Plus you're an arrogant bastard who refuses to admit he's wrong about anything, not even the most trivial matter, not even to own up to a simple misstatement.

Just to set the record straight I never claimed the Church teaches that one can be saved by implicit Faith which would be a heresy.  I hope that is settled now.  

No, it's not settled.  So implicit faith is a heresy despite the fact that you have stated otherwise?  How do you define implicit faith?

Baptism of Desire and Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent,
the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. Council of Trent 1545-1563

Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
   "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

As we can see, the first part of Canon 4 decrees the necessity of the sacraments for salvation: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous....let him be anathema."

Keeping in mind that a BOD is not a sacrament, Trent decrees that a BOD, since it is no sacrament at all, can never save anyone. Trent also decrees if anyone shall say it can, we are to let them be anathema.

Onto the second part of Canon 4, we learn the sacraments or the desire for the sacraments can put us in the state of justification - and whoever says otherwise, is anathema.  
...and [if anyone shall say] that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone, men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

So why does rabid BODer LoT keep anathematizing himself spamming the internet with salvation via a BOD which is not a sacrament? Can anyone answer why one who says he loves the truth keeps anathematizing himself? .....Anyone? Can LoT himself or can anyone answer this question?

Don't get me wrong, I would love to make a perfect act of contrition and be in heaven, or upon the words of absolution from the priest in the confessional be rewarded heaven, or upon having some desire for the sacrament find myself in heaven. Who wouldn't?

I think it's safe to say that whoever wouldn't has something seriously wrong with them. The thing is, Holy Mother the Church decreed something more substantial is necessary. That something is the actual reception of the sacrament, as decreed in the first part of Canon 4.

All you need to do is read it as it is written to understand that a BOD, that is, no sacrament at all, cannot save anyone.

So why is it that you keep spamming the internet with salvation via NSAA when Trent decrees without them there can be no salvation?

Do you purposely anathematize yourself or do you simply not care?

Why is it that you do not answer the clear question with an actual answer?

Trent decrees: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous....let him be anathema."

A BOD is not a sacrament.

Do you purposely anathematize yourself or do you simply not care?

Sorry, but the truth for those who love the truth is that you take your own opinion over Trent.

Implicit faith would be a desire to have the faith without actually having it.  

In a sense, IMO, it is not even a legitimate term in the sense that "implicit faith" is no faith at all.  You either have the faith or you do not.  

Implicit faith would be a desire to have the faith without actually having it.  

In a sense, IMO, it is not even a legitimate term in the sense that "implicit faith" is no faith at all.  You either have the faith or you do not.  

That's not what anyone here is talking about.  And your definition simply doesn't even make sense.  What you mean is faith of desire.  So you are correct that implicit faith is not a legitimate description for what you mean.

That is NOT what anyone here has accused you of promoting.  I defined how everyone else means implicit faith several posts ago, but you ignored that post.  Implicit faith is shorthand for explicit faith in Rewarder God (with implicit faith in the supernatural revealed truths such as the Holy Trinity and Incarnation).