CathInfo.com

SJ is like all BODers who cannot acknowledge the obvious contradictions between Trent and the catechisms/what some of the Fathers taught. I think it goes back to what I said re preconceived ideas. It's amazing how that works so well, it is actually blinding.

1. God exists.
2. God “is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
3. The Holy Trinity.
4. The Incarnation.

He says explicit belief in the first two is certainly necessary, while explicit belief in the last two is necessary according to the more common and more probable opinion, but he explains why the contrary opinion is “also quite probable.”

And I strongly disagree with St. Alphonsus that Rewarder God theory is probable.  He only held that out of respect for De Lugo, with whom he was friends.  Simple fact of the matter is that for the first 1500 years of Church history, there was unanimous dogmatic consensus that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation.  If that wasn't a dogmatic teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing.  Rewarder God theory was invented to explain the plight of those in the recently-discovered new world, based on emotional reasoning such as was expressed by Father Cekada (that he can't possibly come to accept that all thoe people were lost).  There's no actual theological foundation for it; it's rooted entirely in emotional considerations.  There's nothing probable about that opinion.

In fact, the Holy Office explicitly rejected Rewarder God theory, stating that it was necessary by necessity of means to believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.  I'll assume that St. Alphonsus was not aware of that ruling from the Holy Office.