Would it be an accurate distinction to say that the difference between those that push BOD and those that push back is presumption about those that died without water baptism? The former presume that they have been/can be saved; the latter presume they have not been saved? Personally, I lean towards the latter. Should we even be presuming at all?
No, one side is arguing that they *can* be saved, and the other side is arguing that they *cannot* be saved. Nobody is arguing that they're all saved or that we can presume that somebody who dies without water baptism is saved. Well... I guess Lefebvre did kinda assume that (for catechumens) but IDK. What I'm not sure of is whether traditional adherents to BOD believed it required perfect contrition. It would *seem* that perfect contrition would be the only way this could work (as we know is the case with someone who can't make a sacramental confession.)
At any rate, I don't really speculate about the salvific status of individuals. It seems clear to me that an atheist cannot be saved, but even then, the atheist could've ceased to be an atheist and been given supernatural faith at the last moment. It seems pretty clear to me that its dangerous and tends towards destruction of the soul to be outside of visible union with Rome and I tell people so whenever I get the opportunity, but I don't really speculate about where people ended up. It seems clear to me that Judas was damned, and that there are going to be other people who are damned and it seems *highly probable* to me that the damned will outnumber the saved. I don't presume that any individual who seems that they died without baptism/the Catholic faith is saved, I just leave them to God.
Topic: Presumption (Read 1692 times)