Yes, this is a big problem with the circuмcision position.  I personally do not believe that circuмcision remitted Original Sin, as it were, ex opere operato.  So in the OT there were no just women who were saved, not even the likes of St. Ann?  There's something missing with the circuмcision theory.  St. Paul seemed to indicate that OT justification came through faith in the coming Redeemer.

CHAPTER I.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary [Page 31] that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jєωs by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Right, but he's speaking about the OT economy of salvation.  He clearly teaches that explicit faith in at least the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation "since the promulgation of the Gospel" (i.e. in NT times).

I think that two different considerations are typically conflated in this notion of "implicit" Baptism of Desire.

There's the idea of implicit desire for Baptism proper and then idea of implicit faith.

So, for instance, I am converted to the Church and want to become a Catholic, but I do not form the explicit intention "I desire to be Baptized."  One can see the DESIRE here to be implicit in the desire to become a Catholic.

Then there's the notion of implicit faith, which many have promoted.  "I am a well-meaning pagan who follow my lights regarding the natural law."

So this discussion gets confused the the degrees of "implicit"-ness, i.e. the degrees of separation from the explicit.

It's absolutely indisputed that supernatural faith is required for salvation.  Lots of modern BoDers focus on the "desire" (an act of the will) but ignore the intellectual requirements for salvation, as if one can will to have supernatural faith without believing anything.  What's at issue is what are the requirements to have supernatural faith.  Can faith be implicit in my desire to know God?  All theologians agree that SOME things must be explicitly believed, with the vast majority (and absolute unanimity before the year 1600) holding that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation.  In other words, no Jєω, Muslim, or any kind of infidel can possibly be saved.

This was believed by all Catholics everywhere for the first 1600 years of Church history, meeting the criteria for infallible dogma based on the OUM.  Yet some Jesuits felt they were permitted to theorize that these were not necessary and that it was sufficient for supernatural faith just to believe in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked.  This was motivated by the desire to extend the possibility of salvation to infidels.

Of course, recent Novus Ordo developments hold that atheists can be saved without ANY explicit belief whatsoever.

I hold that Rewarder God theory is objectively heretical based on the teachings of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  Those who lived before Vatican II might be excused of formal heresy because the OUM had not clearly been defined, but this notion must now be rejected as absolutely heretical.

From what I've seen explicit baptism of desire(a catechumen consciously wishing for baptism) has been taught by various theologians throughout basically the entirety of Church history, and has strong basis in Trent.

And implicit baptism of desire in the sense of an earlier stage catechumen, who doesn't yet understand the sacraments well enough to wish for baptism, but who wants to be Catholic and believes in the Trinity etc., seems like it could be a logical extension of explicit BOD, even though there doesn't appear to be as much support for it.

Its really hard for me to believe that everyone but Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen is just ignorant of something that's easily demonstrable theologically by the OUM.

You know this isn't true since you've already read the quote Séan gave.

Fair enough that he probably meant Vatican I.

Ugh so the issue is there are multiple conversations going on here that are all being labeled "BOD."

Ladislaus has opinions on other things related to BOD and EENS.  But what's *really* getting him here is the idea of "implicit faith", ie. that Jєωs, Muslims, Pagans, etc. could be saved by implicit BOD, faith in a God that rewards, and perfect contrition.  The meat of his argument is that *this* contradicts the Tradition of the Church for the first 1600 years of its history.

I suspect that going along with this, Ladislaus would disagree with your interpretation of St Thomas.  At any rate, his opinion alone, while weighty, wouldn't be OUM.  

I think he's just saying Vatican I clearly established the *idea* of OUM, not that it contradicts BOD per se.

Now here's the thing.  I think what *you* are arguing for as OUM is just the idea of baptism of desire more generally, which Ladislaus opposes, but less strongly.  But that's a SEPARATE conversation than the conversation about whether salvation by implicit faith is possible.