I don't think you are understanding the position. They person you are describing is not denying these truths, but accepts them implicitly, meaning that he accepts all revealed truths as they become known to him explicitly.
But that's wordsmithing around the issue again. What's in question is whether these truths must be believed EXPLICITLY.
It NEVER entered into the mind of ANY Church Father that these truths could be believed implicitly, so in interpreting away the Athanasian Creed to mean that no one can be saved who doesn't (at least implicitly) believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation is not reading it "in the same sense"
in eodem sensu in which those who wrote it understood it.
You guys always accuse US of "interpreting". It's mind-boggling.
You guys are the ones who interpreted EENS into the opposite of EENS, having the hubris to claim that we are heretical for saying that only Catholic can be saved. It's diabolical.
You always demand "proof" from us.
I demand proof, a citation from someone who was involved in the writing of the Athanasian Creed or at least alive at that time which demonstrates the
sensus of the passage that's consistent with your explaining away of it. Otherwise, it must be understood in exactly as it was written. You might claim that we have to prove that the text means what it literally says, but the burden of proof is ON YOU because we accept it as it's literally written and it is YOU who claim that it doesn't mean what it actually says.