Author Topic: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance (Read 5911 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** February 14, 2020, 08:57:18 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 14, 2020, 05:22:44 AM

Also broadly speaking I can reconcile this.

I believe it is theoretically possible (note: not certain) that *some individuals* who were in Japan prior to the missionaries coming desired "to do all that God commands for their salvation" and that God accepted this desire as sufficient faith/basis for BOD. If that was the case those souls would be illuminated to the truth of the Catholic faith *either* before or right after their deaths.

And St. Francis Xavier may not have believed that, but IDK if that's what he's addressing here, as I'll explain.

However, assuming a given Japanese soul was *not* saved (and that *is* the presumption, their deaths having *appeared* to occur outside the Church), there is nothing that can be done for them, nothing that can change their fate.

No, St. Francis Xavier clearly did not believe this. You can read how deeply he was moved by their sorrow. If there was any doctrinally-acceptable way to console them, he would have done so.

Stanley N · « **Reply #41 on:** February 14, 2020, 09:35:34 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 14, 2020, 05:19:59 AM

My bigger issue is the argument. Like, I'm admittedly a new convert. And apparently I'm supposed to *absolutely* believe my own interpretation of Florence over what all the clergy say. Like that, by itself, is a huge stretch.

This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.)

Abp. Lefebvre said the same thing. He was also well trained in theology, and apparently did not have a problem with this. Yet the "literal" laypeople say he was fundamentally compromised and accepted a central modernist idea. Without him, the traditional movement in the Roman rite would be a handful of old priests and the Thuc-line clergy - and very few of them are "literal" either.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 14, 2020, 09:41:27 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 14, 2020, 09:35:34 AM

This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.)

Abp. Lefebvre said the same thing. He was also well trained in theology, and apparently did not have a problem with this. Yet the "literal" laypeople say he was fundamentally compromised and accepted a central modernist idea. Without him, the traditional movement in the Roman rite would be a handful of old priests and the Thuc-line clergy - and very few of them are "literal" either.

Honestly this is my overarching point. And that's why I make the point that I do. I am not aware of ANY living clergy who take the literal view, and I'm only aware of Fr. Wathen in the post crisis past.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #43 on:** February 14, 2020, 09:47:37 AM »

BODers say that Baptism of Desire is taught by the Council of Trent, while at the same time they totally reject what they say Trent teaches, BOD of the catechumen, by their REAL belief that people can be saved without explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Trent does not clearly teach baptism of desire of the catechumen, yet they cling on to the ONLY "dogma that teaches BOD", which is not clear, meanwhile, they reject the CLEAREST dogma on EENS, from the Coucil of Florence, that reiterates the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, and is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and is not opposed by any Father, Doctor, saint or council, the need to believe explicitly in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, that they reject completely! They reject the very line of Trent that they always bring up, and they reject all the dogmas on EENS to arrive at their real belief, that anyone can be saved in any religion. They reject ALL the dogmas on EENS.

The BODers say this unclear dogmatic decree means that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity:

Quote

Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547) Decree on Justification, Chapter IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Unclear? Ladislaus has here many times pointed out that the Trent quote means you need both baptism and explicit desire, which he can explain further here himself, but I will add that in the Spanish translation it is very clear that you need both it says "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof". And this makes all sense to me because coming from a Spanish background, my Catholic school educated relatives going back to being born in the 1890's (I am in my 60's now now) had never once heard of anything but damnation for all non-Catholics, specially Protestants. That is what I was always taught. I never heard of baptism of desire till I read the Americanist Baltimore Catechism in the 1990's. It makes sense to me that the BC would teach that anyone can be saved outside of the Church to avoid getting American minority Catholics lynched.

Quote

http://www.multimedios.org/docs/d000436/p000001.html#0-p0.5.1.1

CAP. IV. Se da idea de la justificación del pecador, y del modo con que se hace en la ley de gracia.

En las palabras mencionadas se insinúa la descripción de la justificación del pecador: de suerte que es tránsito del estado en que nace el hombre hijo del primer Adan, al estado de gracia y de adopción de los hijos de Dios por el segundo Adan Jesucristo nuestro Salvador. Esta traslación, o tránsito no se puede lograr, después de promulgado el Evangelio, sin el bautismo, o sin el deseo de él; según está escrito: No puede entrar en el reino de los cielos sino el que haya renacido del agua, y del Espíritu Santo.

The BODers say that this CLEAR dogmatic decree does not mean that someone has to have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity to be saved:

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Stubborn · « **Reply #44 on:** February 14, 2020, 09:50:56 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 14, 2020, 09:35:34 AM

This should give one pause. It's not just the writers of catechism. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the top Thomists of the 20th century also said it's possible someone not visibly a member of the Church might be saved. (There were a few other Thomists of Garrigou-Lagrange's level, but he seems more well known in English.)

Abp. Lefebvre said the same thing. He was also well trained in theology, and apparently did not have a problem with this. Yet the "literal" laypeople say he was fundamentally compromised and accepted a central modernist idea. Without him, the traditional movement in the Roman rite would be a handful of old priests and the Thuc-line clergy - and very few of them are "literal" either.

Yes, the popular or well respected 19th and 20th century theologians liked to interpret dogma, as though they are parables, or like what was taught at V2 where nearly every thing they said is ambiguous. But prior to V2, the Church was not at all ambiguous in her dogmatic teachings - anymore than you would teach something that did not mean what you said. Would that be something you would do? - Honest question.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: 19th Century Catechisms, BOD, BOB, Invincible Ignorance (Read 5911 times)

Ladislaus

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

Last Tradhican

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

Stubborn

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