Quote from: Neil Obstat

It makes utterly no sense why certain people are all worked
up about this latest barrage of false ecuмenism.  

All anyone needs is an implicit desire to please God, they say,
and they have sufficient membership in the Church for their
salvation.  So what's the problem with ecuмenism?  Why get
upset about it?  It is the logical end of your own belief!    

Take your premise to its logical end, if you're capable of
thinking, that is, and embrace ecuмenism.  Of course, if you
don't embrace ecuмenism, it proves you can't think, logically
speaking.  

End of story.

Who is "they"?

Neil Obstat hit the nail on the head!

From my long experience here, "they" are all BODers here on CI, for they all  believe that for salvation, "all anyone needs is an implicit desire to please God". They won't put it that way, they may not even know what they believe, nevertheless, that is what they believe, since that is what the 1949 with no AAS number says and they keep bringing it forward as the "authoritative" docuмent against those that deny BOD, "because it was written by the Holy Office under the reign of Pius XII".

Meanwhile they all (the BODers,  at least the sedevacantes BODers)reject the Holy Week Mass changes promulgated directly by Pius XII, for which they would have been excommunicated in 1 minute, and goes directly against Pius X's instructions, the subject of this thread!!!

That's two inconsistencies among tons more for BODers, people with no common sense.

Bowler,

 I have news for you, it is a small minority of sedevacantists that reject Pope Pius XII's Holy Week law.  

Speaking for myself, I would never dare to reject this law of the Church.  From what I have read on here I think most would agree.

Again, you rely on assumptions, not facts.

What sedevacantes group does the Pius XII mass changes of Holy Week?

The original missal used by the founders of the SSPV is the 1945 Lassance Missal. I don't keep up with the different sede factions, however, I do know that the seminary at Brooksville, FL does not do the Holy Week Mass of Pius XII, and I believe Fr. Cekada is there, a big promoter of the 1949 letter with no AAS number.

Anyhow, the important part of this thread is:

"From my long experience here, "they" are all BODers here on CI, for they all  believe that for salvation, "all anyone needs is an implicit desire to please God". They won't put it that way, they may not even know what they believe, nevertheless, that is what they believe, since that is what the 1949 with no AAS number says and they keep bringing it forward as the "authoritative" docuмent against those that deny BOD, "because it was written by the Holy Office under the reign of Pius XII".

I do know that the seminary at Brooksville, FL does not do the Holy Week Mass of Pius XII, and I believe Fr. Cekada is there, a big promoter of the 1949 letter with no AAS number.

The funny irony is that the Brooksville place promotes a similar theory regarding the status of the AAS number as pertaining to the status of an official docuмent that you have posited, though for different reasons:

Fr. Ricossa ("Liturgical Revolution," http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=37&catname=6) contends:

March 23, 1955: the decree cuм hac nostra aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary. [emphasis]

Well, it took me just ten minutes to find in the Acta the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis (23 March 1955; A. A. S., vol. xlvii., pp. 218 sqq.).

It was not printed in the liturgical books (and in at least this statement Fr. Ricossa is not re-writing history), because the Decree itself forbade the Printing Presses to make any change in the typical editions of the Roman Breviary and Missal until further notice. Every Priest and Religious has their Ordines to help them conform with the "new" rubrics anyways, just like the generation before them used their old Breviaries and conformed to Divino afflatu until the new typical editions were promulgated, published and distributed throughout the Catholic world.

Despite Fr. Ricossa's embarassing mistake, his book on the liturgical changes is still the textbook at Brooksville.

From what I have seen here and on the, now defunct, IA, there are many sedeplenists who reject the Pius XII Holy Week rites.  Don't think it is just a problem reserved to sede vacantists. In my own life, the only sedes I know that reject the authority of Pius XiII on the matter are somehow linked to the St. Gertrude's crowd, or more affectionately? known as the Gertrudians. I've also known people to adopt it and change according to preference of the priest serving their chapels.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Neil Obstat

It makes utterly no sense why certain people are all worked
up about this latest barrage of false ecuмenism.  

All anyone needs is an implicit desire to please God, they say,
and they have sufficient membership in the Church for their
salvation.  So what's the problem with ecuмenism?  Why get
upset about it?  It is the logical end of your own belief!    

Take your premise to its logical end, if you're capable of
thinking, that is, and embrace ecuмenism.  Of course, if you
don't embrace ecuмenism, it proves you can't think, logically
speaking.  

End of story.

Who is "they"?

Neil Obstat hit the nail on the head!

From my long experience here, "they" are all BODers here on CI, for they all  believe that for salvation, "all anyone needs is an implicit desire to please God". They won't put it that way, they may not even know what they believe, nevertheless, that is what they believe, since that is what the 1949 with no AAS number says and they keep bringing it forward as the "authoritative" docuмent against those that deny BOD, "because it was written by the Holy Office under the reign of Pius XII".

It makes perfect sense to get "all worked up" because BOD has nothing to do with the rampant false ecuмenism we have seen over several decades.

Even a sedvacantist should get "worked up" because Francis is claiming he's the pope!

Before addressing implicit desire, I would ask you if you are ready to accept (explicit) Baptism of Desire as explained by St. Alphonsus and taught in the Council of Trent.  If we can't settle that what good is it to discuss implicit desire?

I disagree, we don't have to settle whether Trent teaches explicit BOD of the catechumen because we agree that St. Thomas taught explicit BOD and St. Alphonsus Ligouri followed St. Thomas. Like I wrote in another thread, actually the only difference between St. Augustine (who I follow), and St. Thomas, is that St. Augustine believed that the preacher that God will send will also teach the person that he needs to be baptized, teach him John 3:15, and baptize him (like Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40).
That is all that separates the people who follow the unanimous opinion of the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be taken literally, and St. Thomas. Not much to debate about. I never met anyone that knew anyone that heard of any person who died as a catechumen other than the few BOB samples from like 1800 years ago. They are numerically speaking insignifant theories not worth debating. The problem is the theory of the salvation for those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in the Trinity and Christ. THAT theory can mean that anyone and everyone can be saved, and leads to "who knows who died outside of the Church, we can't judge?".

Can any BODer on CI see that there is not much difference between the people who follow St. Augustine, which you detractingly call Feeneyites, and the teaching of St. Thomas?

St. Thomas says "
God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him

They "are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation",

all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity

While there is a huge difference between St. Aug & St. Thomas versus the School of Salamanca, the teachings taught today and believed by all of you BODers that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved by his belief in a God that is, and that rewards?

That teaching  is opposed to St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, the Athanasian Creed, and that is what you people believe.

While the only difference between St. Thomas and St. Augustine (thus the people you call Feeneyites) is that St. Thomas believed that God would send a preacher to teach the faith or internally enlighten the person of the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity, while St. Augustine believed the same except that God would also enlighten the person to the fact that he needed to be baptized and have the preacher baptize him.

Quote from: bowler

I disagree, we don't have to settle whether Trent teaches explicit BOD of the catechumen because we agree that St. Thomas taught explicit BOD and St. Alphonsus Ligouri followed St. Thomas. Like I wrote in another thread, actually the only difference between St. Augustine (who I follow), and St. Thomas, is that St. Augustine believed that the preacher that God will send will also teach the person that he needs to be baptized, teach him John 3:15, and baptize him (like Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40).

It is settled, yet you continue to reserve the right to argue it. St. Thomas did not say a preacher would be sent exclusively.

The infant-raised-in-the-woods-out-in-Patagonia is specifically answered by St. Thomas. If such a one truly strives to serve God by obedience to the natural law, God will send an angel, a missionary, or His own direct inspiration to enlighten him in the truths of the Faith necessary to salvation; thus coming to the knowledge of the truth. "God wills that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4).

You apparently do not accept this.

You are a nit picker. If you read "the other thread" you will see me mention the "enlightenment by God". It makes not a speck of difference whether the enlightenment is from God directly or through a preacher, it ALL comes from God anyways. When we die we will be shown how we did nothing to be saved but MAYBE incline 1 degree toward God, if that much. St. Augustine believed that God would also enlighten the person that he needed to be baptized, a simple teaching, and provide a person to say the words and pour the water.

You strain a gnat and swallow the camel in this nit picking posting and your belief that goes TOTALLY against St. Thomas (and all the Fathers, saints, doctors....). The people who believe John 3:15 as it is written, are only a hair away from agreeing 100% with St. Thomas, while you are on another planet.

Quote

It makes not a speck of difference whether the enlightenment is from God directly or through a preacher ...

Well, it does make a difference in that you seem to need to see all those in this condition as members of the Church when they are clearly not by definition. Direct inspiration isn't a preacher sent. It's the absence of a preacher!

Incoherent comment. Maybe you know what you mean but no one else does. None but the baptized are members of the Body. It is you who must solve that problem for you believe that the unbaptized are saved and are not outside of the Church.

Stop cutting off my comments, I said clearly what St. Augustine believed and I follow, that the person will enlightened that he needs to be baptized and will be baptized. It is St. Thomas that says the person will be enlightened about the Incarnation and the Trinity, but excludes enlightment about the need for baptism nor the person to baptize him.

I can see that you ran out of ammunition and are going to start going in BODer Twilight Zone, Don't expect me to follow.

STICK to the subject.

You strain a gnat and swallow the camel in this nit picking postings and your beliefs that goes TOTALLY against St. Thomas (and all the Fathers, saints, doctors....). The people who believe John 3:15 as it is written, are only a hair away from agreeing 100% with St. Thomas, while you are on another planet.