Author Topic: Implicit BOD (Read 4427 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #135 on:** September 21, 2020, 01:33:13 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 21, 2020, 12:08:40 PM

This is a practical issue though. BOD as a doctrine doesn't say definitively whether any specific individuals really desired baptism, only "if they did, this is what would happen"

Trent at least seems to imply it, as a possibility.

Trent actually does not imply that at all, that's the thing that BODers misunderstand.

Again, all Trent says is that justification cannot take place without a desire for the sacrament, which means exactly that.

So we would have to agree that the doctrine of a BOD teaches that without a desire for the sacrament, justification cannot happen - because that's what it says. What kind of doctrine is that?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #136 on:** September 21, 2020, 03:14:55 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 21, 2020, 12:59:25 PM

But was this *original* more conservative NO that you describe, itself sacriligous and offensive to God? I don't know. I imagine most people here would say yes, but I'm not sure myself.

I do believe so, and I'll explain in a second, but had it been disguised in Traditional trappings, with Latin, Gregorian chant, kneeling for Communion, etc. ... one might be fooled. I've watched a couple such on EWTN, where the NO was said in Latin, accompanied by chant, the women wore veils, everyone received on the tongue kneeling, etc. ... and it LOOKED Catholic and reverent.

But the context and the theological orientation surrounding it makes it offensive to God. First, there was a tremendous hubris behind thinking you could just sit down and write up a Mass, when the Mass is considered to be of Immemorial Tradition from the Church Fathers and the Apostles, guided in its development by the Holy Spirit. Conconcting a New Mass is just a step or two removed from deciding you could write and add a new book to Sacred Scripture. Then we ask WHY they wanted to do this? They invited the Protestant ministers to consult, since the intent was to make it less "offensive" to Protestants, and thereby less Catholic. In the Missale which described the Mass theologically, there was a decided shift from the notion of "sacrifice" to "memorial supper of the Lord". There was a decided change in the definition of the Mass toward being a gathering of the people (what of the priest offering the Mass alone?). Finally, the alternative Canons have absolutely no root in Tradition, except for the claim that one does, and that one is actually suspect of being an Arian canon.

Sure, by itself, simplifying the Kyrie eleison - Christe eleison from 9 to 3 is not offensive to God, but the entire context and motive behind the NOM, and the theology surrounding it, this makes it unacceptable as a Catholic Mass and therefore offensive to God.

But had they kept the Latin and chant in place for a while, they would have fooled most and there's likely never to have been a serious Traditional movement, but then at the same time it would not have achieved its intended effect of quickly eroding faith in the Real Presence and in the Holy Sacrifice.

It's as if God, in allowing this crisis, deemed that the enemies of the Church should be allowed to do this but that they should be forced to do it so that it is exposed as the work of the enemy to those who still have the faith.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #137 on:** February 12, 2021, 07:39:27 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 15, 2020, 09:26:59 AM

I think that two different considerations are typically conflated in this notion of "implicit" Baptism of Desire.

There's the idea of implicit desire for Baptism proper and then idea of implicit faith.

So, for instance, I am converted to the Church and want to become a Catholic, but I do not form the explicit intention "I desire to be Baptized." One can see the DESIRE here to be implicit in the desire to become a Catholic.

Then there's the notion of implicit faith, which many have promoted. "I am a well-meaning pagan who follow my lights regarding the natural law."

So this discussion gets confused the the degrees of "implicit"-ness, i.e. the degrees of separation from the explicit.

It's absolutely indisputed that supernatural faith is required for salvation. Lots of modern BoDers focus on the "desire" (an act of the will) but ignore the intellectual requirements for salvation, as if one can will to have supernatural faith without believing anything. What's at issue is what are the requirements to have supernatural faith. Can faith be implicit in my desire to know God? All theologians agree that SOME things must be explicitly believed, with the vast majority (and absolute unanimity before the year 1600) holding that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation. In other words, no Jєω, Muslim, or any kind of infidel can possibly be saved.

This was believed by all Catholics everywhere for the first 1600 years of Church history, meeting the criteria for infallible dogma based on the OUM. Yet some Jesuits felt they were permitted to theorize that these were not necessary and that it was sufficient for supernatural faith just to believe in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. This was motivated by the desire to extend the possibility of salvation to infidels.

Of course, recent Novus Ordo developments hold that atheists can be saved without ANY explicit belief whatsoever.

I hold that Rewarder God theory is objectively heretical based on the teachings of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Those who lived before Vatican II might be excused of formal heresy because the OUM had not clearly been defined, but this notion must now be rejected as absolutely heretical.

Wait, if the OUM wasn't explicitly defined before Vatican II when was it defined? Or did you mean VI?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #138 on:** February 12, 2021, 09:13:50 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 12, 2021, 07:39:27 AM

Wait, if the OUM wasn't explicitly defined before Vatican II when was it defined? Or did you mean VI?

Sorry, I mean VI. Just habit of referring to Vatican II all the time here.

Let's assume for a second that we concede that there is such a thing as Baptism of Desire. What are the requirements and criteria? What is it and how does it work? Absent these definitions by the Magisterium, there's no way anyone can say that it's defined. DEFINITION means clearly laying out what it is and how it works. If we are required to believe in [something], we need to know what that [something] is that we're believing. We can't believe in a PHRASE "Baptism of Desire" when there could be a half dozen interpretations of what that even means. We don't believe in words, but in intelligible propositions. I've seen some people apply "Baptism of Desire" to BAPTIZED Protestants. That's nonsense, and betrays the fact that for them Baptism of Desire is synonymous with "sincerity". Some hold that it only applies to catechumens (St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance), while others hold that it applies only to those who have explicit Catholic faith, others extend it to anyone who believes in the Trinity and Incarnation, yet others to anyone who believes in a Rewarder God, others that it can even apply to Protestants, and, the most recent NO development, even to atheists. All of these applications imply a decidedly different DEFINITION of what the term even MEANS. So what are we required to believe "de fide"? That needs to be made explicit by the Church, or there's no Church definition. That would be like if the Church had defined "Immaculate Conception" but failed to define what that meant. "If you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, then you're anathema." Great, but is this the Immaculate Conception of Our Lord (as some mistakenly think) or the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady? Does it refer to Original Sin or to the consequences of Original Sin only, or even just to actual sin. Now, with Immaculate Conception, the Pope clearly defined WHAT must be believed about it.

Author Topic: Implicit BOD (Read 4427 times)

Stubborn

Re: Implicit BOD

Ladislaus

Re: Implicit BOD

ByzCat3000

Re: Implicit BOD

Ladislaus

Re: Implicit BOD