Quote from: SJB

The nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church is this: There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, while a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) the existence of a single God,
(ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) the triune nature of God and
(iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.

A minority of more recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred.  

Quote from: SJB

You may hold that explicit belief in the four articles mentioned is required, but holding only to the two isn't condemned.

Do you admit to the bolded part, bowler?

Your point is that your belief in the first two articles as sufficient for salvation has not been condemned, so shut up Bowler.

My point is that that belief of yours is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also opposed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri  and ALL the Fathers, Saints , Doctors, and the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Trent, the catechism of Trent, all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, and all the catechism till the 20th century.  In other words it is not supported by anything. You are throwing out ALL the sources of tradition and replacing it with some novel method of finding truth "Well it is not condemned by the Church" (or maybe the 1949 letter with no AAS number or references to any
Fathers, Saints , Doctors, Creeds, councils)

"Well, it is not condemned by the Church", does not exist in the Church's methodology of finding truth. Here is St. Vincent of Lerins , Father of the Church. ( I don't see your method mentioned):

Quote

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ] <p>
[Author - Vincent shows himself also as a man of such remarkable perception that there is a certain timelessness to his writing. What he has to say of preserving the faith and of keeping to the rule of faith fits any period and all times, and might have been written yesterday.  

Vincent develops the notion that our faith is based on the authority of divine Law, which must be understood and interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. And this Tradition, if it need be discovered, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est: what has been believed in the Church everywhere, always, and by all.  Vincent’s doctrinal principle does not exclude progress and development; but it does exclude change. For Vincent, progress is a developmental growth of doctrine in its own sphere; change, however, implies a transformation into something different.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS says: <p>

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.  I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.  [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic.  That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement.  And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.

To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.

He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.

"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition;  a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing.  O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.

But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion.  The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.

We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers,   not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.<p>

1.   This is the famous line: In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

III. Infidels, to whom the faith was never preached, are not left without sufficient grace to secure the salvation of their souls. Luther does not hesitate to sentence all infidels Gentiles, Turks, and Jews to eternal hell-fire; and Jansenius is not much more lenient. But the Catholic Church condemned their doctrines. Thus Alexander VIII condemned the proposition: "Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind, receive no influence what- ever from Christ; hence their will is entirely bare and unarmed, and entirely without sufficient grace " (see also the propositions 26, 27, and 29, condemned by Clement XI.). Pius IX. sums up the teaching of the Church on this point in his Encyclical of August 10, 1863, to the Italian bishops: "It is known to us and to you that they who labour under invincible ignorance of our holy religion, and yet diligently keep the natural law and its precepts written by God in the hearts of all, and are ready to obey God and to lead an honest and righteous life, are enabled by the power of Divine light and grace to obtain eternal life. For God, who plainly beholds, examines and knows the minds and hearts, the thoughts and habits of all, in His sovereign goodness and clemency will not allow that any one suffer eternal punishment who is without the guilt of a wilful sin." The teaching of the Popes is not less in accordance with Scripture than with reason. Christ is the Light of the world that enlightens "all men," and God wills that "all men come into the knowledge of truth" (i Tim. ii. 4). See §45.

The ways by which grace reaches the soul of the infidel are known to God alone. St. Thomas (De Veritate, q. 14, a.11, ad. 1) is certain that the untutored savage, who follows the dictates of his conscience, receives from God, either by an internal revelation or an external messenger, the faith necessary to his salvation. As we live in the supernatural order, we may well hold with Ripalda that every effort to do good proceeding from human nature is accompanied and assisted by some supernatural grace, and thus works for salvation.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Scheeben

III. Infidels, to whom the faith was never preached, are not left without sufficient grace to secure the salvation of their souls.

Is it possible that we could lead such souls into mortal sin by preaching the Gospel to them?

Can any BODer on CI see that there is not much difference between the people who follow St. Augustine, which you detractingly call Feeneyites, and the teaching of St. Thomas?

The "feeneyites," are those who hold the error that only defined dogmas must be held by Catholics. You mistakenly make the connection to St. Augustine.

the only difference between St. Thomas and St. Augustine... is that St. Thomas believed that God would send a preacher to teach the faith or internally enlighten the person of the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity, while St. Augustine believed the same, except that God would also enlighten the person to the fact that he needed to be baptized (easy to do versus teaching about the Trinity & Christ), and have the preacher baptize him.

The "feeneyites," are those who hold the error that only defined dogmas must be held by Catholics. You mistakenly make the connection to St. Augustine.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB

The "feeneyites," are those who hold the error that only defined dogmas must be held by Catholics. You mistakenly make the connection to St. Augustine.

No, you are confused, I mean really confused. Feeneyites are those who hold it to be error if and when anyone's teachings contradict defined dogma.
 
Cushingites OTOH are those who hold to the error that dogmas do not mean what they say because they need to be interpreted and especially that the meanings of the sacred dogmas  need explanations with the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding - which of course, as we all know, has been condemned by V1.

No, the issue is what assent you give to teachings you consider as not "defined dogma." Aside from a definition (interpreted by you, of course) there are no other beliefs that must be held by Catholics.