CathInfo.com

You are a liar, as is proven repeatedly in your posts.

Can you provide any post where I lied?

Otherwise, calumny is a mortal sin and you have just sentenced yourself to death with your own mouth. 

I am still waiting for you to search the word "aut" in a latin dictionary and tell me what you find.

You are so prideful you think someone with two doctorates and fluent latin knows less than you do about Trent. This is absolutely pathetic and ridiculous, you have forgotten your place in society, and it is a very small place far below that of St Alphonsus.

Show me in Trent where it lays out the requirements for BOD.  Hint: It doesn't.  Ergo, St Alphonsus' OPINIONS on the requirement for a "perfect act of contrition" are just that, an OPINION.  Because NOWHERE does Trent tell us (i.e. Church Authority) how, when, to whom, and by what means, does BOD apply to a particular person.

St Thomas says explicit faith is necessary in the Incarnation/Trinity.  
St Bellarmine doesn't give any details.
St Alphonsus says an implicit faith is adequate (but does not mention the Incarnation/Trinity) and then says that a "perfect act of contrition" is necessary.

So all 3 of these Doctors' views differ.  You don't see a problem with that?  I do.  It's a MAJOR PROBLEM.  If BOD were a doctrine, then all of these people would AGREE ON THE DETAILS.

Do the catechisms provide the bridge?  No, they offer the same ambiguous notion.  No details.  Some catechisms even are MORE AMBIGUOUS, talking about implicit faith, etc.  All of this contradicts St Thomas.

So where, in the entire catholic world, is there ONE SOURCE to tell ANYONE how, to whom, when, where and why BOD works?  Hint: It doesn't exist.

Ergo, BOD is a theory.  Might be as close to doctrine-without-being-doctrine as you can get, but doctrines don't have unanswered questions.  BOD does.  A lot of them.

I already said it but I will repeat in case you didn't see it.

"Trent council says :"C. iv. Quibus verbis justificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut si translatio… Quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto, fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est : Nisi quis renatus fuerit exaqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei."

Trent council says "aut" which means OR it does not mean and. That means, we need either baptism OR the desire of baptism, we do not need baptism AND the desire of baptism. If Trent's council wanted to say that we needed both, it would use the word "et" not "aut"."

Since you have skipped over my major points, here they are again:


If someone wants to believe in St Thomas' BOD, which requires EXPLICIT belief in the Incarnation/Trinity BY A CATECHUMEN, then go ahead.  I see no problem.

But that's NOT what Fr Feeney was arguing against.

-----

St Thomas says explicit faith is necessary in the Incarnation/Trinity. 
St Bellarmine doesn't give any details.
Trent echoes St Thomas, because for BOD to work, you have to fulfill all the requirements for normal baptism (i.e. explicit faith, etc).
St Alphonsus says an implicit faith is adequate (but does not mention the Incarnation/Trinity) and then says that a "perfect act of contrition" is necessary.

So all 3 of these Doctors' views differ, and with Trent.  You don't see a problem with that?  I do.  It's a MAJOR PROBLEM.  If BOD were a doctrine, then all of these people would AGREE ON THE DETAILS.

St Alphonsus weakened the requirements.  I don't see why.  That's why I started this thread.  His requirements contradict St Thomas/Trent.