Author Topic: Innocent III Contradicts St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus about BoD (Read 4368 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2014, 07:16:18 PM »

Still no Cushingite has answered the question posed by this thread.

Cantarella · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2014, 10:30:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Still no Cushingite has answered the question posed by this thread.

When there is nothing left to say, the evasive Cushinguite will respond something along the lines of "baptism of desire", (without fail, they always bring up the hypothetical "baptism of desire" because it is the mask they use in order to justify their pelagian, protestant, gnostic heresy of salvation outside the Church, "salvation by justification alone", or "salvation of the ignorant by implicit desire") but in truth they do not believe in BOD as taught by the Church, or Aquinas anyway, since they think that BOD could ever apply to a pagan or somebody who has not knowledge of the Catholic Faith (foundation of all justification).

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** August 26, 2014, 03:50:33 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Still no Cushingite has answered the question posed by this thread.

Cushingites are lying hypocrites, which is why they can no more be counted on to answer the question in this thread then they can be counted on to defend the necessity of the sacrament for salvation.

Just ain't gonna happen.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** August 26, 2014, 04:34:53 AM »

Clearly Innocent III is correct, and St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus are wrong ... despite the fact that St. Thomas corrected Innocent III on other theological points.

1) There can be no initial justification without rebirth. de fide
2) Rebirth means being put into a state where nothing can delay entry into heaven. de fide

Conclusion proxima fidei -- There can be no initial justification without being put into a state where nothing can delay entry into heaven.

Conclusion: St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were wrong in their understanding / description of BoD ... if BoD exists at all.

Why do you get so many different opinions about BoD? Because BoD is completely made up to begin with; it's nothing but theological speculation (albeit one that became widely adopted after St. Thomas). It does NOT derive necessarily from any other Catholic teaching, so all the details about how it works vary from one author to another.

Many of the Church Fathers accepted BoB while rejecting BoD, yet the BoDer reading of Trent eliminates BoB while accepting BoD, i.e. reduces BoB completely to BoD.

Contradictions abound in the wake of BoD. Religious indifferentism and ecuмenism and Religious Liberty and Pelagianism are the fruits of BoD. BoD is junk theology.

Does it actually exist? I don't think so. In the end only God knows. But there is NO PROOF THAT ANYONE HAS EVER BEEN SAVED BY BOD. There's no proof that God has ever willed someone to be saved by this means rather than by providing Baptism (either one is just as easy for God, Who cannot be constrained by impossibility), so if He wills one over the other, it's because He preferred it for that person. But why? Since there's zero proof that God has ever willed to save anyone by this means, that by itself renders it nothing but hypothetical speculative theology.

End of story.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** August 26, 2014, 04:50:46 AM »

Now why do the Cushingites ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to admit that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were wrong about BoD? Because in the final analysis they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THEIR SIDE EXCEPT "AUTHORITY". There's never been a theological argument demonstrating how BoD derives from Church doctrine. Never. Not one. So the BoDers have nothing but to bring out the "authority" sock puppets and try to beat you over the head with the INFAAALIBLE authority of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus whereas what you actually have is nothing but their exercise in SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY.

Of course what St. Thomas and St. Robert and St. Alphonsus teach has absolutely NOTHING do with what any Church Father ever taught or what any Doctor ever taught; it has nothing to do with LoT and Ambrose's Pelagianism. LoT admits on another thread that there's no point in BoD if those ignorant of their obligation to be Catholic cannot be saved. In point of fact, the Doctors limited BoD specifically to the case of the catechumens who died before Baptism. In fact, that's THE CONCRETE CASE from which the speculations regarding BoD arose.

People saw catechumens who tried to live good lives dying while they saw others who chose to defer Baptism so they could carry on in their sin receiving Baptism on their death beds. So they started to think that something about that was not fair. St. Augustine briefly sided with that in his early days, but then in the end realized that it led STRAIGHT TO PELAGIANISM. He dismissed the speculation, after he had matured in his faith, based on what might or might not be fair for God to do as leading inexorably to a "vortex of confusion", and said that this thinking must be rejected by all who "wish to remain Catholic". But that's where the BoDer devotion to the great thinking of Augustine ends. After that, they ignore him as irrelevant. He was fine when he was speculating shortly after his conversion but eventually lapsed into the error of rejecting BoD towards the end of his life. Poor St. Augustine. But, thankfully, LoT is here to save the day.