There is absolutely zero point in arguing about Baptism of Desire.  If someone wants to believe in the possibility that certain souls might be saved by Baptism of Desire, following St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, and other authorities on this matter, then who am I to argue?  I'm a nobody compared to these men.  I concede the point.  So, for the purposes of CathInfo, consider me your fellow BoDer from now on.  Peace out, man.  Where's the Hippie smilie?

OK, close enough ...  :smoke-pot:

But I denounce as heretics, falling under the anathema of Trent, any who would say that people can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism.  They cannot.  Such as these would be saved by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism "in voto", and the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification as taught by Trent, operating through the desire for it.

I follow the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas and others who teach that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are required at a minimum for salvation.  Vatican I also teaches that there can be no supernatural faith without an object that can ONLY be known through revelation, and consequently mere belief in the existence of a Rewarder/Punisher God does not suffice.  I reject that opinion as heretical based on the teaching of Vatican I and the Athanasian Creed.

Only those who have all the dispositions required to be justified in the Sacrament of Baptism as defined by the Council of Trent can benefit from a Baptism of Desire; in other words, they must lacking absolutely nothing to be Catholics except for the Sacrament itself, and THEN the Sacrament itself they would receive in voto in order to be justified.

I reject as heretical the notion that God can be constrained by "impossibility" from bringing the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect.  Consequently, in cases of BoD, God wills that they be saved by BoD and yet not receive the Sacrament for reasons know only to Him.

Also, then, based on the teaching of Trent, which declares that no one has ever been justified without Baptism or the votum for it, I declare that there's no such thing as a Baptism of Blood that does not reduce to and is distinct from Baptism of Desire.  In other words, St. Alphonsus and others who taught that Baptism of Blood works quasi-ex opere operato were clearly mistaken.  Also, those Church Fathers who believed in Baptism of Blood but rejected Baptism of Desire actually had it backwards.  Any reference to "Three Baptisms" must be revised to say "Two Baptisms".  Of course, Tertullian speaks of "Two Baptisms", but by that he means the Sacrament and Baptism of Blood.  Now the term will refer to the Sacrament and Baptism of Desire.  Of course, since the Creeds refer to "One Baptism", that saying would be impious and implicitly heretical, so it needs to be revised to two MODES of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism; anything else implicitly rejects Catholic dogma.

Also, then, based on dogmatic teaching that there can be no initial justification without complete rebirth, which leads to the remission of all sin, and based on the teaching of Innocent II on the subject, I declare it proximate to heresy to believe that those who are justified by BoD do not go immediately to heaven if they die instantly after justification by BoD and not having committed any other sin.  Consequently, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas fell into grave error on this subject ... albeit obviously in good faith, and St. Thomas Aquinas before the dogmatic principles were formally defined.

You keep hiding behind Baptism of Desire to deny the faith, to reject EENS, to reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and to set aside the constant teaching of the Church that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  So I concede Baptism of Desire and have no further interest in debating the subject.

Now that the point is conceded, you must stop promoting this notion of Baptism of Desire.  By promoting Baptism of Desire instead of the necessity of the Sacrament itself for Baptism, you are ironically undermining the possibility that people can be saved by a Baptism of Desire because they are inclined less and less to desire Baptism, thinking it more or less optional or unnecessary for salvation.  You accomplish nothing good except to create complacency in people that they can be saved without Baptism and without becoming Catholic.  They cannot.

According to the Holy Office under St. Pius X, if you are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, you must respond with a simple, categorical, unqualified "No."  If asked whether the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, you are to responded with a simple, categorical, unqualified "Yes."  Let your speech by Yes, yes; No, no.  Anything more, including 5-page dissertations which reduce EENS to a meaningless formula and reject the necessity of Baptism for salvation, is from the devil.  I demand that you believe in one faith and one Baptism and heed the warning of Pius IX that it is forbidden to inquire further.

I already agree with your position on this issue but I want to say that this is was a great post, it was concise and clear, logical and rational.  To really understand BoD all you have to do is read one of LoT or Ambrose's 20 page cut and paste post about Baptism of Desire and compare it to a post like this.  And the answer of what to believe about BoD is simple and obvious.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

Also, then, based on dogmatic teaching that there can be no initial justification without complete rebirth, which leads to the remission of all sin, and based on the teaching of Innocent II on the subject, I declare it proximate to heresy to believe that those who are justified by BoD do not go immediately to heaven if they die instantly after justification by BoD and not having committed any other sin.  Consequently, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas fell into grave error on this subject ... albeit obviously in good faith, and St. Thomas Aquinas before the dogmatic principles were formally defined.

Are you going to respond to Nishant's post in your other thread taking issue specifically with this particular point?

Already have, in several places on many different threads.  I have no quarrel with Nishant, since we're both on the same side now.  Pope Innocent taught this (despite the stretch that Mr. Nishant pulled from his posterior without any evidence about "withotu delay" = "as opposed to at the Last Judgment").  Since the Church teaches that there can be no initial justification without rebirth, and that rebirth means the remission of all sin, I hold that all Catholics must believe that Baptism of Desire provides COMPLETE remission of sins and the grace of rebirth.  Nishant is rejecting Catholics teaching in holding the position he does.  He interprets Catholic teaching according to his own fancies.

Dear Lad, Deo gloria, Deo Gratias.

Despite your friendly swipe at me above, I must in justice nonetheless congratule you on your sincerity, humility, intelligence and good will. Truthfully, I wondered if I was being slightly harsh on you, mate, especially as I think your positions are usually very well thought, even when we disagree. And as I said even on that thread, you always retain the Catholic spirit of the Church having the final word, which has helped you here. Anyway, well done again, only the Holy Ghost and the divine Mother could have helped you see this.

So we agree at least, then, that catechumens can be saved by Baptism in voto, including if they are martyred, as Trent and its Catechism teaches.

We merely disagree over the mechanism of how BOB works (ex opere operantis, like contrition, or quasi ex opere operato, that is, whether martyrdom itself is the act of love of God. In this case, which I believe, it would be externally discernible which martyr is saved, since he is saved by the act of martyrdom, but in the case of what you would believe, it would not be - we can only say, catechumens, like martyrs, can obtain Baptism in voto through desire and contrition. I believe this is a trivial point, we will discuss the theology here, and see some authorities if you wish). We also disagree if those saved by BOD will as a rule be saved through purgatory.

I'm very satisfied with this for now.

I know you disagree, and not to get into this again, but very briefly, my basis for holding to the traditional teaching is, from last to first - St. Alphonsus, in Theologia Moralis, approved by several Popes, who specifically quotes the Apostolic Canon of Innocent II, which cites St. Ambrose and says prayers and sacrifices must be offered for the person departed, saved by BOD. I understand you think Innocent III contradicts Innocent II, but I think it is extremely unlikely. Anyway, the two canons of Trent show this infallibly, one which says the selfsame grace of justification can be obtained through the desire of two sacraments, second, the one which says the grace of justification cannot be ever said to involve intrinsically the remission of all debt of temporal punishment. Finally, the Roman Catechism expressly says in penance we can recover the grace of Baptism, showing the proper grace of baptism is the grace of justification. Trent itself says penance according to the holy Fathers is a laborious kind of baptism so many tears and labors on our part are necessary to recover baptismal innocence. Thus the difference between the reception of justification and the recovery of the same is entirely due to the difference between baptism and penance. By the desire of both sacraments, the grace of justification, and it alone, can be certainly said to be obtained, according to the canon.

Throughout the Christian ages, the Athanasian Creed was always and everywhere understood to mean no one was saved without the Catholic Faith, "Whoever wishes to be saved, before all things he must hold the Catholic Faith. Now the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity ... whoever wishes to be saved must think thus on the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary for everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe firmly and faithfully, he cannot be saved." This is Tradition, this is what we must believe and must defend, the necessity of the Catholic Faith.

The idea that this refers to a necessity of precept only is a novelty, first seriously suggested in the 15th and 16th centuries. But what is far worse than what was suggested, by Suarez and some of the Salmanticenses, which was generally regarded as a discredited minority viewpoint, is the utterly novel and heterodox idea that Jєωs, Muslims and pagans living in the midst of us Catholics, not on some distant isle, can be saved without the Catholic Faith and without knowing and loving Jesus Christ, dates practically to the 19th and 20th century. Msgr. Fenton in many of his writings firmly opposes this idea. As we know, he said "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of salvific and supernatural faith includes ... the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation".

This is nothing other than the consecrated Tradition of the Fathers, contained in the infallible Athanasian Creed, repeated by St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Bernard and St. Bellarmine, that no one will be saved without the Catholic Faith, without believing in the Trinity and Incarnation, without knowing and loving Jesus Christ. These Doctors taught that those who love God above all things and seek to know Him and do His will would, because God wills all men to be saved and gives all men sufficient grace for the same, not fail to be enlightened about Jesus Christ, through an extraordinary means, and thus be saved by converting to Christianity and as Catholics, knowing and loving Jesus Christ. St. Alphonsus in particular argues in favor of it strenuously, against the Semipelagians, citing St. Thomas and other authorities. Every single authority is on our side, not if we oppose the Baptism of Desire, but if we defend the necessity of the Catholic Faith. We must also defend the necessity of Baptism, of penance and of the Church as such, by saying no one can be saved unless they receive these sacraments in re or in voto, and thus are incorporated into Her in re or in voto as St. Robert and others do. Thus, all who are stubbornly separated from Her, as Pius IX says, or who die culpably separated from Her, as the Fathers of Vatican I put it, in other words, all who die as heretics or infidels, are infallibly lost.

Coming to Pope St. Pius X, he teaches this directly, "Christians, when interrogated must answer that those who die as infidels are damned" so it is not permitted to say Confucius was saved. There was an earlier Holy Office decree that stated, in response to a query, that  Elsewhere, the same saintly Pontiff taught "a great number of the reprobate suffer the everlasting calamity on account of ignorance of those mysteries of Faith which nonetheless must be known and believed to be numbered among the elect". Msgr. Fenton cites some of these authorites and in many writings argues very convincingly that these Magisterial teachings cannot and have not been explained by those who hold the minority viewpoint.

Msgr. Fenton also thought Fr. Feeney was a good man, and so do I personally. Undoubtedly, he was facing real heresy in Boston, that bastion of liberalism. I think he made a mistake in two things, where he went, and where he did not go. Namely, that he went beyond St. Thomas, and this Tradition, secondly, that we did not go meet Pope Pius XII, who elsewhere he had praised, and make his case face to face with the Holy Father. Nonetheless, I think he was of good will. I think we should not deny Baptism of Desire, and of Blood, since these are Catholic teachings, taught by Tradition and the Magisterium. And lunatics like Ibranyi, and to a lesser extent the Dimonds, are the real problem here.

This is a fantastic post, and illustrates beautifully why this issue should not be an incessant battle requiring an entire subforum.

Dear Lad, Deo gloria, Deo Gratias.

Despite your friendly swipe at me above, I must in justice nonetheless congratule you on your sincerity, humility, intelligence and good will. Truthfully, I wondered if I was being slightly harsh on you, mate, especially as I think your positions are usually very well thought, even when we disagree. And as I said even on that thread, you always retain the Catholic spirit of the Church having the final word, which has helped you here. Anyway, well done again, only the Holy Ghost and the divine Mother could have helped you see this.

So we agree at least, then, that catechumens can be saved by Baptism in voto, including if they are martyred, as Trent and its Catechism teaches.

We merely disagree over the mechanism of how BOB works (ex opere operantis, like contrition, or quasi ex opere operato, that is, whether martyrdom itself is the act of love of God. In this case, which I believe, it would be externally discernible which martyr is saved, since he is saved by the act of martyrdom, but in the case of what you would believe, it would not be - we can only say, catechumens, like martyrs, can obtain Baptism in voto through desire and contrition. I believe this is a trivial point, we will discuss the theology here, and see some authorities if you wish). We also disagree if those saved by BOD will as a rule be saved through purgatory.

I'm very satisfied with this for now.

I know you disagree, and not to get into this again, but very briefly, my basis for holding to the traditional teaching is, from last to first - St. Alphonsus, in Theologia Moralis, approved by several Popes, who specifically quotes the Apostolic Canon of Innocent II, which cites St. Ambrose and says prayers and sacrifices must be offered for the person departed, saved by BOD. I understand you think Innocent III contradicts Innocent II, but I think it is extremely unlikely. Anyway, the two canons of Trent show this infallibly, one which says the selfsame grace of justification can be obtained through the desire of two sacraments, second, the one which says the grace of justification cannot be ever said to involve intrinsically the remission of all debt of temporal punishment. Finally, the Roman Catechism expressly says in penance we can recover the grace of Baptism, showing the proper grace of baptism is the grace of justification. Trent itself says penance according to the holy Fathers is a laborious kind of baptism so many tears and labors on our part are necessary to recover baptismal innocence. Thus the difference between the reception of justification and the recovery of the same is entirely due to the difference between baptism and penance. By the desire of both sacraments, the grace of justification, and it alone, can be certainly said to be obtained, according to the canon.

Throughout the Christian ages, the Athanasian Creed was always and everywhere understood to mean no one was saved without the Catholic Faith, "Whoever wishes to be saved, before all things he must hold the Catholic Faith. Now the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity ... whoever wishes to be saved must think thus on the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary for everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe firmly and faithfully, he cannot be saved." This is Tradition, this is what we must believe and must defend, the necessity of the Catholic Faith.

The idea that this refers to a necessity of precept only is a novelty, first seriously suggested in the 15th and 16th centuries. But what is far worse than what was suggested, by Suarez and some of the Salmanticenses, which was generally regarded as a discredited minority viewpoint, is the utterly novel and heterodox idea that Jєωs, Muslims and pagans living in the midst of us Catholics, not on some distant isle, can be saved without the Catholic Faith and without knowing and loving Jesus Christ, dates practically to the 19th and 20th century. Msgr. Fenton in many of his writings firmly opposes this idea. As we know, he said "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of salvific and supernatural faith includes ... the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation".

This is nothing other than the consecrated Tradition of the Fathers, contained in the infallible Athanasian Creed, repeated by St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Bernard and St. Bellarmine, that no one will be saved without the Catholic Faith, without believing in the Trinity and Incarnation, without knowing and loving Jesus Christ. These Doctors taught that those who love God above all things and seek to know Him and do His will would, because God wills all men to be saved and gives all men sufficient grace for the same, not fail to be enlightened about Jesus Christ, through an extraordinary means, and thus be saved by converting to Christianity and as Catholics, knowing and loving Jesus Christ. St. Alphonsus in particular argues in favor of it strenuously, against the Semipelagians, citing St. Thomas and other authorities. Every single authority is on our side, not if we oppose the Baptism of Desire, but if we defend the necessity of the Catholic Faith. We must also defend the necessity of Baptism, of penance and of the Church as such, by saying no one can be saved unless they receive these sacraments in re or in voto, and thus are incorporated into Her in re or in voto as St. Robert and others do. Thus, all who are stubbornly separated from Her, as Pius IX says, or who die culpably separated from Her, as the Fathers of Vatican I put it, in other words, all who die as heretics or infidels, are infallibly lost.

Coming to Pope St. Pius X, he teaches this directly, "Christians, when interrogated must answer that those who die as infidels are damned" so it is not permitted to say Confucius was saved. There was an earlier Holy Office decree that stated, in response to a query, that  Elsewhere, the same saintly Pontiff taught "a great number of the reprobate suffer the everlasting calamity on account of ignorance of those mysteries of Faith which nonetheless must be known and believed to be numbered among the elect". Msgr. Fenton cites some of these authorites and in many writings argues very convincingly that these Magisterial teachings cannot and have not been explained by those who hold the minority viewpoint.

Msgr. Fenton also thought Fr. Feeney was a good man, and so do I personally. Undoubtedly, he was facing real heresy in Boston, that bastion of liberalism. I think he made a mistake in two things, where he went, and where he did not go. Namely, that he went beyond St. Thomas, and this Tradition, secondly, that we did not go meet Pope Pius XII, who elsewhere he had praised, and make his case face to face with the Holy Father. Nonetheless, I think he was of good will. I think we should not deny Baptism of Desire, and of Blood, since these are Catholic teachings, taught by Tradition and the Magisterium. And lunatics like Ibranyi, and to a lesser extent the Dimonds, are the real problem here.

If you've been following some of the BoD threads, you'll notice, Nishant, that I repeatedly call you out as an example of someone who's NOT guilty of the errors which most BoD proponents fall into.  I am very satisfied with your post also and have no quarrel with you.  May God bless you.

Quote from: Nishant

Throughout the Christian ages, the Athanasian Creed was always and everywhere understood to mean no one was saved without the Catholic Faith, "Whoever wishes to be saved, before all things he must hold the Catholic Faith. Now the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity ... whoever wishes to be saved must think thus on the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary for everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe firmly and faithfully, he cannot be saved." This is Tradition, this is what we must believe and must defend, the necessity of the Catholic Faith.

The idea that this refers to a necessity of precept only is a novelty, first seriously suggested in the 15th and 16th centuries. But what is far worse than what was suggested, by Suarez and some of the Salmanticenses, which was generally regarded as a discredited minority viewpoint, is the utterly novel and heterodox idea that Jєωs, Muslims and pagans living in the midst of us Catholics, not on some distant isle, can be saved without the Catholic Faith and without knowing and loving Jesus Christ, dates practically to the 19th and 20th century. Msgr. Fenton in many of his writings firmly opposes this idea. As we know, he said "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of salvific and supernatural faith includes ... the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation".

This is nothing other than the consecrated Tradition of the Fathers, contained in the infallible Athanasian Creed, repeated by St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Bernard and St. Bellarmine, that no one will be saved without the Catholic Faith, without believing in the Trinity and Incarnation, without knowing and loving Jesus Christ. These Doctors taught that those who love God above all things and seek to know Him and do His will would, because God wills all men to be saved and gives all men sufficient grace for the same, not fail to be enlightened about Jesus Christ, through an extraordinary means, and thus be saved by converting to Christianity and as Catholics, knowing and loving Jesus Christ. St. Alphonsus in particular argues in favor of it strenuously, against the Semipelagians, citing St. Thomas and other authorities. Every single authority is on our side, not if we oppose the Baptism of Desire, but if we defend the necessity of the Catholic Faith. We must also defend the necessity of Baptism, of penance and of the Church as such, by saying no one can be saved unless they receive these sacraments in re or in voto, and thus are incorporated into Her in re or in voto as St. Robert and others do. Thus, all who are stubbornly separated from Her, as Pius IX says, or who die culpably separated from Her, as the Fathers of Vatican I put it, in other words, all who die as heretics or infidels, are infallibly lost.

Coming to Pope St. Pius X, he teaches this directly, "Christians, when interrogated must answer that those who die as infidels are damned" so it is not permitted to say Confucius was saved. There was an earlier Holy Office decree that stated, in response to a query, that  Elsewhere, the same saintly Pontiff taught "a great number of the reprobate suffer the everlasting calamity on account of ignorance of those mysteries of Faith which nonetheless must be known and believed to be numbered among the elect". Msgr. Fenton cites some of these authorites and in many writings argues very convincingly that these Magisterial teachings cannot and have not been explained by those who hold the minority viewpoint.

 :applause:

Kudos for this post, Nishant.  I couldn't have said any of this better myself.  You talk about the Dimond-like extremists as THE problem.  If you look here on CI, though, very few of the so-called "Feeneyites" would not give you the "applause" smilie for this post.

You see, Nishant, the real problem is the neo-Pelagians or semi-Pelagians; that mindset has only grown substantially since the time of St. Alphonsus -- and MOST OF THE MODERN PROPONENTS OF BOD do in fact promote one or another form of Pelagianism.  THAT has been my problem, not with your position.  BoD is a very tricky issue that can EASILY lead to a Pelagian mindset and this Pelagian BoD is what led directly to Vatican II and the modern decay of faith.  Father Feeney landed on this too.  Sometimes this kind of thing can potentially lead to the opposite extreme (ala the Dimonds) and could potentially lead to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  So the polarization on the other end of the extreme comes, as so often happens, as a violent reaction against the Pelagian heresy espoused by MOST proponents of BoD.  I'm not even sure it's semi-Pelagianism anymore.

 :applause: :applause:

I am a "convert" from Feeneyism, also; however, I am closer to the Saint Benedict Centers than I am to the SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI, because of the indifference which is found throughout all of those groups, who, more or less, embrace the "sincerity saves" Pelagianistic position which is nearly universal throughout the "Catholic" Church.

This is CMRI's teaching on BOD.  Or better put this is CMRI present what the Church teaches on BOD:

http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml

Baptism of Blood and of Desire
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)

Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”

Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”

2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)

Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)

“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.

Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”

4. POPE INNOCENT III

Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).

Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jєω, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jєωs, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).

5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)

Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

    Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
    That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
    A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.


6. ST. AMBROSE

“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”

7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God

“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).

8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”

9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)

Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa” (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).

10. Roman Martyrology

January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.

April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.

11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:

174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”

12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”

13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1)

The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.

This is certain.

Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.

b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.

14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:

    “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
    “Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
    “Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment...”


15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:

    “Baptism of Desire... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...”
    “These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
    “...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith....”


16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).

17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921

Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.

18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II, 1948:

The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).

19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:

Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.

20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:

Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...
>From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water... Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).


21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, 1902

Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...

Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.

___________

What is wrong with what they teach?

This is the Church infallible teaching on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

Infallible Magisterium:

A. Council of Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith:

The sacrament of Baptism, which at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely the Father the Son and The Holy Ghost, is solemnized in water, righly conferred to anyone in the form of the Curch is useful unto salvation.

B. Council of Florence, Exaltate Domino (1439):

Holy Baptism...holds the first place among the sacraments....the matter of this sacrament is real and natural water, it makes no difference warm or cold.

C. Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):

In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.

D. Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

And the infallible dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus

"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jєωs, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25:41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).

There is nowhere is the entire Church magisterium that supports the error of salvation for non-Catholics that do not even hold the Catholic Faith (foundation of all justification). There is nowhere in the entire Church Magisterium that supports the following errors professed by the BODers sedevacantists if CI:

"Faith of Desire"
"Salvation by Justification Alone" and
"Salvation by Implicit Desire"

All of this in regards to the non-Catholics who have not even knowledge of the Faith of course, without fail. These are modernist novelties. They mask these liberals ideas behind the mask of Baptism of Desire, incessantly coming back to the topic of "BOD" to mislead those who are not paying attention and want to make peace with the pluralist world we live in, when it has nothing to do with it.