Doesn't matter:

Cardinal de Lugo says (in the quote above) it was the opinion of Suarez, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others that, "Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit."

Only God knows who these "others" are.

Here is the quote from St. Thomas that de Lugo referenced:
 
St. Thomas, Summa, III, q. 69, a. 4:

Objection 2. Further, one does not need to receive what one has already acquired. But some approach Baptism who have already grace and virtues: thus we read (Acts 10:1-2): "There was a certain man in Cesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called Italian band, a religious man and fearing God"; who, nevertheless, was afterwards baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not bestowed by Baptism. (…)
 
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2; III:68:2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
 

Quote

:Last Tradhican - St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, rejected salvation by implicit faith, that is the salvation of the Muslim, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists, which I am certain is what you believe. So you reject the very saint that you bring forward.

Certain that I believe what?
 I assent to the teaching of the Church, council of Trent says baptism or its desire right, thats a direct quote right?  How that actually works in practice I don't know and don't care thats between God and an unbaptized person.  Why there is all this back and forth about this topic, that is essentially meaningless to anyone who is reading threads here due to already being baptized, is beyond me.

Cut the smokescreen and answer the question.  Do you believe that Muslim, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc can be saved by implicit faith?

There’s a glaring mistake in using the example of the Holy Innocents, namely that they died before the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted.

No offense, but that's kinda ridiculous IMO.

So theoretically children could meet the same hypothetical criteria, but still go to Limbo instead of heaven just 'cause they were born later?  Because... reasons?

I mean, I could see arguing that that doesn't apply to all infants, just these infants because they were martyred for the faith (despite not being cognizant of it).  I'd generally agree that this doesn't mean any rando baby who's aborted or something is saved. But the argument you're making here seems pretty dang arbitrary.

TBH this is the same reason I disagree with you on St Justin Martyr.  You insist that St Justin was willing to assert that "Those who lived reasonably (before the incarnation) were Christians, which was why Socrates was saved, but if we even speculate there might've been someone in 50 AD who met the same criteria as Socrates but was living in the New World we're "denying the plain consensus of 1500 years of theology".... because this is really, really arbitrary I guess.

I think there's a lot of bad pro BOD arguments, but honestly, I think this one's actually pretty good.

Because... reasons?

Because the Old Testament laws for salvation were different from the New.  You didn’t know this?  If not, then you shouldn’t be debating this topic, having a limited understanding of basic Old Testament knowledge.  
.
If you did know, why are you calling it ridiculous?  God's “reasons” are not to be questioned.  

Because the Old Testament laws for salvation were different from the New.  You didn’t know this?  If not, then you shouldn’t be debating this topic, having a limited understanding of basic Old Testament knowledge.  
.
If you did know, why are you calling it ridiculous?  God's “reasons” are not to be questioned.  

This is nominalism IMO.

Perhaps I should've looked more carefully to determine *what* infants we were talking about.  The Holy Innocents were killed for the faith, because herod wanted to kill Christ.  And they were in Israel, which was the "church" of the Old Testament.  It sure seems to me that hypothetically speaking, an unbaptized child of a Catholic parent who was martyred (say ISIS killed the whole family for being Catholics) would be equivalent to something like that, and that seems like a pretty reasonable application of Baptism of *Blood*.  Now if you wanna say that the child of some random infant who dies (with their death having nothing to do with the faith, not being for the faith even in an indirect sense) it seems less likely BOB would apply, and more likely they'd end up in Limbo.  But to say that children who die under equivalent circuмstances to the Holy Innocents end up in Limbo because of some arbitrary legal change from God seems more like Protestant style nominalism where God arbitrarily decides whether to impute guilt or not than it does the logic of Catholicism/

Call me when another Herod kills 100's of unbaptized children of Catholics. It has not happened again in 2000 years. Your question is no different than what all the BODers ask, "what if a sanctified pagan dies by accident before he can be baptized" ?  My answer is, why are you killing him before God completes what He started? Why are you killing those modern day "Holy Innocents" before they are baptized?

The difference between you BODers and I,  is that you believe that a person is born and dies by chance in the time and place where he is, and that he learns the faith by his own volition. I believe that every person is placed in their time and place ( a pre-Columbian Indian in South America) by a just and merciful God, and that the faith is ONLY learned by God's Grace.  

I’m coming to the conclusion that most Traditional Catholics have more or less lost the faith.  I’ve read thousands of pages from the Church Fathers, and they wouldn’t recognize most modern BoDers as anything other than Pelagian heretics.  Those Traditional Catholics who believe that there are people invisibly inside the Church not only have no business being Traditional Catholics, since that’s all Vatican II is, but are barely holding on to the faith by the skin of their teeth.  This is why Our Lord asked whether there would be any faith left when he returned.

My opposition to BoD comes not from the Diamond Brothers, as Xavier keeps calumniating me, nor even from Father Feeney.  It comes from the Church Fathers, whose faith most closely reflects what Our Lord revealed.

Yes, St. Thomas et al. believed in BoD but not for those who were not visibly united to the Church by at least the profession of the faith. Even on that, they were mistaken.  There’s zero proof that this is revealed, and if anything was revealed, it was the opposite ... as the Patristics scholar Fr. Jurgen asserts.  I agree with him 100%.  Nobody has ever theologically proven BoD.  They just keep parroting each other and gratuitously stating that it exists ... with a false circular chain of authority that all leads back to St. Augustine, who actually rejected his youthful speculation in his more mature Pelagian days.

I understand how you feel about people calumniating you, some mhfmites have done it to @1friarminor on twitter. He also has been preaching against bod before mhfm.  There is a twitter account @1_clairvoyant has proof of that, most haven't publicly apologized.  


I totally agree with what you said; This is why Our Lord asked whether there would be any faith left when he returned.