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.

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.

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 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;

Vatican II never says non-Christians can be saved as non-Christians. It says God will bring those who seek Him sincerely to that Faith without which it is impossible to please Him. This can be read in a way conformable to Tradition and Explicit Faith.