Dulles was born in Auburn, New York, the son of John Foster Dulles, the future U.S. Secretary of State (for whom Washington Dulles International Airport is named), and Janet Pomeroy Dulles. His uncle was Director of Central Intelligence Allen Welsh Dulles. Both his great-grandfather John W. Foster and great-uncle Robert Lansing also served as U.S. Secretary of State. His paternal grandfather, Allen Macy Dulles, was a member of the faculty of Auburn Theological Seminary and published in the field of ecclesiology, to which the Catholic Dulles would likewise devote scholarly attention.

He received his primary school education in New York City at the St. Bernard's School and attended secondary schools in Switzerland and The Choate School (now Choate Rosemary Hall) in Wallingford, Connecticut.

Dulles was raised a Presbyteeeeeeerian but had become an agnostic by the time he began college at Harvard in 1936.[2] His religious doubts were diminished during a personally profound moment when he stepped out into a rainy day and saw a tree beginning to flower along the Charles River; after that moment he never again "doubted the existence of an all-good and omnipotent God."[3] He noted how his theism turned toward conversion to Catholicism: "The more I examined, the more I was impressed with the consistency and sublimity of Catholic doctrine."[3] He converted to Catholicism in the fall of 1940.[2][4]

After graduating from Harvard College in 1940, Dulles spent a year and a half in Harvard Law School, where he founded the "St. Benedict Center". (This later became well-known due to the controversial Jesuit priest, Leonard Feeney, S.J.) During World War II, he served in the United States Navy, reaching the rank of Lieutenant. For his liaison work with the French Navy, Dulles was awarded the French Croix de guerre.

Since you hold Nishant and PereJoseph in so high of a regard, why do you fail to learn anything from them?  Why do you look to the boys in upstate New York as teachers?  What credentials do they have to teach on a matters of Faith? (It's not that I hold Nishant and PereJoseph in high regard and I don't the others. What I said was that they understood what I'm talking about. That is all. And by the way, PereJoseph was in the same boat as you till he answered something on this thread, and it let me know that he knew what I was talking about.)

I am not a theologian, I am a layman just like you, Bowler.  The difference between us is that I learn my Faith from those authorized to teach me.  Myrna, SJB and others keep giving you sources approved by the Church, and you keep ignoring them.  I could do the same, but why waste my time?( I am giving all sources from the Church, I am telling you that any BODer that believes that a person can be saved who has no explicit belief  in the Trinity and the Incarnation, 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. This is what you do not understand and I've written it 100 times. Your belief in the 1949 letter with no AAS number is opposed to St. Thomas Aquinas teaching along with the teachings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri  and ALL the Fathers, Saints , and doctors, and the Athanasian Creed. For it teaches that someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.)

If you want to learn about this subject in depth, you should be reading Msgr. Fenton.  His writings can be found all over the web, but most are on the Bellarmine Forum library.  He was a real theologian, who had the training, expertise, and approval from the Church to explain matters of theology.(Why should I read a theologian from the 1950's when I have St. Thomas Aquinas, and ALL the Fathers, Saints and Dcotors to read, all my sources? )  

I have quite often stated my beliefs in this area of "minimum belief" and you have consistently misstated them. What part of the following do you NOT understand?

The four articles is the more common teaching and preferred, yet holding to the two items is not condemned.

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?

You should re-state your question writing out what the four articles are to you.  I don't presume anything anymore with BODers. (besides the other BODers don't know what you are talking about altogether, so you should explain yourself completely for them)

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.  

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?

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.

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 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.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: 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.

I don't believe that and if you weren't so bent on arguing you may have seen that.

The Church has not and did not condemn the more lax view, that's just a fact, not my opinion.

Quote from: SJB

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.

This seems rather clear, doesn't it?

The point is that YOU can't condemn others for holding the lax view until the Church decides, if it ever does decide.

Your point that I put "that belief of yours", is irrelevant to EVERYTHING I wrote. You are rejecting ALL of tradition for your new source of truth "Well, the Church has not condemned it".

Your belief system is no different that JPII's in Ecclesia Dei.

Quote

Ecclesia Dei by JPII

The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth"

Quote from: SJB

Now you're just being ridiculous, bowler. I haven't rejected anything, just stated a fact. Maybe you need to get out of the bowling alley more often.

Of course you reject EVERYTHING, what is left when you reject  St. Thomas Aquinas teaching on BOD, and also 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, AND thus St. Vincent of Lerins?

You are in total denial or you've lost your Catholic sense like JPII. You have not a leg to stand on!