It is a term someone else came up with and I had to address the term as they stated it as they falsely accused me of believing this when it is a term I have never used.

Nonsense.  You've been around here long enough to know what everyone means by that term.  Nobody accused you of believing in that non-existent notion you defined.  You have never used the term, but regarding the substance of what they accuse you, you stand guilty as charged.  Your having redefined the term to suit your own purposes means nothing.  As I mentioned, I know of NO pre-V2 theologians who did not believe that someone had to at least believe explicitly in Rewarder God in order to have faith.

THE INSUPERABLE PROBLEM FOR ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’

Do you see the problem for baptism of desire?

 The Council of Trent dogmatically teaches (based on Scripture and apostolic Tradition) that one cannot even be put into a state of grace without the rebirth in Christ, and the rebirth in Christ removes everything: the guilt of sin and the temporal punishment due to sin.
 But according to the very definition of ‘baptism of desire’ supplied by its most celebrated defenders, and consistently explained by theologians in the 20th century who taught it, it doesn’t provide the grace of rebirth because it doesn’t take away the temporal punishment due to sin.
 Baptism of desire is therefore infallibly false. It must be rejected. It’s a false theory of man. It denies Catholic and scriptural teaching on the absolute necessity of being born again to be saved. That’s why the Church never taught it. When people receive doctrines from God, as infallibly taught by the Church, those doctrines are true and consistent. However, when a theological view is the product of the opinions and speculations of men, as ‘baptism of desire’ was, it will have flaws and inconsistencies. In the case of baptism of desire, which is merely a doctrine of men, not a doctrine of the Church or of God, there is a huge, massive, gaping hole at the heart of the theory. It is the one we have just exposed.

 For the idea of ‘baptism of desire’ to even begin to be in any way consistent with Catholic teaching, it would have to posit that baptism of desire grants the grace of Baptism and rebirth. But it doesn’t teach that, as the explanation of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and others on the matter proves. God allowed the false idea of baptism of desire to contain this massive problem and inconsistency at its core so that people could eventually see it for what it is: a false doctrine. The facts we’ve considered prove that the theory of baptism of desire is over. It’s false.

You can find the full text in my thread ,,
"The Death Noll of Baptism of Desire/Blood

Or go to the Original by Peter Diomond, at MHFM.com under , Articles,
"The Best Refutation Against Baptism of Desire"



 For the idea of ‘baptism of desire’ to even begin to be in any way consistent with Catholic teaching, it would have to posit that baptism of desire grants the grace of Baptism and rebirth. But it doesn’t teach that, as the explanation of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and others on the matter proves. God allowed the false idea of baptism of desire to contain this massive problem and inconsistency at its core so that people could eventually see it for what it is: a false doctrine. The facts we’ve considered prove that the theory of baptism of desire is over. It’s false.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I don't read all your nonsense I merely post the truth.  Show me in some official teaching where the term "implicit faith" is used in any sense whatsoever.  Go away and keep looking and don't come back until you find it.

You are either a pathological liar or else schizophrenic. Cut to the chase:

It is really very simple, all that a BODer has to say is that they believe in explicit baptism of desire as taught by St. Thomas, and they reject the teaching that  a non-believer in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity can be saved.

It is as simple as that. Yet, you will never answer that.

One must have a supernatural Faith for salvation to be possible.  That is that must actually have it not merely desire it.  There is no such thing as "implicit Faith" which is a term I have not read in any theology book.