I don't wish for this to become another Cushingite vs Feeneyite debate thread but I just want to have proof one must explicitly hold things that can only be made known by divine revelation to be saved to use against Cushingites. Please post what proof you have thanks.

Please elaborate in more detail. If I understand you correctly, you want proof that explicit faith in divine revelation (i.e being at least a Catechumen) is necessary for salvation?

Yes

The faith is infused when receiving the sacrament of baptism;

[...] infused at once, faith, hope, and charity [...]

[...]
This faith, Catechumens beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism;

It's in the Rituale. The candidate is asked what he begs of the Church, and he answers: "The Faith!"

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm

St Thomas Aquinas:

…the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons. The reason of this is that before the state of sin, man believed, explicitly in Christ's Incarnation, in so far as it was intended for the consummation of glory, but not as it was intended to deliver man from sin by the Passion and Resurrection, since man had no foreknowledge of his future sin. He does, however, seem to have had foreknowledge of the Incarnation of Christ, from the fact that he said (Genesis 2:24): "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife," of which the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32) that "this is a great sacrament . . . in Christ and the Church," and it is incredible that the first man was ignorant about this sacrament.

But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death: for they would not, else, have foreshadowed Christ's Passion by certain sacrifices both before and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by God in reference to Christ's coming, and thus their knowledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated above (II-II:1:7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more distinct was their knowledge of Christ's mysteries.

After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (II-II:1:8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office.

It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

The highlighted text in the quote in my previous post, the text of the Council of Trent on justification, consists of quotes of

Hebr 11,6
Mt 9,2
Sir 1,27
Acts 2,38
Mt 28,19
1 Kings 7,3

If....If Trent approves of BOD providing justification, then you have understand it in the context of EVERYTHING ELSE that Trent taught about justification.  
.
Most people take the BOD phrase and ignore everything else in Trent.  They take Trent's BOD and then look to saints to explain it (many of whom lived before Trent).  This is illogical and wrong. If you want to know who BOD applies to, then you have to read ALL of what Trent taught on justification.  

Could you send that part of the Vatican Council? I would also like condemnation from the Holy Office. This guy in a chat room was claiming that invincible ignorance is the constant teaching of the Church and acted like you must hold it in light of the condemnation of the errors of Du Bay and even claimed he taught one couldn't have perfect charity without baptism despite him explicitly teaching one could.

I'll try to dig these up when I have a chance, and the Du Bay condemnations have also been extensively dealt with here on CI.  Baius meant something altogether different than how people are interpreting it.

In any case, what does this person mean by "invincible ignorance"?  WHAT (does he claim) was taught about it?  Nobody denies invincible ignorance, that it exists.  But invincible ignorance is not salvific, but merely exculpatory.  To say otherwise is sheer Pelagianism.  In terms of being "constant teaching," the only place it's actually mentioned in the Magisterium is by Pius IX, and all he says about it is an echo of St. Thomas, that someone will not be punished for ignorance if it was invincible.  But lack of punishment does not equate to salvation, unless you're a Pelagian heretic.