You [The Worm] may rest assured my IQ surpasses your own by a lot, for whatever that is or is not worth.

"IQ" is Jєωιѕн "science". And this, your hybris, is awkward, distressing, embarrasing.

Quote from: Änσnymσus on Sat May 08 2021 18:06:25 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)

It's most strictly forbidden to believe, preach, or teach Baptism of Desire, or Baptism of Blood.

It is most strictly forbidden to deny Baptism of Desire, since the Council of Trent taught it. Thanks for the reference showing Dimondism is condemned by the Council. Trent taught BOD. No one is permitted to teach contrary to Trent. Therefore, no one is permitted to deny Baptism of Desire. If you were right, why did the Church teach Baptism of Desire in Her own Canon Law? Obviously, you are not right.

Note that the Council of Trent said there is no justification without Baptism "aut ejus voto" - that's a reference to the Baptism of Desire right there. Trent taught that there are Three Sacraments of which the Effects can be received in Desire: Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist, through Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion respectively, using the term "voto" in each case.

Trent also implied and taught BOD in two other places, one in that Canon where it says no one can be justified without the sacraments, "aut eurom voto" (or the desire of them) implying that the Desire of Two Sacraments avails the Grace of Justification. These two Sacraments, as is clear from the whole Council, can only be Baptism and Penance. Then it says Penance is necessary for Salvation as Baptism itself is necessary. But Penance is necessary in re or in voto, since the Desire for Penance justifies as the Council plainly taught. Hence, since the Council said Baptism is necessary for salvation in the same way, it follows that the same is true for Baptism as well.

Now, here is Trent's Catechism, which repeats the doctrine, as plain as day. Desire for Baptism, joined to contrition or repentance over past sins avails to Grace and Justice, i.e. to the Grace of Justification, so that the person who thus dies justified may be saved: "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

From: http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/sacraments/catechism_of_the_council_of_trent_baptism.htm

Ladislaus, I go with St. Robert. In the patristic age, it was not yet settled, although it is implied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Bp. Eusebius and the Council of Orange. It is fairly clear in Acts 10 that Cornelius was filled with the Holy Spirit before Baptism. Thus St. Peter and St. Luke in that passage, and St. Augustine, St. Thomas and Fr. Haydock commenting on it. In the Middle Ages, it was settled in response to a "dubia" by Pope Innocent III, and the Council of Trent dogmatized it. All post-Trent Catechisms are unanimous in teaching BOD, and not a single one condemns it. Hence, it is impossible imo for BOD to be false or objectively heretical.

The only disputed issue pre-Vatican II was Salvation by Explicit Faith vs Implicit Faith in Christ. That can of course still be disputed now.

Go figure.......

"I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of "the faithful departed."

Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again – he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by water.

Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good fight and preserves the Faith". - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life

Ladislaus, I go with St. Robert. In the patristic age, it was not yet settled ...

Being "not yet settled" is an understatement.  It simply didn't exist apart from some admitted speculation, whereas 5-6 Church Fathers rejected it.  If anything there's a Patristic Tradition against the notion, as both Rahner and Fr. Jurgens (the Patristic scholar) both concede.

In the U.S. of A. they say Feeneyism (Feeney was simple Priest and Jesuit). Elsewhere it's just called Catholicism to believe that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation.

The only person in the entire world that had to be dealt with was Feeney, an American -- and he wasn't being praised, but censured.
Feeneyites are a complete waste of time.  The colossal nature of their pride is only challenged by their ignorance and ability to see reality as a whole from a healthy, proper perspective.  Leave them to God.

My position is that there can be a baptism of desire, loosely speaking, that can justify, but which does not suffice for salvation.  I found lots of Patristic evidence which suggests that the Fathers believed that, while martyrdom and desire/intent/will ("piety and zeal" as St. Ambrose calls it) can "wash", i.e. remit sin, but that they cannot crown or give "glory" (i.e. allow the reception of the beatific vision and therefore salvation).  I find this to be the most consistent position to address all the issues on every side and it matches what the Fathers wrote about.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology

Obviously, you did not understand what you read.
Please quote any of the Fathers declaring that those who die in a state of Grace are damned.
That’s idiotic.

Obviously, you did not understand what you read.
Please quote any of the Fathers declaring that those who die in a state of Grace are damned.
That’s idiotic.

I never said that they are damned.  You obviously didn't read anything in that link before running your virtual mouth.