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

Author Topic: Implicit BOD  (Read 14678 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2327
  • Reputation: +876/-146
  • Gender: Male
Re: Implicit BOD
« Reply #105 on: September 19, 2020, 07:56:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but the issue ByzCat3000 has is that salvation via a BOD is denied by only a comparatively very few, while everyone else, including all those in all the trad groups and even the greatest among the Fathers, believe that there is salvation via a BOD - and he wants to understand why that is and/or how a BOD could be denied by anyone.

    Is that the issue?





     
    Apparently.

    A successor to Peter and thousands of bishops in an ecuмenical council (including Archbishop Lefebvre in most if not all cases) could promulgate and/or approve of the docuмents of Vatican II - despite the protection of the Holy Ghost - and yet the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of Trad priests and bishops (without that same charism) don't see the errors of BOD is a major hurdle to accepting that BOD could be error. 

    If Byz and forlorn are Sedes, ok. I can understand that - Paul VI was no pope and there was no Holy Ghost protection there. The apparent pre-V2 Magisterial endorsement of BOD is ratified by a true Magisterium having that protection from that kind of massive doctrinal error.

    If they are not Sedes, I don't understand the problem. 
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2520
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #106 on: September 19, 2020, 08:16:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but the issue ByzCat3000 has is that salvation via a BOD is denied by only a comparatively very few, while everyone else, including all those in all the trad groups and even the greatest among the Fathers, believe that there is salvation via a BOD - and he wants to understand why that is and/or how a BOD could be denied by anyone.

    Is that the issue?
    My issue, which I think ByzCat shares, is that if disproving the implicit faith form of BOD is as simple as saying:

    Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
    Minor: Heathens are outside of the Church.
    Conclusion: Heathens cannot be saved.

    Then the only way someone could believe in "implicit faith" is if they were uneducated or of ill-will. The former might fly for a layman, but every clergyman should surely be aware of what Trent and Florence say about salvation. So it's pretty hard to see how a priest, let alone a bishop, could possibly believe in implicit faith in good-will and material error, if it really is that simply disproven.

    This leaves two options. Either the SSPX, Resistance, CMRI et al. are all formal heretics or the issue of implicit faith is not so easily disproven as is suggested. 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46682
    • Reputation: +27550/-5115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #107 on: September 19, 2020, 09:00:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
    Minor: Heathens are outside of the Church.
    Conclusion: Heathens cannot be saved.

    Yes, a variant on this syllogism is what establishes Vatican II ecclesiology as well:

    Major:  There's no salvation outside the Church (dogma).
    Minor:  Infidels can be saved.
    Conclusion:  Infidels can be inside the Church.

    So if infidels can be inside the Church, what does that do to the definition of "Church"?  THIS is what most Trads refuse to understand.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #108 on: September 19, 2020, 09:03:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My issue, which I think ByzCat shares, is that if disproving the implicit faith form of BOD is as simple as saying:

    Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
    Minor: Heathens are outside of the Church.
    Conclusion: Heathens cannot be saved.

    Then the only way someone could believe in "implicit faith" is if they were uneducated or of ill-will. The former might fly for a layman, but every clergyman should surely be aware of what Trent and Florence say about salvation. So it's pretty hard to see how a priest, let alone a bishop, could possibly believe in implicit faith in good-will and material error, if it really is that simply disproven.

    This leaves two options. Either the SSPX, Resistance, CMRI et al. are all formal heretics or the issue of implicit faith is not so easily disproven as is suggested.
    You bring up something which should be clarified. Most if not all here, to my knowledge, are not accusing the SSPX, Resistance, or CMRI of being formal heretics. A formal heretic is one who rejects the authority of the Church. It can manifest itself in the rejection of a dogma of the Church while maintaining that one does not reject the Church, sure. But not when the Church allows one's position or "interpretation" of the dogma. And the Church has allowed the implicit faith view - certainly not condemned it while its voicing was manifest among theologians - for centuries. 

    Which gets us back to the issue of authority, the magisterium. Are you a Sede? If not, the magisterium has not only allowed, but promulgated, Vatican II errors for at least half a century. 

    Why could not the magisterium allow, if not promulgate, the errors of BOD then?
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Xenophon

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 95
    • Reputation: +75/-32
    • Gender: Male
    • hi
      • Papist Coffee
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #109 on: September 19, 2020, 09:05:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How do supporters of BOD and BOB hold the position as a teaching of the church when it isn't to be found anywhere in the infallible pronouncements of the Holy Fathers? The BOD/BOB teaching derives from the authority of the fallible Saints who believed Catechumens, who had knowledge and faith in the trinity would go to purgatory since they still had to suffer the temporal punishments due to sin. (They definitely did not hold that ignorant or obstinate heathens would be saved and go straight to heaven) I believe this comes from people elevating the fallible opinions of theologians which contradicted the higher power to low-key apply salvation to other religions. How does one sincerely get past the point that it's nowhere taught in the infallible dogmatic pronouncements of the church? 

    "30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope." (condemned) 
    Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists 
    Source: Denzinger The Sources of Catholic Dogma 1957
    Dz. 1291-1321


    Furthermore, St. Thomas taught that the infallible pronouncements of the church must be adhered to if there are any contradictions by the doctors of the church. 

    "The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever." St. Thomas II-II, Q10, A12

    Lastly, here is an example I found of how missionaries did not hold any notion of BOD or BOB;

    "One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble—it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they, like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.

    ...

    Before their baptism the converts of Amanguchi were greatly troubled and pained by a hateful and annoying scruple—that God did not appear to them merciful and good, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese before our arrival, especially if it were true that those who had not worshipped God as we preached were doomed to suffer everlasting punishment in hell. It seemed to them that He had forgotten and as it were neglected the salvation of all their ancestors, in permitting them to be deprived of the knowledge of saving truths, and thus to rush headlong on eternal death. It was this painful thought which, more than anything else, kept them back from the religion of the true God. But by the divine mercy all their error and scruple was taken away. We began by proving to them that the divine law is the most ancient of all. Before receiving their institutions from the Chinese, the Japanese knew by the teaching of nature that it was wicked to kill, to steal, to swear falsely, and to commit the other sins enumerated in the ten commandments, a proof of this being the remorse of conscience to which any one guilty of one of these crimes was certain to be a prey. We showed them that reason itself teaches us to avoid evil and to do good, and that this is so deeply implanted in the hearts of men, that all have the knowledge of the divine law from nature, and from God the Author of nature, before they receive any external instruction on the subject. . . . This being so, it necessarily follow that before any laws were made by men the divine law existed innate in the hearts of all men. The converts were so satisfied with this reasoning, as to see no further difficulty; so that this net having been broken, they received from us with a glad heart the sweet yoke of our Lord. . . ." The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier 1552, "To The Society in Europe
    “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” Council of Florence, Session 6


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #110 on: September 19, 2020, 09:30:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My issue, which I think ByzCat shares, is that if disproving the implicit faith form of BOD is as simple as saying:

    Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
    Minor: Heathens are outside of the Church.
    Conclusion: Heathens cannot be saved.

    Then the only way someone could believe in "implicit faith" is if they were uneducated or of ill-will. The former might fly for a layman, but every clergyman should surely be aware of what Trent and Florence say about salvation. So it's pretty hard to see how a priest, let alone a bishop, could possibly believe in implicit faith in good-will and material error, if it really is that simply disproven.

    This leaves two options. Either the SSPX, Resistance, CMRI et al. are all formal heretics or the issue of implicit faith is not so easily disproven as is suggested.

    To follow up on my last post, we (or at least I) am not speaking of heresy, but error.

    One does not have to be "uneducated" or of "ill will" to be in error.
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2520
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #111 on: September 19, 2020, 10:31:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You bring up something which should be clarified. Most if not all here, to my knowledge, are not accusing the SSPX, Resistance, or CMRI of being formal heretics. A formal heretic is one who rejects the authority of the Church. It can manifest itself in the rejection of a dogma of the Church while maintaining that one does not reject the Church, sure. But not when the Church allows one's position or "interpretation" of the dogma. And the Church has allowed the implicit faith view - certainly not condemned it while its voicing was manifest among theologians - for centuries.

    Which gets us back to the issue of authority, the magisterium. Are you a Sede? If not, the magisterium has not only allowed, but promulgated, Vatican II errors for at least half a century.

    Why could not the magisterium allow, if not promulgate, the errors of BOD then?
    I'm not accusing them of formal heresy myself, but I see it as the logical conclusion of the hypothetical where implicit faith is refuted that simply. I say hypothetical because I think it's not so easily refuted as just quoting Trent, even if it may appear that way.

    I definitely was a sedevacantist for a while, and I wouldn't call myself a sedeplenist now either. I have no idea really and I'm not satisfied with any position at present, so I just try to avoid it as much as possible, but if I was pressed to answer I'd say I lean towards sedeprivationism. I don't see the relevance here though. Every trad is willing to admit that Rome is full of heretics; +ABL, Bishop Williamson and others have even described many in Rome as believing in a false religion altogether. But if +ABL and co. were heretics too for flatly denying a dogma, that'd certainly be news.

    I see what you're getting at with the theologian argument, but you could apply that to Novus Ordo bishops then too, couldn't you? When Bishop Barron says there is hope Hell is empty and the Vatican says nothing, is he in the clear?

    To follow up on my last post, we (or at least I) am not speaking of heresy, but error.

    One does not have to be "uneducated" or of "ill will" to be in error.
    You don't have to be uneducated or ill will to be in error about something complex and difficult, but you would be one or the other if you denied 2+2=4. My point is that for educated clergymen to be in error in good faith about implicit faith, the issue would have to be much more complicated than is being concluded here. If it really is as simple as "no salvation outside the Church, ergo anyone who isn't visibly within the Church isn't saved"(which I fully admit is the simplest and most literal interpretation), then anyone who accepts implicit faith would either be ignorant of basic dogma or wilfully ignoring it. So how could well-educated bishops be accepting it in good faith?

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1949
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #112 on: September 19, 2020, 10:57:03 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • My issue, which I think ByzCat shares, is that if disproving the implicit faith form of BOD is as simple as saying:

    Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
    Minor: Heathens are outside of the Church.
    Conclusion: Heathens cannot be saved.

    Then the only way someone could believe in "implicit faith" is if they were uneducated or of ill-will. The former might fly for a layman, but every clergyman should surely be aware of what Trent and Florence say about salvation. So it's pretty hard to see how a priest, let alone a bishop, could possibly believe in implicit faith in good-will and material error, if it really is that simply disproven.

    This leaves two options. Either the SSPX, Resistance, CMRI et al. are all formal heretics or the issue of implicit faith is not so easily disproven as is suggested.
    This is exactly it.  My argument is *not* that the trad clergy *couldn't* be wrong about this.  Its that if they are, I need a better *explanation* than what I'm currently getting.  Pax Vobis says "Study it more" but ultimately there isn't much to study in his argument because his argument is in essence "The dogmas say what they say."  If I can know that and act upon it, surely so can Archbishop Lefebvre.

    Yet clearly Lefebvre opposed Vatican II and modernism, but didn't see this issue as being a case of modernism.  So there needs to be some explanation for that.

    Since I saw Bishop Barron referenced... I mean... I'm not going to say he's a formal heretic (because there's no way I could know), but I certainly think his universalist speculation contradicts the fifth (was it the sixth?  I could be wrong here) ecuмneical council and thus is objectively heretical, furthermore, Bishop Barron obviously not only accepts Vatican II but fully embraces it and John Paul II's magisterial teaching, and seems to primarily base his theology on these, rather than the past, so its not surprising to me that he'd hold to views on salvation that aren't congruent with the past (whether in good faith or not.)  It seems much less reasonable to make such an assertion about all the Sede and SSPX clergy that specifically *dissented* against V2 because it didn't conform to the past.


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1949
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #113 on: September 19, 2020, 11:12:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, a variant on this syllogism is what establishes Vatican II ecclesiology as well:

    Major:  There's no salvation outside the Church (dogma).
    Minor:  Infidels can be saved.
    Conclusion:  Infidels can be inside the Church.

    So if infidels can be inside the Church, what does that do to the definition of "Church"?  THIS is what most Trads refuse to understand.
    Here's the thing that bugs me about V2.  Even if some infidels (individuals) can be inside the Church, their communities as a whole are not, and there is *no way* to know *which* infidels are inside the Church and which are not.  Consequently, we must avoid all interfaith prayer, ecuмenism, etc. and we must strive to convert all infidels to a formal and visible membership in the Church even if/while we affirm that by extraordinary grace and perfect contrition such people "may with difficulty be saved because error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost" (to approximate Lefebvre's quote from memory.)  Since Vatican II at the very least is not clear that such ecuмenism, interfaith worship, or *assumption* of specific infidels as being in the Church, it must be rejected, even if we assume that the idea's of invincible ignorance and implicit faith that you see in the Trad clergy, and that the Trad clergy believe they see in Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of St Pius X, are true.

    This argument isn't proof that the trad clergy are right, but I believe it demonstrates that it is not per se contradictory to allow for salvation of some infidel individuals and still reject Vatican II.  

    To be clear, i suppose if you were *just* to narrow down to the subsist in, point, specifically, you might have a point, but your argument usually goes beyond that.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1949
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #114 on: September 19, 2020, 11:17:49 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Apparently.

    A successor to Peter and thousands of bishops in an ecuмenical council (including Archbishop Lefebvre in most if not all cases) could promulgate and/or approve of the docuмents of Vatican II - despite the protection of the Holy Ghost - and yet the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of Trad priests and bishops (without that same charism) don't see the errors of BOD is a major hurdle to accepting that BOD could be error.

    If Byz and forlorn are Sedes, ok. I can understand that - Paul VI was no pope and there was no Holy Ghost protection there. The apparent pre-V2 Magisterial endorsement of BOD is ratified by a true Magisterium having that protection from that kind of massive doctrinal error.

    If they are not Sedes, I don't understand the problem.
    I'm not a Sede, but I think non Sede trads even still know that there are aware that there's a difference between the last six pontificates and the previous ones.  I don't think R + R (a term I accept as a rough estimate of my position, but not as an absolute rigid category lest it bind me to some positions I don't personally take) is supposed to mean just flippantly going "well its not ex cathedra tho" to the pre vatican II popes.  Certainly something unusual is happening during this time, and while I pray for Francis as my hierarchical superior (since I believe I am obliged to at least presume him such until the Church clearly tells me he is not) and obey any of his commands which I can lawfully obey, I am not going to pretend I am able to relate to him in the same way I could Pius XII.

    At any rate, I'm not necessarily saying BOD *couldn't* be wrong because the Holy Spirit preserved it from error.  I'm just not seeing how if "read Florence its really clear" type argument was so simple and so true, that all the trad clergy could've missed it.  I must conclude therefore that it is not this simple, it cannot be, or else they would all indeed be formal heretics for denying such a plain and obvious truth.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14738
    • Reputation: +6074/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #115 on: September 19, 2020, 03:30:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My argument is *not* that the trad clergy *couldn't* be wrong about this.  Its that if they are, I need a better *explanation* than what I'm currently getting. 
    The first thing you need to do is to determine the truth of the matter for yourself - which is basically what Pax said. Once you know *and* accept the truth, then you can try and come up with an explanation as to why everybody else does not accept the truth, or got such a simple thing so wrong. If you ever find the truth for yourself, then go ahead and start trying to tell them they are wrong - be prepared to hit a granite wall. Then you can determine for your self why they put up this wall.

    Take Sean Johnson for just one example, he posted a dissertation titled; "What is the Church's teaching on the Necessity of Baptism?" which did not say a thing about what the Church teaches, rather the whole thing was ideas about a BOD - something the Church does not teach at all. Why did he and why do pretty much all BODers do that? You tell me.

    When I posted in only a few sentences quotes from Trent which is actually what the Church does teach about the necessity of baptism, he tells me I do not understand what I am reading lol.

    It's never ending with BODers. They have got to let those outside of the Church into heaven at all costs no matter what, all the while insisting a BOD is a doctrine, and in the process completely blind themselves to dogma in order to achieve this.

    So if you ever come up with an explanation, although it's not expedient for you to do so, please let us know.



      
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #116 on: September 19, 2020, 04:25:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    My issue, which I think ByzCat shares, is that if disproving the implicit faith form of BOD is as simple as saying:

    Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
    Minor: Heathens are outside of the Church.
    Conclusion: Heathens cannot be saved.

    Then the only way someone could believe in "implicit faith" is if they were uneducated or of ill-will.

    You guys aren't being specific enough in your language.  "Implicit faith" in what?
    .
    Implicit Faith in Incarnation/Trinity - possibly acceptable, for a catechumen, per St Alphonsus.
    Implicit Faith in God...no dice.  That isn't orthodox and there's no basis for it in Church history.
    .
    A catechumen is one who accepts the Faith, or is very serious about it and has studied it, therefore they are no longer "heathens".  So, the above analogy doesn't apply.
    .
    Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
    Minor: Catechumens are outside of the Church officially, but may be considered partial members (in some circuмstances).
    Conclusion: Catechumens could be saved, if they truly desire Baptism/Faith and if (for some reason) God takes their life before the sacrament.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2520
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #117 on: September 19, 2020, 04:31:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You guys aren't being specific enough in your language.  "Implicit faith" in what?
    .
    Implicit Faith in Incarnation/Trinity - possibly acceptable, for a catechumen, per St Alphonsus.
    Implicit Faith in God...no dice.  That isn't orthodox and there's no basis for it in Church history.
    .
    A catechumen is one who accepts the Faith, or is very serious about it and has studied it, therefore they are no longer "heathens".  So, the above analogy doesn't apply.
    .
    Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
    Minor: Catechumens are outside of the Church officially, but may be considered partial members (in some circuмstances).
    Conclusion: Catechumens could be saved, if they truly desire Baptism/Faith and if (for some reason) God takes their life before the sacrament.
    The SSPX et. al teach that people who die in false religions can be saved, so it's the latter implicit faith I meant. I wouldn't really classify the former as implicit faith since, like you said, catechumens accept the Faith(at least to some limited understanding of it).

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #118 on: September 19, 2020, 06:51:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The SSPX et. al teach that people who die in false religions can be saved, so it's the latter implicit faith I meant. I wouldn't really classify the former as implicit faith since, like you said, catechumens accept the Faith(at least to some limited understanding of it).
    This is the problem with BOD, you never know what variety of BOD their believers are talking about. Implicit Faith is one thing and Implicit Baptism of Desire in another. Unfortunately as one can see from this conversation, one has to constantly use entire descriptions:

    1) Salvation by Implicit Faith in  God that rewards. Implicitly a Hindu by his belief in his god ( a rock on his mantle)  that rewards, he implicitly believes in the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation (that Jesus Christ is God)

    2) Implicit Baptism of Desire of the person that wants to be a Catholic but does not know he has to be baptized. Implicitly he desires baptism.

    I do not believe in either and I think that anyone that believes #1 can be made to believe anything. As far as #2, if that was all that was being debated, there would not be one sentence written about it by anyone in the last 400 years.  

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Implicit BOD
    « Reply #119 on: September 19, 2020, 11:35:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    The SSPX et. al teach that people who die in false religions can be saved, so it's the latter implicit faith I meant.

    And no Church Fathers, neither St Augustine, nor St Thomas, nor Trent, nor St Alphonsus back up this view. 
    .
    St Alphonsus died in 1787, right around the time of the French Revolution, which ushered in political anarchy and masonic influence around the globe, including the Vatican.  Let's not forget that in the late 1800s the masons imprisoned Pius IX and almost killed him.  So are we too naive to think the masons didn't infiltrate the church in the 1800s and start watering-down doctrine, especially EENS?  That's the only explanation for how BOD morphed from St Alphonsus' catechumen to applying to Hindus and Muslims...