CathInfo.com

So, having peruse these forums at length and especially enjoys the Feeneyite vs Liberalistic arguments of Happen, Ladislaus and Greg vs Bosco and Bumphrey, I propose a one on one debate between myself and Bosco. I think Bumphrey is too much of a loose cannon.

The Debate- Whether the Church Teaches that All Men Need Explicit Faith to be Saved, That Ignorance May be Abolished.

I am for the positive I assume Bosco will argue in the Negative.

Both sides will present opening statements, rebuttals and then question and answer.

Waiting Bosco.

You're trying to have a structured debate with either of these clowns?  They wouldn't know a syllogism if it hit them in the face.

PS -- I like your screen name, that of my favorite saint (whose picture is in my avatar).  St. Augustine's anti-BoD statements, made during his more mature anti-Pelagian years, would cause these clowns' faces to melt off like that famous scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Hey, it's a long shot, but I see simply the most horrible exaggerations or underwhelming arguments in their approach. To say nothing of the fact that they use fathers and saints to make their point, but when you do likewise it's "Not the Church Teaching!"
In summary, this is the point-
1. Without faith, none can be saved.
2. It is necessary that faith be explicit.
3. The Holy Office has already stated that the Incarnation of Christ and the Trinity are articles of faith that are necessary be a necessity of means- they're non-negotiable, no exceptions, and part of the profession of faith.
4. The "soul of the Church" is a metaphor, and not an ontologically distinct Protestant "Invisible Church."
5. The bare knowledge of God can be deduced from human reason, it is therefore a human act to know of him and not divine faith, it's the reliance upon human reasoning.
6. In addition to faith a person needs Hope to be saved, the expectation that by doing good and avoiding evil they can arrive at reward.
7. You also need charity, which is the love of God and neighbor for the sake of God AND contrition for sin with a firm purpose of amendment AND abandonment to his will for you in the moment of death.
8. Therefore it is impossible for faith to be implicit or to be a consequence of natural reasoning.
9. Although in the invincibly ignorant there will always be some elements of the faith that will be held implicitly, yet these implicit elements are contained in the explicit profession of Christ as Saviour, and therefore acknowledging a Trinity, and that God exists and rewards good and punishes evil.
Therefore none who are to be saved will die in Ignorance of Christ and without faith in Him.

1. Without faith, none can be saved.

I would add, without SUPERNATURAL faith, none can be saved.  No Catholic theologian has ever denied this.  Yet bosco and Nado kept arguing from invincible ignorance and therefore implying that one could be excused from the requirement for supernatural faith by invincible ignorance.  That's absolutely false and I put this to bed early in these discussions.

So invincible ignorance has absolutely nothing to do with this question ... except with regard to the personal culpability of the subject.  It's merely exculpatory, but ignorance is never positively salvific.

So what remains, then, is:  "What are the requirements for supernatural faith?"