Poll: Do you agree with the following:
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Okay Augusztina I'll reply as you asked me. I think Quis has expressed it the best way back on the first page. For me I was trained on the Baltimore Catechism prior to Vatican II and the EENS included Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood. Baptism of desire was compared to being on fire for God, without any way to receive the Baptism of water which we all have received.. Baptism of blood is similar to martyrdom with out being baptized before it, and there are Saints celebrated in the kalendar who have received this  Baptism. This is what I was taught and this is what I hold, I have no desire to debate this nor parse these words, to me this is vanity, which borders on being Pharisees. I pose this question; how would I trained as I was to pay, pray, obey, think I am qualified to enter in this debate? I am not a follower of Fr. Feeney, and I didn't come from Boston.I hope in the Mercy of God, and do not presume it. tata
(03-23-2010, 09:51 PM)Walty Wrote: I guess my rub with this is that there seems to be a tension with previous statements about the nature of the Church and EENS.  If one must be saved through the Church and yet can still be saved as a card-carrying Buddhist visibly outside the Church at least physically then we must conclude that there is a difference between Christ's Church and the visible Roman Catholic Church. Or am I missing something?  According to this, Christ's Church must be said to extend outside of the hierarchical Church and that leads us a lot closer to the language in Vatican II about "subsisting" as opposed to "is."

This is clear Catholic teaching. Christ Church has three territories: The triumphant, the militant, and the suffering Churches.

As for outside of the militant Church (on membership at one time) there is salvation is evident from the fact that Jesus descended to the limbo of the Patriarchs and took the souls from there to the Triumphant Church These souls were never members of the militant Church, most died before Jesus established the militant Church.

I found it amazing that those pople are the most fervent Feeneyist, who  are outside the hierarchical jurisdictional Church being excommunicated or suspended. Naturally this is not absolute obstacle of their salvation, they will be judged according to their conscience, but what could be the reason to absolutize the Extra Ecclesiam  rule and also deny the power of conscience?
(03-24-2010, 04:13 PM)Nic Wrote: INPEFESS, I tend to agree with you, as usual.

The declaration of Pope Eugene at Florence is the most explicit we have concerning this topic.  As it can clearly be seen, the language of infallibility is used here (we teach, profess, declare etc.)

One of the best treatments of EENS is from Fr. Michael Muller, one of the most widely read theologians of the 19th century, which I posted a few days back on another EENS thread (there seems to be one about every week!).  As for almost everything, and especially when it comes to EENS, I stick to pre-conciliar writitngs.

Here is the link to the thread:   http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...468.0.html

Yes, thank you for posting that 'question-answer' segment by Fr. Muller. I am not the only poster who found it very helpful.
From the Summa Theologica:

Quote:Article 2. Whether ignorance is a sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that ignorance is not a sin. For sin is "a word, deed or desire contrary to God's law," as stated above (Question 71, Article 5). Now ignorance does not denote an act, either internal or external. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.

Objection 2. Further, sin is more directly opposed to grace than to knowledge. Now privation of grace is not a sin, but a punishment resulting from sin. Therefore ignorance which is privation of knowledge is not a sin.

Objection 3. Further, if ignorance is a sin, this can only be in so far as it is voluntary. But if ignorance is a sin, through being voluntary, it seems that the sin will consist in the act itself of the will, rather than in the ignorance. Therefore the ignorance will not be a sin, but rather a result of sin.

Objection 4. Further, every sin is taken away by repentance, nor does any sin, except only original sin, pass as to guilt, yet remain in act. Now ignorance is not removed by repentance, but remains in act, all its guilt being removed by repentance. Therefore ignorance is not a sin, unless perchance it be original sin.

Objection 5. Further, if ignorance be a sin, then a man will be sinning, as long as he remains in ignorance. But ignorance is continual in the one who is ignorant. Therefore a person in ignorance would be continually sinning, which is clearly false, else ignorance would be a most grievous sin. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.

On the contrary, Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance deserves punishment, according to 1 Corinthians 14:38: "If any man know not, he shall not be known." Therefore ignorance is a sin.

I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote:So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.

The area covered by human ignorance is clearly a vast one. For our purposes, however, three divisions may be noted.

-Ignorance of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions.
-Ignorance of the fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circumstance is unknown.
-Ignorance of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment.

We must also note that ignorance may precede, accompany, or follow an act of our will. It is therefore said to be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent. Antecedent ignorance is in no sense voluntary, neither is the act resulting from it; it precedes any voluntary failure to inquire. Consequent ignorance, on the other hand, is so called because it is the result of a perverse frame of mind choosing, either directly or indirectly, to be ignorant. Concomitant ignorance is concerned with the will to act in a given contingency; it implies that the real character of what is done is unknown to the agent, but his attitude is such that, were he acquainted with the actual state of things, he would go on just the same. Keeping these distinctions in mind we are in a position to lay down certain statements of doctrine.

Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.

It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man's moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack of knowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures. It is true then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievously sinful excuses, because for the incurring of censures contumacy is required. Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does.

I think these are very important when considering this topic. Ultimately, we can never truly know all of these qualifiers.
(03-25-2010, 12:12 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Article 2. Whether ignorance is a sin?

There is simple ignorance (you can call it nescience: you have no doubt about your stand, so you do not search) and the ignorancia crassa = intended ignorance, when you could and should know the truth (e.g. Ubi Petrus ubi Ecclesia, ubi Ecclesia ibi salus est) but you refuse to pursue the full understanding for whatever reason.

To the first group (simple ignorance) belong those who born as hindi. buddhist, muslim, protestant, orthodox, sedevacantist and live among their folks;

to the later (ignorantia crassa) group belong those who got proper education about the full Catholic faith, but reject as a whole or parts of it.  These people believe that they can and should distinguish between good and evil, instead of accepting our partiality and need for the Magisterium with humility. 
"Implicit Baptism of Desire".  That phrase would make Orwell proud, which is why I obviously voted "No".

"Implicit Baptism of Desire" is up there with "Punitive Damages".  It tries to keep from saying the Truth.  "Implicit Baptism of Desire" is another way of saying "the heresy of Pelagius".  I note you talk about "men of good will" being saved.  THAT in a nutshell is the heresy that the Church has put down over and over again.

Muslims absolutely do not desire baptism.  Period.  Jews "of good will" would rather be burned in boiling oil than be baptized.

In fact, even salvation through an "explicit" desire for baptism is doubtful.  The only thing going for it are two nebulous lines in Trent, which Council also says that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

Now I am sincere in this debate, and I can respect the opinion that explicit desire can save you.  It is a very small number of people in any case.  But I have no respect for this notion of an implicit desire.  That is heretical.
I believe the statement in the OP is a direct quote from Archbishop Lefebrve.

edit: in reply #33 the whole passage containing that statement is cited to the Letter to Confused Catholics.

Even not knowing that I would have said it depended what is meant by "good will." It would have to be a good will motivated by supernatural faith and perfect charity.

(03-28-2010, 05:34 PM)James02 Wrote: Now I am sincere in this debate, and I can respect the opinion that explicit desire can save you.  It is a very small number of people in any case.  But I have no respect for this notion of an implicit desire.  That is heretical.

The Church disagrees.  Implicit desire can be found in the theology for a long time.  The Church does not define it as dogma, but it doesn't condemn it either.  It's an open question, not an heresy.
(03-29-2010, 03:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-28-2010, 05:34 PM)James02 Wrote: Now I am sincere in this debate, and I can respect the opinion that explicit desire can save you.  It is a very small number of people in any case.  But I have no respect for this notion of an implicit desire.  That is heretical.

The Church disagrees.  Implicit desire can be found in the theology for a long time.  The Church does not define it as dogma, but it doesn't condemn it either.  It's an open question, not an heresy.

Its not an open question either though because doctrinal decrees from the Holy Office are not subject to debate:

Holy Office, 8 August 1949 Wrote:Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

....However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.).

(03-29-2010, 02:15 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Even not knowing that I would have said it depended what is meant by "good will." It would have to be a good will motivated by supernatural faith and perfect charity.

Yes, it does. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, invincible ignorance exonerates one of culpability for that of which one is invincibly ignorant. If by "goodwilled" we are referring to those who, through not fault of there own do not know of the Catholic Church (such as those in St. Paul's epistle who were praying to the "unknown God"), then I think this would be a factor in addition to those you mentioned.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)