Author Topic: Implicit BOD (Read 19024 times)

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 Jews 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.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Implicit BOD (Read 19024 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD

Stubborn

Re: Implicit BOD

DecemRationis

Re: Implicit BOD

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD

Pax Vobis

Re: Implicit BOD