CathInfo.com

In the matter of explicit and implicit faith in Christ, the Church allows Her theologians, and also Her other children who learn about these matters, to advance arguments and proofs in favor of their theological perspective, to convince others of the truth of one position over the other, so long as they do not call those who disagree heretics.

It is the same, for example, with Thomism and Molinism (on the controversies on free will and grace). Thomists think their position is better supported by the Second Council of Orange and that of Trent, as well as Scripture, Tradition and theological reason, and are entirely free to argue the same, in favor of their cause. But they are not free to call the Molinists heretics, because the Church has permitted Molinism. The same should be our rule here.

But in doing this, Catholics are obliged to respect those who are teachers of the faith, to revere and accept universal Catechisms and other works pertaining to the ordinary magisterium of the Church, must not discard the universal consensus of theologians regarding truths taught by the Magisterium etc. Sacred theology is not a private enterprise where any man believes and teaches whatever he likes, with no regard for what other theologians teach, especially when these are approved and authorized by the Church for use in Her seminaries etc.

In order for us to know a supernatural truth with the certainty of faith, our formal motive must have the certainty of faith

True, but what you are calling the formal motive of faith for the Protestant is the authority of Scripture. Now, is it really necessary that private interpretation of Scripture in itself be capable as a practical rule of engendering infallible certitude (we are agreed that, as such, it is not), or is it sufficient that Scripture itself contain truths of infallible certainty?

I would say, if we follow the Doctors, it seems clear that the latter suffices, when the person in question is invincibly ignorant of the true rule of Faith. (i.e. He is invincibly ignorant that Scripture tells him to be subject to the Church, but is internally willing to be subject to everything Scripture says, and so in God's eyes is willing to be subject to the Church)

I enlisted the two conditions necessary and sufficient to make an act of faith, Ladislaus, if you think more are required, can you enlist conditions necessary and sufficient for the same? I don't think you will be able to do that, because in the case of invincible ignorance of the rule of Faith, mistaking the authority of Scripture as the "formal motive of faith" suffices to make an act of faith.

So, which nominal Protestants are heretics, and which are not Protestants, but really Christians in good faith? It is only if a man is unwilling to believe all that is contained in what is inculpably recognized as his "formal motive of faith", then he becomes a heretic.

Of such a man, St. Augustine says,

"Tell us straight out that you do not believe in the Gospel of Christ; for you believe what you want in the Gospel and disbelieve what you want. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel."

Now, the man who is such is indeed a heretic.

You have no argument from me that the rule of faith for the Protestant is inherently defective. Indeed, it is, which is why the person in good faith who is sufficiently instructed on this, will see that Christianity is impossible without a visible Church, and become Catholic.

We've seen that this view is supported by many authorities, ancient and modern, I will show more specifically that (1) Authority of Scripture can suffice for a formal motive of faith, in one invincibly ignorant of what is truly such (2) Material heresy is possible in the adherents of a heretical sect, in the next post

Please explain also, if it is as you say, how it is possible that the authorities are of a different mind on this question than you. Remember there is Canon Law and Catechisms to account for, and more in fact, as I will come to.

The minority view was never condemned because they were more than bloggers like you, stubborn or bowler.  You do not believe the theologians who teach the view and all the Saints and doctors who admit it is a possible view are aware of the fact that the existence of God can be arrived at by reason alone?  Give them some credit.  

So everyone believes that God exists does so through natural deduction in the way Thomas presents.  TV and all the other nonsense does not prevent them from thinking on these things and no one at all believes in God because of divine revelation apart from deductions they make on their own through natural reason. Can you show me where VI teaches this?  Can you show where anyone teaches this?

Explain to me why the Church never condemned the view that only the two beliefs are necessary?  Again, like most anti-boders you put yourself above the Church.  

If the non-condemned alternate view is so condemnable why has the Church never condemned it?

Because it is not Ladislaus.  

(iii) Material heresy is possible in the adherents of separated sects.

I'll come back to a fuller discussion, Nishant, but here is where I disagree.  I'll get into more detail when I have more time.