Author Topic: False BOD is Foundational to VatII (Read 7154 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #60 on:** April 18, 2021, 04:43:36 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 18, 2021, 02:11:50 PM

Now you too are conflating BoD proper with the extension of BoD to those who don’t profess the faith? We’re not talking about classical BoD here, such as would apply to catechumens but to the extended BoD that effectively causes all manner of non-Catholic to be within the Church. I really don’t know how many more times I have to explain this.

Classical BOD?

The St. Alphonsus quotes indicate that he accepted an "implicit BOD" and in one of the quotes he indicated an "infidel" could be justified as follows:

Quote

In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.

You call that "classical BOD"? That fits almost like a glove with JPII's catechism on BOD.

So I'll ask you again in light of MCollier's comment, since you address my response to him and won't address my response to you.

MCollier wrote:

Quote

how anyone can maintain that Vatican II is in error/heretical while also holding the BOD/BOID positions.

St. Alphonsus believed in BOD/BOID and even wrote that an "infidel" could be saved by an "implicit BOD" with love of God and a desire to do His will. He held a BOD/BOID position.

So, again: this statement would mean that you believe St. Alphonsus would not hold V2 at least in "error," or he's as stupid and inconsistent as the others who maintain or hold BOD/BOID positions while also holding V2 to be in error/heretical. Which is it?

Btw, how does St. Alphonsus's "implicit BOD" work out with your "necessity" of the sacraments?

DR

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #61 on:** April 18, 2021, 06:22:43 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on April 18, 2021, 04:43:36 PM

The St. Alphonsus quotes indicate that he accepted an "implicit BOD" and in one of the quotes he indicated an "infidel" could be justified as follows:

St. Alphonsus believed in BOD/BOID and even wrote that an "infidel" could be saved by an "implicit BOD" with love of God and a desire to do His will. He held a BOD/BOID position.

Yep, you confuse the theory of salvation by Implicit baptism of desire of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, with the theory of salvation by Implicit faith in a god that rewards, which St.Alphonsus totally rejected. You need to go back to your studies.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri rejected the theory of salavation by implicit faith, the theory that someone can be saved who has no belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity. (As a matter of fact ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints also reject that belief, so does the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, and the Council Trent)

St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”

St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)

St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)

O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jєωs who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition

Ladislaus · « **Reply #62 on:** April 18, 2021, 06:41:34 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on April 18, 2021, 04:43:36 PM

Classical BOD?

The St. Alphonsus quotes indicate that he accepted an "implicit BOD" and in one of the quotes he indicated an "infidel" could be justified as follows:

Justified, not saved. Several theologians during his time believed infidels could be justified but not saved. St. Alphonsus himself clearly taught that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation. We've gone through this, but evidently you weren't paying attention. Xavier has already admitted this here. He himself cited DeLugo regarding the various permutations (he listed 5) between justification and salvation held by theologians around his time. As you can see, your citation refers to justification, while the ones cited by LastTradhican refer to salvation. Theologians during the time of St. Alphonsus distinguished between the two.

Salvation by Rewarder God theory was also rejected by the Holy Office.

Quite seriously, I think that you're mentally unstable, having gone from full-blown Dimondite to now pushing implicit faith theory. Either that or you're trolling.

If that's what you believe, then join the Conciliar Church already.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #63 on:** April 19, 2021, 06:01:50 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 18, 2021, 06:41:34 PM

Justified, not saved. Several theologians during his time believed infidels could be justified but not saved. St. Alphonsus himself clearly taught that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation. We've gone through this, but evidently you weren't paying attention. Xavier has already admitted this here. He himself cited DeLugo regarding the various permutations (he listed 5) between justification and salvation held by theologians around his time. As you can see, your citation refers to justification, while the ones cited by LastTradhican refer to salvation. Theologians during the time of St. Alphonsus distinguished between the two.

Salvation by Rewarder God theory was also rejected by the Holy Office.

Quite seriously, I think that you're mentally unstable, having gone from full-blown Dimondite to now pushing implicit faith theory. Either that or you're trolling.

If that's what you believe, then join the Conciliar Church already.

So you are arguing for a distinction between justification and salvation, which of course are different. How? In the context of our discussion, this is the relevant distinction: one may be justified and nonetheless sin after justification, lose that justification, and be damned if not restored. But, more importantly in light of St. Alphonsus's quotes is the fact that if one dies in a state of justification they are saved. Nothing beyond justification is necessary for salvation. Period.

I went back to look at all of the relevant threads. Xavier responded quite capably to your justification v. salvation argument here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-st-alphonsus-quotes-on-implicit-bod/msg738616/#msg738616

As is what has become your usual fashion, sensing a corner approaching, you walked away.

He asked this relevant question, still unanswered by you:

Quote

But do you agree that in justification a person is made a child of God, an heir to heaven, a temple of God, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, in the State of Sanctifying Grace, or do you understand something else by "Justification"?

This is the doctrine of Trent, as the Dimonds have noted as well.

I know St. Alphonsus indicated it was the common opinion that explicit faith in the Trinity was required for salvation, and I believe he supported that position. But, as you acknowledge, he also indicated an "infidel" could be justified. I doubt the saint and doctor was ever asked to reconcile those views, and am unaware of him having addressed any apparent contradiction. It is worth more research and study, which I will certainly do. But is clear that he said, after Trent, that an infidel could be justified. And as clear that justification can lead to salvation if one dies in that state - nothing else being required.

Quote

Quite seriously, I think that you're mentally unstable, having gone from full-blown Dimondite to now pushing implicit faith theory. Either that or you're trolling.

If that's what you believe, then join the Conciliar Church already.

There you go again, like a heroin addict reaching for the needle when challenged. I simply asked you a question. I do not embrace "implicit faith theory," nor "implicit BOD." But if doctors and saints of the Church taught it, I must listen, and surely at a minimum I must refrain from pulling the trigger of calling someone who holds that view an "idiot, heretic, schismatic" - you know, those terms you are so found of.

Some of us believe that that's what study, reflection, questioning, prayer, etc. can and should do: lead one to embrace truths not formerly embraced, and reject false notions previously held.

Maybe you should try it sometime, and kick your "heroin" habit.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #64 on:** April 19, 2021, 06:17:19 AM »

And here's another one for you, Lad.

It is clear St. Alphonsus believed that an "implicit BOD" would suffice for justification. Trent clearly says justification requires the sacrament of baptism, or desire for it. Note, Trent is not talking about salvation there, but justification.

You seem to at least acknowledge that St. Alphonus believed an "infidel" could be justified by love of God and a desire to please him - with an implicit BOD. Trent says that justification can only happen two ways: by the sacrament, or desire for it.

So St. Alphonsus was clearly wrong about justification - if it meant a catechumen with explicit desire for the sacrament, your "classical BOD." He was another "BODer" who didn't hold to the limited, classical BOD.

I wonder if he was wrong about salvation also, and the necessity of the sacraments. For him to uphold the necessity of the sacraments - according to you - he would have to have required anyone, to be saved, to explicitly desire the sacrament of baptism, or else he would be a heretical denier of the necessity of the sacraments.

But we have already read that he believed in an implicit BOD.

Hmmm. I will do more reading and study.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #65 on:** April 19, 2021, 08:29:48 AM »

Quote

But, more importantly in light of St. Alphonsus's quotes is the fact that if one dies in a state of justification they are saved. Nothing beyond justification is necessary for salvation. Period.

There is a major difference between a justified CATHOLIC and a justified non-catholic...the baptismal mark, which as many of the Church Fathers distinguish, is the difference between a) saved and enjoying the beatific vision or 2) avoiding the pains of hell. Limbo, the middle ground, is where unbaptized, but justified people would go (if such people exist, which we don't know).

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #66 on:** April 19, 2021, 08:41:10 AM »

Quote

You seem to at least acknowledge that St. Alphonus believed an "infidel" could be justified by love of God and a desire to please him - with an implicit BOD.

No, no, no. That is NOT the definition of St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD". What you wrote is the modernist, heretical definition of "implicit faith". St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD" means the person actually, 100% desires baptism (and 100% knows what it is) and wants to join the Church. They have just not yet expressed this verbally (i.e. explicitly).
.
What you wrote (i.e. "love of God" and a "desire to please Him") is non-specific, hazy, heretical goup. I'm not saying you believe it, but just saying it's anti-catholic.
.

Quote

So St. Alphonsus was clearly wrong about justification - if it meant a catechumen with explicit desire for the sacrament, your "classical BOD." He was another "BODer" who didn't hold to the limited, classical BOD.

St Alphonsus simply said that a "Classical BOD'er" could be justified if his desire was unspoken. St Alphonsus did not change the definition or requirements for Trent BOD (i.e. Trent is very clear that a desire to enter the Church is necessary, not a simple "desire to please God").
.

Quote

But we have already read that he believed in an implicit BOD.

The phrase "implicit BOD" was co-opted by the Modernists in the 1800s and re-defined into "implicit faith". A desire to enter the church is NECESSARY for one to have "classical BOD". The modernists wanted to create universal salvation (i.e. V2 style) so they re-defined the word "implicit" to mean something contrary to the english language. "Implicit faith" is heretical and totally contrary to Trent.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #67 on:** April 19, 2021, 10:18:59 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2021, 08:41:10 AM

No, no, no. That is NOT the definition of St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD". What you wrote is the modernist, heretical definition of "implicit faith". St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD" means the person actually, 100% desires baptism (and 100% knows what it is) and wants to join the Church. They have just not yet expressed this verbally (i.e. explicitly).

St Alphonsus simply said that a "Classical BOD'er" could be justified if his desire was unspoken. St Alphonsus did not change the definition or requirements for Trent BOD (i.e. Trent is very clear that a desire to enter the Church is necessary, not a simple "desire to please God").

The phrase "implicit BOD" was co-opted by the Modernists in the 1800s and re-defined into "implicit faith". A desire to enter the church is NECESSARY for one to have "classical BOD". The modernists wanted to create universal salvation (i.e. V2 style) so they re-defined the word "implicit" to mean something contrary to the english language. "Implicit faith" is heretical and totally contrary to Trent.

If he does not understands that by now, it is because he does not want to.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #68 on:** April 19, 2021, 12:05:07 PM »

I'm not interested in debating this endlessly for every new person that jumps on the "non-Catholics are saved" bandwagon.

If you believe that, then go for it. But then, since there's no salvation outside the Church, then non-Catholics can be in the Church, and therefore you can make haste back to the Novus Ordo, since you no longer have any theological justification for rejecting any of the Vatican II teachings, certainly not enough to justify severing communion with the Holy See.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #69 on:** April 19, 2021, 12:09:11 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on April 19, 2021, 06:01:50 AM

There you go again, like a heroin addict reaching for the needle when challenged.

No, it's not about being challenged. I grow extremely weary of re-hashing the same stuff over and over and over and over again. All this stuff has been addressed dozens of times on threads all over CathInfo. We just finished a long round with Xavier, and now here you go immediately afterwards. I'm just tired of it. If you're exploring and researching, then do it yourself, and maybe just go through the old threads on the subject.

I simply take the Church Fathers and the Church's dogmatic definitions at face value. I'm not interested in the hundreds of pages that have been spilled on explaining how these dogmas mean the exact opposite of what they say. If you want to believe that there's salvation outside the Catholic Church, then go for it.

I have half a mind to simply write up a 200-page docuмent with all my responses and then just paste them in every time someone like you restarts everything.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #70 on:** April 19, 2021, 12:37:34 PM »

Reading material for your research:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/faith-in-christ-necessary-for-salvation-dogma/

Even XavierSem agrees that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #71 on:** April 19, 2021, 01:26:06 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on April 19, 2021, 06:01:50 AM

I do not embrace "implicit faith theory," nor "implicit BOD."

Then you write like a schizophrenic, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #72 on:** April 19, 2021, 02:47:28 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 19, 2021, 12:37:34 PM

Reading material for your research:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/faith-in-christ-necessary-for-salvation-dogma/

Even XavierSem agrees that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.

Not sure this will change things in light of the specific context of the discussion - specific quotes and statements of St. Alphonsus - but thanks.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #73 on:** April 19, 2021, 02:51:04 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 19, 2021, 08:41:10 AM

No, no, no. That is NOT the definition of St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD". What you wrote is the modernist, heretical definition of "implicit faith". St Alphonsus' "implicit BOD" means the person actually, 100% desires baptism (and 100% knows what it is) and wants to join the Church. They have just not yet expressed this verbally (i.e. explicitly).
.
What you wrote (i.e. "love of God" and a "desire to please Him") is non-specific, hazy, heretical goup. I'm not saying you believe it, but just saying it's anti-catholic.
.
St Alphonsus simply said that a "Classical BOD'er" could be justified if his desire was unspoken. St Alphonsus did not change the definition or requirements for Trent BOD (i.e. Trent is very clear that a desire to enter the Church is necessary, not a simple "desire to please God").
.
The phrase "implicit BOD" was co-opted by the Modernists in the 1800s and re-defined into "implicit faith". A desire to enter the church is NECESSARY for one to have "classical BOD". The modernists wanted to create universal salvation (i.e. V2 style) so they re-defined the word "implicit" to mean something contrary to the english language. "Implicit faith" is heretical and totally contrary to Trent.

Do you even read the posts you comment on?

I'm quoting St. Alphonsus and specific quotes by him, which no one seems to want to address, but run off to something else. For example, when I wrote "love of God" and "desire to please him," I'm not providing that thought or language, but quoting St. Alphonsus.

Please focus. I'm not interested in what "Modernists" do - again, I'm focusing on what St. Alphonsus said.

Focus.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #74 on:** April 19, 2021, 02:53:20 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on April 19, 2021, 01:26:06 PM

Then you write like a schizophrenic, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Same advice to you as Pax . . . focus.

I'm quoting St. Alphonsus for crying out loud, or referring to Trent.

Follow the discussion and please don't hit your Feeneyite "default" modernist, implicit BOD line/response. Read the St. Alphonsus quotes, what he said, and which I'm discussing.

Thank you.

Author Topic: False BOD is Foundational to VatII (Read 7154 times)

DecemRationis

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Last Tradhican

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Ladislaus

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

DecemRationis

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

DecemRationis

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Pax Vobis

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Pax Vobis

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Last Tradhican

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Ladislaus

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Ladislaus

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Ladislaus

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

Last Tradhican

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

DecemRationis

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

DecemRationis

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII

DecemRationis

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII