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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15

Author Topic: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?  (Read 18790 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2019, 09:03:56 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 04:33:01 PM


Except Trent doesn't have a "ne" or "neque" before "avail."

No, but the sense is the equivalent.  Ne is not strictly required to have the same sense.  One clue would be whether the verb is in the subjunctive mood.  What's key is that St. Fulgentius uses the same concept (we'll have to see if it's the same Latin verb) without it necessary implying that it's sufficient in and of itself for salvation, rather sufficient for salvation in the sense of being sufficient to insure reception of the Sacrament.

He said that confession "avails" for salvation.  Right?

But HOW does it avail?  It avails by insuring reception of the Sacrament.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #41 on: March 15, 2019, 09:09:51 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 04:38:19 PM
It's not unlikely that Trent had this teaching in mind with that Catechism passage.


Except the Roman Catechism lacks the "since" and what follows.

No, but the point is that avail to salvation does not necessarily mean that it's sufficient in se, but rather sufficient in the sense of insuring Baptism ... in the sense of "seek and you shall find".  St. Ambrose actually used the same line of thought in his oration about Valetinian.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2019, 09:14:28 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 05:43:33 PM
What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive.

Not saved in the sense of final perseverance.  Whether or not you agree with Father Feeney's application, it's absolutely true that there cannot strictly be any salvation until one has died with the grace of final perseverance.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2019, 09:38:25 PM »
Quote from: Last Tradhican on March 15, 2019, 07:47:40 PM
I have never met a defender of BOD that does not believe in salvation by implicit faith, that is, salvation by belief in a god the rewards.

Well, behold and see:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/'implicit-faith'-heretical/

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/heresy-(another-eens-thread)/msg128216/#msg128216

But I don't know if I'd call myself a "defender" of BOD - I feel bound to accept it by virtue of Trent, the Council and the Catechism, limited to its terms. And then St. Thomas, etc. 

It's an important issue because it's about truth, and how one handles certain facts and givens in argument. 

People who restrict their belief in baptism of desire to a catechumen, do not go to forums to argue about it relentlessly, to defend their BOD. Nishant had to be pushed to get him to the position of "saying" that he restricts it, and I for you stated that I do not believe him. Anyone that really restricts BOD to the catechumen, would not be posting in favor of the BOD for fear of being associated with modernists who teach the false BOD.  

I have no fear of standing up for the truth, particularly on a forum typing in a comfortable chair in exchanges with people I'll never meet - Posting. Knuckleheads will always make leaps of false association. I could care less. Fear?

I have never seen a person who says they restrict BOD to the catechumen, attack the real enemy, the 99% of BODers who stretch it to the max, salvation by belief in a god that rewards.

Well, I've been attacking implicit faith and a dilution of EENS for a couple of decades now. Am I a BODer?

No defender of EENS as it is written, ever cared one iota about the argument that a catechumen who gets killed on the way to be baptized, "may" be saved. That was never what all of these endless threads on CI were about.

Truth matters. If the Church teaches that desire could save, that a catechumen could be saved by faith, hope and charity without the receipt of the sacrament per Church teaching and that is denied, it matters. It matters when truth is denied, period. One should care about that; I care about that.  
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #44 on: March 15, 2019, 09:40:48 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 09:03:56 PM
No, but the sense is the equivalent.  Ne is not strictly required to have the same sense.  One clue would be whether the verb is in the subjunctive mood.  What's key is that St. Fulgentius uses the same concept (we'll have to see if it's the same Latin verb) without it necessary implying that it's sufficient in and of itself for salvation, rather sufficient for salvation in the sense of being sufficient to insure reception of the Sacrament.

He said that confession "avails" for salvation.  Right?

But HOW does it avail?  It avails by insuring reception of the Sacrament.
Lad,

You often make interesting arguments with insight. I'll always give you that. 

DR
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15
« previous next »