How lucky are we, no one to correct saint Alphonsus' "error" for centuries until two youtubers from NY came along. No pope, no bishop, no theologian, no catechism, nor canon law to pick this "error" up. I mean this "devilish grave sin" was being promoted left right and center. How absurd are you!

This idiotic/monronic rant is filled with about a dozen logical fallacies and outright lies.  This demonstrates clearly your malice and bad will.  St. Alphonsus was not infallible.  Theologians disagree with him on a fair number of points.  St. Peter Canisius, who was actually AT Trent, has a different reading of Trent than St. Alphonsus.  Majority of Church Fathers rejected (explicitly) Baptism of Desire, so, no, its rejection was not a novelty invented by the Dimond Brothers, you lying scuмbag.  Then in the 12th century it remained a disputed question.  Of course, obviously, long before the Dimond Brothers, Father Feeney was questioning it.  Nevertheless, Fr. Feeney correctly pointed out that Trent was teaching about justification, not salvation.  Several post-Tridentine theologians made the distinction between justification and salvation, including Melchior Cano, who held that infidels could be justified but not saved ... and so Father Feeney did not invent the distinction.  Explain how exactly Fr. Feeney denies Trent when he held that people could be justified by the votum for Baptism ... when that is a verbatim re-statement of Trent's teaching (according to your reading of the grammar).

You're a lying dirtbag and this post here proves it.

How lucky are we, no one to correct saint Alphonsus' "error" for centuries until two youtubers from NY came along. No pope, no bishop, no theologian, no catechism, nor canon law to pick this "error" up. I mean this "devilish grave sin" was being promoted left right and center. How absurd are you!

The Council of Trent, Session Seven, Sacraments in General, Canon 4 states:
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."

Saint Alphonsus Commentary on Canon 4:
"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)."

It seems you do not understand that a BOD is not a sacrament, yet you wrongfully claim that the Church teaches that a BOD is salvific.

Per St. Alphonsus' beginning statement above, and him saying in no uncertain terms that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for all, how is it that you claiming a BOD saves does not make you a heretic?

Stubborn, we have a problem, don't we.

-St Alphonsus teaches the above quote.
-St Alphonsus teaches that BOD is de fide.

St Alphonsus was either forgetful (as to what he wrote), contradicted himself gravely or simply taught BOTH (which of course is the only possible answer).

No, we actually do not have a problem, you might, but "we" don't. We all know that even great saints can err and have erred in one or another of their teachings, it is something that happens to all humans.

As for St. Alphonsus' commentary, his commentary is all about Canon 4 which canon Trent put under the heading: "On the sacraments in general." 

BOD proponents mis-use that canon as a proof that a BOD is de fide via the words: ""the desire thereof," apparently as if that canon is ignoring the sacraments and is rather teaching only about a BOD - which is not even  a sacrament. This makes the whole idea of BODers using canon 4 to prove a BOD an error, St. Alphonsus calls them heretics.

What St. Alphonsus explains in his commentary is that the meaning of those words are actually referring only to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which we all know is the "Spiritual Communion," and he does this after saying that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for all. His commentary is in complete harmony with what Trent defines in canon 4 and what the Church has always taught. 

We cannot say why in his writings that he goes contrary on this subject, but because of canon 4 we can agree with him in his commentary on canon 4 - again, because of canon 4.

Oh Stubborn, it seems you cannot decide what position you are holding in regards to Alphonsus’ writings.

I said:
"because of canon 4 we can agree with him in his commentary on canon 4 - again, because of canon 4."

Where he teaches contrary, whatever he says, is simply his opinion.

It's not complicated.

You do not accept his commentary on Canon 4, not surprising as that is a trait shared by all BODers far as I know.

Too bad even tridentine catechism did not manage to follow its dogmatic council of the same name it wished to call itsefl, but apparently failed miserably. 

You are correct that we don’t have to hang on st Alphonsus alone. He is not the sole rule of faith, of course. Wish you could say same about Dimonds. I guess these great saints just wanted to make a fool of themselves knowing well what they wrote and just decided to give us their fallible heretical opinion so we can have something to talk about. 

How about this:

Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) cites St. Robert Bellarmine S.J. on Baptism of Desire in his 1602 work Opus de triplici virtute theologic, a Tractus de fide, Disp.XII, sect.4, n.22 : [As to] what is further added, that outside the Church there is no salvation, some say, as Cano, that this proposition is to be understood of the Church in general, as it always was, and not only of the Church, as it was specially instituted by Christ. But this response is unsatisfactory, both because the Church is always one, and also because the Councils really speak of this Church of Christ, and one must hold as true in some sense concerning it, that outside of it nobody is saved. Thus it is better to reply according to the distinction given between necessity in fact, or in desire [in re, vel in voto]; for thus nobody can be saved, unless he should enter this Church of Christ either in fact, or at least in will and desire. Bellarmine responds thus to a similar question. And it is manifest, that nobody is actually inside this Church, unless he is baptized, and yet one can be saved because the will to be baptized is sufficient, and likewise the will to enter the Church; thus we say the same of any faithful person who is truly penitent and is not baptized, whether he shall have come to explicit faith in Christ, or only to implicit faith : for by that faith he can have at least an implicit desire, which is sufficient with regard to baptism, as St. Thomas teaches in the aforesaid places.”

Is this good enough? All of them saints and doctors were just spilling ink giving us their erroneous fallible opinions, right? Lol

 1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
   "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."

The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
   "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."

Let me guess, first is opinion, second is wrong interpretation, and last 2 are fallible theologians. Maybe they even crept up as hidden modernists at the time? 

But what else is new?

P.S. Lad, I wanted to say I’m proud of you. You almost managed the full post without an insult. Managed right there to the end. But improvement already. Keep it up.

Too bad even tridentine catechism did not manage to follow its dogmatic council of the same name it wished to call itsefl, but apparently failed miserably.

How about this:

 1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
  "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."

Better, but still false.  Canon Law is not Magisterium but discipline.  This is taken out of context.  Feel free to post the entire Canon.

1) Only the baptized can receive Christian burial.
2) Catechumens ... are to be treated as baptized.

This legal language is the equivalent of saying ...

1) Only US citizens may hold jobs in the United States.
2) Holders of Green Cards are to be treated as US citizens.

This does not mean that Holders of Green Cards are US citizens broadly speaking and for all intents and purposes, just in this particular context, i.e. they're allowed to hold jobs in the US.

This doesn't prove they made it to heaven through BOD. 

A new category for Feenyites? This is not in Dimond's handbook so I'm not sure what to think.
BOB/BODs are in hell as well as anyone who promote this "heresy" (according to Dimonds) but now we have a special place for them apart from Heaven and Hell?  Where is st. Emerentiana? People pray to her but she is not in Heaven? Or is it another falsehood that crept up that she died as catechumen? Maybe we should remove her from calendar? Or as sspx simply have that prerogative to strip saints of their sainthood? The hoops you have to jump through, my oh my...