P.S here is a photo of your pope following the revolution. But let's stay on the topic..

Pathetic ad hominem and distraction.  Of course, you go off topic with your absurd attack and then call for staying "on topic".  I reject your absurd attempts to distract and your ad hominem fallacy out of hand.

From time to time we get some new users with unorthodox ideas to come up with controversies and instigate disagreements. It is very strange. They must be somehow coordinated. They might be always the same three of four people with different usernames.

Ladislaus, you are projecting (which I noticed is your common MO when disagreeing with someone).  I am not revelling my duplicity nor am I a baboon. Unless you want to call  great saint Alphonsus who tells you this is de fide the same thing. As I simply hold on to what this saint has said.

I am a new member. I simply know as followed this forum for almost 10 years probably, I never joined before. Not of importance for this anyway. 



You say- “Paragraph 2, which you and your ilk invariably take out of context, quite deliberately, is nothing more than a qualification of (or exception to) Paragraph 1.”

I agree my sir. Did anyone claim that BOB/BOD are rules rather than mere exceptions? Heck, most of the catholics are damned based on the Church Fathers and writers of previous centuries propose, so I never understood why you feenyites would think this to be some sort of safety net if all else fails. No, it is a mere unique gift Our Lord can bestow on people if He wishes. 

It’s the principle of defending the Church teaching. 
It is ironic that you call me intellectually dishonest. Your teachers, the Dimond brothers do not deny catechism of council of trident nor one of saint pius the tenth contain BOD. As a matter a fact they confirm it is in 1917 canon law too. I would say they are intellectually honest on that point.


What they do afterwards is belittle them as fallible creations where as you just cannot grasp it is there. You just ignore it. 
C’mon Lad, you know that calling someone baboon is pathetic ad hominem and distraction. Calling you weird because you have some strange appeal to secrecy by calling a person pope who then signed all of the docuмents at Vatican II like Lumen Gentium, publicly recognised apostates as popes and used invalid/dubious sacraments even himself being validly ordained is a plain fact. Where does this weirdo theory leave us? Trying to determine at which point he lost the papacy? Or do you give him a free pass? You consider John Paul I false pope (so do I), but your pope gave homily on his funeral. You cannot make this stuff up. 

Go for it lad if it makes you happy, but let’s stay on topic. 
You are also projecting Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" theory on me. Where did I endorse that garbage?

Funny you mention Saint Fulgentius who spoke of baptism of blood:

“No one can, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal." (The Rule of Faith 43).





Giovanni Berto, this is not unorthodox idea. It’s the idea unanimously thought by pre Vatican II theologians, contained in pretty much all manuals of moral theology I came across, commentaries, glossaries, catechisms, canon law etc. Well if they are all heterodox, I like that company over self proclaimed anonymous forum theologians. 

Since your avatar is a picture of great saint, hear his story about it here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-john-vianney-fr-herman-cohen's-mother-was-saved-by-baptism-of-desire!/

Funny you mention Saint Fulgentius who spoke of baptism of blood:

“No one can, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal." (The Rule of Faith 43).





Giovanni Berto, this is not unorthodox idea. It’s the idea unanimously thought by pre Vatican II theologians, contained in pretty much all manuals of moral theology I came across, commentaries, glossaries, catechisms, canon law etc. Well if they are all heterodox, I like that company over self proclaimed anonymous forum theologians. 

Since your avatar is a picture of great saint, hear his story about it here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-john-vianney-fr-herman-cohen's-mother-was-saved-by-baptism-of-desire!/

Saint XYZ said BoD, well Saints ZYX said no to BoD.

What matters is the Church's definitions.

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of Florence

"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

As you can see Baptism of Blood is a false doctrine directly refuted by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.

I've advised you- I interpret it how the very same tridentine catechism interprets it. How st Alphonus interprets it, how unanimous theologians interpret it (prior to Vatican II), how instructions of moral theology interpret it, how canon law of 1917 iterprets it which you dare to call erroneous. Is that not sufficient? Or do you deny they say bob/bod is part of Church's teachings? You are posing a false dilemma here as if I have to interpret something based on one sentence alone. I am not a protestant my friend. Yes, you feenyites would be all correct if that was the case. Unfortunately for you, that's not how Church teaches. If it allows for BOB/BOD elsewhere it is not a contradiction nor did Church have nothing better to do then spill ink for the sake of filling in the gaps. There is a reason why this is almost always mentioned. How that goes over your head, I don't know.
 
I've asked you how you interpret John 5,54- " Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

See if we were to use feenyite tunnel vision logic here, then all who did not receive eucharist would perish, right?

Good post. I’ve used the same line of argument against them for years, to no avail. Their opinion is of higher “authority” than any pope, saint, or Doctor of the Church. While I agree with them that the EENS dogma has been watered down by the liberals misuse of the doctrine of BOD over the years, BOD has been taught universally and according to many theologians, including Saint Alphonsus, it is dogma.

Yes, you say St. Alphonsus interprets a BOD into Trent, yet here he roundly condemns the idea as heresy in the very first sentence while he teaches the necessity of the sacrament, as both Trent and it's catechism teaches:

"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons:  for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)."

Yet you continue on as if both Trent and St. Alphonsus teach a BOD while completely and totally ignoring what he taught above. Again, this bespeaks a complete lack of sincerity on your part.

Note what he says at the end of the quote re: John 6:54.

Stubborn, the nickname suits you. Either we have a contradiction or we have two things that are not mutually exclusive, do we agree that much?

Again, answer the question plain and clear (correction it is 6,54 not 5,54). What is that you are trying to tell us here? Do all who not eat flesh and drink the blood of Our Lord perish?

And please don’t quote things elsewhere but just solely from this quote. Otherwise I will have to play a feenyite for a second and say to you - Yet you continue on as if there are exceptions to what are Lord said in 6,54 completely and totally ignoring what he taught in Jn 6,54? Would that then bespeak a complete lack of sincerity on your part?

Answer the question plain and clear please-those who did not receive eucharist perish, right? Don’t refer me to look at the same verse I have pointed to you, I don’t read your thoughts. What do you mean? 

Again, answer the question plain and clear (correction it is 6,54 not 5,54). What is that you are trying to tell us here? Do all who not eat flesh and drink the blood of Our Lord perish?

Again, St. Alphonsus commentary on Trent's Canon 4 explains Trent and John 6:54:

TRENT:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

ST. ALPHONSUS:

"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons:  for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)."

St. Alphonsus teaches that the famous so-called "dogma on a BOD" i.e. "desire thereof," applies strictly to The Holy Eucharist - this is what both Trent and St. Alphonsus teaches. That BODers misapply it to the sacrament of baptism is error, after all this time it might possibly be heresy.