Author Topic: BOD - the antecedent of Vatican II (Read 11737 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** August 26, 2013, 07:12:28 PM »

Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** August 26, 2013, 07:25:07 PM »

Myrna, I truly respect the fact that you desire all people to be saved; so does God, and so do I. There's no greater tragedy than the loss of a soul. But this isn't about "judging" who goes to heaven or who goes to hell. It's about understanding God's requirements for souls to go to heaven.

I don't know if you read the post I made about the fact that I believe a misunderstanding about the nature of hell might be behind BoD thinking. Heaven is nothing other than the beatific vision, a supernatural gift which no one can deserve, and no one is punished for being deprived of this gift. That's basically de fide. People are only punished for their ACTUAL sins. Infants who die without baptism enjoy a perfect natural happiness and don't even know what they're missing. They can be as happy as anyone can possibly be short of experiencing the beatific vision. And I'm sure that they love God with their natural hearts and are thankful to him because they are probably shown that God saved them from eternal suffering by allowing them to die in this state. EVERYTHING that happens is an act of God's mercy. If an animist dies in a jungle, it's undoubtedly because had he received the gift of faith he would have failed to live by it and thus merited a greater punishment. I fully believe that God puts everyone in the situation of the greatest possible mercy.

But we are simply not in a position to understand WHY God allows this or that to happen to some but not to others.

St. Augustine, who was the first and only Church Father, to float the idea of BoD, retracted the opinion in his later years, saying that making theology based on what WE think would be fair or unfair leads to what he called a "vortex of confusion". Where does this questioning of God's mercy stop? I've known a fair number of people who turned away from God due to some tragedy that they decided was not compatible with an all-merciful God.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #32 on:** August 26, 2013, 08:10:16 PM »

.

Post

Quote from: MyrnaM

In my opinion Vatican II took dogma and exaggerated it, till it became a heresy. That way when someone would call them on it, they would point out things like, "didn't Christ die for all man" ... therefor all men are saved. They used BOD to enforce their exaggeration.

Can you come up with any more examples of this, MyrnaM?

Luker · « **Reply #33 on:** August 26, 2013, 08:11:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?

I asked something similar in a thread (Two Questions) just down the page but I will throw my question in here hoping it gets a bit of play.

How does BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance work in regards to Original Sin? I asked about the Limbo of the Infants. We know that unbaptized/aborted babies cannot see the Beatific Vision because although they have no personal sins, they still have the stain of Original Sin. So how would this work in relation to say an implicit Baptism of Desire? If an implicit desire can potentially be enough (with a perfect act of contrition too?) why would we even need a Limbo of the Infants in theology? Surely between BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance that could cover scenarios for unbaptized or aborted (BoB?) infants as well? So why Limbo then? Or said another way, how does BoD etc. work in conjunction with the Limbo of the Infants?

Thank you in advance for any help answering this question.

Luke

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #34 on:** August 26, 2013, 08:16:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?

Does believing in BoD help a woman who gets an abortion to
feel better about it?

Remember, Vat.II was largely an outgrowth of Americanism,

and Roe vs. Wade was consequent to Vat.II, just by a few
years is all.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #35 on:** August 26, 2013, 08:23:14 PM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Ladislaus
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?

I asked something similar in a thread (Two Questions) just down the page but I will throw my question in here hoping it gets a bit of play.

How does BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance work in regards to Original Sin? I asked about the Limbo of the Infants. We know that unbaptized/aborted babies cannot see the Beatific Vision because although they have no personal sins, they still have the stain of Original Sin. So how would this work in relation to say an implicit Baptism of Desire? If an implicit desire can potentially be enough (with a perfect act of contrition too?) why would we even need a Limbo of the Infants in theology? Surely between BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance that could cover scenarios for unbaptized or aborted (BoB?) infants as well? So why Limbo then? Or said another way, how does BoD etc. work in conjunction with the Limbo of the Infants?

Thank you in advance for any help answering this question.

Luke

I suspect you're right here, and that's why the Modernists are trying to
get rid of Limbo because it's problematic, and BoD defenders are really
uncomfy talking about Limbo because they know there are contradictory
snags in the logic of it all.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #36 on:** August 26, 2013, 09:40:40 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Post
Quote from: MyrnaM

In my opinion Vatican II took dogma and exaggerated it, till it became a heresy. That way when someone would call them on it, they would point out things like, "didn't Christ die for all man" ... therefor all men are saved. They used BOD to enforce their exaggeration.

Can you come up with any more examples of this, MyrnaM?

The exaggeration of Keeping Holy the Sabbath Day is another example. This might seem just too simple to even notice but prior to Vatican II under the new covenant the Sabbath Day is Sunday. However in today’s Modern world, they say it is necessary for convenience to fulfill their obligation for the Sabbath by going to church on Saturday evening. This is necessary for the salvation of souls, the time is extended. At the same time pleases false religions that worship on Saturday. Falls right into when Karol Wojtyla declared, in the predominantly pagan African Republic of Benin, that "the Church considers religious liberty as an inalienable right..."

Now they teach it is most charitable that we reach out to those who are separated from us, to foster the Mark of Unity within the church. They take this truth of Unity and exaggerate it by going against every thing the Church has warned us about. Now it is most desirable that Catholics should join in "prayer services" with false religions, they identify as separated brethren, also religious activities, except it is forbidden with Traditional Catholics, of course.

They exaggerate doctrine by the mere changing of the definitions of words, which is why they want to do away with Latin. Latin does not change, therefore it makes it difficult to change doctrine unless they can change the meaning of the doctrine in the first place. Therefore the enemy comes up with the idea to toss away the Missal prayer books, where anyone can read the Latin on one side and follow in their own language on the other side. Not only is this an exaggeration of an excuse but it is a lie, always they say it is for the benefit of the laity, but it is to carry out their own agenda.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #37 on:** August 26, 2013, 09:59:38 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Luker
Quote from: Ladislaus
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?

I asked something similar in a thread (Two Questions) just down the page but I will throw my question in here hoping it gets a bit of play.

How does BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance work in regards to Original Sin? I asked about the Limbo of the Infants. We know that unbaptized/aborted babies cannot see the Beatific Vision because although they have no personal sins, they still have the stain of Original Sin. So how would this work in relation to say an implicit Baptism of Desire? If an implicit desire can potentially be enough (with a perfect act of contrition too?) why would we even need a Limbo of the Infants in theology? Surely between BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance that could cover scenarios for unbaptized or aborted (BoB?) infants as well? So why Limbo then? Or said another way, how does BoD etc. work in conjunction with the Limbo of the Infants?

Thank you in advance for any help answering this question.

Luke

I suspect you're right here, and that's why the Modernists are trying to
get rid of Limbo because it's problematic, and BoD defenders are really
uncomfy talking about Limbo because they know there are contradictory
snags in the logic of it all.

Why would you say that BOD defenders are uncomfortable with the teaching of Limbo. That is not true at all.

Babies can not have BOD because they can not reason, they do not have the use of reason.

First babies in Limbo are in the state of original sin, BUT NOT PERSONAL SIN. Meaning they have not exercised their free will against God.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that God does not condemn anyone through no fault of their own.

It is true these babies will not see the Beatific Vision as one who dies in the State of Sanctifying grace, but they also, will not suffer the torments of Hell. True that some Saints in the horror of not seeing the Beatific Vision describe Limbo as a Hell, because they realize the treasure of the Beatific Vision, the reason we were created, and to be deprived is a sort of Hell to them.

In truth these babies in Limbo will not suffer, because what they never knew they will not miss in the sense that we understand.

Since Limbo is NOT de fide, as I understand it, it is something that even the theologians have discussed. In my days in Catholic school, prior to Vatican II, we were told that it was discussed by theologians that God in His justice might even give all those in Limbo a test, AFTER THE END OF TIME. This would be some sort of test to see if they deserve Heaven as we know it. This is all just a theory, no sense in debating it here, it is only a pious belief, and since every thing has not been revealed to us, it is quite possible.

Pious beliefs are just that, pious, no one is saying you must believe this or you are a heretic, it is a theory. A theory that I was taught in Catholic school in the 40's.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** August 27, 2013, 05:28:26 AM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Ladislaus
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?

I asked something similar in a thread (Two Questions) just down the page but I will throw my question in here hoping it gets a bit of play.

How does BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance work in regards to Original Sin? I asked about the Limbo of the Infants. We know that unbaptized/aborted babies cannot see the Beatific Vision because although they have no personal sins, they still have the stain of Original Sin. So how would this work in relation to say an implicit Baptism of Desire? If an implicit desire can potentially be enough (with a perfect act of contrition too?) why would we even need a Limbo of the Infants in theology? Surely between BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance that could cover scenarios for unbaptized or aborted (BoB?) infants as well? So why Limbo then? Or said another way, how does BoD etc. work in conjunction with the Limbo of the Infants?

Thank you in advance for any help answering this question.

Luke

You're exactly right about this. That's why I keep pointing out that invincible ignorance CANNOT save, i.e. it's not salvific, but merely exculpatory (it excuses from guilt). Invincible ignorance can do no more than to excuse from the actual sin of disbelief.

Once you get past that misconception, then I keep pressing on WHAT then is the mechanism for salvation of some pagan who follows the natural law? For the longest time all theologians taught that explicit knowledge of the basic revealed supernatural truths of the faith were REQUIRED in order to have supernatural faith. Without a minimal material supernatural convent there could be no "formal" faith. Then very cleverly the enemies of the faith reduced it to just believing in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. So, this way any pagan living in the woods who never heard about the Holy Trinity or Jesus Christ would save himself by following the lights of natural reason, since the existence of God can be known with certainty through natural reason (de fide Vatican I). But this renders meaningless the entire Church and the Incarnation, reducing the Church, as even Archbishop Lefebvre stated it, to some vague instrumental cause of salvation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2013, 05:30:56 AM »

When I have some time today, I'll cite the passages from Vatican II with regard to following one's conscience in good faith being salvific and then will challenge the implicit BoDers to explain how it's different from the very same theories they're always promoting. That's really the intent of this thread, but it keeps getting derailed into a broader BoD debate.

SJB · « **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2013, 08:32:30 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You're exactly right about this. That's why I keep pointing out that invincible ignorance CANNOT save, i.e. it's not salvific, but merely exculpatory (it excuses from guilt). Invincible ignorance can do no more than to excuse from the actual sin of disbelief.

Without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved. Ignorance of any sort can't save and I have said the about one thousand times. If we follow St. Thomas, what we are saying is that a man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide. If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2013, 09:25:15 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

When I have some time today, I'll cite the passages from Vatican II with regard to following one's conscience in good faith being salvific and then will challenge the implicit BoDers to explain how it's different from the very same theories they're always promoting. That's really the intent of this thread, but it keeps getting derailed into a broader BoD debate.

It will no doubt just show another TRUTH, exaggerated to produce a heresy. That does not mean that we who hold to BOD buy it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2013, 09:53:28 AM »

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).

This could have been lifted from Tanquerey or any of the pre Vatican II Latin-writing modernists.

SJB · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2013, 09:59:07 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Ladislaus
When I have some time today, I'll cite the passages from Vatican II with regard to following one's conscience in good faith being salvific and then will challenge the implicit BoDers to explain how it's different from the very same theories they're always promoting. That's really the intent of this thread, but it keeps getting derailed into a broader BoD debate.

It will no doubt just show another TRUTH, exaggerated to produce a heresy. That does not mean that we who hold to BOD buy it.

Note that Ladislaus NEVER provides any reference to the true teaching of the Church. He can quote no authortative explanations, but can only quote Vatican II and then tell us how the Church has been teaching error in Her catechisms in the centuries leading up to the Second Vatican Council.

Myrna goes to her library of old Catholic books and Ladislaus is critical of what she finds there. No, can't rely on that stuff cause it's what lead to Vatican II !

Jehanne · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2013, 11:23:50 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).

This could have been lifted from Tanquerey or any of the pre Vatican II Latin-writing modernists.

The operative word is "may". Here's one way:

Quote

"So a person of goodwill who is involved in invincible ignorance and has an implicit desire to be joined to the Church, may indeed be saved, but not where he is. Whatever truth or goodness is found in such a person is looked upon by the Church as a "preparation for the Gospel," and Lumen Gentium continues, it is to such persons that the Church 'to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men (emphasis mine), and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk.16:16), ...painstakingly fosters her missionary work.'"

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

You have to keep in mind that Vatican II reaffirmed the decrees of the Council of Florence:

Quote

This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) the Council of Florence (21*) and the Council of Trent.(22*) And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession."(23*) On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.(24*) (Lumen Gentium, 51)