, Florence and Pius XII assertion that people can no longer be justified by the beliefs expressed in the Mosaic ceremonies.
Because, for the forgiveness of sins, one must now believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Second Person of the Trinity one must now believe explicitly in the Trinity. The gratuity of the supernatural end is not what makes it absolutely supernatural. In my opinion belief in God’s supernatural providence implies belief in the Trinity because it implies friendship is a pure perfection which cannot be known by the natural power of any created intelligence (and which ultimately implies that there are three persons in God). However, this implicit faith in the Trinity which used to suffice together with a belief in the future redemption, no longer does so after the death of Christ because belief in the accomplished redemption requires belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Second Person of the Trinity.
On your account belief in the redemption accomplished by Balder would suffice because the error concerning the claim that Balder is the redeemer would not impede the belief in an accomplished redemption.
The point of the Fenton quote was to show that a theologian closely associated with the author of the letter rejected your claim that it in any way supported implicitism. Faith in Christ since the passion became a past event has been intrinsically necessary for one to be saved. The footnote in LG16 merely indicates that membership of the church is a necessity of precept.
All LG16 and AG7 teach is that God will not allow a person in a state of original and/or actual mortal sin who (through actual grace) has reordered himself to the due end and abstains from serious violations of the natural law to continue in this state until death without either bringing it about that before death he is justified (and therefore, if ignorant of the faith, is evangelised) or ceasing to sustain him in this state and allowing him to fall into mortal sin. In the case of a child who (by actual grace) orders himself to the due end immediately upon attaining to the age of reason this would mean that God would have either already ensured he had been evangelised or that he would receive (at the moment he attained the age of reason) the simultaneous infusion of the dogmas of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the case of someone who did not order himself to the due end at the moment he attained to the age of reason (and thus fell into mortal sin) but subsequently (through actual grace) reordered himself to the due end and abstained from serious violations of the natural law it would mean that God would either bring it about that before death he would be justified (and therefore, if ignorant of the faith, would be evangelised) or God would cease to sustain him in this state and allow him to fall into mortal sin.
March 6, 2017 at 8:43 pm
Concerning the question “Can those who have a merely natural faith in falsehoods which they (through invincible ignorance) believe to be Divinely revealed simultaneously have supernatural faith based on genuine Divine revelation?”:
Supernatural faith in a Divinely revealed truth requires an intermediary (except if you are the recipient of the revelation). As the theologians say, the intermediary must “sufficiently propose” (“sufficienter proponere”) the revealed truth to you, i.e., propose it in such a manner that you cannot prudently doubt that it is a Divinely revealed truth.
The ordinary means of sufficiently proposing revealed truths is the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church, but it is in principle possible for supernaural faith to be based on other intermediaries. According to many, this is even possible with Catholics:
“If, despite the fact that a Truth is not proposed for belief by the Church, one becomes convinced that it is immediately revealed by God, then, according to the opinion of many theologians (Suarez, De Lugo), one is bound to believe it with Divine Faith (fide divina). However, most theologians teach that such a Truth prior to its official proposition of the Church is to be accepted with theological assent (assensus theologicus) only, as the individual may be mistaken.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 2nd English ed., p. 5)
A revealed truth may be sufficiently proposed by a fallible intermediary; all that is required is that he cannot prudently be doubted in that particular instance. I don’t see how this can be doubted, since even the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church is usually received through fallible intermediaries (Denzinger, the Vatican website, Wikipedia, your parish priest etc.).
Such a fallible intermediary may also sufficiently propose a falsehood as Divinely revealed; it sometimes happens that a false claim cannot prudently be doubted.
It might be asked how this can be reconciled with the fact that supernatural faith cannot refer to falsehoods. According to Suarez, the common answer of the theologians is as follows:
When a revealed truth is sufficiently proposed to someone who has supernatural faith, three things happen in succession:
(1) He judges that he cannot prudently doubt that it is a revealed truth.
(2) He decides to make an act of supernatural faith.
(3) He makes an act of supernatural faith.
When a falsehood is sufficiently proposed to him as Divinely revealed, steps (1) and (2) happen, but (3) doesn’t. The reason is that every single act of supernatural faith requires an actual grace, which God withholds in such a case. Instead, the person makes an act of merely natural faith. The two acts (supernatural and natural) may be phenomenologically indistinguishable (i.e., they “feel” the same), but they are essentially different objectively (i.e., in the eyes of God).
If that is true, then the answer to the question at the beginning of this comment is yes. This would explain how the Mosaic ceremonies’ loss of efficacy is consistent with implicitism.
March 6, 2017 at 8:57 pm
No, the believer more firmly assents to the things that are of faith than to the first principles of reason. “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus.” If they “feel” the same then both are believed with merely natural faith and one is still in one’s sins.
March 6, 2017 at 9:14 pm
“No, the believer more firmly assents to the things that are of faith than to the first principles of reason.”
And someone to whom a falsehood has been sufficiently proposed may believe that falsehood to be more certain than the first principles of reason.
March 6, 2017 at 9:26 pm
If that were true then there would be no certain knowledge in either the natural or supernatural orders. Supernatural faith is not based on a prudential judgement as you seem to imagine. In fact this is condemned by Pius X in Lamentabili Sane “25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities”.
March 6, 2017 at 10:34 pm
After making an act of supernatural faith, you have absolute certainty that its content is true. But this doesn’t imply that you can be absolutely certain that you have indeed made an act of supernatural faith in a particular instance, and it also doesn’t imply that making an act of supernatural faith presupposes that you already know with absolute certainty that its content is Divinely revealed. If you already had absolute certainty before making the act, what would be the point of making it?
Before making an act of supernatural faith, you need to have moral certainty (impossibility of prudent doubt) that its content is Divinely revealed. The motives of credibility for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular give only moral certainty when considered by natural reason; absolute certainty comes with supernatural faith.
This is standard textbook teaching (see, e.g., Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et Pastoralis, vol. II, 7th ed. [1922], #617(a)).
Lamentabili Sane seems to condemn the idea that a probability below the threshold of moral certainty is sufficient as a preparation for supernatural faith (which was already condemned by Innocent XI, see D1171), or perhaps it condemns the idea that supernatural faith is caused by knowledge of the motives of credibility without the assistence of grace.
March 7, 2017 at 1:02 am
It is true that the natural belief that in the case of adults usually precedes the infusion of supernatural faith is merely a moral certainty. However, once supernatural faith is infused the believer has certainty concerning its essential objects exceeding the light of reason. This is not true of course of formal heretics who in denying a single article of faith deny them all and forfeit the light of faith. Were this not true it would not be acceptable either to die for the faith or to make the faith the source of public policy or public law. Pius X is condemning the idea that the certainty of supernatural faith is purely hypothetical: “if this is revealed by God then it is certain but whether it is revealed by God is merely a probability”.
March 6, 2017 at 10:42 pm
To Hapsburg Restorationist: March 6, 2017 at 10:35 pm
The verb in scripture means non-recognition through ignorance (culpable or inculpable).
March 6, 2017 at 10:49 pm
That is patently false.
March 6, 2017 at 10:52 pm
Well it does there and that is the only use of that form! Pelagius I statement would make no sense otherwise as it is clearly intended to be a division of the damned into two exhaustive categories whereas according to your version the largest group would have been left out entirely.
March 6, 2017 at 11:08 pm
I offer but one correction to this statement. In place of “according to your version”, should be written “according to the teaching of the Holy Church.” A Dieu!
March 6, 2017 at 11:12 pm
So you are maintaining that according to the teaching of Holy Church the teaching of Holy Church makes no sense. This may indicate some error in your reasoning.
March 6, 2017 at 11:40 pm
Conversely, it is because I hold that the teaching of Holy Church cannot contradict itself, that I am convinced that my reasoning is not in error. You reasoning however, is to take one Papal letter where it seems to suit your meaning, and to reject another when it does not. And now in all honesty grüße dich Gott.
March 6, 2017 at 11:53 pm
I am not sure which papal letter you mean. The texts I have cited (the Fides Pelegii, Cantate Domino, Laetentur Caeli, the Quicumque Vult) are solemn definitions of Catholic doctrine (so infallible). The only (fallible) papal letter which contradicts them anyone has cited is EG which was asserted at the time by the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura to be non-magisterial and which is by a pope now notorious for the propagation of error who has openly asserted that one should not seek to propagate the Gospel. Pope Benedict himself has asserted that the conviction that non-Christians can be saved as non-Christians is the source of all the difficulties in the Church. Pope Benedict himself says he cannot find a solution because he cannot believe that most men are lost (even though this is explicitly taught by Christ).
March 7, 2017 at 3:29 am
You conveniently ignore Quanto conficiamur moerore, Mystici corporis Christi, Singulari Quidem, and several other Magisterial documents.
March 7, 2017 at 3:31 am
Not at all (see above). Although I note only one of those documents is even addressed to the universal church.
March 7, 2017 at 3:33 am
It is useless to discourse with you, you are so far gone in your heresy. I can only pray that you do not bring many others into it with you. May God bless you.
March 7, 2017 at 4:32 am
Gosh! Well, Ratzinger and Dulles hold that this doctrine was held for the entire history of the church until the sixteenth century. Sullivan and Dulles hold that it is the doctrine of Aquinas held through the middle ages. Dulles holds that it is the obvious meaning of scripture and the unanimous opinion of the fathers, all the mediaevals and was defined at Florence. Fenton and Dulles hold that nothing has been taught by the magisterium contrary to it. So you are going out on quite a limb claiming it is a heresy. I suppose Pope Francis might have agreed with you if he thought there was such a thing as heresy.
March 6, 2017 at 10:44 pm
Hapsburg Restorationist: March 6, 2017 at 10:38 pm
Not according to Dulles, Harrison and Fenton (see above).
March 6, 2017 at 10:46 pm
Hapsburg Restorationist: March 6, 2017 at 10:42 pm
This refers to actual grace not habitual grace.
March 6, 2017 at 10:50 pm
And you know this how?
March 6, 2017 at 10:56 pm
“the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing…”