Except, Bowler, that I didn't do anything beside quote and underline. I've given up on trying to explain things to you. So your problem is with the quoted authorities, and not with me.

Quote from:  St. Thomas, ST, Ia IIae, q.89, a.6)

It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin.  The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin.  Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace.

Quote from: St. Alphonsus, Commentary on the Council of Trent

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."

I underline because you still dubiously claim these quotes are about catechumens, as I would expect just about everyone beside you can see that they are not. If you still can't see that however, then I suggest going back to your 8th grade English grammar.

Unlike you, the others who agree with you have at least frankly stated that they disagree with these Doctors on this point. Whenever you come around, you should do the same.

By the way, if theologians want to say justification happens only by explicit faith, as indeed it does after the Gospel has been promulgated in a particular place, they say love of Christ in particular, and not love of God in general.

Pope Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XII teach the same as these Doctors above, that where baptism cannot be had, an act of perfect love of God can supply the baptismal effect.

You are misreading those two quotes, they say nothing about what we are talking about, what the Council of Florence clearly defined, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers as declared in the Athanasian Creed , as as taught by St. Thhomas and all the saints and doctors in his time, that to be saved, one must at a minimum have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.

Everyone knows that St. Thomas taught that at a minimum one must believe explicitly in the Trinity and that St. Alphonsus followed the same. You are saying that ocean water is not salty. You false BODer modernist find one obscure quote taken out of context and you make it a dogma, but yet you reject every clear dogma.

No, you just believe what you want to believe. Like I keep telling you, you are denying the clearest dogma on EENS from The Council of Florence, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, the clear teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the dogmatic decree of Vatican I, to name a few, and you can quote no Father, Doctor or Saint or council that teaches what you are defending here  a total contradiction. You are insane!:
 

Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

You're as woefully incorrect as ever, and you seem to believe the ends justify the means. But no, Bowler, you can't tell a lie to save the world.

You are in clear and complete denial that neither St. Thomas nor St. Alphonsus is speaking of catechumens. Unlike the others who have the honesty to admit this, you don't want to.

On the justification of a pagan child who, when he arrives at the full use of reason, does what lies in his power, with the help of actual grace, to love God above all things.

St. Thomas writes, Ia IIae, q. 89, a. 6: “When a child begins to have the use of reason, he should order his acts toward a proper end, to the extent that he is capable of discretion at that age.” And again in the answer to the third objection: “The end is first in the intention. Hence this is the time when the child is obliged by the affirmative command: ‘Turn ye to Me. . . .’ But if the child does this, he obtains the remission of original sin.” It is an excellent form of baptism of desire. St. Thomas and Thomists reconcile this doctrine with the legitimate interpretation of the axiom: “To one who does what in him lies (with the help of actual grace), God does not deny habitual grace,” ...  (Cf. especially on this subject John of St.  Thomas, De praedestinatione, disp. 10, a. 3, nos. 40-41, and the thesis of Father Paul Angelo, O.P., La possibilità di salute nel primo atto morale per il fanciullo infedele, Rome, the Angelicuм, 1946.)

John of St. Thomas is one of the greatest ever Thomists, whom the Church has  also signally honored, as his title indicates, so once more you prove you have no idea of what you speak of. Nor have any humility to learn from these holy and eminent men.

St. Pius X and Pius XII not only personally approve of the teaching of St. Alphonsus that the question of whether explicit faith is necessary as a means or a precept is still open by authorizing the work Theologia Moralis and commanding it to be taught as a strongly recommended norm, they expressly themselves teach that when baptism cannot be had, an act of love of God supplies the baptismal effect.

This shows these Popes fully approve and personally authorize the teaching that "In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."

All your denials aside, these Papal teachings show how wrong you are. You reject these Papal teachings to follow your own desires.

I know far more people in the Novus Ordo who actually believe in EENS, and I must say that I feel more of an affinity towards them than I do towards all these Traditional Catholics who uphold that we must have the correct size of lavabo cloth by a necessity of means but then do not believe in the necessity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity for salvation.

To explain further,

Quote

"John of St. Thomas is aligned with us in supporting the following proposition as probable. The medial necessity we have analyzed as binding per se may not always be verified. It is probable that exception may occur in territories where the Gospel has not been sufficiently preached. This, however, is per accidens. It’s ‘an exception that proves the rule.’ For this reason the rule is couched in a manner that provides for it, through the modifying phrase: ‘After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel ...under the New Law, it is only per accidens, that is, a pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification without having explicit faith in Christ."

The same will be seen in the question St. Alphonsus considers, especially when the entire passage in Theologia Moralis is read.

They are not talking of those who live among Christians, but only of those who have never heard the Name of Jesus Christ, where the Gospel has not been preached.

There's no point in discussing this with you since you are totally obsessed with denying every reality to teach the False BODer contradiction. You make a dogma out of one obscure quote and deny all the dogmas in order to teach that total contradiction. Your effort is just another smokescreen and so I'm no going to bother posting what everyone knows, that St. Thomas, the Council of Florence, ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints taught that at a minimum, belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity are required for salvation. ?:

Below is the bottom line of your efforts, all your postings since the beginning, all subterfuge (talking about catechumens and martyrs and St. Thomas's belief in BOD of the catechumen) to teach what you really wanted to teach, but were afraid to clearly state because not even you believe it. You just can't believe that these so it appears to you "good" people who have no explcit belief in Christ could be lost, and lost they are, as all the dogmas clearly teach, and so you grasp at anything you can get ahold of,  THE total contradiction, which you don't even believe, but you have no choice, you have nothing else:

Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

 I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.