Anyone who reads this thread - its docuмented proof and its irrefutable record - can see for himself or for herself that Last Tradhican is a shameless liar and a vicious slanderer for what he wrote in the Rev. Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson thread.
I demand a public apology and complete retraction from him, if he wants to prove he is not a liar and a slanderer as he is.
I think he's basing his statement on the fact that for a while you were defeding the implicit faith position as tenable because St. Alphonsus had referred to it as probable. St. Alphonsus was wrong. It's not the least bit probable. Holy Office condemned the position. Prior to that explicit faith had been taught universally, always and everywhere, from the beginnings of the Church, for 1500 years. If that isn't a teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing as a teaching of OUM. There's also a little-known passage in Vatican I which teaches that the object of supernatural faith is something that can ONLY be known by Revelation. Rewarder God CAN (and should) be known through natural reason.
So, in any case, there was a time that you took such a strong anti-Feeneyite position that it definitely made it look like you were promoting implicit faith, and that caused the confusion.
But in general, I agree that you hold the explicit faith position ... with which I have no problem. My issues with Baptism of Desire were never primarily with a Thomistic / Bellarminite BoD, but rather with the assault on the requirements for explicit faith that invariably came with it. 99% of BoD formations are Pelagian and also reject Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
I personally don't believe that there is such a thing as a Baptism of Desire that replaces the Sacrament of Baptism. I believe in a Baptism of Desire (as per St. Ambrose) that can "wash" or remit the temporal punishment due to sin, but it cannot result in the person being "crowned" (the effect of the Baptismal character). That crowning / marking is necessary to enter into the Kingdom (the Beatific Vision). I hold as a personal opinion that an adult can by virtue of this BoD have the natural/temporal punishment due to sin partially or wholly remitted and therefore theoretically end up in a Limbo or near-Limbo state. But it does not suffice for salvation, the Beatific Vision, entry into the Kingdom. People have to realize that this is a SUPER-natural state that is owed to no one and is not even within normal human capability (the reason St. Thomas gives for why infants in Limbo suffer no pain of loss).