CathInfo.com

Concedo.

But it is possible to extend the notion of a BOD beyond catechumen and those with an explicit desire for the sacrament. I would not call that heresy, as the Church hasn't, and indeed some very great and wise Catholics have taught it.

I say you'd be going too far to say that anyone who says that someone who has an implicit desire for the sacrament, with explicit faith in Christ, can be saved is a heretic.

As for me, I have expressed my opinion on this here, and indicated that I believe the desire necessary requires an explicit desire for the sacrament. I also think I have very good reasons for that, but allow that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and respect the opinion of some very great and wise Catholics on that.

DR

Again, if you read St. Alphonsus on the position, he extends it as far as to those with a knowledge of the Incarnation and the Trinity. That's it. And it's total speculation, hence why THEOLOGIANS are discussing it. Their job is to speculate on these matters, but they cannot define them. If someone poses the question: what if a catechumen dies right before Baptism, will they be saved? Then you have the theologians proposing that there's a possibility that their desire could justify them and that they go to Purgatory; but this in NO WAY is a position taught by the Church herself, but the well-informed OPINION of a theologian. You're free to accept or reject it provided it does not deny a dogma, e.g. teach heresy, or does not contradict a later definition (such as the IC and St. Thomas, he was simply wrong).

But this is leagues away from believing that anyone can be saved by this desire. If you look at what anti-EENS BOD adherents teach, they explicitly state Jєωs, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc etc could be saved by this desire. Which is heresy.

Fr. Denis Fahey explicitly stated that the Jew who rejects Christ could be saved: "It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul," That is blatant heresy, and far different than what Ss. Alphonsus or Aquinas or Bellarmine propose.

Agreed.  Unfortunately the notion of "implicit BoD" has been morphed into being used synonymously with "implicit faith" ... and I do hold Rewarder God theory to be objectively heretical even if not condemned yet with the note of heresy by the Church.  In recent years, some, like Jorge Begoglio, have taken it even a step further, alleging that even atheists may be saved.

I believe the farthest that "implicit" can be taken would be --

EXPLICIT:  I intend to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
IMPLICIT:  I intend to become a Catholic .. with the implicit intention to be baptized.

This has been stretched into multiple degrees of separation from explicit however, to where a lot of people interpret it as --

I am a good guy, which implicitly contains wanting to do good, which implicitly contains wanting to do the will of God, which implicitly contains wanting to become a Catholic, which implicitly contains wanting to be baptized.

Yes, and this is the same mentality that many priests and bishops had at Fr. Feeney's time, which is why he was "condemned" by that heretic Cardinal Cushing, when he was right in defending the EENS dogma. The universal salvation of the Novus Ordo didn't come from nowhere.

I don't believe people who hold to the Liguori/Aquinas BOD are heretics, but I do think they're in error for reasons already expressed. And the Church has never explicitly condemned BOD. BUT if you're going around saying that you think people are saved because they might have a passing desire for baptism but do nothing to adhere to the Church and remain in their false religion or position, then yes, I believe that is heresy.

But this is leagues away from believing that anyone can be saved by this desire. If you look at what anti-EENS BOD adherents teach, they explicitly state Jєωs, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc etc could be saved by this desire. Which is heresy.

Fr. Denis Fahey explicitly stated that the Jєω who rejects Christ could be saved: "It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul," That is blatant heresy, and far different than what Ss. Alphonsus or Aquinas or Bellarmine propose.

Indeed, claiming that infidels can be saved cannot be excused of explicit rejection of EENS dogma.  That's how deep the rot had spread, that someone like a Fr. Fahey would verbatim contradict a dogmatic definition, which states in no uncertain terms that Jews CANNOT be saved but will go to hell unless they are first joined to the Church.

And it has gotten to the point that many Trads assert this heretical verbatim denial of EENS dogma as the TEACHING OF THE CHURCH and attack even those who assert simply that infidels cannot be saved as at least savoring of heresy (I've heard that from a couple "Trad" bishops).

What mental gymnastics have to be done, how many layers of distinctions applied, to make it so that "what the Church really meant by Jews cannot be saved is that Jews can be saved."  Satan is laughing about this diabolical inversion and perversion of Catholic dogma.

Father Feeney was spot on in identifying that this heresy was at the core of the rot working its way into the Church.  This is in fact at the very core of ALL the Vatican II errors, and the new Vatican II ecclesiology.  And yet Archbishop Lefebvre failed to identity this core problem, as have 99% of Trad bishops and clergy.

If someone believes that non-Catholics can be saved, then one must accept V2 ecclesiology (and all the errors that flow from it).

MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church.
MINOR:  Heretics, schismatics, Jews , other infidels can be saved.
CONCLUSION:  Heretics, schismatics, Jews, other infidels can be inside the Church.

So the Conclusion is V2 ecclesiology in a nutshell, that the Church consists not only of Catholics (its subsistent core), but also extends to a variety of heretics, schismatics, Jews, and other infidels who, while materially separated from this subsistent core of the Church are nevertheless formally within the Church.