CathInfo.com

BOD does not need to be defined by non-Saints,non-Doctors,non-Popes like Mirari Vos or myself.

OK, so then please cite a Magisterial source that clearly defines it so that we can know exactly what we must believe about it de fide.

You get a different explanation of what it is and how it works from pretty much every single proponent of it that you can find.  Some even apply BoD to validly-baptized Protestands and to the Eastern schismatics.  You can't believe something of faith when it's that murky.  In fact, the greatest common denominator among all its proponents is that "Baptism is not required for salvation." ... which is heresy.

At best you have -- as I concede but do not grant -- a passing mention of it in Trent.  So you would have it that the Church declare a concept de fide without actually explaining it at all, but then leaves it to theologians and the Baltimore catechism to actually DEFINE what that is.

Declare and Define are also terms in computer programming, and they're analogous to how this BoD thing works in your mind.

Trent DECLARES BoD, but then subsequent lesser authorities DEFINE it.

In programming, you merely mention something (in this case a variable), i.e. give it a name, but then you don't assign some value to it sometimes until later.

So,

int x (means I am declaring an Integer value and calling it x, but its real value is unknown and can change)

x = 25 (means that I am assigning a value of 25 to x)

So this is in effect what you're saying, where the Church declares/names/mentions it, but then leaves it to others to actually define what must be believed de fide.

That's preposterous and has never happened in the history of the Church declaring dogmas.

So, for BOD:

1) some hold it can apply only to catechumens (St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance, and the 1.5 Church Fathers who MAY have believed it)
2) some hold it can only apply to those with explicit faith (St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus)
3) others (the vast majority) believe it can apply even to infidels (Hindus in Tibet or Great Thumb worshippers)
4) others believe it can apply to Easter Schismatics and Protestants who are validly baptized (making it synonymous with sincerity)
5) some have a Pelagian view where desire justifies on its own without any knowledge of Baptism at all
6) some believe it remits temporal punishment due to sin (Innocent III) while others that it does not (St. Alphonsus)

So which of these must I believe de fide ... lest I lose my soul?

Let no one say the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't define what Trent means by Baptism of Desire either, because it clearly does above.

... Trent didn't define it, but left it to the Catholic Encyclopedia to do it instead.



I think I've about seen it all.  So the Catholic Encyclopedia must DEFINE what Trent meant by Baptism of Desire ... since Trent didn't bother to do so.

This just gets richer with every post.

Xavier, if justification is all that is necessary to gain heaven, then why does the baptismal character matter? 
.
Why does St Ambrose make a distinction between the martyered catechumen who was not crowned and the martyred catechumen who was baptized and crowned?