Dear Nado, no, not at all, that's why I asked you some very specific questions.

1. Are you aware that St. Alphonsus himself personally rejected salvation by implicit faith? With St. Thomas and St. Augustine, he taught that the invincibly ignorant will either be lost for other mortal sins, which are not taken away without faith, or if they correspond to the actual grace God gives them and do what is in their power, God will certainly enlighten them about the Faith, either by a preacher or if necessary an Angel or some other such means. Therefore, if you will appeal to St. Alphonsus' authority, you must do so consistently, and also follow him, in teaching there is no salvation without the Catholic Faith.

2. It is true St. Alphonsus did not call salvation by implicit faith a heresy, neither do I, but he called it a less probable opinion. The Church has indeed tolerated it, but this doesn't mean anything, because She has tolerated many opinions for some time until sacred theology develops to such a point until all the rationalistic objections to a teaching are answered, and the Church finally defines what was already irreformable teaching. To give you an example. In the Glories of Mary, St. Alphonsus controverts an author who claimed Mary was not the Mediatrix of All Graces. St. Alphonsus gives many powerful proofs against that opinion, from the Fathers, the Saints and earlier Doctors, and he himself unhesitatingly believes, confesses and proves the true teaching that indeed Mary Mediatrix is the necessary channel through which all graces must flow, but he does not call the other author as a heretic for his objection to the teaching, even though the Doctor evidently thinks that man is sorely mistaken.

3. Do you know St. Alphonsus, on our question, says that salvation by implicit faith is against the testimony of the Scriptures and all the Fathers? What does Trent and Vatican I say about understanding Sacred Scripture in a manner contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers? Does it not say the Church will and can never understand it in such a manner?

4. I appreciate you tried to explain the Holy Office statement, but the important part of that irreformable teaching is where the Church officially judges that

the mysteries of Faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”

If you're acquainted with the manuals, I'm sure you understand what a necessity of means is. Here is a quick explanation for those who may not be.

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

5. Likewise, to continue with the earlier example, Pope Leo XIII clearly taught that Mary was the Mediatrix of all graces, that all graces of Christ come to us only through the Virgin's hands. It is after this point that the contrary teaching, although not yet incurring the censure of heresy (heresy is the direct denial of a truth proposed to us by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed), has clearly become untenable, and the Papal and Church teaching, reaffirming what is contained in Scripture and the Fathers, although not yet a dogma strictly so called, is irreformable and definable in the future.

The same is true here after Vatican I and St. Pius X. If you disagree, please explain the citations from Vatican I and St. Pius X, the latter of whom teaches that there are some mysteries of Faith that need to be known to belong to the elect,

a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect

and the former of which defines a mystery of Faith as a truth to which natural reason cannot attain. Again the Holy Office and Athanasian Creed read in this light inform us about what these might be, namely those fundamental and absolutely necessary mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. That God exists and rewards good is a truth to which natural reason can attain, and therefore cannot be called a mystery of Faith according to the First Vatican Council.

I do not blame you, for being mistaken about this teaching, for it has been shrouded in confusion by many in the recent two centuries, although as Msgr. Fenton and Fr. Mueller explain, the vast majority of theologians still taught it. If you will go back yourselves to the Saints, the Doctors, the Fathers, St. Thomas, the Athanasian Creed etc, you will see this teaching plainly contained there. And of course, I do not say that you are a heretic. I do say, however, that someone who wants to hold to salvation by implicit faith, not before, but after the statements of St. Pius X and the Vatican Council, should either revise his opinion in light of that Church teaching, or give some explanation of why he disagrees with it.

I believe in the dogma of EENS, the way Holy Mother Church understands it.

Generally, when one predicates his comment by this statement, he does not mean that he believes in the Dogma as the Church has declared it, but rather as someone else, a third party, has formed an opinion as to how the Church "understands" the Dogma. This too, almost always does not concur with the Church's declaration, leaving room for other understandings than the plain objective meaning.

One need go no further than the voice of Christ as contained in the Church's dogmatic declaration, for it it there that Her understanding of it, is in evidence, with no other interpretation required or allowed.

Make a decision among you 4 of your Feeneyite tag team which you want to represent your position, and leave that person to solely have a discussion with me. Even PM that person to have a group effort is you want, but I won't be wasting my time unless I have a one-on-one here.

Classic cop-out.  You know that you have no answer, so you bail out on flimsy pretexts.  Uhm, that's the nature of a forum, you see; multiple people might post on the same thread about the same subject.

Yes, please stop "wasting [your] time" here; go spread your Pelagianism somewhere else.