from trad123's citation of St. Thomas.

Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will.

This is precisely what I was arguing against Drew, who basically called me an idiot for holding the same thing St. Thomas teaches ... and thereby implying the same of St. Thomas.  I argued that if someone doesn't have the Church for a rule of faith, then the rule of faith reduces to his own private judgment (St. Thomas refers to it as "his own will".)

Such a one may be completely sincere, but if he doesn't have the infallible formal rule of faith (the teaching of the Church), then he doesn't have supernatural faith.  If he's sincere, then God will not punish him for this.  But lack of culpability does not supply for the lack of faith ... unless you're a Pelagian.

How many times does this need to be posted?


http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm


Mirari Vos
On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism
Pope Gregory XVI - 1832

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]

I've spent hours searching the writings of the Fathers, to see if an expression like 'good faith' has been applied to those outside of Catholic unity.

I have not found one example.

Bishop George Hay, Fr. Michael Muller, and Orestes Brownson were writing against this nonsense long before Fr. Feeney.

Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical was published in 1832.

Only Catholics can be saved.

Say it again, only Catholics can be saved.

I've spent hours searching the writings of the Fathers, to see if an expression like 'good faith' has been applied to those outside of Catholic unity.

I have not found one example.

The notion of non-Catholics being saved is so foreign to the teachings of the early Church Fathers that even Rahner had to admit it. At least he had the honest integrity lacking in many "traditional" Catholics.

I've spent hours searching the writings of the Fathers, to see if an expression like 'good faith' has been applied to those outside of Catholic unity.

I have not found one example.

St. Thomas wrote explicitly of "good faith" incredulity, teaching that they would not be punished for THAT sin, but this does not supply for lack of faith, and that they would be held accountable for other sins.  Pius IX was merely saying the same thing in the teaching that is widely spun by anti-Feeneyites as the advocation of Pelagianism.

No Traditional Catholic can be a strict follower of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas because among other things he denied that Mary is immaculate. Therefore just this alone means he is presumed to be guilty till proven innocent. He also glorified pagan philosophers hundreds of times throughout his summa, thus he was a scholastic. He believed in Aristotle's idea that the created world can be eternal.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2:
“If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place.”

PG, is that you, returned as Ovenbird?  Normally you want to lay low for a while when returning after a ban.

In any case, no, St. Thomas was not infallible ... but he can be regarded as a generally-reliable guide to the faith.