Augustinus, I am happy to discuss this with you.

Augustinus addressed this thread to bosco because he considers you a lost cause, intellectually speaking.

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.

After reviewing this list very carefully, I am convinced that Laszlo is not reading many posts in this sub-forum. Most of these have been covered in the past few weeks, but he still says we ignored ALL of these things. In fact, I agree with most of these things written above, which further leads me to believe that Augustinus has not read much in this sub-forum, and indicates that he could not possibly size me up as a "loose cannon", whatever that means.

I will basically just be repeating myself now:  
God's existence can be known by reasoning, but this is not divine and supernatural faith. Faith is a free gift of God, and can be obtained before baptism by water. Nobody can be saved without the three divine virtues of faith, hope and charity at the time of death.  Divine faith must be explicit to some extent, the rest of the truths being implicit. The crux is what that minimum is. If you read my posts, you would see that I said the minimum theologically is not the same as the minimum required before a priest in a near death emergency can licitly perform the Sacrament of baptism. A further discussion would take it from there.

After reviewing this list very carefully, I am convinced that Laszlo is not reading many posts in this sub-forum.

Talk about not reading.  That's not my list.

Be that as it may, Augustinus was hoping to have a STRUCTURED discussion/argument with you.  But I told him that you are incapable of that, and we see that I am right.  You just summarize your positions, slap a few quotes in there that you consider to be relevant somehow ... but are intellectually incapable of the rigors necessary for a theological discussion.

After reviewing this list very carefully, I am convinced that Laszlo is not reading many posts in this sub-forum. Most of these have been covered in the past few weeks, but he still says we ignored ALL of these things. In fact, I agree with most of these things written above, which further leads me to believe that Augustinus has not read much in this sub-forum, and indicates that he could not possibly size me up as a "loose cannon", whatever that means.

I will basically just be repeating myself now:  
God's existence can be known by reasoning, but this is not divine and supernatural faith. Faith is a free gift of God, and can be obtained before baptism by water. Nobody can be saved without the three divine virtues of faith, hope and charity at the time of death.  Divine faith must be explicit to some extent, the rest of the truths being implicit. The crux is what that minimum is. If you read my posts, you would see that I said the minimum theologically is not the same as the minimum required before a priest in a near death emergency can licitly perform the Sacrament of baptism. A further discussion would take it from there.

And from there, this is what I would note:
The decision of the Holy Office is a theological decision regarding the minimum people need to know to be baptized.
Now, in context, who are these people? Those ignorant of the faith, obviously.
Therefore the decision is directly pertinent to the issue of ignorance.
Now, the decision rendered, that people ignorant of the faith must by a Necessity of MEANS (in other words an absolute necessity, being bound up in faith which is of absolute necessity to salvation) confess Christ and the Trinity before baptism in danger of death is situationally NO different than those who die in any other circuмstance, including the pagan in the woods. WHY? Because there is only ONE difference to their circuмstance- the proximity of water and a minister for sacramental baptism.
This is the whole point of implicit BoD- that a person, being bound as they are to the same necessity of means (Faith in Christ and the Trinity), can yet be dispensed from the Hypothetical necessity of means- water baptism- by the explicit profession of faith in Christ. The only difference is the proximity of the sacrament as an instrument:
In one circuмstance a person who has a minister available will be baptized, in the other, the person who has no available minister will be interiorly sanctified.
The point here being-
that which is an absolute necessity of means (faith) and that which is predicated as necessarily connected with faith by a necessity of means (Christ and the Trinity) is not dispensable in any circuмstance whatsoever. Whether dying with or without baptism the same necessity of means is binding, specifically as a necessity of means.

Divine faith must be explicit to some extent, the rest of the truths being implicit.

Would the extent of this Divine Faith include belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity? Yes or No.

Yes it would, but the question is about whether that can be implicit or not. This is actually a discussion between Augustinus and myself. Write to him in PM and encourage him whichever way you think best.

"Implicit" meaning "Unconscious" in your book. You, as all modernists, are a linguistic deconstructor of Catholic dogma.

Wait a min... I thought that Augustinus had called Bosco to discuss, not you, because you are an undisciplined "loose cannon".  

Nevermind.