I think maybe emotions come into play among a BOD proponents because like Scripture,, the Church teaches that so many die unbaptized and are lost forever, whereas a BOD gives it's proponents a hope that not so many are lost. As Fr. Wathen put it: "If this seems to you overly severe, I remind you, it truly *is* severe..."

Yes, I believe it all comes down to EMOTIONALISM! Who do these bod advocates think they are, telling Christ that he really didn't say what he meant in St. J0hn 3:5    

https://https://x.com/1Friarminor/status/1355233388752367616x.com/1Friarminor/status/1355233388752367616

Yes, you misinterpret Trent's catechism, there is simply no other way to come up with a BOD from the catechism. Did you read the snip I posted from that catechism? If not, please read it, then use that teaching to support a BOD.
And please do the same with what I posted from St. Alphonsus.
And Fr. Feeney was indeed a theologian, well respected and was a well known priest and theologian.
That's my opinion and nothing more. First it says those who die unbaptized cannot receive ecclesiastical burial, then it makes an exception for unbaptized catechumens. Something seems to me to be amiss there. Whether I am wrong or not means nothing, because either way it's not teaching a BOD.

My friend, God forbid I misinterpret something and lead others in error. If i "misinterpret" it as you say, it is only because I enjoy the company of saints, doctors, catechisms and canon law that "misinterpret" it with me on this matter. It seems to me you guys only listen to what anonymous new york brothers say no matter what, as well as one rouge priest in the 50s. But let's belittle st Alphonsus, right? 


If you have to step on necks of so many giants, what say you? Well, that they are in error, or contradiction because this what they said here or there. This is nothing short of sola scriptura method applied on canons, dogmas etc. In other words- hey Mother Church did not need to bother with approved theologians nor their unanimous teaching (as Ludwig Ott would say it for instance on this matter), right?. What nonsense. 


Now hear this Mr Stubborn from the very same catechism YOU DARE TO INTERPRET how YOU please.

"Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once,” pg. 124-125: “But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time.  Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages."

Now go on, I dare you, consult the same catechism that mother Church gave us. Or will you only be able to get your answer if brothers Dimond give it to you? Maybe this part of catechism is in error to, aye?

Source:

https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/thecatechismofth00donouoft/thecatechismofth00donouoft.pdf

I guess I just find it strange that this topic can push so many emotional buttons.

Because people want to make exceptions for the rule. Same thing with heresies like salvation outsi the church by the church, or salvation in the state of invincible ignorance, or claiming someone can have the soul of the church without being in the Body of Christ.

"Pope Gregory XVI: "...The discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (Mirari Vos, #9 ).

Yet another SV baboon making a fool of himself by grossly misinterpreting the evidence.  Neither the Catechism of Trent nor the Code of Canon Law "teach" BoD, and the error regarding the Code is so amateurish as to be laughable.

Gee, Ladislaus, you really nailed it there. I am convinced. C'mon pal, I know you are well respected elder of this forum. Your insights are great on some things, very weird on others- like cardinal Siri being this so called hidden "resistance" pope despite going with the flow of revolution later on (photo attached). And then here, you come back from sabbatical only to name me baboon. You can do better than that I'm sure. Let's start by "correcting" the 1917 code of canon law for start...

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