CathInfo.com

I believe that the sedevacantist contempt for Feeneyism dovetails with their exaggerated notion of infallibility, where they effectively hold that every single utterance of any pope is tantamount to an infallible and dogmatic definition ... for all intents and purposes.  So they give a lot more weight to the so-called Suprema Haec than it deserves.

Unfortunately, BoD/BoB have become distractions, because that is not the core issue.  EENS is.  But BoD keeps resurfacing because the enemies of EENS insist upon using BoD as the weapon with which they constantly try to undermine it.  So one finds the overreaction of the Dimonds in declaring all forms (and articulations) of BoD to be heretical.

I don't see the "sedevacantist contempt" for Feeneyites.  Do some have contempt?  Yes.  But I think you see that in other trad groups as well.  When I think of the posters right here currently on this board who are the most anti-Feeneyite, they aren't sedevacantist.

I'm a Thomist. I believe in Baptism of Desire and of Blood, which is taught by the Catholic Church under His Holiness Pope St. Pius X. The Anti-Modernist Saintly Pontiff who combated that great heresy. Hence, it is absurd - and heretical - to claim that BOD/BOB is heresy.

I firmly oppose Dimondism. Dimondism is the denial of the de fide doctrine taught in Trent and its Catechism that Baptism of Desire can justify and save. I am with St. Thomas in believing that God will bring all His elect to explicit faith in Christ for their salvation. I would even be open to the Augustinian theory that God, in addition, will bring them to Sacramental Baptism, if it weren't for the absurdities and extremism of some like the Dimonds. The Dimonds take pleasure in damning souls. That's obvious from their videos. That has never been the teaching of the Church and was not the opinion of St. Augustine either. The Dimonds anathematize 99% even of Catholics. They would be schismatic on just that count, to the exclusion of all other things.

Trent and its Catechism did teach the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire, and of Blood, which is the most perfect form of Baptism of Desire. That is plain, and has been the unanimous reading of Trent for 500 years. Not even Fr. Feeney or SBC today denies that Trent teaches that Baptism or its voto justifies. The voto of Baptism is included in the Baptism of Blood, because Martyrdom itself is the Perfect Act of Love. God loves everyone and gives everyone the chance to make Perfect Acts of Contrition.

It is difficult, but not impossible, for good-willed non-Christians to do so. If they persevere in doing so, they will be given the Grace of Catholic Faith, and Catholic Faith in Christ, before their deaths, and so be saved as Christians.

Trent and its Catechism did teach the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire, and of Blood, which is the most perfect form of Baptism of Desire. That is plain, and has been the unanimous reading of Trent for 500 years. Not even Fr. Feeney or SBC today denies that Trent teaches that Baptism or its voto justifies. The voto of Baptism is included in the Baptism of Blood, because Martyrdom itself is the Perfect Act of Love. God loves everyone and gives everyone the chance to make Perfect Acts of Contrition.

I agree with everything else but this.  Trent simply stated that justification cannot happen without the desire for it.  Its language leaves open the possibility that the "desire" alone suffices for justification, but it does not explicitly state this as it did for the Sacrament of Confession.  Trent could have used the "saltem" language or else "vel ... vel" as it did for Confession, but did not.  So, on the surface, the text could mean that either is sufficient or that both are required.  Also, if Trent had intended to be dealing with the "Three Baptisms," it's difficult to explain why there's no mention of Baptism of Blood.  This definition, read the pro-BoD way, actually rules out BoB as something distinct from BoD, effectively reducing it to the ex opere operantis effect of desire.

But even if you read is as saying that the desire itself suffices for justification, theologians distinguish between justification and salvation.  In order to get to the next step, you have to argue syllogistically and assert that a person who dies in a state of justification is necessarily saved.  This assumes that God would ever allow this scenario to happen (vs. St. Augustine's opinion to the contrary) and it seems to run counter to the example of the Old Testament just.  Really the biggest argument for this comes from the condemnation of Baius, but I've studied that and what was being condemned was something entirely different asserted by Baius ... which I could go into but won't here.  As you know, several theologians held that infidels could be justified but not saved ... so that distinction made by Father Feeney was not of his own invention but has been around a long time, from the post-Tridentine theologians.