Author Topic: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance (Read 5252 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #50 on:** February 14, 2020, 11:40:36 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 14, 2020, 11:31:35 AM

I would be much more satisfied with BoD theory if it held that those who died in a state of justification were granted the character of Baptism by God in an extraordinary manner than that they could experience the Beatific Vision without it. And, since all these aspects of BoD are pure speculation, what would stop me from speculating that God does exactly that?

The traditional belief has always been that St. John the Baptist was born without Original Sin, yet we know he had to wait with the other OT saints, even he did not go to heaven when he died.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #51 on:** February 14, 2020, 11:59:47 AM »

Yes, St John was born without Original Sin but was still conceived in it (only Our Lady was 100% free). When Our Lady visited St Elizabeth, Scripture says that St John “leaped” in the womb, and it is of Tradition that from that moment, St John was freed from all sin.

According to a mystic who had visions of St Joseph’s life, he was also freed in such a manner and he had the extraordinary grace of the use of reason from infancy, so that he prayed to God from almost the day he was born.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #52 on:** February 14, 2020, 12:22:05 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 14, 2020, 05:11:43 AM

My point wasn't that strictest view = not nuanced per se. My critique was of the particular herneneutic being used.

Actually, dogmas are defined in order to avoid hermeneutics. Not every communication needs to be interpreted. If we are going to avoid an infinite regress, we have to admit that some statements are understandable as-is, without any further interpretation. That's what dogmas are. Everyone understands EENS the same way. That's why some people feel a need to further interpret it. Because they don't like the message.

Stanley N · « **Reply #53 on:** February 14, 2020, 05:07:12 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 14, 2020, 10:37:43 AM

I hold that a justified but unbaptized person (i.e. like an unbaptized baby) would go to the highest place in hell, (i.e. Limbo) and would thereby be rewarded for their desire with a place of natural happiness, since they are innocent but not members of the Church. But they would not merit heaven since they didn't receive the sacrament. I could be totally wrong; just my opinion. But Trent does not clarify any of this.

How would an unbaptized baby be justified? Traditional BOD is only for those with the use of reason.
But justification excludes mortal sin. Anyone who dies justified (ie, final perseverance) does not deserve eternal punishment, but on the contrary, should firmly hope for and expect eternal reward in heaven, though may have to wait in Purgatory, or the Limbo of the Fathers in the OT.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #54 on:** February 14, 2020, 05:18:50 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on February 14, 2020, 12:22:05 PM

Actually, dogmas are defined in order to avoid hermeneutics. Not every communication needs to be interpreted. If we are going to avoid an infinite regress, we have to admit that some statements are understandable as-is, without any further interpretation. That's what dogmas are. Everyone understands EENS the same way. That's why some people feel a need to further interpret it. Because they don't like the message.

So every single trad priest just doesn't like the obvious truth. Got it.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance (Read 5252 times)

Stubborn

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance

Pax Vobis

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance

Clemens Maria

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance

Stanley N

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance

ByzCat3000

Re: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance