…I just want to have proof one must explicitly hold things that can only be made known by divine revelation to be saved to use against Cushingites…
Please elaborate in more detail. If I understand you correctly, you want proof that explicit faith in divine revelation (i.e being at least a Catechumen) is necessary for salvation?Yes
In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.
And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
[...] infused at once, faith, hope, and charity [...]
[...]
This faith, Catechumens beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism;
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
This was the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers for the first 1500 years of Church history and is taught in the Athanasian Creed. If this wasn’t a teaching of the OUM, then there’s no such thing. I started a thread quoting all the Church Fathers on the subject.Could you send that part of the Vatican Council? I would also like condemnation from the Holy Office. This guy in a chat room was claiming that invincible ignorance is the constant teaching of the Church and acted like you must hold it in light of the condemnation of the errors of Du Bay and even claimed he taught one couldn't have perfect charity without baptism despite him explicitly teaching one could.
Rewarder God theory was invented out of thin air by a Franciscan and some Jesuit from emotional considerations. It was then condemned by the Holy Office.
Finally, in a little known passage of Vatican I, the Council teaches that supernatural faith requires an object that can only be known through Revelation, which destroys Rewarder God theory once and for all.
Could you send that part of the Vatican Council? I would also like condemnation from the Holy Office. This guy in a chat room was claiming that invincible ignorance is the constant teaching of the Church and acted like you must hold it in light of the condemnation of the errors of Du Bay and even claimed he taught one couldn't have perfect charity without baptism despite him explicitly teaching one could.