CathInfo.com

My argument is *not* that the trad clergy *couldn't* be wrong about this.  Its that if they are, I need a better *explanation* than what I'm currently getting. 

The first thing you need to do is to determine the truth of the matter for yourself - which is basically what Pax said. Once you know *and* accept the truth, then you can try and come up with an explanation as to why everybody else does not accept the truth, or got such a simple thing so wrong. If you ever find the truth for yourself, then go ahead and start trying to tell them they are wrong - be prepared to hit a granite wall. Then you can determine for your self why they put up this wall.

Take Sean Johnson for just one example, he posted a dissertation titled; "What is the Church's teaching on the Necessity of Baptism?" which did not say a thing about what the Church teaches, rather the whole thing was ideas about a BOD - something the Church does not teach at all. Why did he and why do pretty much all BODers do that? You tell me.

When I posted in only a few sentences quotes from Trent which is actually what the Church does teach about the necessity of baptism, he tells me I do not understand what I am reading lol.

It's never ending with BODers. They have got to let those outside of the Church into heaven at all costs no matter what, all the while insisting a BOD is a doctrine, and in the process completely blind themselves to dogma in order to achieve this.

So if you ever come up with an explanation, although it's not expedient for you to do so, please let us know.



  

You guys aren't being specific enough in your language.  "Implicit faith" in what?
.
Implicit Faith in Incarnation/Trinity - possibly acceptable, for a catechumen, per St Alphonsus.
Implicit Faith in God...no dice.  That isn't orthodox and there's no basis for it in Church history.
.
A catechumen is one who accepts the Faith, or is very serious about it and has studied it, therefore they are no longer "heathens".  So, the above analogy doesn't apply.
.
Major: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
Minor: Catechumens are outside of the Church officially, but may be considered partial members (in some circuмstances).
Conclusion: Catechumens could be saved, if they truly desire Baptism/Faith and if (for some reason) God takes their life before the sacrament.

The SSPX et. al teach that people who die in false religions can be saved, so it's the latter implicit faith I meant. I wouldn't really classify the former as implicit faith since, like you said, catechumens accept the Faith(at least to some limited understanding of it).

The SSPX et. al teach that people who die in false religions can be saved, so it's the latter implicit faith I meant.

And no Church Fathers, neither St Augustine, nor St Thomas, nor Trent, nor St Alphonsus back up this view. 
.
St Alphonsus died in 1787, right around the time of the French Revolution, which ushered in political anarchy and masonic influence around the globe, including the Vatican.  Let's not forget that in the late 1800s the masons imprisoned Pius IX and almost killed him.  So are we too naive to think the masons didn't infiltrate the church in the 1800s and start watering-down doctrine, especially EENS?  That's the only explanation for how BOD morphed from St Alphonsus' catechumen to applying to Hindus and Muslims...