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

Author Topic: Believers in liberal BOD are Rationalists  (Read 631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bowler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3299
  • Reputation: +15/-1
  • Gender: Male
Believers in liberal BOD are Rationalists
« on: August 14, 2013, 07:00:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The CMRI & SSPX & SSPV believers at in "BOD of those who do not explicitly want to be Catholics", are denying ALL of the Doctors, Saints, and dogmatic decrees. Here is an actual example, notice that the individual described does not explicitly want to be a Catholic, nor does he desire to be baptized, nor does he even believe in Christ or His Church:

    From the book  Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

    1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.  There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.  It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.” END

    There is no Father, nor Doctor, nor Saint that ever taught this! It is opposed to the Athanasian Creed, and all of the other dogmatic decrees on EENS. AND yet, the vast majority of believers in BOD subscribe to this belief! So why do they quote say St. Thomas on one hand, when they deny him with the other?

    They do so because they are liberals, pluralists, rationalists and modernists (just like the Vatican II sect) concerning this specific subject.

    It is undeniable.


    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Believers in liberal BOD are Rationalists
    « Reply #1 on: August 14, 2013, 07:07:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The title of the thread can't be an explanation, there just is not the room. When I said "liberal BOD" it means the "BOD of those who do not explicitly want to be Catholics". It is liberal because, they are denying ALL of the Doctors, Saints, and dogmatic decrees.

    We are not here discussing the baptism of desire of those who explicitly want to be Catholics.


    Offline ThomisticPhilosopher

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 461
    • Reputation: +210/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Believers in liberal BOD are Rationalists
    « Reply #2 on: August 27, 2013, 11:28:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bowler
    The title of the thread can't be an explanation, there just is not the room. When I said "liberal BOD" it means the "BOD of those who do not explicitly want to be Catholics". It is liberal because, they are denying ALL of the Doctors, Saints, and dogmatic decrees.

    We are not here discussing the baptism of desire of those who explicitly want to be Catholics.


    Do you believe that they are heretics and that you cannot be in communion with those that believe in explicit BOD and BOB? Just wondering, thanks.

    The real question is when is it that it was condemned by the Church by an actual lawful authority. The previous time when this question was dealt with, Father Feeney should have had a pair and go to Rome... But we will never know because he refused to go and defend Catholic dogma instead what you have is an excommunication based on his absence.

    It is simply amazing how someone like Father Feeney when called to Rome 3 times REFUSED to go. If even just for that he deserves to be put in suspicion. Imagine having the ability to go to Rome and defend yourself, especially go with the good Cardinals of the Roman Church that were still in good number... I think for that alone he is a coward who refused to go make a case publicly... Now you have a bunch of people that are endlessly speculating because he refused to defend Catholic teaching. Now the only thing that is on the record is that Father Feeney was condemned during the period of Pius XII a true Pope.
    https://keybase.io/saintaquinas , has all my other verified accounts including PGP key plus BTC address for bitcoin tip jar. A.M.D.G.

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Believers in liberal BOD are Rationalists
    « Reply #3 on: August 28, 2013, 06:05:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here are some quotes from Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa on implicit faith:

    Quote
    No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament. (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.106, a.1, ad 3)

    Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith. (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.5)

    It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Mat. 28:19: “Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.8 )

    Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): “I know that my Redeemer liveth.” The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: “Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again”*. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.7, ad 3)

    Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith. (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.10, a.4, ad 3)

    Though all do not know explicitly the power of the sacrifices, they know it implicitly, even as they have implicit faith, as stated above (q. 2, AA 6,7). (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.85 a.4, ad 2)

    As stated above (a. 1, ad 2; q. 68, a. 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but aferwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.” (Summa Theologica, IIIa q.69, a.4, ad 2)

    Venial sin is never forgiven without some act, explicit or implicit, of the virtue of penance, as stated above (a. 1): it can, however, be forgiven without the sacrament of Penance, which is formally perfected by the priestly absolution, as stated above (q. 87, a. 2). Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is required for the forgiveness of venial sin, for although this infusion takes place in every sacrament, it does not occur in every act of virtue. (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.87, a.2, ad 2)

    As stated above (a. 2), no infusion of fresh grace is required for the forgiveness of a venial sin, but it is enough to have an act proceeding from grace, in detestation of that venial sin, either explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently to God. Hence, for three reasons... (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.87, a.3)

    Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at least implicitly. (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.66, a.6, ad 2)