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

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.

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.

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 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.

I find it even harder with my mother, but she's still alive, so I continue to pray daily for her conversion before her death...that she explicitly request baptism to me [because quite honestly that's the only way I see it happening given the people around her].

Yes, a BOD took it's natural course and many believe this scan below, I saved it from years ago when arguing with Myrna.....

Indeed, there's no dogma that no one is saved except BY the Church; it reads that no one is saved OUTSIDE the Church

Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.

The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.



http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/members.htm

I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved . . . 

But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities... Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto).

Quotes from Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire - Conlon, Christopher P_.pdf, pp. 52-54

https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Conlon,%20Christopher%20P_/Sources%20of%20Baptism%20of%20Blood%20&%20Baptism%20of%20Desire%20(7021)/Sources%20of%20Baptism%20of%20Blood%20&%20Baptism%20of%20D%20-%20Conlon,%20Christopher%20P_.pdf