How does the Tibetan pass on to his children the necessities for salvation when he doesn't even know that he is damned?

This is also what I believe - a huge lack of faith in the Providence of God.

Who can imagine Him, Who created light on the first day, but did not create the source of the light till the fourth day, is subject to unforeseen circuмstances - for our convenience.

This is also what I believe - a huge lack of faith in the Providence of God.

Who can imagine Him, Who created light on the first day, but did not create the source of the light till the fourth day, is subject to unforeseen circuмstances - for our convenience.

It's one thing to toss around the idea of a BOD as being something possibly legitimate, but it's a whole nother thing to preach it as if it is a doctrine of the Church. I think the idea itself displeases God very much, not so much because of what it is, but because inherent in the idea is that Almighty God is handcuffed by "unforeseen circuмstances" from Providing that which He, in no uncertain terms, personally instituted as being necessary for salvation.


  

Why would you think that God is mean if He doesn't wait the amount of time you think He needs to wait for someone?  Or do you think God has to break his own rules in order to save people?  Circuмstances cannot possibly impede God from getting someone true baptism if they want it. It certainly isn't harder for God to provide baptism than baptism of desire.  If a person wants baptism and tries to get there, they get it.  If someone dies without it, God knew what He was doing and no one can say He is unmerciful.  

I'm kinda confused. Do you think I was supporting implicit BOD? My questions were rhetorical, I hope people try to answer them and arrive at the only conclusion possible; the absurdity of the implicit BOD position.

I try to stay away from BOD/BOB not because I don't believe this teaching or doubt it, it makes perfect sense to me.  It does not make sense to deny it.

Without using all the theological terms, my understanding is explained in this little story I made up.  

+++

Oh, Dear, exclaimed St. Peter at the gate, one day!
What is the matter?  His angel spoke.
Those evils souls are at it again, killing those who seek the Truth.
See, those two coming were the latest; they were getting ready for baptism, but that one on the left was having doubts, do I or don't I want to live this way? He was not convinced (a doubter).  He was what we call a convert that is thinking ( well maybe they're right and just in case I'll try) not wanting to take a chance my eternity. A healthy fear in other words.

From the beginning of their journey, his friend the Believer talked/walked with God. Prayed daily for all his family and friends. Never neglecting
Our Lady, teaching and praying the rosary while loving especially the Sorrowful mysteries.  Finally, the day has come for the two of them to be Baptised, according to the priest.


Now, this!  The persecutors are sneaking up right behind them and
with evil intent.  The weaker of the two, having just received the pouring of water while at the same time hearing the saving words; suddenly — like that both were killed instantly by God's enemies!  Killed before the Believer had a chance for the water.


St. Peter says to his angel, strange that some below think the Believer should go to hell. (or am I wrong here)  St.Peter continues ...  They fail to realize that the sacraments and the sacrifice of the altar, being Christ's own actions, must be held to be capable in themselves of conveying and dispensing grace from the divine Head to the members of the Mystical Body.


Now, all that talk about the infidels is another situation!  And/Or souls that know what they must do, but keep putting it on the back burner. Banking on desire only!    Only God can judge them according to His opportunities He gave them for Truth.  We can in turn continue to pray for the infidels and our loved ones for more time.  

Anyway that is my take on the subject.  I also believe that all this twisting of words saying he meant this or that is meaningless since none of you know what was in the mind of whoever used words such as "or" or "and" ...

 

St. Peter says to his angel, strange that some below think the Believer should go to hell. (or am I wrong here)  St.Peter continues ...  They fail to realize that the sacraments and the sacrifice of the altar, being Christ's own actions, must be held to be capable in themselves of conveying and dispensing grace from the divine Head to the members of the Mystical Body.

My make-believe story; you either misread or wanted to misread!  The story clearly speaks of two learning the faith.  One received the Sacrament, the other only the desire through no fault of his own was killed before the Sacrament was administered.  Who was saved Pax Vobis,  pick one:   Both or only the one who received the Sacrament or none?
This story illustrates how the Church teaches BOD.  The Church does NOT teach BOD is a substitute for the Sacrament, as if it could even apply if death is not carried out.