Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Ladislaus

For your reference, McCork.  I've highlighted the issues you need to address.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed.  Clearly one of these is wrong.  So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one?  If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?

McCork, you're just a babbling idiot.  You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.

Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.

I see what principle you are trying to present. That is why I ask you to be consistent with your principle if you believe it. If you allow Msgr. Fenton to not condemn the minority opinion, then why would you condemn me for it?

I told you (several times now) that I disagree with Fenton.  Now answer my question.  I'm calling you out on your false principles.  If the Church cannot allow or tolerate a false opinion, then how is it that the Church tolerates what is in your view a false opinion that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith and for salvation?

Actually, I am now trying to find out what you believe. You disagree with Msgr. Fenton but quote him anyway, to prove what?  That there was a majority opinion? Yet you condemn the minority opinion as heresy?

Still no answer from McCork.

I had already answered that a  while back for which YOU had no answer. I said that there is no historical evidence that anyone was positively excluding implicit belief. This was back when I gave the analogy about the filioque. Anything that is implicit is essentially present, so when someone says something is required to be present, they are NOT excluding the implicit unless they directly and verbatim say so.

For your reference, McCork.  My questions are in bold.  try again.

Strange, McCork, in your fictious world of negative infallibility, how the Church tolerated two opinions for some time, 1) that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation, and 2) that explicit faith in the Rewarder God sufficed.  Clearly one of these is wrong.  So how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to "correct" the erroneous one?  If St. Thomas was wrong on this issue, McCork, how could the Church have POSSIBLY failed to correct him on this?

McCork, you're just a babbling idiot.  You need to be excommunicated vitandus on the grounds of raw stupidity alone as soon as the Church is restored.

Explain to us why you reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.

For your reference, McCork.  My questions are in bold.  try again.

I'm afraid its futile. I asked McCork twice in this thread =>
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&f=28&min=685&num=5
...to quote an Early Church Father, Saint or theologian from before year 1500 (excluding heresies like universalism of Origen and Clement of Alexandria) who taught salvation of "invincibly ignorant" through "implicit desire" (whathever that means), of course without response.

I had already answered that a  while back for which YOU had no answer. I said that there is no historical evidence that anyone was positively excluding implicit belief. This was back when I gave the analogy about the filioque. Anything that is implicit is essentially present, so when someone says something is required to be present, they are NOT excluding the implicit unless they directly and verbatim say so.

The Church has not formaly condemned a heresy of "once saved, always saved" prior to Trent, because no one believed such a nonsense before. Same with "salvation through implicit desire".

If you directly applied what I just said, you will see that I am saying St. Thomas did not do what you say he did.

Admit it, McCork; you've been caught with your pants down.

No, what you were claiming before is that when the Church Fathers spoke of belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation they never used the term "explicitly" so as to rule out implicit belief.  St. Thomas, using scholastic distinctions, uses the term EXPLICITLY.  This rules out your own heretical concept, McCork.  Now you must explain how you have the audacity to reject the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and how it is that the Church could have refused to take action against such an error (as you would have it).

Of course, this really is a waste of time, since not even the most dogmatic sedevacantists here on CI, nor even the Dimond brothers, believe in your negative infallibility crap.  I'm wasting a lot of time trying to refute your idiocy.  So I'm not going to bother anymore.  McCork is to be avoided as a pertinacious heretic, a denier of EENS, a Pelagian, and an audacious denier of Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

What you are doing is confusing whether someone is bound by obligation to have explicit belief in some mysteries of the faith, and the idea that the explicit belief must inherently be present in the soul upon death regardless of knowledge of that obligation.

Really. So you're now saying that every single person, at least as far as clerics, popes, theologians, saints,  has always believed of explicit faith as a mere necessity of precept.

If that were the case, as I am often forced to lay out with BODomaniacs, it would make Evangelisation a criminal act, and best strategy for the Salvation of Souls for the Apostles to lock themselves up in some basement immediately after the Resurrection.

Christ's preaching itself was dangerous, and He may very well have avoided it, and kept humanity in the dark.

Yes, you are confusing the two. Even with a baptized baby who doesn't explicitly believe in anything, true faith exists.

Is this true? True Faith exists even without Reason, etiam, in the complete absence of Reason before the Age of Accountability?

Catholic books speak of "passive infallibility" of the Church, and yes, I believe those Catholic books. Every sedevacantist really does.

What does passive infallibility (of the ecclesia discens?) have to do with your notion of "everything tolerated/not expressly condemned by the Church for a [arbitrary] amount of time is therefore orthodox" ?

Also, I do not believe in passive infallibility.

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: McCork

What you are doing is confusing whether someone is bound by obligation to have explicit belief in some mysteries of the faith, and the idea that the explicit belief must inherently be present in the soul upon death regardless of knowledge of that obligation.

Really. So you're now saying that every single person, at least as far as clerics, popes, theologians, saints,  has always believed of explicit faith as a mere necessity of precept.

If that were the case, as I am often forced to lay out with BODomaniacs, it would make Evangelisation a criminal act, and best strategy for the Salvation of Souls for the Apostles to lock themselves up in some basement immediately after the Resurrection.

Christ's preaching itself was dangerous, and He may very well have avoided it, and kept humanity in the dark.

Quote

Yes, you are confusing the two. Even with a baptized baby who doesn't explicitly believe in anything, true faith exists.

Is this true? True Faith exists even without Reason, etiam, in the complete absence of Reason before the Age of Accountability?

Quote

Catholic books speak of "passive infallibility" of the Church, and yes, I believe those Catholic books. Every sedevacantist really does.

What does passive infallibility (of the ecclesia discens?) have to do with your notion of "everything tolerated/not expressly condemned by the Church for a [arbitrary] amount of time is therefore orthodox" ?

Also, I do not believe in passive infallibility.

Go away Desmond, you are just an admitted former rationalist now in Novus Ordo attire, who 6 weeks ago said here  thatyou have been a Catholic for 3 years and still have not discerned the "basic tenets" of Catholicism. Come back when you have discerned the basic tenets and stop wearing pants that are too big for you. Someone who hears Catholic books teach something and then flagrantly don't even ask to see it, but decide you don't believe it, is pretty far gone.

He's been Catholic three years and knows his faith much better than you - heck, you've been sede for what 10, 20 or 30 years yourself so you haven't been one yet - so you have no room to talk, but that hasn't stopped you.