Mr. Don Paolo, Ambrose, and Lover of Truth have all claimed that Baptism of Desire is de fide, i.e. Catholic dogma and have accordingly accused "Feeneyites" of "heresy".

But in Father Cekada's infamous screed about Baptism of Desire, he lists 25 Pre-Vatican II theologians; only SEVEN of the TWENTY-FIVE, fewer than one third, qualify Baptism of Desire with the theological note of de fide, with the rest, the vast majority, qualifying it with a theological note of something less than de fide.  Very interestingly, ZERO of the 25 qualify Baptism of Blood as de fide even though you can find more Patristic evidence for BoB than for BoD.

In the final analysis, it's not de fide that BoD is de fide, so the accusations of heresy on the part of "Feeneyites" is nothing but a minority theological opinion adhered to by Mr. Don Paolo, Ambrose, and Lover of Truth.  If they were truthly faithful to Catholic authority, then they would drop the heresy allegation against "Feeneyites".

Even Fr. Cekada cannot conclude by claiming that those who reject Baptism of Desire are heretics, just that they commit a grave sin against the faith (two different things).  So those like DP, Ambrose, and LoT who claim that those who reject BoD are heretics (i.e. non-Catholics) are actually schismatic for considering outside the Church those whom the Church does not consider to be outside the Church.

Here's another point regarding the simplistic approach to the Magisterium taken by Ambrose, LoT, and many sedevacantists.

For about, oh, say, 1500-1600 years at least, it was universally taught and believed, without dissent, that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation.  Therefore, according to Ambrose, LoT, et al. this would have rendered that belief a dogma.  Yet the same Ambrose and LoT claim that the relatively-recent innovation by modern theologians in that regard is now acceptable when they should, based on their own principles, have denounced it as heresy out of the gate.

Right, presumably if these post-Tridentine theoligians had believed BoD was taught or defined by Trent, they would ALL hold it to be de fide.  Consequently, there's disagreement here about whether Trent taught it.  Alternatively, some of them might hold that, "yeah, Trent mentioned it, but it didn't really define it or propose it for belief, mentioning the notion merely in passing."

So, despite the fact that some proponents of BoD claim that it's defined dogma, that is the minority opinion among theologians.

Father Cekada was trying to argue that Catholics MUST accept it under pain of grave sin, but he didn't notice that he was also at the same time demonstrating that it was a minority opinion that this was defined by the Church.

Right, presumably if these post-Tridentine theoligians had believed BoD was taught or defined by Trent, they would ALL hold it to be de fide.  Consequently, there's disagreement here about whether Trent taught it.  Alternatively, some of them might hold that, "yeah, Trent mentioned it, but it didn't really define it or propose it for belief, mentioning the notion merely in passing."

So, despite the fact that some proponents of BoD claim that it's defined dogma, that is the minority opinion among theologians.

Father Cekada was trying to argue that Catholics MUST accept it under pain of grave sin, but he didn't notice that he was also at the same time demonstrating that it was a minority opinion that this was defined by the Church.

I'm definitely not a theologian, and I haven't been to seminary, so I could just be wrong/dumb, but I kinda agree with you on Trent (even though I believe in BoD) for the same reason I *disagree* with sedes on the whole "if anyone says the vestments and ceremonies of the Church are incentives to impiety" thing.

Here's the thing, from my perspective.  Councils are called to address *specific* issues that are troubling The Church.  Trent was predominately convened to deal with Protestantism.  Protestants (at least some of them) were saying *faith alone* was sufficient to save.  So the Council is saying no, you've got to have baptism, or you've *at least* got to have the desire/intent to go for baptism.  So I don't think its intending to anathematize people who don't believe in BoD, its just saying you have to *at least* desire baptism (ie. its not faith alone, in the Protestant sense.)  So neither "Feeneyites" or not are being anathematized, Prots are.

In the same way, when I say "whoever says the vestments, ceremonies, etc. are incentives to impiety", I'm, again, seeing thata as an anathema on Protestants who think the *Tridentine* mass or *any* mass is an incentive to impiety.  They think worship is supposed to be "simple" with no liturgy, but instead centered around some Protestant preacher preaching a sermon and maybe symbolic bread and wine.  There are plenty of Calvinists and Anabaptists who think like this "liturgical garments and ceremonies bad."  I *don't think* the intent of Trent was to rule out the idea that infiltrators could screw with the mass and promulgate a bad, Protestantized mass through large segments of the Church for a few decades, regardless of whether such people think the infiltrators are *bad* popes *or* non popes.  I don't see how either is what Trent had in mind.  Trent had Protestants in mind who were against the mass and liturgical garments en toto.

Do you see what I'm saying here?  Lemme know if that makes sense and then lemme know where you think I'm off base.

Seems a bit iffy. Dogma is what it says on the tin. Sure the context is helpful for understanding what exactly they meant, but you can't use context to make it say something it doesn't either. For example, just because I said "2+2=4" in opposition to people asserting it equalled 3, that doesn't mean you can turn around and say I just said it to condemn the 2+2=3'ers and not necessarily the 2+2=5'ers who came about centuries after my statement. Now, I get that the examples you cited aren't as clear cut as my absurd scenario, of course, but the funny business in the example I gave is exactly the kind of stuff you see modernists try to do with dogma. And it's a slippery slope starting from where you're standing and ending with full-on Vatican 2 "dogma evolves" nonsense.

When Trent says the ceremonies of the Church can't incentivise impiety, it means exactly that. It doesn't refer to any explicit kind of impiety, or to a teaching that all ceremonies are impious, etc. It means what it says: anyone who teaches that the ceremonies of the Church incentivise impiety is condemned. Just because they were making the statement in response to a very specific teaching doesn't mean the dogma refers to only that narrow slice; if the dogma speaks broadly, it teaches broadly.