Author Topic: Implicit BOD (Read 4416 times)

forlorn · « **Reply #45 on:** September 16, 2020, 06:25:10 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on September 16, 2020, 04:55:54 AM

Whatever quote Sean gave, in my quote, St. Alphonsus teaches that heretics say that no sacrament is necessary. Certainly we all agree that all sacraments are not necessary for everyone, but dying without at least the sacrament of baptism, then saying that person possibly enjoyed a BOD before death and on that account saved, is in fact saying that no sacrament is necessary. It's really not at all complicated.

What is a BOD if not salvation via faith alone? Is it salvation via desire alone?

It's baptism via the desire for baptism. Trent says that justification can be granted via the desire for baptism(or rather the intention to receive it). There's not really an argument to be made that explicit BOD is heretical.

forlorn · « **Reply #46 on:** September 16, 2020, 06:33:05 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 15, 2020, 10:55:20 PM

Arianism was accepted by 95% (maybe more) of the clergy and faithful, despite it being condemned twice(!), by councils, until finally a 3rd council ended it.
.
321 - Arian was denounced for his heresy.
325 - Ecuмenical Council of Nicea condemned Arianism.
335 - The heresy still raging, St Athanasius is expelled from his diocese for preaching against it.
338 - St Athanasius exiled again.
341 - Council at Antioch (non Ecuмenical) condemns Arianism.
356 - St Athanasius exiled for 3rd time.
362/364 - Exiled 4th and 5th time.
373 - St Athanasius died.
381 - Ecuмenical council of Constantinople condemns Arianism and creates the Nicene Creed.
600s - Arianism was still held by some Germanic tribes up until the 7th century.
1900s - Utinarians hold some Arian beliefs, as do the Jehovah Witnesses, by elevating God the Father above Christ.
.
The point is, some heresies don't die quickly (or fully). The difficulty of "no salvation outside of the Church" has been a difficulty from Day 1, and will remain a problem (humanly speaking) for the Church til the end of the world. This is why EENS is called "The Doctrine" because it is the most problematic to accept and the most attacked by the Church's enemies.

So then, aren't all the priests at the SSPX and Resistance masses we go to obstinate heretics? A dogma they surely all know says "Outside of the Church there is no salvation" and they, to put it in the words of Trent, "twist those words into a meaningless formula". Should we all be looking to seek out the 1% of clergymen who don't teach implicit faith?

Stubborn · « **Reply #47 on:** September 16, 2020, 07:09:11 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on September 16, 2020, 06:25:10 AM

It's baptism via the desire for baptism. Trent says that justification can be granted via the desire for baptism(or rather the intention to receive it). There's not really an argument to be made that explicit BOD is heretical.

Trent does not say that. Trent does not decide infallibly nor even positively that justification can or ever is granted via a desire for the sacrament, Trent never made that conclusion. What Trent actually says, and this is infallible, is that justification cannot take place without it.
That is the actual teaching of Trent.

Which is to say that even with it, there is no assurance whatsoever that justification takes place in those who have not been baptized and are outside of the Church.

People who go around preaching that a desire for the sacrament certainly justifies or at least can justify because that is what Trent taught, are putting meaning to the teaching that is not in the teaching. They are coming to a conclusion not taught at Trent and is in fact, contrary to what Trent did teach regarding the necessity of the sacrament.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #48 on:** September 16, 2020, 07:09:27 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 16, 2020, 05:55:01 AM

Now, whatever you want to think about BoD, I'm not that interested in the question. I'm only interested in the contention that those who do not have an at least rudimentary explicit Catholic faith can be saved. ALL OF THE VATICAN II ERRORS can be traced directly to this notion, the new ecclesiology, religious liberty, everything.

Ladislaus made a distinction between implicit BOD and implicit faith, and I agree that the distinction is important, but there is a connection between the two in an important sense.

Many of the problems in the Church today stem from a reaction to the Protestant revolt of the 16th century. While Ladislaus correctly identified the Jesuit response to the reality of large masses of men in the New World that had not been exposed to the Gospel, which of course has nothing to do with the Prot revolt, the Prot revolt contributed to the humanism (the "enlightenment" etc.) that influenced Jesuit thinking by exacerbating it with a spirit of a sort of "if the Prots emphasize this and make it a cause celebre it must be bad and the truth must be other."

The Prot emphasis I speak of is the the Biblical (and quite Catholic) doctrines of Predestination and divine election of the saints. Perhaps the Prot emphasis on this was in itself a reaction to early speculations in the Church (there was essentially only "the Catholic Church" in the West prior to the revolt) upon the discovery of the New World shortly before the revolt, a speculation which was taken up by the Jesuits in force shortly after. In any event, I think there was a gut, Catholic response in the other direction - an overemphasis on man's freedom of will - to the Prot emphasis of Luther and later Calvin etc. upon Predestination and divine election of the saints, and I propose that this response is a primary cause of the excessive development of BOD and the erosion of EENS.

Simply put, if man is free and God wills the salvation of all men and gives all a meaningful shot at salvation, how could those who have never heard the Gospel, or, later and now gone wild post-Vat II, men of "good faith" who were raised in other religions, not have a chance at salvation in their cultural "reality"?

But the old and quite Traditional Catholic doctrine of Predestination and election was succinctly set forth by Father Garrigou-Lagrange in his book Predestination thus:

Quote

From all these passages of Scripture, St. Augustine formu- 
lated this classical definition: "Predestination is the fore- 
knowledge and preparedness on God's part to bestow the fa- 
vors by which all those are saved who are to be saved." St. 
Augustine is still more explicit on this point when he writes: 
"God already knew, when He predestined, what He must do to bring
his elect to eternal life."

God determines whom He will save, and then provides them the means (or what is necessary) by which He has decided to save them. This is the classical Catholic, Augustinian (and as Father GL shows in his book, Thomistic) doctrine.

You see then with this understanding how it all falls into place: a) if God had determined to save by baptism (John 3:5), then the elect will be baptized; b) if God has determined that the Church be the portal on earth through which men enter heaven, they will be baptized and Catholic; c) if God has determined that the faith which saves men is the Catholic faith, the elect will have the Catholic faith - you could formulate thus regarding all the means established by God for salvation.

As should be apparent, all of the "problems" of the salvation of the non-baptized and the non-Catholic evaporate under the Traditional Catholic and Augustinian doctrine.

Of course, post-Vatican II in the NO Church things have deteriorated so badly that the traditional, Catholic doctrine is not only gone but considered heretical (again, historically fueled by the reaction I mentioned, since its being held by many Protestants, which is ironic since they're now "brethren"). Related to this is the doctrine of predilection, which, again, is Augustinian and Thomistic - read Father GL's book. Simply stated, this means that God loves some more than others, and wills the salvation of some more than others. I mentioned this one time to a zealous NO Catholic, and was promptly labelled a heretic for saying such.

This is where we are, and the loss of the Traditional, Catholic (Augustinian and Thomistic) doctrine of Predestination and election underlies the manifestation in its symptoms in implied BOD, implicit faith and the current, effective denial of EENS.

forlorn · « **Reply #49 on:** September 16, 2020, 07:42:07 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on September 16, 2020, 07:09:11 AM

Trent does not say that. Trent does not decide infallibly nor even positively that justification can or ever is granted via a desire for the sacrament, Trent never made that conclusion. What Trent actually says, and this is infallible, is that justification cannot take place without it.
That is the actual teaching of Trent.

Which is to say that even with it, there is no assurance whatsoever that justification takes place in those who have not been baptized and are outside of the Church.

People who go around preaching that a desire for the sacrament certainly justifies or at least can justify because that is what Trent taught, are putting meaning to the teaching that is not in the teaching. They are coming to a conclusion not taught at Trent and is in fact, contrary to what Trent did teach regarding the necessity of the sacrament.

Council of Trent Session 6 Chapter 4:

Quote

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #50 on:** September 16, 2020, 07:47:46 AM »

Quote

What is a BOD if not salvation via faith alone? Is it salvation via desire alone?

Many Modernists and those who have been liberalized/modernized in their catholic faith would believe that BOD applies to anyone who is "sincere" in their desire only (i.e. "Oh, wouldn't it be nice to go to heaven." or "I'm a good person, I love God, and I want to be saved....but I would never be a catholic.").
.
But as St Thomas and St Alphonsus (and Trent, and the Church Fathers, and many others) have said, BOD would only apply to a person who has taken actions. 1. This would be studying the Faith by reading/talking/listening. 2. Taking steps to come into the Church (i.e. taking classes). 3. Most importantly, they must internally accept the Incarnation/Trinity and any other doctrines they have been taught.
.
Those that have done the ACTIONS above, could be qualified for BOD. All others would not, because as Stubborn rightly points out, then that reduces BOD to a mere "wish" or "spiritual daydream" which is akin to the protestant's faith-alone heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #51 on:** September 16, 2020, 07:59:54 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on September 16, 2020, 07:09:27 AM

This is where we are, and the loss of the Traditional, Catholic (Augustinian and Thomistic) doctrine of Predestination and election underlies the manifestation in its symptoms in implied BOD, implicit faith and the current, effective denial of EENS.

I agree. Bishop Williamson rightly traces the roots of subjectivism to the Renaissance, and the overemphasis on free will. You also had the phenomenon of Molinism flaring up at about this time. Also feeding into this trend was the discovery of the "New World." I believe that the sentiments that Father Cekada once expressed, that it's inconceivable that all those people who had lived in the New World before its discovery, would be lost, likely contributed to the speculation. But God put those souls there for a reason that's known only to Him. We can't draw THEOLOGICAL conclusions based upon our own sense of what would and would not be right or just or fair or merciful of God to do. How many people have lost or rejected the faith based upon the rhetorical question: "How could a good God do such a thing?" when faced with some tragedy?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #52 on:** September 16, 2020, 08:02:26 AM »

Quote

Like basically what I'm hearing from you guys is, 95% of the clergy accepted Arianism, but out of the 5% that specifically formed a movement to combat Arianism, 95% of *those* guys are also crypto Arians.

We're not saying they are crypto Arians, but just still infected with some of Arianisms' false ideals. Let's remember that Arianism was attacking the divinity of Christ, as well as the Trinity, both of which are spiritual mysteries beyond human comprehension, so just because someone accepts Church doctrine on the matter, doesn't mean they understand it enough to explain it in an orthodox manner (even if they think their understanding is orthodox).
.
EENS is more complex than those spiritual mysteries above, because it necessarily includes human emotion, because it deals with the salvation of loved ones, friends, and billions of people. Not only that, EENS has been more attacked (directly and subtlely) than any other doctrine in history. So there's LOTS of false notions, slighly-unorthodox points and outright lies about this doctrine that have seeped into modern times (especially since the Protestant revolt 500 yrs ago).
.

Quote

I don't know if you are a convert from Protestantism

I grew up Trad, by the grace of God. Good for you for converting.
.

Quote

My point is, this doesn't disprove the extremely stringent position taken by Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen per se,

Fr Feeney and Fr Wathen (especially) aren't alone in their "stringent" position. In every one of Fr Wathen's books where he speaks on the subject, 90% of the time he is quoting various other theologians/moralists from times past who are just as stringent on the subject.
.
My experience is that Fr Feeney was not as research-oriented, nor voluminous in his writings, so his arguments were not as detailed. But still, Fr Feeney's view on EENS is not new. Go back and read the Church Fathers...
.

Quote

but this *isn't necessary* in order to be a stumbling block to Protestants and to Catholics who want to get along well with Protestants. That one technically allows God to work extraordinarily in the life of someone who is invincibly ignorant doesn't really do away with the "scandal" in their minds.

I'm sorry, I don't follow the point you're trying to make.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #53 on:** September 16, 2020, 08:04:45 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 16, 2020, 07:47:46 AM

But as St Thomas and St Alphonsus (and Trent, and the Church Fathers, and many others) have said, BOD would only apply to a person who has taken actions. 1. This would be studying the Faith by reading/talking/listening. 2. Taking steps to come into the Church (i.e. taking classes). 3. Most importantly, they must internally accept the Incarnation/Trinity and any other doctrines they have been taught.
.
Those that have done the ACTIONS above, could be qualified for BOD. All others would not, because as Stubborn rightly points out, then that reduces BOD to a mere "wish" or "spiritual daydream" which is akin to the protestant's faith-alone heresy.

And it's even more than that. VOTUM, badly translated as "desire" (and this translation is rejected even by The Catholic Encyclopedia), derives from the Latin word for "will" and is even stronger than an act of will, being related to the word "vow".

If some man is courting a woman and desires to marry her, he could propose marriage, buy her a ring, intend to marry her, make all the arrangements, pay for all the expenses of the reception, but if at the moment that he's asked to pronounce the VOWS, he does not do so, there was never any marriage, despite all the desires and intentions that preceded it. VOTUM has a kind of solemnity about it, and it has a public aspect to it. It's much stronger than just a "desire" and much stronger than even actions.

In fact, as Catholic Encylopedia admits, the term entails every one of the dispositions that Trent teaches are necessary for justification, the faith, hope, and charity (in their "initial" or incipient state), true contrition, and the intention to be baptized.

Stubborn · « **Reply #54 on:** September 16, 2020, 08:09:27 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on September 16, 2020, 07:42:07 AM

Council of Trent Session 6 Chapter 4:

.....And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

As I said, "What Trent actually says, and this is infallible, is that justification cannot take place without it".

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #55 on:** September 16, 2020, 08:15:36 AM »

Quote

So then, aren't all the priests at the SSPX and Resistance masses we go to obstinate heretics?

No, they are definitely not obstinate, as this topic is full of confusion, mis-used terms, and modernist infiltration going back to the 1600s (yes, there were masonic infiltrators in the vatican back then).
.
Even on this thread alone, i've seen the terms 'implicit desire', 'implicit faith', 'explicit desire', and 'explicit faith' used incorrectly and interchangeably. This mis-use of terms (and accidental misquoting of Saints) leads to much of the confusion on this topic.
.
.
a. Explicit Faith in the Incarnation/Trinity + Explicit desire to enter Church/for Baptism = BOD is possible.
b. Implicit Faith in the Incarnation/Trinity + Implicit desire to enter Church/for Baptism = BOD is remote but possible...maybe.
.
c. Explicit Faith in Incarnation/Trinity + no desire for the Church/Baptism = BOD not possible, because it's not desired at all.
d. Implicit Faith in Incarnation/Trinity + no desire for the Church/Baptism = BOD not possible, because it's not desired at all.
.
e. No Faith in Incarnation/Trinity + a desire to enter Church/for Baptism = BOD isn't possible because they don't have a grasp on what the Faith/Church really is. They don't know what they are desiring.
.
...And a whole host of other possible scenarios...

Stubborn · « **Reply #56 on:** September 16, 2020, 08:17:42 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 16, 2020, 07:47:46 AM

Many Modernists and those who have been liberalized/modernized in their catholic faith would believe that BOD applies to anyone who is "sincere" in their desire only (i.e. "Oh, wouldn't it be nice to go to heaven." or "I'm a good person, I love God, and I want to be saved....but I would never be a catholic.").
.
But as St Thomas and St Alphonsus (and Trent, and the Church Fathers, and many others) have said, BOD would only apply to a person who has taken actions. 1. This would be studying the Faith by reading/talking/listening. 2. Taking steps to come into the Church (i.e. taking classes). 3. Most importantly, they must internally accept the Incarnation/Trinity and any other doctrines they have been taught.
.
Those that have done the ACTIONS above, could be qualified for BOD. All others would not, because as Stubborn rightly points out, then that reduces BOD to a mere "wish" or "spiritual daydream" which is akin to the protestant's faith-alone heresy.

Not so Pax, Trent does not say a BOD applies to anyone, Trent says that justification cannot take place without a desire for the sacrament.

Yes, St. Thomas and Alphonsus and etc. speculate a possible conclusion in that your above actions are required for justification to take place, but Trent does no such thing.

All Trent says is that justification cannot take place without it, which contrary to popular opinion, is not saying that justification will take place with it.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #57 on:** September 16, 2020, 08:21:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 16, 2020, 07:59:54 AM

I agree. Bishop Williamson rightly traces the roots of subjectivism to the Renaissance, and the overemphasis on free will. You also had the phenomenon of Molinism flaring up at about this time. Also feeding into this trend was the discovery of the "New World." I believe that the sentiments that Father Cekada once expressed, that it's inconceivable that all those people who had lived in the New World before its discovery, would be lost, likely contributed to the speculation. But God put those souls there for a reason that's known only to Him. We can't draw THEOLOGICAL conclusions based upon our own sense of what would and would not be right or just or fair or merciful of God to do. How many people have lost or rejected the faith based upon the rhetorical question: "How could a good God do such a thing?" when faced with some tragedy?

Yes, Father Cekada's sentiments encapsulate the spirit well. The irony is that this man-centered spirit of humanism has even invaded faithful Catholics like Father Cekada. The eyes of man cannot see certain things and the ways of God seem impossible to him.

This pattern is set forth repeatedly by John in his Gospel. Christ expresses a divine truth and the response of man is "how can this be?" because it is "inconceivable" to his reason. So the woman at the well to Christ's offer of the water of life (John 4:11), Nicodemus regarding baptism/being born again and the mysterious working of the Holy Ghost (John 3:4,9), the Jєωs regarding the Incarnation and the Eucharist (John 6:42,52).

So Father Cekada in the instance you cited.

And very relevant to the topic, so the objector to St. Paul regarding the doctrine of Predestination and election in Romans 9:19.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #58 on:** September 16, 2020, 08:22:02 AM »

Quote

In fact, as Catholic Encylopedia admits, the term entails every one of the dispositions that Trent teaches are necessary for justification, the faith, hope, and charity (in their "initial" or incipient state), true contrition, and the intention to be baptized.

Correct, thanks for pointing out this necessary condition. It's akin to a person making a 'perfect act of contrition' when in the state of sin. The person can tell God they're sorry, but UNLESS they plan/take action/intend to go to confession AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE TIME, then they cannot receive forgiveness from God. The promise/plan/vow to confess is necessary for forgiveness.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #59 on:** September 16, 2020, 08:25:49 AM »

Quote

Not so Pax, Trent does not say a BOD applies to anyone, Trent says that justification cannot take place without a desire for the sacrament.

Yes, St. Thomas and Alphonsus and etc. speculate a possible conclusion in that your above actions are required for justification to take place, but Trent does no such thing.

All Trent says is that justification cannot take place without it, which contrary to popular opinion, is not saying that justification will take place with it.

I agree with you on the more-strict Trent interpretation (which would rule out 99% of BOD cases) but I'm arguing under the assumption that St Thomas and St Alphonsus were correct, ie the middle ground. I'm trying to meet the BOD'ers in the middle, most of whom make St Thomas/Alphonsus look super-orthodox.
.
If we can get BOD'ers to accept the more-strict St Thomas/Alphonsus view, then the whole controversy would go away.

Author Topic: Implicit BOD (Read 4416 times)

forlorn

Re: Implicit BOD

forlorn

Re: Implicit BOD

Stubborn

Re: Implicit BOD

DecemRationis

Re: Implicit BOD

forlorn

Re: Implicit BOD

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD

Ladislaus

Re: Implicit BOD

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD

Ladislaus

Re: Implicit BOD

Stubborn

Re: Implicit BOD

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD

Stubborn

Re: Implicit BOD

DecemRationis

Re: Implicit BOD

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD