The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

Oh pls. You obviously have never read this: "161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end." http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/161.htm

Believing in Jesus is necessary for attaining Salvation. It's that simple. If Baptism is out of reach, one can make an act of Contrition. When Baptism is within reach, one is strictly commanded by Christ to do all in one's power to receive it: "1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (CCC 1257).

You don't understand the one or two passages you try to wrest out of context. That is speaking of hypothetical cases like the proverbial virtuous pagan on a native pagan island who has not yet heard the Gospel of Christ. They are bound to serve God according to their Conscience. They are not bound to more than that, until they have heard the Gospel. Even Christ said: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (John 9:41)

You should read the incidents in Church History about those proverbial virtuous pagans. I recall one of them well: Priests who were laboring in distant mission fields to bring souls to Baptism and Salvation came upon a native tribe: This tribe already worshipped whom they called "The Great Spirit". The Priests were amazed at the simple faith of these simple men. The people gave thanks, "that the Great Spirit" had sent "Black Robes" (by which they meant, Christian Priests), to show them the way to Salvation. The Priests marveled and gave them Baptism, and taught them faith in Christ, and contrasted their piety, humility, simplicity and nobility to the proud godlessness that Atheism and such related opinions lead to.

St. Thomas is not authoritative as to what Catholic Teaching is? According to whom? He is the Church's Angelic Doctor and Model Theologian. You should read what Pope Leo XIII says in praise of him and Scholastic Theology in general: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/...atris.html




Yeah, sure. The Summa Theologica, which the Catholic Church placed on the Altar in the Council of Trent, next to Sacred Scripture, and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, is not authoritative in the Catholic Church. Next.
Just what are you arguing for anyway, Angrboda? That there is no distinction between mortal sin, and venial sin, and temporal punishment for sin? I doubt you understand these technical matters of Theology, so your false accusation is unwarranted. I considered being a Priest for a certain time before I decided to become an Investment Banker. If if were not in IB, I would be a Priest.
Anyway, I quoted the Catechism establishing the same point. The Catechism certainly is authoritative and it explains the matter clearly enough.
GN, I came to personal faith in Christ after I experienced His Love in my heart after Holy Communion. I knew God exists and was real, and that His Love was wonderful, even apart from any philosophy. Dr. Craig came to faith in a similar way. Then later on, we discovered Theological Arguments, with what even Dr. Craig calls "A Great Tradition", referring to those like Augustine and Thomas. Read what Pope Leo XIII said about Scholastic Theology in general. The Scholastic/Medieval Doctors of Theology were always accustomed to use Reason in Theological Disputations.

I don't give a shit about Aquinas, I don't give a shit about Pope Leo. 
Tell me what document, dogma or Papal Proclamation you are talking about, that proclaims Aquinas authoritative on all matters ? 
Hint :Encyclicals are not infallible.
"Encyclicals are not necessarily “infallible” statements—although they can be if the pope wants to go through that process."
Take your time.