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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20

Author Topic: False BOD is Foundational to VatII  (Read 10328 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #90 on: April 19, 2021, 11:49:28 PM »
There's no doubt that St. Alphonsus' thinking on this subject was extremely muddled, for lots of reasons, owing in part to the undue influence of the Jesuit DeLugo.  It was the Jesuits primarily pushing Rewarder God theory, and various flavors of semi-Pelagianism.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #91 on: April 19, 2021, 11:55:50 PM »
Of course, we see how Decem has dragged this thread completely off-topic.

What is being discussed is the contention that those who do not have the Catholic faith can be saved, that the practitioners of false religions can be saved.  This thread has precious little to do with Baptism of Desire proper.

Every single error attributed to Vatican II by Traditional Catholics, however, can be directly traced back to the ecclesiology that results from this proposition.

If non-Catholics can be saved, then, since there can be no salvation outside the Church, it follows that non-Catholics can be in the Church.  If that's the case, then V2 subsistence ecclesiology is actually a very profound expression of this reality.

Go ahead an name an error of Vatican II, Decem, that justifies your rejection of what had all the appearances of having been an Ecuмenical Council.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #92 on: April 20, 2021, 06:41:04 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 19, 2021, 11:28:53 PM

Decem, you're completely (and it would seem, deliberately, since this has been pointed out) distorting the opinion of St. Alphonsus.  St. Alphonsus, as quoted by Last Trad, and even by pro-BoD-zealot XavierSem, clearly held that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation.  In terms of his allowing for Rewarder God theory to be considered a possible opinion (that is what the term "probable" means in theology, that it has some possibility of being true) was simply wrong and contradicts a ruling from the Holy Office about which he appeared to be unaware.  This requirement for explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were taught and believed universally by the entire Church for nearly 1600 years, and if that doesn't qualify as an infallible teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing as an infallible teaching of the OUM.  Of course, the infallibility of the OUM had not yet been defined, which is why he was mistaken on this point.  So he was mistaken in not denouncing Rewarder God theory as heresy.  It is in fact heresy by every theological standard.  It is not heresy not to assign the proper theological note to something ... just a mistake.  He didn't actually believe in Rewarder God theory himself.

As I've pointed out a dozen times now, it is Rewarder God theory which I denounce as heretical.  I have never denounced BoD as heretical, but rather its false extension to infidels, those without explicit Catholic faith.

So you distort the teaching of St. Alphonsus, and distort my position at the same time.  Even XavierSem acknowledges what St. Alphonsus taught about this matter, and agrees that the requirement of explicit faith in these core mysteries is definable as dogma.

Ladislaus,

You could take all of that as true and it totally evades my questions, for both of which it could be granted that St. Alphonsus believed in the necessity of explicit faith (though, again, all we have so far are quotes from Last Trad that I do not believe necessitate that conclusion; the quotes could be explained consistently with his statement about justification for the infidel, which, in one of the questions you failed to respond to (and you failed to respond to Xavier in the thread I posted on this also), has implications regarding your salvation/justification distinction anyway. I even pointed out in a prior post the irrelevance of the explicit faith issue to these questions.

So here are the questions again (posts again). The first regarding justification (the internal quote is a question posed by Xavier that you walked away from), and the second the necessity of the sacraments:

1) St. Alphonsus's views on justification contrary to Trent (as understood by Lad)

Quote

Quote
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.

********

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.

Of course, this goes beyond your obvious difference with St. Alphonsus about whether a desire for the sacrament, apart from the sacrament, could justify, since you read the "or" of Trent as indicating the sacrament and the desire for it are both required, not separated. But that disagreement would still apply if St. Alphonsus held to the requirement of an explicit desire for the sacrament as sufficing, a classical BOD; he doesn't.  His view on justification, combined with his recognition of an implicit BOD, results in him being post-Trent a denying of the "necessity of the sacraments" according to you - see fuller below.

2) St. Alphonsus's views on implicit BOD renders him a denier of the necessity of the sacraments post-Trent (according to Lad)


Quote
Lad,

For example, you never touched the fact that St. Alphonsus clearly believed in implicit BOD. Even if he believed explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation was needed for salvation, that has nothing to do with the sacraments.

What does his belief in implicit BOD do to your view about the necessity of the sacraments, since someone can have an implicit BOD without being conscious of the sacrament, of which he is unaware - as St. Alphonsus notes.

It's a huge problem for you if St. Alphonsus meets your definition of a heretic who denies what you describe as "the necessity of the sacraments," which is de fide . . . but in what sense? St. Alphonsus clearly doesn't hold your sense.

I understand this is a huge problem for you, but if you can't address maybe you should rethink a view that results in St. Alphonsus = heretic.

You've called others around here heretical deniers of the necessity of the sacraments if they allow for an implicit BOD; St. Alphonsus wears the same shoes according to your view as well.

Sure, we can disagree with saints and doctors, and we can think them wrong according to our view on this or that. For example, I have thought the view of the Church's indefectibility as expressed by theologians and even popes (and probably saints and doctors as well) wrong, but that doesn't make them heretics obviously for disagreeing with me, and my view wouldn't necessitate them being "heretics" as going against a supposed contrary dogma - the Church can teach error without implicating her indefectibility - I've never maintained that is dogma, obviously; it's simply a view of mine that could amount to me being a heretic if wrong, not them.

On the contrary, you have saints and doctors believing things contrary to Trent on justification and the necessity of the sacraments. Prescinding from any question regarding their wills, this amounts to them teaching and promoting what amounts to material heresy against dogmas of the Church.

I am perhaps only asking you to reflect on this and perhaps alter your view or reconsider. Do with it what you will, and have the last word.

DR




Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #93 on: April 20, 2021, 08:55:32 AM »
DecemRationis,
You can't view this topic simply as Trent vs Alphonsus.  You're ignoring the previous 1500 yrs of saints/teaching. 
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: False BOD is Foundational to VatII
« Reply #94 on: April 20, 2021, 09:50:46 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on April 20, 2021, 06:41:04 AM
You could take all of that as true and it totally evades my questions, for both of which it could be granted that St. Alphonsus believed in the necessity of explicit faith (though, again, all we have so far are quotes from Last Trad that I do not believe necessitate that conclusion;
Regarding the writers speculation that St. Alphonsus Ligouri was proponent of salvation of infidels by implicit faith in a god that rewards, nothing could be clearer than what I posted, St. Alphonsus himself directly answering the question, the writer above just chooses to ignore it. The rest is just his speculation. I think he is one of those types that thinks he is someone special who "cracked the code", discovered something no one else noticed. He certainly is the worst communicator I have ever encountered. A person that does not believe in salvation by implicit faith or implicit faith, that is trying to teach that St. Alphonsus was an implicit faither??

ST. Alphonsus Ligouri rejected the belief 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, and the Athanasian Creed spells it out, so does 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, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted.  But what is this remote grace?  St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius.  Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”


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 Jews, 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 Jews 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! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20
« previous next »