The article is an excellent and detailed refutation of Feeneyism and its many heretical variants.

Anyone who thinks a soul who dies justified doesn't go to heaven shows that he doesn't even understand what justification is. Justification is the translation from the state of original sin to the state of sanctifying grace. Trent dogmatically defines that in all the justified nothing else is necessary to ultimately go to heaven other than that they depart in grace. The obstinate denial of this is heretical. A justified soul is a child of God, whom the blood of Christ has cleansed, in whom the Holy Ghost indwells, who is inside the Church and in the state of sanctifying grace.

Trent condemns the proposition that "without them [the sacraments], or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification" from which it is obvious that no one can be saved who has not either received the sacraments or desired to receive them, that the sacraments are necessary in fact or in desire. The example of Cornelius in Scripture, cited in the article, as all approved commentaries teach, also suffices to refute the Dimondist variety of Feeeneyism that denies that justification is possible through the desire of the sacraments.

What exactly am I defending???? I am defending the dogmas of Trent as they have been infallibly interpreted by the post-Tridentine magisterium. You are proposing a heretical private interpretation of dogmatic pronouncements that directly opposes the dogmas of Trent as infallibly interpreted by the post-Tridentine popes and the universal & ordinary magisterium.

Why are my replies to comments on another page getting posted on this one?

Throughout the entire history of the Church; no pope, no council, no synod, no Father, no Doctor; no authority in the Church has ever pronounced against baptism of blood, or taught that it offends against EENS. It is the unanimous and perpetual tradition of the universal magisterium  -- St. Cyprian of Carthage attested that BOB was universally professed in the Church already in the first half of the Third Century. He also stated that only "aiders and favourers of heretics" deny BOB. It was also the same St. Cyprian who first coined the formula, "Extra Ecclesism nulla salus." Since the Council of Trent all popes and Doctors have taught BOD explicitly, or authorized it to be taught. No pope,  no council, no catechism, has ever maintained that BOD offends against any canon of Trent, or against EENS. It is only those generally recognized as heretics who dissent from the infallible authority of the magisterium, and follow their own Private Judgment in interpreting the dogmatic canons, who deny BOB & BOD.

Throughout the entire history of the Church; no pope, no council, no synod, no Father, no Doctor; no authority in the Church has ever pronounced against baptism of blood, or taught that it offends against EENS. It is the unanimous and perpetual tradition of the universal magisterium)

That's simply untrue.  Before the time of St. Bernard (about half the time that the Church has existed) there was exactly ONE Church Father who unequivocally promoted Baptism of Desire, and that Father later retracted the opinion and can be quoted as having issued the strongest statements in existence AGAINST the notion of BoD.  Apart from that what you have in the "tradition of the universal magisterium" is a deafening silence.  You see only constant affirmation of the fact that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (something that is no longer believed by the vast majority of Catholics).

What is true is that BoD / BoB have never been explicitly condemned.  Which is why I reject the Dimonds' assertion that people who accept BoD are by that fact alone heretics.  Nevertheless, the magisterial arguments AGAINST BoD/BoB are much stronger than the ones for them.

Here are the two strongest arguments against BoD/BoB, arguments against which I can see no logical out.

ONE:

Major [de fide]:  Those who are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff cannot be saved.

Minor [de fide from Trent]:  Those who have not received Sacramental Baptism (with specific mention of catechumens) are in no way subject to the Supreme Pontiff.

Conclusion [proximate to faith]:  Those who have not received Sacramental Baptism cannot be saved.

TWO:

Major [de fide]:  There is no salvation outside the "Church of the faithful".

Minor [theologically certain]: At no time has the Church or any theologian ever used the term "faithful" to include catechumens.  Catechumens were always considered NOT to be among the "faithful".

Conclusion [theologically certain unless there's a sudden, radical redefinition of the term "the faithful"]:  Catechumens who die without the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be saved.

St. Cyprian of Carthage attested that BOB was universally professed in the Church already in the first half of the Third Century. He also stated that only "aiders and favourers of heretics" deny BOB. It was also the same St. Cyprian who first coined the formula, "Extra Ecclesism nulla salus." Since the Council of Trent all popes and Doctors have taught BOD explicitly, or authorized it to be taught. No pope,  no council, no catechism, has ever maintained that BOD offends against any canon of Trent, or against EENS. It is only those generally recognized as heretics who dissent from the infallible authority of the magisterium, and follow their own Private Judgment in interpreting the dogmatic canons, who deny BOB & BOD.

Oh, yes, you mean the same St. Cyprian who (about a paragraph away from his BoB teaching) articulated a sacramental theology about Baptism that was later condemned as heretical?  St. Cyprian taught that the invalidity of Baptism by heretics was the constant tradition of the Church.  There were a number of Church Fathers who followed him on the subject of BoB, but there's no evidence of any unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on this subject.  Of the hundreds upon hundreds of Church Fathers, about 6-7 can be found who promote BoB.  These SAME Church Fathers also very forcefully reject BoD.  Which puts you into a catch-22 type of situation.  If these Fathers were WRONG, as you claim, in their rejection of BoD, then the could just as easily have been wrong in their promotion of BoB.  Ironically, many Church Fathers also followed St. Cyprian in his error about heretical Baptism ... so great was his influence.

What's really very sad is the Karl Rahner did one of the most objective and honest studies of the subject out there, and he concluded that there's no such universal tradition in support of BoD, but that the notion grew over time.  Of course that implies the modernist notion of a growing awareness of doctrine or truth (rather than a one-time deposit of revelation).

I have examined the evidence objectively, and there simply isn't enough there to show that BoD/BoB were revealed and are part of the deposit of revelation.  I acknowledge that since the time of St. Bernard it has become an increasingly widely-held opinion, but given its lack of roots in revelation, it rests squarely in the realm of speculative theology.  And I have been looking for ANY demonstration of how BoD derives from other revealed doctrine, and no such argument as ever been made.  All I find is repeated gratuitous assertions that BoD exists, without any theological proof whatsoever.  BoD creates tons of theological problems, and there's strong evidence against it theologically (based on the arguments cited above as ONE and TWO).  Consequently, I reject BoD & BoB.  But the BoDers REFUSE to OBJECTIVELY examine the evidence and make patently false unsupported assertions that it's the unanimous constant teaching of the Church.  That's just baloney.

I did not say baptism of DESIRE was unanimous throughout the entire Patristic period -- what I said was that baptism of BLOOD, was already unanimous since the most ancient times. The ancient Fathers were unanimously professing BAPTISM OF BLOOD. St. Cyprian attests to that FACT. He erred in his opinion regarding the baptism, but that was not yet a settled question. My! You Ferneyites are so ignorant!

Erratum: regarding rebaptism

No minister of the sacrament ever tried to baptize anyone with "desire". The canon defines that SACRAMENTAL BAPTISM requires WATER. It does NOT state or in any manner imply that sanctification and justification does not take place where there are the theological virtues, contrition and the resolve to receive the sacrament. Sess. 7 canon 4 explicitly defines that justification requires either the sacraments OR the resolve to receive them. In Acts 10:46 -48, it is related that St. Peter affirmed that the just evangelized gentiles had already received the Holy Ghost "as we have" -- BEFORE receiving baptism.