CathInfo.com

C. Therefore, you must believe by divine and Catholic faith
those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s
authority, either through:
a. Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or
popes ex cathedra) OR
b. Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the
bishops together with the pope, either in council, or
spread throughout the world.)
D. This is not “optional,” or “a matter of opinion.”
• It defines the object of faith — what you are obliged to believe.
• Further, it is  de fide definita — an infallible, unchangeable,
solemn pronouncement.

Herein lies the problem. Something is not right with what is written above.

One *must* believe solemn pronouncements OR the Universal Ordinary Magisterium........................well I think it is obvious that in this case there is a contradiction.

Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul. How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and exactly who is to be believed?

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: spouse of Jesus

  You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
  If you say "yes" you are killed.
   If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.

  The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.

Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, begin omniscient as He is?

So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.

One of the Ugandan martyrs, St. Kizito, I believe, died in exactly this situation and was canonized for it.  

Kizito may or may not be a saint, as I strongly disbelieve that Paul VI (the one who canonized him) was a true Pope and thus not capable of canonizing anyone, but there is certainly no proof that the Ugandan martyrs (among whom were Anglicans...) who were Catholic did not receive baptism prior to their death.

In fact.. here's what The St. Kizito Foundation has to say regarding the baptism of these people:

In May of 1886, King Mwanga discovered that some of his pages were Catholic.  He killed one page and prohibited anyone from leaving his headquarters.  Charles Lwanga, religious instructor to the pages, secretly baptized four young men, including Kizito, a cheerful 13-year-old he often protected from the king’s i9mmoral conduct.

When the baptisms were discovered, Mwanga assembled all the pages and ordered the Christians to separate from the others.  They were asked if they wished to remain Christian and each replied, “Until death.”  Mwanga then ordered the execution of every Catholic and Protestant living in the royal household.  The martyrs were taken to Namugongo where they were imprisoned for seven days and then burned alive on June 3, 1886.

St. Kizito is the youngest of the Martyrs of Uganda who died in the Mwangan persecutions.  Kizito’s martyrdom came just weeks after his baptism.  Twenty-two of the Martyrs of Uganda were canonized October 18, 1964.

Unfortunately your hypothesis falls apart.

Roscoe: Demonstrate, beyond any rasonable doubt, that ANY Of the three papal claimants at the time of the GWS were VALIDLY elected Pope. THey all had deficient form. ALl the elections were problematic. Why should we believe that ANY were Pope? Why can we not say that the immediate successor to the last valid POpe was Pope Martin, elected at the council of Constance?

SHow me, and teach me.

THIS IS FATHER FEENEY'S ERROR:

You must reject these condemned positions on this issue:

A. Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of
our faith. (Condemned by Pius VI.)
• “The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there
has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths
pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral
teachings of Jesus Christ,’  HERETICAL.”  Auctorem Fidei  (1794) DZ
1501.

AS we all know, Fr. Feeney believed that due to the increse in liberalism in America, that the theologians of the time, and since Trent actually, had been watering down EENS.

TO believe such a thing is HERETICAL. But, Fr. Feeney believed it. He contended that the theologians were leading the Church astray.

I was, up until recently, a fairly strong Feeneyite. Then I learned that as Catholics we are OBLIGED to submit to the COMMON TEACHING of the Churches approved theologians.

After seeing a list of 27 of them from BEFORE vatican II who taught that BOD was at LEAST a common teaching of the church (and the greater number held it to be de fide), and after learning that I cannot hold a theological conspiracy theory, what could I do?

I submit my heart to the CHURCH. Not to Fr. Feeney. Then I learned about the TYPE of excommunication he received. It is perfectly valid, because it is a specific type, of a specific form.

WHat can I say? I entrust my Faith to the Church.