Ladislaus said:

Yeah, but Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI uphold the "invincible ignorance baptism of desire" theology that UNDERLIES religious liberty.

You hear that, LoT?  Now it is in stereo, not mono.
 

The heresy that truth and error have equal rights is so much less of a heresy than saying a Jєω could be saved by invincible ignorance.  This is just comical.  We're supposed to be sedevacantists because of one line saying that people have a right to religious liberty?  There is so much more that is objectionable in Vatican II but the sedes don't see it because they are already infected with the same liberalism.

Oh, irony of ironies!  

Yeah, but Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI uphold the "invincible ignorance baptism of desire" theology that UNDERLIES religious liberty.

Explain the correlation because the mere force of the assertion only demonstrates what exists in your mind.  It is rather built upon a dubious philosophical foundation coupled with an illicit inference from the internal forum to the external which perverts the notion of law and ultimately the relation of the state to the Church.  It has nothing to do with implicit faith which is a theoretical determination of the minimum object of belief in order to meet the basic prerequisite for salvation.  St. Thomas himself spoke of an implicit faith or an implicit desire.  I think you're on a hunt for a red herring.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yeah, but Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI uphold the "invincible ignorance baptism of desire" theology that UNDERLIES religious liberty.

Explain the correlation because the mere force of the assertion only demonstrates what exists in your mind.

I already have, on numerous occasions.  No one has actually addressed the logic of these posts, but "they" merely issue pseudointellectual edicts, platitudes, or statements of principle which may or may not even apply to the topic at hand, such as:

It is rather built upon a dubious philosophical foundation coupled with an illicit inference from the internal forum to the external which perverts the notion of law and ultimately the relation of the state to the Church.

Instead of making these abstract platitudinous quips, you may wish to address the point directly (every once in a blue moon).

According to the false implicit invincible ignorance baptism of desire, people please God and save their souls by faithfully following their consciences (even in error); the criterion for salvation moves from the objective to the subjective.

People have an objective right to please God and to save their souls.

Ergo, people have an objective right to follow their consciences (even in error).

If the Church or state were in any way to impede the following of their conscienes, they might in fact be compelling people to displease God and lose their souls.

So a certain Protestant group feels that they must go door to door trying to convert people in order for them to be doing the will of God.  And the state bans their activity.  So these Protestants, out of fear, stop doing what they believe God wants them to do.  Because they stopped following their consciences, they lose their souls (because, after all, we are saved or lost depending upon how faithfully we follow our consciences and our own lights).

St. Thomas himself spoke of an implicit faith or an implicit desire.

NOT in the manner defined by the invincible ignorance baptism of desire proponents, but in the sense that given the minimum material requirements for belief (Holy Trinity and Incarnation) and the proper formal motive of faith (the authority of God revealing as proposed by the Church), the rest can be believed implicitly by virtue of having the formal motive of faith, i.e. by accepting the teaching authority of the Church.  St. Thomas was NOT talking about the Aztec priest saving his soul by faithfully carrying out his perceived duty of slashing hearts out of live victims.

It's funny how you actually presuppose and rely upon the same illicit inference in order to make your point.  And subjectively it is true that the State has no authority to coerce the conscience of a man since the State and its law pertain only to external actions.  And it is a principle of moral theology that an erring conscience binds at least for a time.  At any rate, you are mixing and matching all kinds of disparate points in order to make your own tortured conclusion.  Hey, you can believe whatever you want and think unrelated things are really related, I'm just pointing out that you don't need to make these silly, untenable correlations to be a traditional catholic.

So I take it that you accept Dignitatis Humanae?  If you actually read DH, it's NOT talking about free will and freedom of conscience, but the right to publicly follow your conscience, promote your errors, publish them, and even prosletyze to error.

Again, if you believe in EENS, then promoting error is tantamount to attempted murder (of the soul) and has absolutely no business being granted the status of "right" by the state.  If you don't believe in EENS, but believe rather that people save their souls by following even erroneous consciences, then there's no harm done in the propagation of error.  That's why many of the Fathers at V2 wanted to change the wording from making this a "right" to a principle of "tolerance", which involves prudential considerations (where certain suppressions could in fact do more harm than good) rather than acknowledgment of an objective positive "right".

Caminus, any future ad hominem attacks and insults will simply be ignored.  I addressed above the only semblance of an argument that you actually made in your previous post.  Going forward, I will not even adress those if they're laced or even so much as tained with implied insults and adhominems--which in your case I'm afraid probably means effectively putting you on ignore.