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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 28

Author Topic: Implicit BOD  (Read 18892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #95 on: September 18, 2020, 11:02:06 AM »
Quote from: Last Tradhican on September 18, 2020, 10:57:49 AM
There is no Protestant church, therefore it follows that there can be no Protestant ecclesiology. There are as many Protestant "churches" as there are Protestants, each Protestant is a "church" of one.
Protestantism is like BOD, there are many many BOD's as there are BODers, but in the end all the BODers  have one belief in common, their unbelief. Just the same as the Protestants, the only thing they have in common is there unbelief that the Catholic Church is One true Church, the tone true faith and road to salvation.
I know there isn't any real Protestant church of course. But there are Protestants, they go to things that they call churches, and they have beliefs about ecclesiology.  Stop being anal.

Also your constant harping on "We all disbelieve" is tiresome.  I've already articulated why I think your idea that dogmas can be taken at "face value" is insufficient and is no more sensible than Protestants saying the same about sacred scripture, so why do you think continuing to repeat yourself would be useful?

I could theoretically be convinced that all the modern trad clergy are wrong on this, but it would take a lot more than "lol can't they read?"
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #96 on: September 18, 2020, 11:11:10 AM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 18, 2020, 11:02:06 AM
I could theoretically be convinced that all the modern trad clergy are wrong on this, but it would take a lot more than "lol can't they read?"
As I stated before, the writer could never be convinced of even the defined limited BOD of St. Thomas, apparently he has a lot of free time to complain about it, since he's been at it for months. I post here only to cut to the chase for others who think the writer above has not been told repeatedly, all of the points brought up on this thread by others.

Quote
The writer as with 99.99% of all BODers, will never be convinced of even the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, for his belief is the same as Fr. Cekada, not really a belief, but an unbelief:

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”


That quote by Fr. Cekada, may he rest in peace, needs to be updated to address a defined BOD, the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. Below is what  99.99% of BODers really believe TODAY concerning the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas (and of course what the writer above believes):

“With the strict, literal interpretation of the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who do not have explicit desire to be baptized or explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation ( the Divinity of Jesus Christ) .  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-believers - Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews.... who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #97 on: September 18, 2020, 12:00:23 PM »
Quote from: Last Tradhican on September 18, 2020, 11:11:10 AM
As I stated before, the writer could never be convinced of even the defined limited BOD of St. Thomas, apparently he has a lot of free time to complain about it, since he's been at it for months. I post here only to cut to the chase for others who think the writer above has not been told repeatedly, all of the points brought up on this thread by others.
I will say this much.  Given how you think, your username fits you.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #98 on: September 18, 2020, 08:00:22 PM »
BzyCat,
Pray and study the doctrines/principles involved.  When you start viewing doctrine through the lens of "popularity" or "personality", you enter the realm of sentimentality.  Let's remember that Church history is full of examples where the "extreme" view was correct, while all others were wrong.  Truth matters, not "sensibility" or "reasonableness" or "earthly sense".
.
1.  St Athanasius vs Arianism (historians said of the time:  "St Athanasius was against the world")
2.  St Thomas More/St John Fisher vs Anglicanism (Bishop Fisher is the only prelate to stand up against heresy)
3.  Pope St Pius X said he was "surrounded by wolves (Modernists)".
.
Truth is not a popularity contest, which is why so many rejected Christ, even His disciples.
Logged

Offline forlorn

Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #99 on: September 18, 2020, 08:42:03 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 18, 2020, 08:00:22 PM
BzyCat,
Pray and study the doctrines/principles involved.  When you start viewing doctrine through the lens of "popularity" or "personality", you enter the realm of sentimentality.  Let's remember that Church history is full of examples where the "extreme" view was correct, while all others were wrong.  Truth matters, not "sensibility" or "reasonableness" or "earthly sense".
.
1.  St Athanasius vs Arianism (historians said of the time:  "St Athanasius was against the world")
2.  St Thomas More/St John Fisher vs Anglicanism (Bishop Fisher is the only prelate to stand up against heresy)
3.  Pope St Pius X said he was "surrounded by wolves (Modernists)".
.
Truth is not a popularity contest, which is why so many rejected Christ, even His disciples.
It's less the popularity and more so the issue that it's hard to believe it could be so simple and yet have all the trad clergy deny it. I mean, all you guys had to do to dispel "implicit faith BOD" was quote any one of several infallible confirmations of EENS. But of course +ABL and Bishop Williamson etc. are aware of these. So why aren't they convinced? Why isn't there at least a tiny minority of trad priests(who themselves are only a tiny minority of priests in general) speaking out, when it seems to be such a simple and clear-cut issue?

I mean, there are even people on this site who are sometimes in contact with trad bishops. If it's so cut-and-dry, wouldn't shooting a letter out to Bishop Williamson or whoever clear things up?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 28
« previous next »