Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: BoD and justification  (Read 34856 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
  • Reputation: +2897/-667
  • Gender: Male
Re: BoD and justification
« Reply #150 on: September 10, 2023, 06:47:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Because before the 1800s (which is why the *original* Baltimore catechism didn't mention it, except in later editions), people didn't talk about BOD all that much.  Since then, people starting fixating on BOD and the liberals of the day used the idea to push sentimental salvation for American protestants and "good willed indians".  The pre-Modernists in the Church (who had already started infiltrating Her ranks, 50+ years before the early 1900s when Pope St Pius X exclaimed that the Church was "filled with wolves"), used BOD to water down EENS, in preparation for their planned V2, which almost happened with Pope Pius IX in the late 1800s (but who converted from liberalism after his election...which is why he was imprisoned by the masons).  And again, except for Pope St Pius X's miraculous election, we would've had V2 and its "universal salvation" heresies in the early 1900s.

    The preparation for V2 started in the 1800s, right after the French Revolution in 1789 kicked off the wave of marxism all over Europe.  The common notion of BOD (except for the *very strict* theory for formal catechumens) is pelagianism and a precursor to V2's errors.

    Pax, you seem like a reasonable person of good will. In a previous post you suggested reading Bishop Hay on EENS. As I said in my response to you, I’ve been reading his works to my children. I agree that he is an excellent source. His “Sincere Christian” was published in the 1780’s. Below is his treatment of BOD from that work:

    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #151 on: September 10, 2023, 07:45:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is the same nonsense you keep spewing.  You are unable to refute the actual argument and explain why this is wrong, as with every other issue, but you keep pulling the old "hundreds of years" junk.  Nobody questioned St. Augustine's opinion about the fate of infants who died without the Sacrament of Baptism for about 700 years either.

    Of the 25 or so theologians Father Cekada could find who even mention the subject of BoD, more than half simply mention it in passing.  There's absolutely zero time spent or theological analysis of BoD pretty much since St. Robert Bellarmine and then St. Alphonsus.  There's been no time spent or theological "ink" spilled on this subject.

    Instead of these lame posts, address the actual problem here:

    MAJOR:  There can be no initial justification without rebirth (taught by Trent).
    MINOR:  Rebirth puts the soul into a completely pristine state wherein no sin or stain of sin remains that might impede the soul from immediate entry into Heaven (also taught by Trent).
    CONCLUSION.  There's no such thing as an initial justification after which temporal punishment for sin remains.

    In addition, St. Alphonsus cites a letter from Pope Innocent II as contributing to why BoD is de fide.  Well, in another similar letter, Innocent III also states that someone who died in a state of BoD would rush immediately to his heavenly home.  So, by St. Alphonsus' own standards, that opinion would be heretical.

    #1) In case you missed my post:

    News flash, you aren’t qualified in the least to say that a Saint and Doctor of the Church is wrong unless you have authorities who are *post Trent* to back you up. You base your claim on what *YOU* believe is the correct interpretation of Trent *NOT* based on *ANY* source post Trent. Because of this you are dead from the get go. What bothers me most is the fact you will not recognize that your opinion carries absolutely no weight. My arguments are based on authorities and references, you base your argument on your opinion coupled with pre Trent sources. Do you understand what I am saying?

    #2) As I’ve told you in the past, the Catholic Encyclopedia is your only source to defend your argument regarding St. Augustine’s position on Limbo. The CE has some good articles, but it can’t be totally trusted. The liberal Father Herbert Thurston authored many articles in the CE and he also butchered Butler’s Lives of the Saints.

    You draw your ‘Saint Augustine argument’ as though it were some foolproof evidence of the Church teaching error for 700 years, it’s not. Incidentally, to believe that the Church can officially teach error is heretical.

    #3) I love it! 7 of the 25 theologians mentioned by Father Cekada say that the Church teaches it de fide and you just poo poo it as “no theological ink spilled on this subject”. :jester:

    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2332
    • Reputation: +880/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #152 on: September 10, 2023, 07:57:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is the same nonsense you keep spewing.  You are unable to refute the actual argument and explain why this is wrong, as with every other issue, but you keep pulling the old "hundreds of years" junk.  Nobody questioned St. Augustine's opinion about the fate of infants who died without the Sacrament of Baptism for about 700 years either.



    I'd like to know exactly what St. Augustine thought in this regard. Is the claim he thought infants would be tormented with the fires of hell, albeit "mildly," some form of Catholic urban myth?

    I read one work that claimed that Augustine thought infants would be so punished, and it cited the following from St. Augustine's works:

    Quote

    Chapter 93. Both the First and the Second Deaths are the Consequence of Sin. Punishment is Proportioned to Guilt.

    And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelled to leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soul is not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflicted on man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin, to the original sin they brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actual sins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the next world, according as his iniquity has been less in this world.

    CHURCH FATHERS: Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love (St. Augustine) (newadvent.org)

    Where exactly are the "punishments" of the flames and torments of hell there?

    Innocent III stated that deprivation of the beatific vision is a "punishment," the mildest, obviously: "the punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. " DZ 410.

    Elsewhere, in his work, Against Julian, St. Augustine states:


    Quote
    But I do not say that children who die without the baptism of Christ will undergo such grievous punishment that it were better for them never to have been born, since our Lord did not say these words of any sinner you please, but only of the most base and ungodly. If we consider what He said about the Sodomites, which certainly He did not mean of them only that it will be more tolerable for one than for another in the day of judgment, 2 who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God so many images of God, and by separating them from the pious parents you so eloquently urge to procreate them. They suffer these separations unjustly, if they have no sin at all; or if justly, then they have original sin.

    The Fathers Of The Church A New Translation Volume 35 Saint Augustine Against Julian : Roy Joseph Deferrari : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

    St. Augustine's opinion on the "punishment" of nonbaptized infants who die in infancy appears to accord with the view of Innocent III, and merely mean estrangement from the kingdom of heaven.

    Until we're shown proof - an actual quote from St. Augustine - I'm calling FOUL on this claim that he thought infants would be punished by torments or flames in hell.



    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2531
    • Reputation: +1299/-281
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #153 on: September 10, 2023, 08:03:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • #1) In case you missed my post:

    News flash, you aren’t qualified in the least to say that a Saint and Doctor of the Church is wrong unless you have authorities who are *post Trent* to back you up. You base your claim on what *YOU* believe is the correct interpretation of Trent *NOT* based on *ANY* source post Trent. Because of this you are dead from the get go. What bothers me most is the fact you will not recognize that your opinion carries absolutely no weight. My arguments are based on authorities and references, you base your argument on your opinion coupled with pre Trent sources. Do you understand what I am saying?

    #2) As I’ve told you in the past, the Catholic Encyclopedia is your only source to defend your argument regarding St. Augustine’s position on Limbo. The CE has some good articles, but it can’t be totally trusted. The liberal Father Herbert Thurston authored many articles in the CE and he also butchered Butler’s Lives of the Saints.

    You draw your ‘Saint Augustine argument’ as though it were some foolproof evidence of the Church teaching error for 700 years, it’s not. Incidentally, to believe that the Church can officially teach error is heretical.

    #3) I love it! 7 of the 25 theologians mentioned by Father Cekada say that the Church teaches it de fide and you just poo poo it as “no theological ink spilled on this subject”. :jester:
    Trent statement on initial justification is not an interpretation. It's quite literally a statement. We are to believe what is written... And this statement is not ambiguous.

    Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “… SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED…”
    Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5: “FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #154 on: September 10, 2023, 08:29:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trent statement on initial justification is not an interpretation. It's quite literally a statement. We are to believe what is written... And this statement is not ambiguous.

    Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “… SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED…”
    Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5: “FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”

    Saint Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, and and at least six other theologians disagree with you. At least Eighteen other theologians say that the Church teaches BOD with various theological notes. No theologian post Trent taught what you suggest. Staking my immortal soul on this question, who do I think it’s safer to believe?
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #155 on: September 10, 2023, 09:11:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Instead of these lame posts, address the actual problem here:

    MAJOR:  There can be no initial justification without rebirth (taught by Trent).

    Give the exact reference from Trent and commentary from an approved theologian and translation.


    MINOR:  Rebirth puts the soul into a completely pristine state wherein no sin or stain of sin remains that might impede the soul from immediate entry into Heaven (also taught by Trent).

    Ditto.


    CONCLUSION.  There's no such thing as an initial justification after which temporal punishment for sin remains.


    My comments in red.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12615
    • Reputation: +8033/-2491
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #156 on: September 10, 2023, 10:43:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Bishop Hay on EENS
    That's a shame.  I've read Bishop Hay on EENS and he has some of the strongest words supporting it.  But like many churchmen of the 1800s, he was exposed to pre-Modernism and now talks out of both sides of his mouth.  At least, in his BOD examples, his hypothetical conversions include the following important points 

    a) the ignorant/dying person is enlightened about the Faith
    b) accepts it and desires to enter the Church
    c) is no longer protestant, pagan, ignorant, etc.
    d) which would make such a person a catechumen.

    At least his articulation of BOD is "in the ball park" of non-heretical.  I'll give him that.

    Most BOD explanations today, about the "ignorant native" or the "pious hindu" being saved are heretical.  You can't have BOD unless you know the basic truths of the Faith (i.e. Incarnation/Trinity).  Having heard of the Faith, you must desire to enter the Church.  Then, if one has a true desire to enter the Church, they must renounce their former faiths/practices (i.e. they are no longer ignorant, and they are no longer Hindu).  Thus, the person is a catechumen.  This lines up with St Thomas, St Bellarmine and St Alphonsus and is the ONLY possible BOD theory which isn't heretical.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47090
    • Reputation: +27916/-5205
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #157 on: September 10, 2023, 11:09:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My comments in red.

    I've cited the passages from Trent repeatedly.  I know of no "approved theologian" who dealt with those passages.  As I said, there are about 2 dozen theologians who even mention BoD, half of them in passing.  Most of the theological analysis you'll see about Trent has to do with the condemnation of justification by faith alone.  But if I take the time to find the passages from Trent, would you even bother with attempting to rebut the argument above or will you just waive them off as usual because there's no "approved theologian" who wrote about it ... one way or the other, to be honest, neither confirming nor denying the argument?  Just wondering whether I should spend (aka waste) my time since, just like with some other subjects we've disagreed about, you tend to make up your mind before hand and just ignore evidence to the contrary of your preconceived conclusion without attempting to rebut it.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47090
    • Reputation: +27916/-5205
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #158 on: September 10, 2023, 11:13:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's a shame.  I've read Bishop Hay on EENS and he has some of the strongest words supporting it.  But like many churchmen of the 1800s, he was exposed to pre-Modernism and now talks out of both sides of his mouth.  At least, in his BOD examples, his hypothetical conversions include the following important points

    a) the ignorant/dying person is enlightened about the Faith
    b) accepts it and desires to enter the Church
    c) is no longer protestant, pagan, ignorant, etc.
    d) which would make such a person a catechumen.

    At least his articulation of BOD is "in the ball park" of non-heretical.  I'll give him that.

    Most BOD explanations today, about the "ignorant native" or the "pious hindu" being saved are heretical.  You can't have BOD unless you know the basic truths of the Faith (i.e. Incarnation/Trinity).  Having heard of the Faith, you must desire to enter the Church.  Then, if one has a true desire to enter the Church, they must renounce their former faiths/practices (i.e. they are no longer ignorant, and they are no longer Hindu).  Thus, the person is a catechumen.  This lines up with St Thomas, St Bellarmine and St Alphonsus and is the ONLY possible BOD theory which isn't heretical.

    Right, between Bishop Hay and Father Mueller, they articulate an understanding of BoD that does not gut EENS dogma, unlike the vast majority of BoD proponents.  With those who hold such a view of BoD, I disagree, but I don't accuse them of "error" in the theological sense, just think they're wrong in accepting this unnecessary and harmful speculation, harmful in its fruits, which we behold before is in all the wreckage of Vatican II, which simply could not have happened were there no such thing as BoD.

    Offline OABrownson1876

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 728
    • Reputation: +603/-29
    • Gender: Male
      • The Orestes Brownson Society
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #159 on: September 10, 2023, 11:57:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "There is no salvation without faith, and no salvation without Baptism.  So it would be surprising if we could not somewhere find these two elements coordinated or juxtaposed in the same passage.  The classic text, and the one which is most explicit, is that at the conclusion of Mark: 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' (Mk 16: 16; Mt 28: 19)  The second part of this passage omits the phrase 'and is not baptized.'  The reason for this, and we shall see, is that since faith is the condition for the reception of baptism its absence necessarily implies the absence of baptism as well." 
    (Baptism in the New Testament, trans. by David Askew. 1956)

    "There have been certain errors concerning this sacrament.  The first was that of the Solentiani, who received a baptism not of water but of the spirit.  Against them the Lord says: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."
     (Explanation of the Seven Sacraments. St. Thomas) He wrote this before the Summa Theologica

    "This learned theologian (Fr. Tanquerey), who taught dogmatic theology in the Catholic Institute of Paris in the last decade of the nineteenth century, shows that the sacrament of Baptism was useful to the soul of the Blessed Virgin, not indeed to purify her of the stain of Original Sin, or from any sin of any kind, but in order to incorporate her externally and officially into the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church; also in order to bestow on her an increase of sanctifying grace, and, above all, in order to imprint on her soul the indelible character of Baptism which is, according to St. Thomas, a 'potentia passiva' enabling a Christian to receive validly the other sacraments.  If Mary had not been baptized she would have been deprived (when later on she received Holy Communion at the hands of the Apostles) of the special fruits which sacramental communion produces ex opere operato only in a baptized person, according to the well-known axiom: "Baptismus est janua aliorum sacramentorum, baptism is the gate of the other sacraments."
       (Rev. J.B. Terrien, La Mere de Dieu et la Mere des Hommes, pp. 238-239)

    And the late Msgr. Fenton, who taught at Catholic Univ., is more precise:

    "Part of this confusion has come from an amateurish and unscientific use of technical theological terminology.  The great classical ecclesiologists frequently spoke of men being saved either through being in the Church, or through being members of the Church, 'in voto.'  Later and less brilliant writers tended to imagine that there were two ways of being members of the Church, 'in re' and 'in voto.'  As a matter of fact, the man who is a member of the church 'in re' is really and actually a part of the true Church.  He is one of the persons who compose the society.  The man who is a member 'in voto' is one who is in the Church in desire.  The thing desired is always an absent good.  The man who desires to be a member of the Church is precisely one who does not, at the moment, enjoy this privilege.  By making it appear that membership in the Church and desire of attaining membership were two ways of being within the Church as parts of this society, the proponents of the theory which Dr. Jalland has employed have been of little service to the cause of Catholic theology."
     ("Membership in the Church," The American Eccl. Review) 

    "This is the position taken by the Fathers in their insistence that the Holy Spirit is given at Baptism, and that only those are just who maintain the unity with the Holy Spirit brought about by that sacrament.  Baptism, which justifies man for the first time, is identified with the transmission of the gift of the Holy Spirit.  He is not given and is not present to the unbaptized soul"  (Grace. Rev. Robert Gleason, SJ. pg. 162)
    Bryan Shepherd, M.A. Phil.
    PO Box 17248
    2312 S. Preston
    Louisville, Ky. 40217; email:letsgobryan@protonmail.com. substack: bryanshepherd.substack.com
    website: www.orestesbrownson.org. Rumble: rumble.com/user/Orestes76

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #160 on: September 10, 2023, 01:34:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's a shame.  I've read Bishop Hay on EENS and he has some of the strongest words supporting it.  But like many churchmen of the 1800s, he was exposed to pre-Modernism and now talks out of both sides of his mouth.  At least, in his BOD examples, his hypothetical conversions include the following important points

    a) the ignorant/dying person is enlightened about the Faith
    b) accepts it and desires to enter the Church
    c) is no longer protestant, pagan, ignorant, etc.
    d) which would make such a person a catechumen.

    At least his articulation of BOD is "in the ball park" of non-heretical.  I'll give him that.

    Most BOD explanations today, about the "ignorant native" or the "pious hindu" being saved are heretical.  You can't have BOD unless you know the basic truths of the Faith (i.e. Incarnation/Trinity).  Having heard of the Faith, you must desire to enter the Church.  Then, if one has a true desire to enter the Church, they must renounce their former faiths/practices (i.e. they are no longer ignorant, and they are no longer Hindu).  Thus, the person is a catechumen.  This lines up with St Thomas, St Bellarmine and St Alphonsus and is the ONLY possible BOD theory which isn't heretical.

    Luckily for Bishop Hay you exonerated him of heresy. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: Where were all of you layman back 200 years ago to straighten out all those misguided popes, saints, and theologians?
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #161 on: September 10, 2023, 01:38:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've cited the passages from Trent repeatedly.  I know of no "approved theologian" who dealt with those passages.  As I said, there are about 2 dozen theologians who even mention BoD, half of them in passing.  Most of the theological analysis you'll see about Trent has to do with the condemnation of justification by faith alone.  But if I take the time to find the passages from Trent, would you even bother with attempting to rebut the argument above or will you just waive them off as usual because there's no "approved theologian" who wrote about it ... one way or the other, to be honest, neither confirming nor denying the argument?  Just wondering whether I should spend (aka waste) my time since, just like with some other subjects we've disagreed about, you tend to make up your mind before hand and just ignore evidence to the contrary of your preconceived conclusion without attempting to rebut it.


    That is complete boloney and you know it! Saint Alphonsus cites that passage from Trent to support his belief that BOD is de fide.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #162 on: September 10, 2023, 02:21:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've cited the passages from Trent repeatedly.  I know of no "approved theologian" who dealt with those passages.  As I said, there are about 2 dozen theologians who even mention BoD, half of them in passing.  Most of the theological analysis you'll see about Trent has to do with the condemnation of justification by faith alone.  But if I take the time to find the passages from Trent, would you even bother with attempting to rebut the argument above or will you just waive them off as usual because there's no "approved theologian" who wrote about it ... one way or the other, to be honest, neither confirming nor denying the argument?  Just wondering whether I should spend (aka waste) my time since, just like with some other subjects we've disagreed about, you tend to make up your mind before hand and just ignore evidence to the contrary of your preconceived conclusion without attempting to rebut it.


    I apologize, I misunderstood you. I realize that you were saying that you know of no theologians who dealt with those passages who supports your position.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12615
    • Reputation: +8033/-2491
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #163 on: September 10, 2023, 06:27:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Luckily for Bishop Hay you exonerated him of heresy. :facepalm: title=facepalm :facepalm: title=facepalm :facepalm: title=facepalm Where were all of you layman back 200 years ago to straighten out all those misguided popes, saints, and theologians?
    Please answer the following questions:

    1.  Do you admit that BOD has been used by the Modernists and liberals to water down EENS?  Y/N
    2.  Do you admit that Karl Rahner's version of BOD (i.e. the anonymous christian) is light-years different than St Thomas/St Bellarmine's/Trents views?
    3.  Do you admit that V2's "universal salvation" was only made possible by a watering down (which took multiple centuries) of EENS?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: BoD and justification
    « Reply #164 on: September 11, 2023, 05:01:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please answer the following questions:

    1.  Do you admit that BOD has been used by the Modernists and liberals to water down EENS?  Y/N
    2.  Do you admit that Karl Rahner's version of BOD (i.e. the anonymous christian) is light-years different than St Thomas/St Bellarmine's/Trents views?
    3.  Do you admit that V2's "universal salvation" was only made possible by a watering down (which took multiple centuries) of EENS?

    1) Yes
    2) Yes
    3) I don’t believe Bishop Hay’s, Saint Alphonsus’, Saint Robert’s views are a watered down version of EENS, but are the correct and accurate teaching of the Church post Trent. 

    It is similar to the Old Catholics leaving the Church and rejecting the Papacy altogether because they couldn’t accept the doctrine on Papal Infallibility. They over reacted, just as you people are now.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?