I'm bumping this thread. I'm Nishant. Nishant Xavier is my name. My old account got locked out so I told Matthew and started another.

No Catholic Theologian post Trent has denied the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire. The real debate is on Explicit Faith vs Implicit Faith.

I am firmly in the camp of St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and Fr. Mueller, Msgr. Fenton etc on the need for Explicit Faith.

I don't need to explain or justify myself to you, Ladislaus. You always do this when you run out of arguments, and can't stick to the topic.

I've not attacked Fr. Feeney. You're just misinformed on that point. I specifically said I have no objection to St. Benedict's Centre's doctrinal position.

I specifically attacked the Dimonds, who I consider to hold manifestly heretical opinions both in the open Ecclesia-Vacantism they promote, and in heretically claiming that BOD is "heresy". They are neo-Jansenists and the Doctors fought the Jansenist heresy, when it arose, with untiring efforts.

You're the one doing the devil's work in claiming Dimondite things like "BOD may be objectively heretical" (which St. Benedict's Centre) does not claim, whether you know it or not. I consider St. Benedict's Centre an ally in evangelizing and building up the Church. Neither you nor the Dimonds are real allies of the Church. You also claimed the "Dimonds have done a great service to the Faith". Actually, they've done terrible harm to the Faith.

They've led souls outside the Church, where there is no salvation, and they will answer for it, and for their "Ecclesia-Vacantism" heresy.

I am firmly a Thomist on explicit faith and have defended explicit faith over implicit faith many times. If the debate was on explicit faith, I would be firmly against implicit faith. Just like I am a Thomist on the Molinist issue and have argued against both implicit faith and Molinism many times, whether you've seen it or not. But in obedience to the Church, I don't consider Molinists or implicit faithers to be heretics as the Popes directed.

I suppose some of you would consider me guilty of "ecumenism" because of this article I wrote: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/ It took hours and lots of struggle to research and write it. But I was happy to do so, because I knew God would be pleased, and souls would be benefited. And accordingly, by the Grace of God, many non-Catholic Christians returned home to the Church. What I wrote was in full obedience to the decrees of Florence and that of Pope Pius XII on conducting "ecumenism of return". If I'd just condemned every Orthodox Christian as a "formal schismatic", I doubt even one single Orthodox Christian would have come back. The principles based on which I write, as I've amply proven from many sources, are that taught by Popes, Saints and Doctors.

Also, as was quoted in one of St. Benedict's Centre's article, Fr. Laisney, of the SSPX maintained explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity. SBC said they agreed with that, but claimed the Holy Office Letter didn't agree with it. Well, I agree with the Holy Office Letter, in the sense it was understood by Msgr. Fenton. Both supernatural faith and supernatural contrition are necessary for an efficacious desire, and I hold with Msgr. Fenton, St. Alphonsus etc that explicit Catholic Faith in Holy Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for supernatural and salvific faith. If the debate was on explicit faith vs implicit faith, you'd see me arguing firmly for explicit faith.

As it is, the debate is with the Dimondite denial of BOD and especially of the claim that it is heretical. I've seen the very terrible fruits of Dimondism and the horrible lack of charity it leads to, and the presumptions of its followers in declaring everyone but their "Church of 10" to be heretics, and I'm not at all impressed with it and believe it to be heretical. So I will continue to oppose Dimondism, just as I would Jansenism. I will argue in favor of explicit faith and against implicit faith when that is the topic of debate.

Edit: I also agreed with Arvinger back when I was posting with my old acccount. I'm going to bump one of my old threads on the subject.

Bump.

Matthew...any way to fix the time to modify posts?  Or fix things so that when text is copied and pasted into CI, it automatically comes in smaller?

Dear 2Vermont,
There are plenty of reasons why I can't resize. Sometimes I am unable to do so when I do want to resize whether you believe it or not.  I am not a liar.

In addition, honest people can have honest points of view which is why I love reading the viewpoints of people on CathInfo for the most part.
You have exceeded your honesty by trying now to dictate your preferences in an attempt to place yourself above others in importance.
You can easily skip over any posts or every post if you choose.  Humble yourself this way, or not as you want.
Either way,   I am very certain that I do not care to argue with you further about this subject.

As a sidenote, I rarely downthumb because I prefer to not do so for various reasons.  So, if you receive a downthumb, you can be reasonably assured that it is not me.  I always expect a downthumb when I write here, but that is not so big of a deal that it stops me anyhow.  

Actually my thread was a request not a dictate (and others agreed with me).  You do not wish to honor that request.  Rather than pontificate about humility perhaps it is you who needs to heed that advice.

And I already skip over the long, large font posts.  If someone wants to reach all though, I would think they would do their best to re-size.