Author Topic: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577) (Read 8952 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #105 on:** August 10, 2018, 07:28:43 AM »

Quote

St Thomas says:
As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 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 afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues.

Summarization of what St Thomas thinks:
1. An implicit or explicit desire for Baptism can lead to a "forgiveness of sin".
2. Such a desire must be "FOR BAPTISM" specifically.
3. Such a forgiveness does not remit all temporal punishment, since an actual reception of the sacrament remits the "entire punishment".
4. Such forgiveness of sin happens through their "FAITH IN CHRIST".
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? St Thomas does not say they attain heaven; only that they are in the state of grace.

Quote

+ABL says:
"Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith. In the implicit desire of baptism, the act of Faith and hope must be explicit, while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit, since he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole...In any case, there is no Baptism of desire without the supernatural virtue of faith and a certain explicit knowledge of the essential points of faith. Since the nature of faith means that is impossible, that it be completely implicit, since faith is a supernatural light to the intelligence."

Summarization:
1. +ABL doesn't mention the effects of BOD, in regards to forgiveness of sin.
2. Desire for Baptism must be specific.
3. Doesn't talk about temporal punishment.
4. Reception of BOD happens, not through Faith in Christ, but only faith through "some article" of Faith.
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? Not specifically stated.
Comment:
The necessity of "Faith in Christ", as St Thomas taught, is much more specific than +ABL's mere "faith in some article of faith".

Quote

+ABL said:
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it."

Summarization:
1. No mention of forgiveness of sins.
2. No desire for baptism is required.
3. Doesn't talk about temporal punishment.
4. Reception of BOD happens, not through Faith in Christ, not even through faith of "some article" of faith, but *magically* without them even knowing it (or, wanting it?).
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? They are saved, since they are *unknowingly* part of the Church. So, we can say they are *unknowingly* saved.

Comment:
The preposterous idea that a non-catholic can *unknowingly* receive BOD, without desiring it, or without desiring ANY part of the Faith, is a heresy, pure and simple. (agrees with V2). +ABL, hopefully pled "temporary insanity" on this part of his life. I'll pray for him.

His ideas here are not even CLOSE to what St Thomas required, and not even close to what he said himself in the 1st quote. Both of his quotes are TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY. +ABL's last quote is the same as your desription of Rahner's view:

Quote

Rahner (and +ABL's 2nd quote) posited one could be saved by a faith completely implicit, with no explicit act of supernatural faith in even one single aspect of the true religion.

Incredulous · « **Reply #106 on:** August 10, 2018, 07:32:45 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on August 09, 2018, 10:14:21 PM

Sean,

Please confirm if you really believe this statement, because what's being expressed here is some sort of magic. Not the Sacrament of Baptism.

If you, Bp. Williamson and any other resistance trad honestly buy this, then there's no need for you to be resisting Bp. Fellay, the neo-SSPX or Francis.

"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."

Oh St. Romanus, who's feast-day is August 9th, please enlighten us:

You, who were miraculously converted on the sight of St. Lawrence's tortures...
You, who were of "good will", with strong "desire" to be Catholic and who would shed your "martyr's blood"...

Why didst thou still beg for water Baptism ?

St Romanus 258, begged St. Lawrence,
while in jail to Baptize him. He was beheaded
the day before St. Lawrence's martyrdom.

2Vermont · « **Reply #107 on:** August 10, 2018, 07:40:47 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2018, 06:41:14 PM

“I believe in God...” is the first article of the Creed. Therefore, one could argue (as do V2 Modernists) that explicit faith in God (any God...Judaic, Hindu, Muslim, etc) suffices for BOD. There’s not much difference between +ABL’s BOD and Rahner’s. Both are contrary to St Thomas’ BOD parameters.

Sean, after reading the post you wrote (the one Pax Vobis is responding to here) I wondered what would be examples of articles of faith. It seems PV answers my question with the article "I believe in God".
You didn't respond to this post of his. Would that suffice? Or were you talking about an article that is clearly Catholic and not just monotheistic in nature?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #108 on:** August 10, 2018, 07:47:28 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 10, 2018, 07:28:43 AM

Summarization of what St Thomas thinks:
1. An implicit or explicit desire for Baptism can lead to a "forgiveness of sin".
2. Such a desire must be "FOR BAPTISM" specifically.
3. Such a forgiveness does not remit all temporal punishment, since an actual reception of the sacrament remits the "entire punishment".
4. Such forgiveness of sin happens through their "FAITH IN CHRIST".
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? St Thomas does not say they attain heaven; only that they are in the state of grace.

Summarization:
1. +ABL doesn't mention the effects of BOD, in regards to forgiveness of sin.
2. Desire for Baptism must be specific.
3. Doesn't talk about temporal punishment.
4. Reception of BOD happens, not through Faith in Christ, but only faith through "some article" of Faith.
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? Not specifically stated.
Comment:
The necessity of "Faith in Christ", as St Thomas taught, is much more specific than +ABL's mere "faith in some article of faith".

Summarization:
1. No mention of forgiveness of sins.
2. No desire for baptism is required.
3. Doesn't talk about temporal punishment.
4. Reception of BOD happens, not through Faith in Christ, not even through faith of "some article" of faith, but *magically* without them even knowing it (or, wanting it?).
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? They are saved, since they are *unknowingly* part of the Church. So, we can say they are *unknowingly* saved.

Comment:
The preposterous idea that a non-catholic can *unknowingly* receive BOD, without desiring it, or ANY part of the Faith, is a heresy, pure and simple. +ABL, hopefully pled "temporary insanity" on this part of his life. I'll pray for him.

His ideas here are not even CLOSE to what St Thomas required, and not even close to what he said himself in the 1st quote. Both of these quotes are TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY.

More gratuitous error:

Just as you made up the idea that Trent considered only explicit desire, you are inventing doctrine again here:

The beginning of your post, in its first two points (ie, 1 & 2) contradict each other:

You say St Thomas allows allows for implicit baptism of desire (Very good!).
But then you follow with the contradiction:

The implicit desire for baptism must be explicit 😏.

In other words, you have actually just negated what you have conceded.
I will tell you why you did that:

Faced with the proof of St Thomas’ allowance of implicit baptism of desire, but being unwilling to distinguish it from anonymous Christianity, you decided to keep it trapped in potency by making the absurd statement that implicit desire for baptism must be...explicit.

Marinate on that a bit: implicit desire must be explicit is a contradiction, and a made up construct of your own.

If implicit baptism of desire required explicit bedsore for baptism, there would be no need to distinguish between the two, because there would/could only be explicit desire!

And this is about the 5th example you have given in this thread of starting from patently absurd and false premises, and then going completely off the farm.

May I suggest you excuse yourself from the conversation?

I don’t want to increase you obstinacy in error, which is sure to happen (and sensing this intellectual impediment and mindset early on in you was my primary reason for refusing to engage you).

If you and the other obstinate falsified of doctrinebwont step out, I will.

I want you to go to heaven.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #109 on:** August 10, 2018, 07:49:28 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on August 10, 2018, 07:32:45 AM

Oh St. Romanus, who's feast-day is August 9th, please enlighten us:

You, who were miraculously converted on the sight of St. Lawrence's tortures...
You, who were of "good will", with strong "desire" to be Catholic and who would shed your "martyr's blood"...

Why didst thou still beg for water Baptism ?

St Romanus 258, begged St. Lawrence,
while in jail to Baptize him. He was beheaded
the day before St. Lawrence's martyrdom.

Because water baptism imparts the sacramental character and gives a fuller remission of the temporal debt owed for sin.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #110 on:** August 10, 2018, 08:07:05 AM »

Here is just one of many CI threads on BOD:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/on-the-feeneyite-heresy/

Many of the same Feeneyites in this thread participated in that 66 page thread.

Another 2 dozen threads could be found reproducing all the same arguments.

Just as I won’t beat my head against the brick wall of ignorance on the issue of the NOM again, and again, and again, so too with this issue.

Just revisit the linked thread.

If you want to be heretics, nobody can stop you (except Matthew, but he chooses not to).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #111 on:** August 10, 2018, 08:23:51 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 10, 2018, 08:07:05 AM

Here is just one of many CI threads on BOD:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/on-the-feeneyite-heresy/

Many of the same Feeneyites in this thread participated in that 66 page thread.

Another 2 dozen threads could be found reproducing all the same arguments.

Just as I won’t beat my head against the brick wall of ignorance on the issue of the NOM again, and again, and again, so too with this issue.

Just revisit the linked thread.

If you want to be heretics, nobody can stop you (except Matthew, but he chooses not to).

I make this old post by Nishant (taken from the BOD thread cited above) as my final word on the matter:

“...first of all, you present yourself as some kind of paragon of objectivity while implying all and each of your opponents are slanted with some bias, but, if you want to talk about being objective, then provide

1. Some sort of cogent explanation for why every single Doctor, Saint, catechism and other authority post Trent were in the wrong and now have need of the saintly Feeneyites several centuries later to correct them.

2. For why St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas and all the medieval Doctors and scholastic theologians especially after Pope Innocent II and III were also wrong, while the heretical Peter Abelard was right.

If you can't do both of these, then, sorry, but you have no case at all.

Coming to the ancient Fathers, everyone knows and Don Paulo has docuмented in this thread that the Tradition in support of BOB is practically unanimous in the earliest ages, there are about 15 sources in all, including ancient martyrologies, and other ecclesiastical records.

You find no Father speculating about what you do, that they were secretly water baptized (even when publicly killed) in their last moments, so how do you back up your speculation? And on what basis do you deny this Tradition is unanimous? Give us an example you believe is unanimous and we'll compare.

1. No one is denying that a few of the holy Fathers made a mistake on Baptism of Desire, but this is of no more consequence than their making a mistake on the Immaculate Conception, or Purgatory, or another doctrine that was settled with certainty only at a later time. Some individual Fathers sometimes say Christ alone was immaculate, even though they are practically unanimous in declaring that Mary is the New Eve. And despite their mistake on this point, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception logically derives from Her being the New Eve. Likewise, BOD logically derives from BOB.

2. If you deny Baptism of Desire derives logically from Baptism of Blood, we are back to siding with the heretic Abelard and rejecting St. Bernard, not to mention other Doctors, and the Papal pronouncements of Innocent II and III after which the question is closed. If catechumens can receive the sacramental effect through an extraordinary means, and BOB demonstrates that, then almost all your arguments are proven wrong by that fact. And that's why you fight tooth and nail against BOB as well.

And as for why we uphold the doctrine, you see what this is really about and what you are really alleging is that every single source, all of our seminary theology manuals, every source we trust and need and learn the Faith from, all our Doctors, all our Saints, all our Catechisms, post Trent especially, but really from Innocent II and III have been gravely mistaken and practically heretical, and therefore cannot be relied on at all, or must even be rejected, and that's why your heterodox position is so terribly dangerous and seductive for the uninformed Catholic. It implies nothing less than the defection of the Catholic Church for over a 1000 years, it means She contradicted the ancient Church, that Her Saints and Doctors cannot be relied on in telling us what Councils and Popes have declared, that they are not sound and safe teachers of the Faith, and that we need you Feeneyites to restore doctrine to its pristine purity. In other words, it is unadulterated nonsense.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #112 on:** August 10, 2018, 08:34:48 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 10, 2018, 06:54:44 AM

Don’t you and all the rest of the Feeneyites sense somewhere that, if you are forced to come up with arguments like this, it indicates you have missed (or rejected, like a proud heretic?) something?

Could it be that through lack of humility (ie, recognizing the subject matter is beyond your comprehension and being ok with that), you are becoming obstinate in error?

More specifically, if you have to resort to relying on Alphonsus’ “not saying what implicitness is” to hold your position together (obviously, implicit is the opposite of explicit; unconscious), it indicates you yourself are in doubt about the position you are defending (ie, no reasonable person would have confidence in such a weak, contrived defense).

Doesn’t it slow you down to realize ABL opposes Lumen Gentium and Rahner’s heretical theory (or that I do)?

Or will pride make you say, “Well Lefebvre must not have been aware that by making that statement [perfectly supported by St Thomas!], he was contradicting himself?

Pride, theological tunnel vision (a la Anglo B&W inability to nuance), and obstinacy are the spiritual legacy which Feeney has bequeathed to his progeny.

Notice that the writer SJ does not answer any of the questions. It he who relies on his own opinion of what St. Alphonsus Luigouri's meant by implicit.

We seekers of truth do not have the luxury of such tunnel vision as the writer SJ, whereby he bases ALL his teaching on his own personal opinion of what "implicit" means when it is used in a single quote by Alphonus Ligouri, while he ignores ALL the clear dogmas on EENS:

from: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/

Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (pagans and Jews can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it, their belief in a god that rewards)

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.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

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 (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)

Chapter VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)

(Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)

JPaul · « **Reply #113 on:** August 10, 2018, 09:22:44 AM »

Last Tradican,
I think that that about sums it up. This foolish belief in people being saved invisibly and directly against the dogmatic teaching of the Church is in fact the underlying theology of Universal Salvation.

This is the belief of the greatest Bishop in the two thousand year history of the Church.

What then is the purpose of the Church?

JPaul · « **Reply #114 on:** August 10, 2018, 09:26:22 AM »

Last Tradican,

Quote

(Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)

These folks will probably throw in the conciliar Popes as being mushminded invincibles..............

Meg · « **Reply #115 on:** August 10, 2018, 09:29:19 AM »

Quote from: JPaul on August 10, 2018, 09:22:44 AM

Last Tradican,
I think that that about sums it up. This foolish belief in people being saved invisibly and directly against the dogmatic teaching of the Church is in fact the underlying theology of Universal Salvation.

This is the belief of the greatest Bishop in the two thousand year history of the Church.

What then is the purpose of the Church?

Why is it necessary to mock Bp. Williamson? You must have a great deal of animosity towards him.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #116 on:** August 10, 2018, 09:31:36 AM »

Firstly, let's define terms, as you are mis-using 'implicit' and 'explicit' which causes confusion.

Explicit - "Stated clearly, and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt"; "stating something in a clear and detailed way".
Implicit - "implied but not plainly expressed"; "hinted at".

Quote

Just as you made up the idea that Trent considered only explicit desire

First off, you're putting words in my mouth. Trent is not clear on the explicit vs implicit, so it's open for debate. I'm just making an argument. Trent says that justification (i.e. sanctifying grace) is obtained by baptism or the desire thereof. Since baptism is a public profession of Faith and a public initiation into the Church (it's public because the Church requires Godparents/witnesses), therefore, it is logical to say that the desire for baptism must also be public or explicit (i.e. in the case of a catechumen).

If you want to argue that Trent allows implicit desire, go ahead, as long as you admit that this is debatable and as-yet undefined by the Church.

Quote

You say St Thomas allows allows for implicit baptism of desire (Very good!).
But then you follow with the contradiction:
The implicit desire for baptism must be explicit 😏.

Again, you misquote me, because you misunderstand the use of the word 'specific' and think it means the same as 'explicit'. It does not. I did not say that the desire for baptism must be explicit; I said baptism must be desired SPECIFICALLY. One can have a specific yet an implicit desire.

St Thomas has two conditions for BOD. 1) a SPECIFIC Faith and belief in Christ/Church. 2) A desire for baptism, either expressed clearly (explicitly) or implied (implicitly). The SPECIFIC Faith/belief in Christ and His Church comes first. The desire to be part of the Church and to follow Christ, through Baptism, comes second.

Faith comes before Baptism. A belief in Christ comes before Baptism. A desire to be part of the Faith comes before Baptism.

- A person who is ignorant of the Faith cannot have an implicit desire for Baptism, because one cannot desire what one does not know.
- A person who knows of the Faith, but does not believe it, cannot have any desire for Baptism, because one cannot desire what one does not believe.
- A person who knows the Faith, and believes it - only he can have a desire for Baptism.

+ABL's 2nd quote, wherein he agrees with Rahner, and says that non-catholics are saved *unknowingly* is completely at odds with St Thomas and Trent. One cannot receive BOD without knowing/desiring the Faith; "Good will" does not supply knowledge of Christ or of His Faith. "Good will" does not save. This is heresy.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #117 on:** August 10, 2018, 09:40:41 AM »

Quote from: Meg on August 10, 2018, 09:29:19 AM

Why is it necessary to mock Bp. Williamson? You must have a great deal of animosity towards him.

I know you were not referring to me, that I said nothing about Bp. Williamson, I was just responding to a quote by the writer SJ. I have not read anything on this thread except the SJ quote that I responded to. Maybe you have followed the entire thread? If so, where did the salvation for all other "religions" start and where was animosity showed to Bp. Williamson?

P.S.- I have always supported Bp. Williamson, even financially. His persecution by his SSPX brothers is dishonorable, but, it is after all,a fight between brothers and I refuse to get in the middle.

Meg · « **Reply #118 on:** August 10, 2018, 09:46:17 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 10, 2018, 09:40:41 AM

I know you were not referring to me, that I said nothing about Bp. Williamson, I was just responding to a quote by the writer SJ. I have not read anything on this thread except the SJ quote that I responded to. Maybe you have followed the entire thread? If so, where did the salvation for all other "religions" start.

My comment had nothing to do with anything that you wrote.

It's possible that JPaul was referring to +ABL rather than Bp. Williamson - if so then that's my mistake. But still...

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #119 on:** August 10, 2018, 09:58:32 AM »

Quote

It's possible that JPaul was referring to +ABL rather than Bp. Williamson - if so then that's my mistake.

Yes, Meg, once again you lazily inject yourself into the middle of a thread, which causes you to misunderstand references to previous pages.

Author Topic: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577) (Read 8952 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Incredulous

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

2Vermont

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

SeanJohnson

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

SeanJohnson

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

SeanJohnson

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

SeanJohnson

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Last Tradhican

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

JPaul

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

JPaul

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Meg

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Pax Vobis

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Last Tradhican

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Meg

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Pax Vobis

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)