Author Topic: False BOD in One Paragraph (Read 17398 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #135 on:** March 23, 2014, 08:29:11 PM »

I'll take my analysis over your heretical depravity any day, SJB.

SJB · « **Reply #136 on:** March 23, 2014, 08:37:19 PM »

Quote

You've refused to answer why it's wrong to refer to the Church of Christ "subsisting" in the Catholic Church if you can have varying degrees of belonging to the Church.

The possibility of belonging to the Church without being a formal member has never been interpreted as having anything to do with false religions.

bowler · « **Reply #137 on:** March 23, 2014, 08:38:42 PM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Emerentiana
The modern Church has abused this teaching to include everyone that's not Catholic. The church teaches that a few are saved by Baptism of blood and desire. Those are known only to God. They do not include all men. We are traditional Catholics and believe in the traditional teaching on this matter.

[/s]
This is a good point. I think especially in this modern day when religious indifferentism is running amok, this gets lost. Some seem to believe (or have gotten the sense from bad catechism) that pretty much every non-Catholic is of truly good will and will be saved in their ignorance. If I understand the teaching of BoD/BoB it is a very rare and special gift given by God only to very few. Otherwise what would be the point of the Church's mission to evangelize?

The analogy I think of is the example of Saints raising the dead. We know from reading the lives of the Saints that many of them raised people from the dead. Some of these people were sinners that got a 'taste' of hell but through the inscrutable mercy of God were given a chance to repent and lived lives of mortification and penance as witnesses to both the mercy and justice of God. However! If in light of this knowledge your plan is to live a sinful life and die in that state of enmity with God and hopefully be raised from the dead by a saint to get a second chance, you really need a better plan! God has revealed to us through his Holy Catholic Church just what we need to do to be saved and provided the graces we need through the sacraments to effect just that.

That is the context I think of BoD/BoB, as very special and rare graces given by God.

Luke

This thread is precisely about the counterfeit baptism of desire that I think you are talking about above. This thread is only about the teaching that one must explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity to be saved. I quoted dogma, the Athanasian creed, and St. Thomas teaching the same.

Here is the opening post:

Quote from: bowler

There are people here on CI who actually defend the teaching that there is salvation for those who objectively lived believing that they were Jews, Protestants, Hindus, pagans etc., and who objectively died not explicitely desiring to be Catholics. If that is not at least "implicitly" saying that Baptism is optional, and one can be saved in any religion, then real life and words have no meaning.

Know that that woman that you quoted above disagrees with what this thread is all about. If she agreed with me she would not be fighting what I say.

SJB · « **Reply #138 on:** March 23, 2014, 08:39:54 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'll take my analysis over your heretical depravity any day, SJB.

No, you take your analysis over all approved teachers and catechisms, the way of heretics.

bowler · « **Reply #139 on:** March 23, 2014, 08:42:09 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: bowler

It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. You are denying clear dogma.

The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ

DOGMA:

Quote
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.

If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.

BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)

BODers deny Creeds

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

BODers deny St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

bowler · « **Reply #140 on:** March 23, 2014, 09:20:28 PM »

Quote

No, you take your analysis over all approved teachers and catechisms, the way of heretics.

Sheer insanity. Above comment is spoken in a thread about denying the dogma that one must explicitly believe in the incarnation and the Trinity to be saved. Spoken by a person who rejects dogma, the Athansian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, and goes on to teach something which was not taught by one Father, Doctor, Saint or council, that people who do not explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity can be saved, people who moreover have no explicit desire to be baptized or martyred, or Catholic.

Stubborn · « **Reply #141 on:** March 23, 2014, 09:46:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'll take my analysis over your heretical depravity any day, SJB.

Debating a BOD with the hypocrites on this site is really only for the sake of those sincere individuals who happen along and are willing to learn the truth and accept it. Anymore, personally, I hold no hope that the BODers on this site will ever concede to and embrace the truth.

"For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap."
BODers continually sow that there is salvation without any sacrament at all. IOW, they have been sowing that there is salvation via a BOD, which, as we all know, is no sacrament at all.

When their turn comes, who expects them to even call for a priest? But if they did and if I were them, I would not expect any priest at all to even show up.

I am glad for Bowler, Ladislaus, Cantarella and the other defenders of the faith and the sacraments, thanks for the great job of defending the necessity of the sacraments as clearly as you all do! But in order to have a fruitful debate, the BODers need to be something they are not - honest.

After all the clear, authoritative Church teachings posted which condemn salvation without the sacrament by all the defenders of the sacraments, it is primarily the BODer's dishonesty as the biggest reason they continue to argue to the point of it being heresy already, that no sacrament at all is necessary - and again, as everyone knows, a BOD is no sacrament at all.

"Only heretics say that no sacrament at all is necessary" - St. Alphonsus

Cantarella · « **Reply #142 on:** March 24, 2014, 12:07:38 AM »

This is because these BODers and in general all liberal Catholics believe in an invisible church with invisible sacraments and invisible members, outside of which there is no salvation. It is a church of the Holy Ghost, pentecostalist type, where people get saved at last minute thanks to a "miraculous" intervention.

The liberals think that everything regard to the faith must be explained in terms of the spiritual, the soul, with very little regard to the body. 100% protestant thinking. But the Catholic religion is visible and tangible and is concerned with the externals, as well as the internals, just as Jesus instituted it. These BODers do ignore the absolute necessity of the Sacraments for Salvation, which is a fundamental dogma in the Catholic Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #143 on:** March 24, 2014, 06:07:52 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Debating a BOD with the hypocrites on this site is really only for the sake of those sincere individuals who happen along and are willing to learn the truth and accept it. Anymore, personally, I hold no hope that the BODers on this site will ever concede to and embrace the truth.

Agreed.

SJB, for all his constant (broken-record) demands for "proof" just makes up stuff about what Vatican II says, without any citation because he's in complete denial that the Vatican II ecclesiology is identical to his own. He won't answer my question about how "subsistence" ecclesiology is incompatible with his own ecclesiology.

SJB has admitted that there are different TYPES or DEGREES of belonging to the Church, some more complete than others. So, given this, how do terms like "subsists" and "partial / full communion" and "separated brethren" not apply to that ecclesiology? In fact, I would say that these are profound ways to describe that ecclesiology. Not a single response to that question.

So far two indirect answers (not answer this question but the broader one) have been that 1) V2 says that all creeds are the same (FALSE) and 2) V2 says that the elements of sanctification / salvation outside the Church belong substantially to these other religions (FALSE).

So they make things up about what they want Vatican II to have said.

Back to the question, SJB,

explain to me how to say that the Church of Christ subsists (as a visible society) in the Catholic Church isn't a perfectly correct description of your ecclesiology. You yourself distinguish between actual members (real practicing Catholics) and various satellite hangers-on who belong to the Church's soul by some kind of desire mechanism. So this visible core (Church as a visible society) does not equal the entire extent of the Church but a "subsistent core" of those who are both materially and formally Catholic, and yet there's an invisible part of the Church where you have people only formally united to it.

Once you distinguish between two TYPES of belong to the Church, subsistence is a very apt way to describe the Church "constituted as a visible society", which is how V2 describes it.

Please answer THIS question.

clare · « **Reply #144 on:** March 24, 2014, 06:14:17 AM »

So many BOD threads. I'll pick this one, as it's nearest the top.

I was wondering.

Our Lady at Fatima said more souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.

Not for not having been baptised with water, or for being ignorant (culpably or inculpably) of various articles of faith.

So, do more people commit sins of the flesh than are ignorant of or deny certain articles of the faith and haven't been baptised?

Now, sins of the flesh can be committed by the baptised and unbaptised alike. Would the unbaptised be damned for their sins of the flesh or their not having been baptised?

Does the number of combined baptised and unbaptised people who commit sins of the flesh outnumber the combined number of unbaptised people who do and don't commit sins of the flesh?

And of course baptised people can also be ignorant of the relevant articles of faith (culpably or inculpably).

So, there are all the baptised people who are ignorant or deny articles of the faith + all the unbaptised people, ignorant or not, above and below the age of reason; and these are outnumbered by people who commit sins of the flesh?

Or was Our Lady only referring to baptised people anyway?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #145 on:** March 24, 2014, 06:39:29 AM »

Quote from: clare

Our Lady at Fatima said more souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.
...
Or was Our Lady only referring to baptised people anyway?

Recall the teaching of St. Thomas, as well as the teaching of Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur, which is misinterpreted by the BoDers; they say that God will bring to salvation all those (adults) who do not place obstacles in the way of their salvation by way of deliberate sin. And the sins of the flesh are certainly the most common impediments people put in the way of God's grace leading them to the true Faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #146 on:** March 24, 2014, 06:40:56 AM »

Quote from: clare

So many BOD threads. I'll pick this one, as it's nearest the top.

You're right. We need to find a way to make these more narrow and specific and then implement some enforcement mechanism to stay "on topic". So, for instance, it would be nice to have a topic "Does Trent teach BoD?" or "Quanto Conficiamur and BoD", but these threads go back and forth all over the map.

Nishant · « **Reply #147 on:** March 24, 2014, 07:00:25 AM »

Quote

So, for instance, it would be nice to have a topic "Does Trent teach BoD?" or "Quanto Conficiamur and BoD"

Personally, I actually agree with that. I'd go further, though. If the BOD issue really isn't going away, perhaps the best thing to do would be to have a BOD subforum within the crisis section. That would not only help those who don't want to read about the issue to ignore it, it would allow an Encyclical by Encyclical discussion of the topic among those who are inclined to do so. We can even have separate threads discussing different questions like the consensus of theologians and whether it matters etc. At least a more organized discussion would be possible.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #148 on:** March 24, 2014, 07:51:46 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
So, for instance, it would be nice to have a topic "Does Trent teach BoD?" or "Quanto Conficiamur and BoD"

Personally, I actually agree with that. I'd go further, though. If the BOD issue really isn't going away, perhaps the best thing to do would be to have a BOD subforum within the crisis section. That would not only help those who don't want to read about the issue to ignore it, it would allow an Encyclical by Encyclical discussion of the topic among those who are inclined to do so. We can even have separate threads discussing different questions like the consensus of theologians and whether it matters etc. At least a more organized discussion would be possible.

I agree with that, a BoD subforum and very narrow thread topics within the forum.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #149 on:** March 24, 2014, 08:06:28 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: clare
Our Lady at Fatima said more souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.
...
Or was Our Lady only referring to baptised people anyway?

Recall the teaching of St. Thomas, as well as the teaching of Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur, which is misinterpreted by the BoDers; they say that God will bring to salvation all those (adults) who do not place obstacles in the way of their salvation by way of deliberate sin. And the sins of the flesh are certainly the most common impediments people put in the way of God's grace leading them to the true Faith.

I also believe that Our Lady used "sins of the flesh" in a broader sense than just sins of impurity, meaning also attachments to wealth or material things or just general worldliness and worldly preoccupations.

We can also call to mind a couple wonderful parables of Our Lord.

God invites people to the wedding banquet (the Church). People give various excuses and never come to the banquet (never enter the Church). If you look at their excuses, one talks about marriage (focus on impurity) and another about taking care of his harvest (material preoccupation and attachment). So these sins of the flesh block their entry into the Church. Once inside the Church, you get kicked out if you don't have your wedding garment (i.e. you need to be in a state of grace also, even if you're Catholic and inside the banquet, in order to be saved).

Then there's the parable of the sower. Some of the seed (germs of faith) never germinate because of rocky ground in which it cannot take root, and some gets choked off by "sins of the flesh".

Quote

He that soweth, soweth the word. ... And others there are who are sown among thorns: these are they that hear the word, And the cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts after other things entering in choke the word, and it is made fruitless.

So these broader attachments to the world, riches, lusts choke off the word so that it never bears any fruit in their souls. These are obstacles for the word (faith) bearing fruit in their souls.

As for the rocky ground, why is it rocky and hard? In addition to pride, it's also been hardened no doubt by these same sins of the flesh.