Author Topic: Implicit BOD (Read 19011 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #30 on:** September 15, 2020, 05:51:54 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 15, 2020, 02:40:29 PM

Yes, this is a big problem with the circuмcision position. I personally do not believe that circuмcision remitted Original Sin, as it were, ex opere operato. So in the OT there were no just women who were saved, not even the likes of St. Ann? There's something missing with the circuмcision theory. St. Paul seemed to indicate that OT justification came through faith in the coming Redeemer.

And then there's Trent:

Quote

CHAPTER I.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary [Page 31] that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Shawn side-stepped the issue when I brought it up with a straw man stuffed with imaginary claims on my part that one couldn't follow St. Alphonsus and accusations of "grievous error" in St. Alphonsus and the pre-Vatican II Church that made him a saint/doctor that spelled out an interregnum well before Vat II.

St. Paul indeed indicated that OT justification came through faith, and spent chapters of Romans pointing that out with regard to the OT saint of saving faith, Father Abraham. One could argue that Abraham's faith was not implicit - Christ said Father Abraham "saw his day and was glad" in the Gospel of John - but here's my point again, differently worded.

Even if one were to maintain that one could be justified by circuмcision, it would be true that one could also be justified under the old dispensation by, as St. Alphonsus says, "perfect conversion to God by contrition and love of God above all things" moved by the grace ("wind") of the Holy Ghost.

If one could also be justified that way after the promulgation of the Gospel, it appears to me then that Trent would be just blowing so much smoke in saying that the manner of justification, under the "law of grace," "since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof."

DecemRationis · « **Reply #31 on:** September 15, 2020, 05:54:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 15, 2020, 02:33:45 PM

It was highly disputed among the Church Fathers how the OT just were actually justified and/or saved. Some Church Fathers actually believed that the reports of the dead coming from their tombs after the Resurrection was for the purpose of their getting baptized, so strongly did they believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Others felt that circuмcision was required ... leaving the problem of whether the "noble pagan" could be saved. Others felt that it was faith in the coming Redeemer. It's not entirely clear. All the Church Fathers agree, however, that the new economy of salvation after the "promulgation of the Gospel" (the term of St. Thomas) was different and that one could not draw conclusions from the OT dispensation to the requirements for salvation after Our Lord.

I personally believe that the OT just were temporarily raised from the dead and baptized. If that was not the case, then I believe that God still in an extraordinary manner bestowed the character of Baptism on the OT just so they could enter heaven, since I regard the Baptismal character as being what gives the human soul the capacity to see God as He is in the beatific vision, a faculty which human beings lack by nature. It is also the mark by which God recognizes in baptized souls the image of His Son and thus admitting them into the family of the Holy Trinity as adopted sons. That is my biggest issue with Baptism of Desire. I would be much less averse to the theory if the BoD theorists actually held that those who are justified by BoD somehow receive this character in an extraordinary manner rather than the common opinion that anyone can enter into the Beatific Vision without it.

Thanks for addressing the issue directly and squarely.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #32 on:** September 15, 2020, 05:57:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 15, 2020, 03:14:15 PM

Right, but he's speaking about the OT economy of salvation. He clearly teaches that explicit faith in at least the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation "since the promulgation of the Gospel" (i.e. in NT times).

Exactly.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #33 on:** September 15, 2020, 05:59:41 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 15, 2020, 03:55:08 PM

Very interesting, thank you. I believe that later (i.e. 1800s) editions of St. Alphonsus' Theologia Moralis may have been modified, just like e.g. the Catechism of St. Peter Canisius was modified in the early 1800s to teach BoD, which the original doesn't. Also, what they sell as "Catechism of St. Pius X" is not the one he himself wrote as a Priest. His own doesn't teach any BoD.

And very interesting itself. And you'd be just the guy to get to the bottom of it.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #34 on:** September 15, 2020, 07:35:02 PM »

Sean, the definitions of “implicit faith” are not consistent between all those you list. That’s the problem.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Implicit BOD (Read 19011 times)

DecemRationis

Re: Implicit BOD

DecemRationis

Re: Implicit BOD

DecemRationis

Re: Implicit BOD

DecemRationis

Re: Implicit BOD

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD