I understand as the Church understands and you do not.

But Pope Pius IX infallibly decreed that we must understand dogma as has once been declared - not only that, he also said there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Why do you refuse to accept this?

I understand as the Church understands and you do not.

Obviously you don't. You keep preaching the sacrament is optional, which the Church anathematizes.  

The Church says to let you be anathema so I am not trying to change that about about you, I am only wondering what goes on in your mind that makes you resist understanding it as declared.

But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:

Again running for cover behind BoD but ignoring St. Thomas' teaching regarding explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.

Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity:

But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:
Quote:

Quote

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

If Aquinas posted that here he would be called all the names I'm called by those who more or less embrace the Feeneyite novelty.  

Aquinas does not teach the possibility of salvation without the Catholic faith. When speaking about BoD and necessity to believe in God, it refers to God in the Incarnation and the Trinity, otherwise it would be a contradiction to his teaching about the necessity of explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity for salvation. St. Thomas does not teach the Rewarder God heresy which you try to read into his text by ripping it out of the wider context of his teachings.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity:

But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:
Quote:

Quote

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

If Aquinas posted that here he would be called all the names I'm called by those who more or less embrace the Feeneyite novelty.  

Aquinas does not teach the possibility of salvation without the Catholic faith. When speaking about BoD and necessity to believe in God, it refers to God in the Incarnation and the Trinity, otherwise it would be a contradiction to his teaching about the necessity of explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity for salvation. St. Thomas does not teach the Rewarder God heresy which you try to read into his text by ripping it out of the wider context of his teachings.

What he taught is there in black and white.  Do with it what you will.  

What he taught is there in black and white.  Do with it what you will.  

No, it's you who does whatever you will to any particular quote (whether it be a dogmatic definition or a lesser theological treatise).

I do not pretend to solve the issue on whether an explicit supernatural Faith based upon God revealing is intrinsically necessary under all circuмstances for all individuals in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity in order for salvation within the Church to be possible or not.  

You don't have to solve that, since it has already been solved dogmatically, once and for all:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
(...)
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man." (Athanasian Creed)

I merely show why the most reliable theologians believed the issue to be unsettled as shown by the teachings of the Popes and writings approved by Popes directly addressing the issue of BOD

BoD has nothing to do with that, to receive BoD one must believe in Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.

We can simply accept what the Church has defined on the matter  

Well said! The Church has dogmatically defined in the Athanasian Creed that no one can be saved without faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation.


As was pointed out numerous times before, the fact that some theologians undermined EENS paved way to Vatican II apostasy. Even Fenton himself recognized that many theologian reduced EENS to the necessity of precept, or to claim that Church is merely "ordinary means of salvation" (in light of such teaching Vatican II makes perfect sense).

The Meaning of the Church's Necessity for Salvation[/i], 1951] An astonishingly large number of theologians explain that the formula extra ecclesiam nulla salus in itself signifies that the Church is requisite for salvation with the necessity of precept, even thought their own teaching on the Church’s necessity for salvation takes cognizance of a real necessity of means. Egger, Brunsmann, and Van Noort, among others, claim that historically the axiom that there is no salvation outside the Church has reference to the necessity of precept. [42] Hurter, Ottiger, Schouppe, Casanova, and Orazio Mazzella all insist upon the necessity of precept, and despite the comparative complexity of his explanation, Pesch centers his teaching on this thesis around the same notion of the necessity of precept. [43] Herrmann, Dorsch, Herve, and Calcagno all claim this as the meaning of the axiom, although they give a far stricter interpretation of the thesis itself. [44] Marengo interprets the axiom as signifying that those who belong in no way to the Church, or who do not belong to the body of the Church through their own fault, cannot be saved. [45] Michelitsch combines this teaching on the necessity of precept with the explanation that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation, [46] and the teaching of Bartmann on this thesis can be reduced to the same type of explanation. [47]

So much about relying on theologians' opinions over the dogmatic decrees. The latter ones teach that no one can be saved without faith in Trinity and the Incarnation (see Athanasian Creed).