No, it was the COUNCIL OF FLORENCE that declare de Lugo ... and you ... to be heretics.  It is you who need to be burned at the stake.

Really?
An eminent cardinal condemned by the Council, but never sanctioned, mentioned, and his book continuing to be published with full approbation.
Hmm...funny that Rome couldn’t figure out (for centuries!!) that it had condemned one if its greatest theologians unwittingly!
Why, it wasn’t until 2020 tgat Ladislaus arose on the scene to point out what 50+ popes and saints had missed!
de Lugo was a heretic!  LMAO!!

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “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)”.

As the bad-willed heretic that you are, you love shifting between BoD for the catechumen and then the heretical position that infidels can be saved.  Like the devil, you speak with a forked tongue and out of both sides of your mouth.

You claim that you support the one, get outraged at being of accused of supporting the other, and then proceed to post quotes in favor of the other, the one you just claimed to have rejected.  Then you make arguments from the OT just which would in fact undermine you claimed position of being in favor of explicit faith.

Since you like to pretend that you know something about scholastic logic.

St. Alphonsus clearly stated that all the Scriptures and the Church Fathers state that explicit faith in Our Lord and the Holy Trinity are necessary for justification.  By holding the explicit faith position, you are rejecting as invalid the "necessity of precept" argument.  But if this argument is invalid, the conclusion is that the implicit faith position is an objectively heretical rejection of all the Scriptures and Church Fathers.

The heretic also doesn't understand what the Council of Orange said the Catholic Faith teaches us as something to evidently believe, namely that many people, including Cornelius, were already in the state of Grace, since they had not a natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of God's Grace before Baptism, i.e. supernatural faith and supernatural charity, which the blundering buffoon who would like to close Heaven to everybody but himself, and therefore closes it to nobody but himself, is not even remotely aware of: "We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness."

Here's the whole passage from St. Alphonsus Maria that I researched showed Ladislaus before, even after which he did not understand, and made many demonstrably false claims. But if others wish to read it, they can; and so I post it here. Now, I hold the first opinion, with St. Alphonsus. But note carefully how many authorities from how many centuries St. Alphonsus cites for our reference.

Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Tome 2, Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2, pp. 104-106:21 “2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel? The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only… But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries. So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.

Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means… Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion… Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, ‘But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.’ They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire…”