Quote from: Alcuin

non-members are outside the Church.

Quote from: Ambrose

No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.

Are they of the body? Are they part of the Church or just inside the Church?

What does united mean?

People in this condition are in the Church but are not members of the Church.  The only door to become a member of the Church is the Sacrament of Baptism.  There is no other way.

The way of their uniting to the Church is as SJB described for you.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Alcuin

non-members are outside the Church.

Quote from: Ambrose

No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.

Are they of the body? Are they part of the Church or just inside the Church?

What does united mean?

People in this condition are in the Church but are not members of the Church.  The only door to become a member of the Church is the Sacrament of Baptism.  There is no other way.

The way of their uniting to the Church is as SJB described for you.

One can be not part of the Church but inside the Church. Please clarify.

Check this out, Alcuin: http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Membership-in-the-Church-by-Dom-Aelred-Graham-OSB-STL

There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you false BODers (including John Lane)  believe, along with the 1949 letter and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI priests. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivists. On this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.

Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

 I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.  

Quote from: bowler

There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you false BODers (including John Lane)  believe, along with the 1949 letter and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI priests. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivists. On this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.

Quote

Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

 I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.  

I guess you'll have to include St. Alphonsus in your list:

Quote

Book on Preaching, pg. 371:

WHICH ARE THE THINGS THAT WE MUST KNOW AND BELIEVE AS NECESSARY BY NECESSITY OF MEANS, AND OTHERS BY NECESSITY OF PRECEPT?

I. To know and believe the first two articles already laid down, namely, that there is a God, and that He is a just rewarder of virtue and punisher of vice, is certainly necessary as a means of salvation, according to the words of the Apostle. Some authors hold that the belief of the other two articles -the Trinity of Persons, and the Incarnation of the Word- is necessary be necessity of precept, but not necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. At any rate it is certain, as Innocent XI declared, when condemning a contrary proposition, that he who is ignorant of the two mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, cannot receive absolution.

II. We are obliged only by necessity of precept, which, however, binds under grievous sin, to know and believe the other articles of the Creed...

Italics in the original.

You recently joined CI, and started inquiring about this subject of BOD/BOB/ Implicit faith ect. and now are going around teaching. Suffice it to say that you know nothing about the subject, and your posting a quote which you think shows that St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in the contradiction above, just highlights it.

No Father, Doctor, Saint or Council taught the above contradiction. To even suggest such a thing is asinine. The 1st proposition is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and it was enshrined in the ancient Athanasian Creed of the Fathers, and infallible confirmed at the Council of Florence. The second proposition is a direct denial of first.

Exurge is merely repeating authorized teachers, something you never do. You are the one who presumes to teach.

There's no going back SJB, if Exurge does not know what every theologian knows, that St. Alphonsus Ligouri did not teach your contradiction highlighted below, I am not going to let his ignorance turn this thread into a baby steps session.

Quote from: Exurge

Quote from: bowler

There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you false BODers (including John Lane)  believe, along with the 1949 letter and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI priests. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivists. On this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.

Quote

Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

 I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.  

I guess you'll have to include St. Alphonsus in your list:

Quote

Book on Preaching, pg. 371:

WHICH ARE THE THINGS THAT WE MUST KNOW AND BELIEVE AS NECESSARY BY NECESSITY OF MEANS, AND OTHERS BY NECESSITY OF PRECEPT?

I. To know and believe the first two articles already laid down, namely, that there is a God, and that He is a just rewarder of virtue and punisher of vice, is certainly necessary as a means of salvation, according to the words of the Apostle. Some authors hold that the belief of the other two articles -the Trinity of Persons, and the Incarnation of the Word- is necessary be necessity of precept, but not necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. At any rate it is certain, as Innocent XI declared, when condemning a contrary proposition, that he who is ignorant of the two mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, cannot receive absolution.

II. We are obliged only by necessity of precept, which, however, binds under grievous sin, to know and believe the other articles of the Creed...

Italics in the original.

You recently joined CI, and started inquiring about this subject of BOD/BOB/ Implicit faith ect. and now are going around teaching. Suffice it to say that you know nothing about the subject, and your posting a quote which you think shows that St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in the contradiction above, just highlights it.

No Father, Doctor, Saint or Council taught the above contradiction. To even suggest such a thing is asinine. The 1st proposition is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and it was enshrined in the ancient Athanasian Creed of the Fathers, and infallible confirmed at the Council of Florence. The second proposition is a direct denial of first.