Show the link where you quote me hating Aquinas so we can see the context you underhanded liar.

Look it up yourself.  It's your "BAM" post where you attack Stubborn for his belief that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation by citing St. Paul in Scripture saying that belief in a Rewarder God is necessary for faith.  You made the sarcastic comment that "I guess St. Paul forgot to mention" the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.  You therefore concluded that this Scripture was teaching Rewarder God theory and slamming Stubborn for not understanding this Scripture.  Except that you forgot that you were thereby attacking St. Thomas as being an idiot who doesn't know Scripture also ... since he, knowing this Scripture, still held the 4-part explicit faith requirement.

Provide the link or retract your calumny.  Was it your intention to give people the impression that I had Aquinas?  

The Magisterium of the Church
 
In order to understand Baptism of Desire and Blood, Catholics must first understand what the Magisterium of the Church is, which is defined as "the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion". In other words, Our Lord gave His Church the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them. The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways;

1. Solemn Magisterium: Defined as Church teaching “which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecuмenical councils or Popes teaching "ex cathedra." (Definition from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951)
Examples of the Solemn Magisterium would be decisions of any General Councils of the Church, or certain papal encyclicals, such as that defining the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Note that it is only in extraordinary circuмstances that the Catholic Church teaches in this manner, which historically has been to combat heresy. For this reason it is sometimes referred to as the “extraordinary magisterium”. For examples of the Solemn Magisterium, here is a list of all solemn teaching during the first 7 centuries of the Catholic Church:

·     Council of Nicaea I (325): condemned the heresy of Arius, and defined the Divinity of the Son of God and the Nicene Creed.
·     Council of Constantinople I (381): condemned the heresy of Macedonius, and defined the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, confirmed and extended the Nicene Creed.
·     Council of Ephesus (431): condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and defined that there was one person in Christ, and defended the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
·     Council of Chalcedon (451): condemned the heresy of Eutyches (Monophysitism); declared Christ had two natures, human and divine.
·     Council of Constantinople II (553): condemned, as savoring of Nestorianism, the so-called Three Chapters, the erroneous books of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the teaching of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa.
·     Council of Constantinople III (680-681): declared against the Monothelites, who taught one will in Christ, by defining that Christ had two wills, human and divine.
 

Here we can clearly see that in the first 7 centuries of the Church, the Solemn Magisterium was not used often, and very little was solemnly defined. So at least 7 generations of Catholics lived and died during this time with very little solemn teaching by the Church. This is because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (see next).

You look it up.  It was treated extensively on the thread where you made it.  There's no calumny here, just fact.  You on the other hand constantly calumniate us and never retract any of it.

I assume you mean "hate" Aquinas.  No, that's how YOU think.  I never said that you "hate" Aquinas.  You're the one who keeps saying that we "hate" Trent and "hate" the Magisterium.  I said that you berated St. Thomas Aquinas (on this point), not that you had a generic contempt for St. Thomas.  YOU are the one who keeps saying that about us when we happen to disagree with him on one or another point.

You are an incredible liar.  You purposely try to deceive.  You took it out of context and you know it.

I hereby clarify my statement from earlier and amend it to the following:

Lover of Truth most likely is just too stupid to recognize the logical implications of his attack against Stubborn.  In attacking Stubborn he was also attacking St. Thomas Aquinas (by implication).  He didn't explicitly intend to do this, but nevertheless did so (in complete ignorance).

Here I clarify with benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions.

At what point does a public accusation of "detraction!" itself constitute detraction? 

I hereby clarify my statement from earlier and amend it to the following:

Lover of Truth most likely is just too stupid to recognize the logical implications of his attack against Stubborn.  In attacking Stubborn he was also attacking St. Thomas Aquinas (by implication).  He didn't explicitly intend to do this, but nevertheless did so (in complete ignorance).

Here I clarify with benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions.

You are the idiots who keep using John 3:5 as if it undermines BOD when Aquinas was quite aware of the verse.  My point is why didn't he get it?  It is sarcasm to make a point which of course goes ungrasped.  

In attacking Stubborn I preserve the integrity of Aquinas who clearly teaches BOD and had a far better grasp of scripture than he does or anyone who posts here by far.  

Bovine excrement, you idiot.  You're too stupid to understand that in ripping on Stubborn you were also ripping on St. Thomas Aquinas.  I told you that this was the implication of your quote, that you could substitute the word "St. Thomas Aquinas" where you put Stubborn because St. Thomas taught the  Holy Trinity and Incarnation requirement as well:

from Lover of Heresy:
You're saying that Rewarder God suffices based on this quote and that to believe that the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are also required means that St. Paul "forgot to mention" them.

You were attacking those who hold 4-criterion explicit faith requirement as implying that St. Paul forgot to mention the other two criteria.  Among those who hold 4-criterion explicit faith are St. Thomas.  So in attacking Stubborn you were attacking St. Thomas.

What you fail to comprehend (unlike St. Thomas) is that St. Paul lists these two criteria as NECESSARY for salvation but not necessarily SUFFICIENT for salvation ... which is why St. Thomas didn't teach Rewarder God theory but rather the 4-criterion explicit faith requirement.  But St. Thomas, unlike you, must have thought that St. Paul "forgot to mention" them also.

I can give you the benefit of the doubt in that it's quite possible that you were just too stupid to understand the logical implications of your attack against Stubborn.

I do not say anything suffices I simply show what was written and that the other two that were not mentioned as they were not in the Bible verse, Aquinas, Suprema Haec which clarified the issue as much as it could be clarified, and in Fenton who would know whether it was settled or not.  I also proved it was not settled by Alphonsus but you lack the intellectual honesty to grant the point.  But instead resort to underhanded tactics.