One can see the beginnings of modernistic theology:

The "fides implicita" theory is far more plausible, for it postulates no miracles, implicit faith (or fides in voto) being independent of the external preaching of the Gospel, just as the baptism of desire (baptismus in voto) is independent of the use of water...Does this not also necessitate a miracle (e.g., the sending of an angel or of a missionary, which we have rejected as improbable)?

One can see David Hume written all over this, who, of course, was the forerunner of Bertrand Russell, the forerunner of Richard Dawkins.  Is this what CMRI really believes??

Here is another reference:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Native.pdf

If you are going to accept the "fides implicita" theory, you might as well accept Vatican II, all of it.

Another

Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Volume 3, by Sylvester J. Hunter S.J., pgs. 115-122:

From another manual which expounds on this point

http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_06.html

Quote

SECT. 45. — Necessity of Faith.

I. The Necessity of Faith is twofold a Necessity of Necessity Means and a Necessity of Precept. The latter always includes the former, but not vice versa.

The Faith which is a necessary means of justification and salvation is Theological Faith, perfect in its kind. In infants the Habit of Faith is sufficient; in those who have reached the use of reason some act is required bearing in some way on the economy of salvation as revealed by God. Faith, in the broad sense of the word — that is, faith founded on the testimony which creatures give of God's existence and providence — is not enough (see prop. xxiii., condemned by Innoc. Xl, March 2, 1679). Nor is Inchoate Faith sufficient — that is, a faith in the germ, not extending beyond a willingness and readiness to believe. The act of Faith must be complete, and must be based upon a supernatural Divine Revelation. Faith alone can give that knowledge of the supernatural economy of salvation which enables man to dispose his actions in harmony with his supernatural end. This reason is adduced by the Apostle (Heb. xi. 6) to prove that Abel and Henoch, like Abraham, obtained their justification and salvation by means of Faith, although Holy Scripture does not say of them, as of Abraham, that their Faith was founded upon a positive Divine Revelation: “Without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God [to serve Him] must believe that He is, and is [becomes, Greek word] a rewarder to them that seek Him.”

1. The two points of Faith mentioned in this text are indispensable, because they are the two poles on which the whole economy of salvation turns. There is probably some allusion to the words spoken by God to Abraham: “I am thy protector and thy reward exceeding great” (Gen. xv. I). Hence the words, “that He is,” refer to the existence of God, not in the abstract, but as being our God, as leading us on to salvation under the care of His paternal Providence. A belief in His existence, in this sense, is the fundamental condition of all our dealing with Him, and this belief is as much above our natural knowledge as is the belief in God the Rewarder. If, as St. Peter Chrysologus states, the first article of the Apostles' Creed expresses belief in God as our Father, then the words “that He is” correspond with this article, just as the words “that He is a rewarder to them that seek Him” correspond with the last article, “Life everlasting.” Theologians rightly conclude from Heb. xi. 6 that, at least in pre-Christian times, the two points there mentioned were alone necessary to be expressly believed. They suffice to enable man to tend by hope and charity towards God as the Source of salvation.

2. It is an open question whether, after Christ's coming, Faith in the Christian economy is not indispensable. Many texts in Holy Scripture seem to demand Faith in Christ, in His death and resurrection, as a necessary condition of salvation. On the other hand, it is not easy to understand how eternal salvation should have become impossible for those who are unable to arrive at an explicit knowledge of Christian Revelation. The best solution of the difficulty would seem to be that given by Suarez (De Fide, disp. xii., sect. iv.). The texts demanding Faith in Christ and the Blessed Trinity must not be interpreted more rigorously than those referring to the necessity of Baptism, especially as Faith in Christ, Faith in the Blessed Trinity, and the necessity of Baptism are closely connected together. The Faith in these mysteries is, like Baptism, the ordinary normal means of salvation. Under extraordinary circuмstances, however, when the actual reception of Baptism is impossible, the mere implicit desire (volum) suffices. So, too, the implicit desire to believe in Christ and the Trinity must be deemed sufficient. By “implicit desire” we mean the desire to receive, to believe, and to do whatever is needful for salvation, although what is to be received, believed, and done is not explicitly known. The implicit wish and willingness to believe in Christ must be accompanied by and connected with an explicit Faith in Divine Providence as having a care of our salvation ; and this Faith implies Faith and Hope in the Christian economy of salvation (see St. Thom., 2a 2ae, q. 2, a. 7).

(. . .)

The word “impossible” is pure atheistic rationalism.  It is interesting how they reference St. Thomas, yet declare him to have been in error on such a fundamental point of dogma.

Another

Lectures on Dogmatic Theology, God and Man, Volume 2, by Rev. Labauche, pgs. 211-216:

From the same volume, pgs 85-88.

I love how they quote St. Thomas in support of a teaching which he himself rejected.

Msgr. Fenton, "The Holy Office Letter on the Necessity of the Church":
 

Quote

Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation are(sic) not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”

Still, the teaching of the letter must be seen against the backdrop of the rest of Catholic doctrine. And it is definitely a part of the Catholic doctrine that certain basic revealed truths (Trinity, Incarnation) must be accepted and believed explicitly, even though other teachings contained in the deposit of faith may, under certain circuмstances, be believed with only an implicit faith. True and supernatural faith, we must remember, is not a mere readiness to believe, but an actual belief, but an actual belief, the actual acceptance as certainly true of definite teachings which have actually been revealed supernaturally by God to man. Furthermore, this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man.

This analysis seems more in line with St. Thomas; however, as before, if one has an implicit desire for the Church even with supernatural faith, how does one ever “leave” it?

Quote from: Jehanne

This analysis seems more in line with St. Thomas; however, as before, if one has an implicit desire for the Church even with supernatural faith, how does one ever “leave” it?

Culpably believe in heresy.

Such a person would not have been “outside” the Church to begin with.  Heresy only applies to the baptized.

Quoting from one of my earlier posts that I referenced:

So, too, the implicit desire to believe in Christ and the Trinity must be deemed sufficient. By “implicit desire” we mean the desire to receive, to believe, and to do whatever is needful for salvation, although what is to be received, believed, and done is not explicitly known.

Quoting Msgr. Fenton:

True and supernatural faith, we must remember, is not a mere readiness to believe, but an actual belief, but an actual belief, the actual acceptance as certainly true of definite teachings which have actually been revealed supernaturally by God to man. Furthermore, this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man.

Between the truths that

1) God is

2) God shall reward the just and punish the wicked

and

3) Holy Trinity

4) Incarnation of Christ

It does not seem likely, in my opinion, that there exists a truth that would be believed explicitly before doctrines 3 & 4 which when believed explicitly would suffice as an act of supernatural faith.

However, in an example given by Fr. Taouk (I believe of the SSPX) I agree with this circuмstance:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith. In the implicit desire of baptism, the act of Faith and hope must be explicit while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit since he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole. For example if a Pagan is touched by the Martyrdom of some Catholic and then openly declares himself to believe in the God of this Christian who was put to death and in turn is himself put to death. He would have an explicit faith in Christ yet knowing little about Christ or the Sacraments. Our Lord has promised: "Every one that confess me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in Heaven." St. Augustine points out that these words are as universal in their scope and import as those in which our lord taught the general necessity of baptism of water. Hence he deduces the consequence that the remission of sins is secured by death for Christ, as certainly as by the sacrament of Baptism. [13]

Regardless of how likely such a scenario would unfold, in reality, I agree that in such a circuмstance that person would be saved.