| Theologian or Canonist | Page in Dossier | Theol. Category Bapt. of Desire | Theol. Category Bapt. of Blood |
| 1. Abarzuza | 2 | de fide, theol. cert | theol. cert. |
| 2. Aertnys | 7 | de fide | teaches |
| 3. Billot | 10-20 | teaches | teaches |
| 4. Cappello | 23 | teaches | certain |
| 5. Coronata | 28 | de fide | teaches |
| 6. Davis | 32 | teaches | teaches |
| 7. Herrmann | 35 | de fide | pertains to faith |
| 8. Hervé | 38 | theol. cert. | theol. cert. at least |
| 9. Hurter | 44 | teaches | teaches |
| 10. Iorio | 47 | teaches | teaches |
| 11. Lennerz | 49-59 | teaches | teaches |
| 12. Ligouri | 61-62 | de fide | teaches |
| 13. McAuliffe | 67 | cath. doctrine | comm. cert. teaching |
| 14. Merkelbach | 71 | certain | certain |
| 15. Noldin | 74 | teaches | teaches |
| 16. Ott | 77 | fidei proxima | fidei proxima |
| 17. Pohle | 81 | cath. doctrine | cert. doctrine |
| 18. Prümmer | 89 | de fide | constant doctrine |
| 19. Regatillo. | 91, 96 | de fide | teaches |
| 20. Sabetti | 98 | teaches | teaches |
| 21. Sola | 102 | fidei proxima | theol. certain |
| 22. Tanquerey | 107,111 | certain | certain |
| 23. Zalba | 114 | teaches | teaches |
| 24. Zubizarreta | 118 | teaches | teaches |
| 25. Bellarmine | 120 | teaches | teaches |
| Résumé of Theological Categories | Bapt. of Desire | Bapt. of Blood | |
| Common teaching of the doctrines | 25 (all) | 25 (all) | |
| Theologically certain, certain | 3 | 8 | |
| Catholic doctrine, constant | 2 | 1 | |
| fidei proxima, pertains to faith | 2 | 2 | |
| de fide (of the faith) | 7 | 0 |
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."To be fair then, wouldn't it also be wrong for the non-BODers to claim that BODers are heretics? It seems to me what we have here is another unsettled issue in the Church. Yet another reason why a true pope is needed. Personally, I have never liked the wishy-washiness of BOD. Practically speaking one can never know whether someone is saved or not (assuming no mortal sin at the time of death). This is why, when I pray for my mom, I specifically ask God to have her ask for baptism.
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."I'm gonna guess that *some* of the theologians thought Trent clearly defined it though, which is probably why BOD has some de fide cannonists while BOB doesn't.
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 gonna guess that *some* of the theologians thought Trent clearly defined it though, which is probably why BOD has some de fide cannonists while BOB doesn't.
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.
That's precisely my guess also. Some but not all theologians felt that Trent defined it. I bet of these 25 theologians, only about 10 of them do more than mention it in passing, simply taking it for granted that BoD is there in Trent.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.
One of the arguments I've heard against my intepretation of Trent is that well, all the theologians hold that Trent taught it. It would appear not, based on this.
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.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.
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.
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.
I believe that his interpretation of the ceremonies is on target also. It would be as if Trent had re-condemned iconoclasm. "If anyone says that images are incentives to impiety, let them be anathema." Now, if some rogue priest later introduced an image in a Church which depicted, say, Mary Magdalene engaged in some of her pre-conversion activity, someone would not fall under the anathema if he called out that PARTICULAR image for being an incentive to impiety. If some priest at a parish whipped out some vestments with rainbow flag colors, would you be anathematized for objecting to that?I think this is a gray area. I think it would be also a gray area (although we certainly know how the Church would've judged it) if somebody was to argue some weird position, like, say, that the Liturgy of St Chrysostom was the only legitimate form of Mass or something. Granted, if that was floating around I think the Church would've shot it down, but I could see the argument even there that Trent wasn't really intending to target that guy and you'd need another bull or council to rule it out.
Now, on the other hand, I do think that if we were talking about the ceremonies PROMULGATED by the Church for official use, you would at least tangentially fall under this anathema.
But I see the point ByzCat is making and I think he's not off target.
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.Exactly. I'd phrase it a bit differently: a decision regarding a specific teaching reaches its conclusions via general principles that are applied. Those principles are of course transferrable to other, later unanticipated situations . . . situations created by modernists, heretics, etc. who then have to avoid the general principles somehow, and they do it by saying, "but that encyclical, council etc. was dealing with x situation, and here we are in y."
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.
Yes, it does appear that this is true although I still think BOD leaves people not knowing whether a person was saved. It's like what I got from other trads when my father died, "Well, there is BOD....". I am fairly certain that the Church didn't teach that we could fall back on it with such hope for non-Catholics.
On the other hand, not a single theologian, post Trent, holds Father Feeney’s position. Subsequently, Father Cekada was right, since, according to you, he said ‘you must accept it under gave sin’ and not heresy. Now, you must admit that the unanimous opinion, post Trent, is that the Church, at the very least, teaches it and since the Church teaches it, we are bound to believe it by our duty of obedience to the Church. Please show me if you think this is incorrect.
Yes, it does appear that this is true although I still think BOD leaves people not knowing whether a person was saved. It's like what I got from other trads when my father died, "Well, there is BOD....". I am fairly certain that the Church didn't teach that we could fall back on it with such hope for non-Catholics.Thank you. Here is the way I see it: Anyone who dies outside the visible unity of the Church, with the exception of a catechumen, is considered lost. This is reflected by the Church’s canon law. Only God knows the ultimate fate of those who die. We don’t know who was secretly baptized and we can’t read men’s hearts and who made an act of perfect contrition before he expired. This is why we can’t make an absolute judgment, but we can presume that they are lost.
I'd like to hear Ladislaus' response to your post though.
On the other hand, not a single theologian, post Trent, holds Father Feeney’s position. Subsequently, Father Cekada was right, since, according to you, he said ‘you must accept it under gave sin’ and not heresy. Now, you must admit that the unanimous opinion, post Trent, is that the Church, at the very least, teaches it and since the Church teaches it, we are bound to believe it by our duty of obedience to the Church. Please show me if you think this is incorrect.
Similarly, it was held unanimously for 1500 years that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation. If ANYTHING would constitute an infallible teaching of the OUM, that would be it. But it's remarkable how many Cekadists, including Fr. Cekada himself, think it's OK to reject that teaching (held and taught Magisterially for 1500 years) and claim that unconverted infidels can be saved. So something was infallibly true for 1500 years and then at a certain point in time became infallibly false?Very good. Very simple. This is exactly to the point, and speaks better to our time than the St. Augustine "limbo infant suffers pains". I shall use it henceforth. Thanks.
Thank you. Here is the way I see it: Anyone who dies outside the visible unity of the Church, with the exception of a catechumen, is considered lost. This is reflected by the Church’s canon law (reflected in the Canon Law of 1917, but before that, for 1917 years, catechumens could not be given Catholic burials) . Only God knows the ultimate fate of those who die. We don’t know who was secretly baptized and we can’t read men’s hearts and who made an act of perfect contrition before he expired. This is why we can’t make an absolute judgment, but we can presume that they are lost. (secretly baptized AND made a perfect act of contrition, all true and a proper Catholic response, that even I would make, and I do not believe in BOD)
In the case of the Protestant, who was validly baptized, we can hold out the remote hope that they repented and made an act of perfect contrition before they died (Catholic response, that even I would make) . In the case of the unbaptised person who is dying (not a catechumen), is it possible that they asked a nurse to baptize them? (Catholic response, that even I would make) Of course. (Did this ever had happen? Possibly. Does it happen often? Obviously no. (This is quite common, and history tells us so, many real examples )
Nothing wrong with you explanation, I just make a few points in red.( and black for some reason)
How about the case of a Jєω who was secretly learning the catechism? Wouldn’t he be considered a catechumen? (Yes, but you believe he would receive BOD, I would say he may been unknowingly baptized a t birth, or he could have been baptized by anyone before death) How extremely rare would this be? How about the Protestant who was studying Catholicism and was convinced of it’s truth? You could say that God doesn’t work that way, but ultimately we don’t know since God’s ways are not our ways (but he has infallible taught us exactly what we need to do to be saved, be a baptized Catholic with no mortal sin on your soul at death and you will be saved). Also, it seems to me that one important reason the Church does not allow ecclesiastical burials for those who die outside the Church (with the exception of catechumen who dies before they are baptized) is to demonstrate that it is of the utmost importance for all to join the visible Church. (True)
No, this theory that I call Cekadism has no basis in Catholic doctrine. Theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens and even a widely-held opinion has no authority. It MAY with a bunch of other notes be considered as reflecting the faith of the Church, but that's as far as it goes.Lad, I certainly respect your intelligence and opinion, but I disagree with you on this matter, here is my response:
From about the year 400 to 1100, every single theologian held the Augustinian position that unbaptized infants went to hell and suffered some (albeit very mild) pain. This was first challenged by Abelard. And the Church ended up siding with Abelard and overturning the Augustinian position. Did Abelard commit a mortal sin in rejecting that opinion? No, in fact, he did a great service to the Church in doing so. BTW, Abelard also rejected Baptism of Desire.
Similarly, it was held unanimously for 1500 years that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation. If ANYTHING would constitute an infallible teaching of the OUM, that would be it. But it's remarkable how many Cekadists, including Fr. Cekada himself, think it's OK to reject that teaching (held and taught Magisterially for 1500 years) and claim that unconverted infidels can be saved. So something was infallibly true for 1500 years and then at a certain point in time became infallibly false?
Not only do some sedevacantists exaggerate the scope of infallibility with regard to the Magisterium, but they effectively extend this infallibility even to theologians. Some have gone so far as to say that everything with an imprimatur on it must be held as certain truth.
This infallibility of theologians is made up out of whole cloth.
Oh, BTW, I defy you to find more than one theologian out of many thousands who rejected the errors of Vatican II. You had a small handful of Traditional Catholics, but alas none of them were theologians. So 99%+ of theologians upheld the teachings of Vatican II as perfectly orthodox.
Nothing wrong with you explanation, I just make a few points in red.( and black for some reason)Thank you.
Lad, I certainly respect your intelligence and opinion, but I disagree with you on this matter, here is my response:
1) At least two of the theologians on Father Cekada’s list were part of the Ecclesia Docens and those two are also Doctors of the Church. I didn’t check to see if any of the others were bishops also.
2) The Ecclesia Docens tacitly approves the unanimous opinion of the theologians. Honestly, how could it be otherwise? Does the Teaching Church not realize what the theologians are saying especially when the opinion is unanimous? If that wasn’t the case, then the Church would have no need at all for any theologian to explain or help interpret any council or any teaching for that matter. Also, the bishops rely on the theologians to instruct the seminarians. What you’re putting forward makes no sense, a superfluous bunch of theologians.
3) Father Cekada knew very well that the theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens in so far as the ones who are not bishops. This is a strawman.
4) As for the theologians who rejected VII, it seems that most of the orthodox ones were caught off guard. At that early stage of the crisis, not many had the fortitude to resist the “pope”. Fr. Fenton, Cardinal Brown (I believe he was a theologian), Canon Berto, and Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers come to my mind for being critical of it. I’m sure there were many others who we do not know about.
5) To be clear, I hold that it is necessary to explicitly believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption. This belief can be imparted to an individual by God unbeknownst to anyone.
How do you address the two examples I gave ...
1) where a teaching was held unanimously for 700 years but then overturned by the Church?
2) where Fr. Cekada himself rejects something that was taught universally (and Magisterially) for 1500 years?
No, pointing out that theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens is not a strawman. I'm drawing implications from that. They don't have any Magisterial authority to require assent, so where does it come from?
You suggest that it's due to "tacit approval" by the Church. Tacit approval is not a Magisterial act by any stretch. Church history is replete with examples of opinions of theologians that were held for some time and then only much later rejected by the Church. Letting theologians teach something is not tantamount to actually teaching it. Historically the Church has allowed a significant amount of freedom on matters that have not been defined Magisterially ... until such a time as she considers it prudent.
Nor is your explanation for what happened at Vatican II satisfactory. It really doesn't matter WHY all these theologians caved. Fact is that they caved. I can and have gone into great detail to explain WHY these theologians are mistaken about BoD. This has nothing to do with fortitude or the lack thereof. Either they're capable of being wrong or they're not ... regardless of the reason.
You'll notice that there's a broad range of opinion regarding the theological NOTE of BoD. Well, I hold ... and can prove ... that the note of BoD is nothing more than a piece of speculative theology that has been tolerated by the Church. It has not been revealed, nor has it been demonstrated to flow necessarily from other revealed truths. I heard even an EWTN Novus Ordite, who speculated that people can be saved without membership in the Church, admit that this is speculation and not revealed.
If so, that is simply not true. Saint Ambrose, Saint Cyril, Saint Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian among many others attest to BOD and BOB.All those people were dead by the 500s. Add 700 yrs and you have the 1200s, with St Thomas.
All those people were dead by the 500s. Add 700 yrs and you have the 1200s, with St Thomas.
.
BOB is not BOD. 2 totally separate theological things. If a doctor supported B.O.Blood, that is not an automatic support of BOD.
If you read those Church Fathers who supported BOB, they said that blood replaced the water necessary for the sacrament while angels said the sacramental form. BOD lacks any sensory element and is self-given - both at odds with sacramental theology.
.
The 2nd group of people you mention were just parroting St Augustine, who argued both sides. And that’s 7 people in 700 yrs...quite a small number.
In addition to these influences on the early schoolmen in Paris, there was the question, current at the time, as to the authorship of a fifth century theological manual, which specifically denied baptism of desire. It was De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus. In chapter 74 we find the curious profession: “We believe that only the baptized are on the road of salvation. We believe that no catechumen has life everlasting, although he has died in good works, excepting martyrdom, in which all the sacred elements (sacraments) of Baptism are contained.” It was commonly believed, until the thirteenth century, that Saint Augustine was the author of this theological work. Saint Thomas (+1274) challenged the belief in his Commentary on the first chapter of Matthew (Catena Aurea). The Angelic Doctor denied Augustine’s authorship, attributing the work, rather, to a semi-Pelagian named Gennadius of Marseilles. But, on the other hand, when Peter Lombard was composing his Book of Sentences, he referred to the work as Augustine’s in several places. (Lib. II, dist. 35, cap. “Quocirca”; Lib. III, dist. 1, cap. “Diligenter”; Lib IV, dist. 12, cap. “Institutum.”)
Yes, Fr. Cekada clearly proves BOD is at least theologically certain Catholic Doctrine, and thus an objective mortal sin to publicly deny.
I'm still waiting for anyone to show me (1) A Theology Manual, post Trent, that says BOD is disputed. (2) Any Church Doctor in the whole last millenium that denies BOD, particularly after Pope Innocent III. St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure and St. Catherine all teach it.
Syllogism:
Major: Catholic Theologians post Trent unanimously say that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Minor: What Theologians unanimously teach as having been taught by the Church is guaranteed by the OUM.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church infallibly guarantees BOD is true.
Major: Popes have said St. Alphonsus can be safely followed in what the Doctor taught in Theologia Moralis.
Minor: St. Alphonsus teaches that Souls are saved by BOD is de fide because of Trent in Theologia Moralis.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Catholics - even without knowing reasons - can safely teach BOD is de fide dogma.
Major: Catechisms approved by the Church for centuries and used by Bishops throughout the world have taught BOD as divinely revealed Church Teaching.
Minor: But the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church cannot teach error for centuries in what it proposes as divinely revealed Church Teaching.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church once more shows us that BOD is divinely revealed Church Teaching.
Thank you. Here is the way I see it: Anyone who dies outside the visible unity of the Church, with the exception of a catechumen, is considered lost. This is reflected by the Church’s canon law (reflected in the Canon Law of 1917, but before that, for 1917 years, catechumens could not be given Catholic burials) . Only God knows the ultimate fate of those who die. We don’t know who was secretly baptized and we can’t read men’s hearts and who made an act of perfect contrition before he expired. This is why we can’t make an absolute judgment, but we can presume that they are lost. (secretly baptized AND made a perfect act of contrition, all true and a proper Catholic response, that even I would make, and I do not believe in BOD)
In the case of the Protestant, who was validly baptized, we can hold out the remote hope that they repented and made an act of perfect contrition before they died (Catholic response, that even I would make) . In the case of the unbaptised person who is dying (not a catechumen), is it possible that they asked a nurse to baptize them? (Catholic response, that even I would make) Of course. (Did this ever had happen? Possibly. Does it happen often? Obviously no. (This is quite common, and history tells us so, many real examples )
How about the case of a Jєω who was secretly learning the catechism? Wouldn’t he be considered a catechumen? (Yes, but you believe he would receive BOD, I would say he may been unknowingly baptized a t birth, or he could have been baptized by anyone before death) How extremely rare would this be? How about the Protestant who was studying Catholicism and was convinced of it’s truth? You could say that God doesn’t work that way, but ultimately we don’t know since God’s ways are not our ways (but he has infallible taught us exactly what we need to do to be saved, be a baptized Catholic with no mortal sin on your soul at death and you will be saved). Also, it seems to me that one important reason the Church does not allow ecclesiastical burials for those who die outside the Church (with the exception of catechumen who dies before they are baptized) is to demonstrate that it is of the utmost importance for all to join the visible Church. (True)
XavierSem - I don't agree with anyone who teaches salvation by implicit faith and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
Here is a real example of a strict believer in BOD of the catechumen, CI member Mirari Vos, a person who limits his belief to the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. ( In in bold are just my additions whether red or black). If he were to give his answers to a personal who was grieving the death of a non-Catholic relative and asked what was the fate of his relative, Mirari Vos's answers would be proper Catholic answers. The second separate quote at the bottom is what XavierSem really believes, that is the difference between a real BODer Mirari Vos, and a false BOD like XavierSem. That is why you do not see any strict BODers starting threads of CI, and you'll see the false BODers like Xvavier Sem never stop creating threads and stirring up debates with their chaff. (Chaff - is a radar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar) countermeasure in which aircraft spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), which swamps the screen with multiple returns to where the target can't be identified.)It appears Xavier Sem is taking a position that permits him to also maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre's statement/belief that people can be saved "in other religions, but not by them" doesn't contradict his personal belief that one must have explicit Christ to be saved.
Quote from: Mirari Vos on Yesterday at 07:21:32 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-not-defined-dogma-per-theological-consensus/msg734273/#msg734273)
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?I don’t know who wrote this catechism answer but it’s utterly confused. Not only did they mix-n-match BOD and BOB (which is theologically wrong), but then they erroneously include a perfect act of contrition into the mix. ?? What?!
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching."
"I have come here to thank you for your testimony and to pay homage to the people martyred by the insanity of nαzι populism," [Bergoglio] told her.
Xavier said:My conclusion: Either Fr Cekada is wrong for stating BOD is theologically certain, or St Alphonsus is wrong for saying BOD is de fide. They can't both be correct. Theologically wrong is totally different than de fide.
1. Yes, Fr. Cekada clearly proves BOD is at least theologically certain Catholic Doctrine, and thus an objective mortal sin to publicly deny.
.
2. St. Alphonsus teaches that Souls are saved by BOD is de fide because of Trent in Theologia Moralis....Therefore, all Catholics - even without knowing reasons - can safely teach BOD is de fide dogma.
Xavier said:My conclusion: I don't even understand the distinction nor do I understand what you're trying to say.
I personally usually say "BOD is Catholic Doctrine" rather than "BOD is Catholic Dogma" but the latter can be safely said, per the Popes.
This is very important, since the BoDers always deliberately conflate the BoB Fathers with those (few if any) Fathers who held BoD ... for a time. St. Augustine early on speculatively floated BoD, but then forcefully retracted it during his anti-Pelagian years. St. Ambrose's reference to Valentinian is completely ambiguous, and St Ambrose elsewhere denies the possibility of salvation even for good catechumens ... which suggests that his oration had nothing to do with BoD. And that's IT. That is ALL the "evidence" for BoD.
And you are absolutely correct that the Church Fathers who believed in BoB actually believed that it was an alternative mode of administering the SACRAMENT. St. Cyprian actually called it a Sacrament, and at one point said that the angels pronounced the words of the form (while the martyr's blood was the matter).
And then there's this:
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
This manual, which some attributed to St. Augustine, but was certainly from his time period, clearly states that the "sacred elements" of Baptism are there in BoB. Consequently, they did not consider it an exception to the necessity of Baptism.
St. Augustine, the only real "authority" behind BoD, retracted it during his later, more mature, years. St. Fulgentius, his discipline, explicitly rejected it. Then we have the fifth-century manual above which clearly affirms that "no catchumen has life everlasting, although he has died in good works." St. Ambrose, BTW, taught the same thing in his treatise on the Sacraments.
St. Ambrose's reference to Valentinian is completely ambiguous, and St Ambrose elsewhere denies the possibility of salvation even for good catechumens ... which suggests that his oration had nothing to do with BoD. And that's IT. That is ALL the "evidence" for BoD.
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (cf. Jn. 3:5). No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they have the honor of the Kingdom.
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jєω or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’”
On Abraham by Saint Ambrose of Milan
Translated by Theodosia Tomkinson
20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: "For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.
2. I am filled, I confess, with bitter grief, not only because the death of Valentinian has been premature, but also because, having been trained in the faith and moulded by your teaching, he had conceived such devotion towards our God, and was so tenderly attached to myself, as to love one whom he had before persecuted, and to esteem as his father the man whom he had before repulsed as his enemy.
(. . .)
4. But hereafter we shall have time for sorrow; let us now care for his sepulture, which your Clemency has commanded to take place in this city. If he has died without Baptism, I now keep back what I know.
And you are absolutely correct that the Church Fathers who believed in BoB actually believed that it was an alternative mode of administering the SACRAMENT. St. Cyprian actually called it a Sacrament, and at one point said that the angels pronounced the words of the form (while the martyr's blood was the matter).
Epistle LXXII: To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, §22-23:
23. But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?"
24. Nor let any one think that, because baptism is proposed to them, heretics will be kept back from coming to the Church, as if offended at the name of a second baptism; nay, but on this very account they are rather driven to the necessity of coming by the testimony of truth shown and proved to them. For if they shall see that it is determined and decreed by our judgment and sentence, that the baptism wherewith they are there baptized is considered just and legitimate, they will think that they are justly and legitimately in possession of the Church also, and the other gifts of the Church; nor will there be any reason for their coming to us, when, as they have baptism, they seem also to have the rest. But further, when they know that there is no baptism without, and that no remission of sins can be given outside the Church, they more eagerly and readily hasten to us, and implore the gifts and benefits of the Church our Mother, assured that they can in no wise attain to the true promise of divine grace unless they first come to the truth of the Church. Nor will heretics refuse to be baptized among us with the lawful and true baptism of the Church, when they shall have learned from us that they also were baptized by Paul, who already had been baptized with the baptism of John, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles.
Father Francois Laisney, in a letter written to me in 1999 on this issue, labored much to convince me that Saint Cyprian favored baptism of desire. Regarding those converted heretics who were received back into the Church by the western bishops and the head of the Church himself without being rebaptized, he proved his point. But these converts were in a different category than catechumens — after all, they were accepted as members of the Church by the pope, and Cyprian himself, at least in council, was not denying the pope the right to admit these converts without rebaptizing them. Remember, in the previously-cited letter to Jubaianus he was arguing that this decision should be left to each individual bishop. His contention, therefore, if one looks at the logic of the actual argument and not his excessive vitriol, was not that the “deposit of faith” was being compromised by Pope Stephen, but that, for certainty sake, when the validity of heretical baptisms was questionable (as it was in his mind) the matter fell to one of discipline. To quote Saint Cyprian: “God is powerful in His mercy to give forgiveness also to those who were admitted into the Church in simplicity [of heart] and who died in the Church and not to separate them from the gifts of the Church” (Letter to Jubaianus, n. 23, Patrologia Latina 3, 1125). I put the emphasis on “died in the Church” to prove my point. If Saint Cyprian definitely believed that the Faith itself was being compromised, and that to accept the validity of heretical baptisms was itself “heretical,” then he would not have said that the deceased converts, who were not rebaptized, “died in the Church.” If Fathers Rulleau and Laisney wish to believe that Saint Cyprian was transmitting an apostolic tradition concerning baptism of desire, fine; but they certainly should not insist that fellow Catholics are obligated to believe that. They should also take note that Saint Augustine did not cite Cyprian as an authority when he first proposed baptism of desire as his own personal opinion.
Thanks for the correction.
St. Cyprian was adamant that valid baptism was not possible outside the Church.
Further down,
# 24
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Doctor of the Church) – 1090-1153 AD
Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg687079/#msg687079
and
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg687087/#msg687087
8. It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars--I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, imitating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices.
Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.
But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?" The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. [ Marari Vos: I don’t believe he was questioning the validity of the heretics baptism, but rather that the heretics who converted, weren’t baptized at all]
His revealed belief is the same as the False BODer, Lover of Truth, the CI all time king of starting BOD threads, with like over 10x more threads than XavierSem. Been there seen that. All it is, is an end run around all the dogmas on EENS and the sacraments, and what they end up teaching instead is "who knows who is outside of the Church, and who knows who didn't receive the sacraments". It is just a last gasp rationalization to hold onto their sanity when besieged on all sides against all of their glaring inconsistencies.
It appears Xavier Sem is taking a position that permits him to also maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre's statement/belief that people can be saved "in other religions, but not by them" doesn't contradict his personal belief that one must have explicit Christ to be saved.
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Yes, that is the book and thanks for the additional quote.
Are you using this as the source of quotes?
Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire
https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire/page/n31/mode/2up?
Page 14
Amazon doesn't allow preview of the following book anymore, nor does Google:
https://www.amazon.com/Bernard-Clairvaux-Baptism-Bishops-Cistercian/dp/0879071672/
I posted an excerpt here, but I only wrote the page numbers, not the title of the docuмent:
If that's the same letter, the following was omitted in part:
Mirari Vos,
You commit the same error of Xavier, by mixing and matching BOD with BOB. Firstly, concerning St Augustine, I can only say that he went back and forth on the issue. If he were alive today, he could give a clear answer but his writings do contradict themselves, to some degree.
.
Regarding St Bernard, he is basing his argument on St Augustine and St Ambrose, but...he is only putting forth his personal opinion. Nowhere does St Bernard say his theology is de fide, or a certainty of faith, nor does it have a theological consensus. So we are free to reject it or accept it. It's just an opinion.
.
St Ambrose:
This is clearly BOB, so it's not related to BOD. Irrelevant to the thread.
.
St Cyprian:
St Cyprian is not talking about BOD, but about re-baptizing heretics who want to repent and come back to the Faith. St Cyprian held that re-baptism is necessary, was wrong, was rebuked by the pope and recanted his error. Based on his flawed views on baptism, I don't think anyone should consider his quotes on BOD or BOB as orthodox or relevant.
.
Summary: Your only pro-BOD "proof" is the opinion/theories of St Bernard, who based his arguments on St Ambrose (whose quotes on Valentinian are misunderstood and taken out of context) and St Augustine (who flip-flopped on the issue). Not very weighty arguments.
Firstly, concerning St Augustine, I can only say that he went back and forth on the issue. If he were alive today, he could give a clear answer but his writings do contradict themselves, to some degree.
Hugh of St. Victor, a proponent of BOD, says that Saint Augustine didn’t reject his early opinion on BOD, he only rejected the example he used: (see highlight in red, but read the whole tract)
As for Saint Cyprian, regardless of whether he held that re-baptism was necessary, that doesn’t take away from the fact that Saint Cyprian held that those who he believed were not validly baptized, could still be saved.St Cyprian was excommunicated for his flawed views on baptism and re-baptism. He's a saint and much holier than I am, but his views on baptism can't be trusted.
BOD and BOB don’t require the reception of the sacrament of baptism which in essence puts a big hole into the BOD denier’s theory since in both cases they are similar in that the actual sacrament is not absolutely necessary and can be satisfied in another way. Thus, if you believe in BOB, you really should have no problem believing in BOD.
St. Ambrose is not in the least bit ambiguous. Everyone should read his words below and see for themselves.
Not true at all. You need to read more on the Church Fathers. BOB was explained as a sacrament; BOD has never been.
The 700 years of unanimous teaching against BOD, touted by Lad, has been refuted, thus putting another hole into the deniers of BOD’s theory.
St. AmbroseQuoteQuoteIf he has died without Baptism, I now keep back what I know.
As I said before, BOD and BOB don’t require the reception of the sacrament of baptism which in essence puts a big hole into the BOD denier’s theory since in both cases they are similar in that the actual sacrament is not absolutely necessary and can be satisfied in another way.
The 700 years of unanimous teaching against BOD, touted by Lad, has been refuted, thus putting another hole into the deniers of BOD’s theory.
Fr. Cekada, God rest his soul, wasn't a dogmatic sedevacantist.
Hugh of St. Victor was WRONG.
You are speculating against doctrine that has been held unanimously for 500 years
@Pax Vobis. I've actually conversed with Fr. Cekada. Have you?
I know what Dogmatic SVism is, and completely disagree with it.
Unless someone has redefined the term, Fr. C was not a DSV in my opinion.
Ridiculous, Mirari. You're showing yourself to be of bad will now.
St. Ambrose simply said that he received the grace he asked for ... which is ambiguous. It implies that if he didn't receive the Sacrament, then it's because he didn't truly seek it. So it could be read as the opposite.
This was before news travelled quickly, and the details were likely not all available. Was there a possibility that one of his attendants baptized him as he lay dying? Or was it possible, as some Fathers held, that the angels pronounced the words of Baptism over a dying martyr? So could this be a reference to BoB? Valentinian was in fact killed for rejecting Arianism.
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
You feigned being sincere and of good will here, but now you're exposing yourself ... as most BoDers usually do.
It has repeatedly now been explained to you that the Church Fathers did not consider BoB to be an exception because they believed it to merely an alternate mode of confecting the SACRAMENT. St. Cyprian clearly stated this, calling BoB the Sacrament, that the angels spoke the words of the form over a dying martyr, whose blood served as the water, and the 5th century theological manual that was cited explicitly detailed that BoB worked because all the Sacramental elements were present (aka matter and form). That's why they referred to it as Baptism of BLOOD, and not Baptism of Martyrdom ... because they viewed the Blood as washing them the same way as water (with the angels supplying the missing form). So no exception to the Sacrament.Are you saying that all of the Fathers of the Church who held BOB believed this? If so, please give me the references.
I cited that 5th century theology manual that for a long time had been attributed to St. Augustine, stating quite clearly that BoB was the only exception to the normal Baptismal ceremony because all of the Sacramental elements (aka matter and form) were present. St. Cyprian called BoB a SACRAMENT and explained that the angels pronounced the words of the form over the dying martyr, whose blood served as the matter for the Sacrament.I never said that BOB and BOD weren’t different, I was pointing out that they were similar in the fact that both did not rely on the actual sacrament with water.
We have several Church Fathers rule out BoD by saying that martyrdom is the ONLY EXCEPTION to normal Baptism. But even then they held it was no real exception because all the elements were there.
This pretending that the BoB Fathers accepted BoD by inference is absurd and dishonest. Even St. Alphonsus admits that they're different, with BoB acting "quasi ex opere operato".
“Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.”
Could you actually please READ what I wrote? I wasn't saying there was 700 years of unanimous teaching against BoD. This is the second or third time now that you've misunderstood (or deliberately distorted?) something I wrote.Sorry, my apologies, I misunderstood you.
I was citing a different doctrine, St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell and suffer (albeit very mildly).
Reading comprehension, people!! Such a lack of reading comprehension...He is clearly referring to the funeral solemnities not baptism. :facepalm:
.
St Ambrose is distinguishing between baptism being "solemnly celebrated" (i.e. performed publically, at Eastertime, or at least in a church, in front of his family/friends, the same ones who were grieving) and just a simple "initiation" of baptism (i.e. done in jail, in a hospital or on a deathbed).
.
If St Ambrose is supporting BOD, why would he make reference that not even martyrs are crowned/saved if they are not initiated/baptized? It makes no sense and doesn't support your view.
.
St Ambrose is clearly giving a "pep talk" to those who are grieving, telling them that Valentinian was prepared and wanted baptism and even though he did not receive it SOLEMNLY (i.e. in a church), St Ambrose openly prays to the Holy Father that he did receive it before he died. St Ambrose is not teaching a doctrine; he is telling people that God is not deceived and that if Valentinian truly desired baptism (which they all thought he did) then he would receive it non-solemnly (i.e. not in a church).
.
At the end, St Ambrose reiterates doctrine that even a martyr is not saved without baptism, which clearly applies to Valentinian.
This is not proven at all.Please read my previous posts, I explained it precisely.
.
MirariV, can you give us your definition of BOD, with examples, and we'll see if you and Xavier agree?
.If you read it correctly, you would see that St. Ambrose was saying that even the catechumen martyrs do not have a solemn funeral.
At the end, St Ambrose reiterates doctrine that even a martyr is not saved without baptism, which clearly applies to Valentinian.
Fr. Cekada, God rest his soul..... is right here about Catholic Theologians.LOL, Fr. Cekada says BOD is defide because some modern theologians, but to him 1600 years of the infallible defined requirement that to be saved one must at least have belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, that is no obstacle to the salvation of Muslim, Muslims, Hindus, all non-Catholics:
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”Hilarious!
He is clearly referring to the funeral solemnities not baptism.
20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: "For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace. (St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries Chapter 4)
Ladislaus, you are truly being disingenuous. You know very well that St. Ambrose’s words DON’T ‘simply say that he received the grace he asked for’. Pray tell me what other grace could he be possibly referring to? To say that it “could be read as the opposite” is plainly bogus.
You MUST tear down this and every other, piece of evidence in order to advance your own home cooked theory, and I’m the one who is of bad will? I’m the one who is not being sincere? Also, what I highlighted in red further confirms that he is referring to BOD. Here are his words again:
The Imperial Catechumen and the Eulogy
Saint Ambrose was the bishop to whom Saint Augustine came for knowledge, under the inspiration of actual grace, while studying in Milan. The holy bishop also regenerated him in Christ. If Saint Ambrose held such a view on baptism of desire, surely Augustine would have cited him as an authority. What is offered by Saint Thomas (and Saint Bernard implicitly) as proof that the Bishop of Milan believed in baptism of desire is his oration in 393 at the funeral of the young Emperor Valentinian II, who was a catechumen, recently converted from Arian influences.
The western Emperor, at the time of his death, was dealing with a rebellion within his ranks led by a pagan general, named Eugenius, and Arbogast, the Count of Vienne. Eugenius wanted to outlaw Christianity in the West and restore Roman paganism. When Valentinian, through the efforts of Theodosius, Catholic Emperor of the East, requested Bishop Ambrose to come to Vienne and baptize him, Eugenius revolted and had the Emperor αssαssιnαtҽd in his quarters. Ambrose was deeply pained and delivered a hopeful eulogy at the funeral in which he compared the deceased catechumen to a “martyr,” slain for the Faith, and “baptized in his own blood.” He said nothing about a baptism of desire, but merely asked the faithful not to grieve over the fact that Valentinian died before he could baptize him. Then, he asked the question: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for?” And then he concludes, “Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it.” This could easily be an expression of hope that, knowing the danger he was in, the Emperor asked someone to baptize him secretly. Or, it could also mean that the royal catechumen received the grace of salvation because he died a martyr for Christ. Ambrose, apparently, had no proof of the former supposition, for he never mentioned it publicly, but he did have hope that Valentinian’s holy resolve was the cause of his being killed by this murderous usurper who hated the Faith. And that is part of the qualification for martyrdom, along with true repentance for sin. This is what the saint prayed as he ended the eulogy:
“Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected, who on the day before his death refused to restore the privileges of the temples although he was pressed by those whom he could well have feared. A crowd of pagans was present, the Senate entreated, but he was not afraid to displease men so long as he pleased Thee alone in Christ. He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace? Or, if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety also and his desire have washed him.” (De Consolatione in obitu Valentiniani, 51-54 = PL 16, 1374-75. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari, Ph.D., in Funeral Orations by St. Gregory nαzιanzen and St. Ambrose, pp. 287-288)
The translation is not the problem here. The last two sentences, which seem contradictory, are exactly accurate from the Latin of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. In the next to the last sentence Saint Ambrose says “that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated.” Does he mean that they are saved, but not crowned? Then, in the last sentence, he says that “if they [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his piety also and his desire have washed him.” I cannot understand what the holy doctor is affirming or denying in these sentences. Perhaps something is missing from the original transcription itself.
Father Joseph Pfeiffer of the SSPX, in his article “The Three Baptisms” (The Angelus, March 1998), asserts that Saint Augustine heard the eulogy of Valentinian and, consequently, that is why the African doctor believed in baptism of desire.
“One would think, however,” writes Father Pfeiffer, “from reading some of the recent works of the followers of Fr. Feeney that the doctrine of the baptism of desire was held as an obscure opinion amongst some misguided Catholic theologians and saints —saints who got it wrong in deference to Saint Thomas, who believed the doctrine only in deference to Saint Augustine, who held it because he once heard a sermon of Saint Ambrose, “On the Death of Valentinian” . . . Are we to assume that Mr. Hutchinson and like-minded followers of Fr. Feeney have a better understanding of Ambrose than Augustine, his own disciple, who was baptized by the same Ambrose?”
Four quick points: 1) No one supportive of Saint Benedict Center would venture to assume that they would know the mind of Saint Ambrose better than Saint Augustine. That is absurd. 2) As I already noted, if the doctor from Milan intended to identify himself with the speculation concerning baptism of desire, Augustine would have cited his authority, especially if, as Father Pfeiffer assumes, he was “his disciple.” 3) There is no mention of Saint Ambrose’s eulogy for Valentinian in Saint Augustine’s writings, nor are there any known letters of correspondence between them. 4) Saint Augustine began his work against the Pelagians after the death of Saint Ambrose (+397). Again, it would seem likely that in changing his opinion on baptism of desire when confronting the anti-sacramentalism of the Pelagians, he would respectfully at least have made reference to Bishop Ambrose’s alleged contrary view.
Or, if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety also and his desire have washed him.
The issue here is that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
And yet, both you and MirariV (and St Augustine, and St Ambrose, and St Thomas, and everyone else i've ever talked to) provide different definitions of BOD.
.
Trent mentions it in 1 sentence and that's a "teaching"? hahahaha.
Also, Pope St. Pius V has pre-emptively condemned the Jansenist Dimonds in the Jansenist Michael Baius: "CONDEMNED:
We have the BoDers arguing desperately, tooth-and-nail, to salve St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in favor of BoD. Why? It's because that's ALL they've got in terms of Patristic "evidence." Meanwhile, anti-BoDers have 5 or 6 Fathers. Even if we were to concede that St. Ambrose believed it ... and that St. Augustine did for a time, that's not fatal to the anti-BoD case at all, since all that has to be demonstrated is the lack of "dogmatic consensus" on the Church Fathers. Having 2 in favor and 5 against can hardly be said to constituted dogmatic consensus in favor.
Most of the time, in fact, I have tacitly conceded the St. Ambrose one, saying that AT MOST they have 1.5 Fathers who favor BoD.
Catechism of Pope St. Pius V, and St. Charles Borromeo, of the Council of Trent: "if any unforeseen accident prevents them from being washed in the salutary waters, their desire and intention to receive Baptism will avail them to Grace and Righteousness".
BOD does not need to be defined by non-Saints,non-Doctors,non-Popes like Mirari Vos or myself.
Let no one say the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't define what Trent means by Baptism of Desire either, because it clearly does above.
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].
Thank you. Here is the way I see it: Anyone who dies outside the visible unity of the Church, with the exception of a catechumen, is considered lost. This is reflected by the Church’s canon law. Only God knows the ultimate fate of those who die. We don’t know who was secretly baptized and we can’t read men’s hearts and who made an act of perfect contrition before he expired. This is why we can’t make an absolute judgment, but we can presume that they are lost.Sorry...just getting back to this thread. This explanation makes a lot of sense to me. I see that Last Tradhican also agreed with it, but he is anti-BOD. So, I'm not sure what to make of the positions in this thread. It's probably why I tend to stay out of the Feeney Ghetto....lol.
In the case of the Protestant, who was validly baptized, we can hold out the remote hope that they repented and made an act of perfect contrition before they died. In the case of the unbaptised person who is dying (not a catechumen), is it possible that they asked a nurse to baptize them? Of course. Did this ever had happen? Possibly. Does it happen often? Obviously no.
How about the case of a Jєω who was secretly learning the catechism? Wouldn’t he be considered a catechumen? How extremely rare would this be? How about the Protestant who was studying Catholicism and was convinced of it’s truth? You could say that God doesn’t work that way, but ultimately we don’t know since God’s ways are not our ways. Also, it seems to me that one important reason the Church does not allow ecclesiastical burials for those who die outside the Church (with the exception of catechumen who dies before they are baptized) is to demonstrate that it is of the utmost importance for all to join the visible Church.
Question to you: Someone who dies justified has Christ and the Holy Spirit living in him. Can he really go to hell/limbo for all eternity?
The opinion that someone is lost who dies in Grace, who merited eternal life by the good works he did in God, as Trent said, is heretical."Lost" commonly refers to hellfire and damnation. Those in Limbo are not saved, yet they are also not damned to hellfire.
There is no dogmatic Tradition of adults going to limbo now in the era after Christ. Supposing they did go to limbo, which limbo?That's the point. The Church has not told us.
God not only foreknew but also predestined all His elect would die in Grace. And He has determined that that is sufficient for salvation.
All those people were dead by the 500s. Add 700 yrs and you have the 1200s, with St Thomas.Sorry, one last interjection. This post made me believe that the 700 year unanimous opinion was related to BOD.
.
BOB is not BOD. 2 totally separate theological things. If a doctor supported B.O.Blood, that is not an automatic support of BOD.
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?
The opinion that someone is lost who dies in Grace, who merited eternal life by the good works he did in God, as Trent said, is heretical.
There is no dogmatic Tradition of adults going to limbo now in the era after Christ. Supposing they did go to limbo, which limbo?
The limbo of the Fathers? But that is closed. Second, if supposedly they could go there, then could they supposedly leave also one day?
The limbo of the infants? But they are not infants. Moreover, justification means the remission of original sin. So they don't have OS.
The Old dispensation was different. Yet, even in the OT, those who died in Grace were ultimately saved. They just had to wait.
God not only foreknew but also predestined all His elect would die in Grace. And He has determined that that is sufficient for salvation.
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?
Someone who dies justified has Christ and the Holy Spirit living in him. Can he really go to hell/limbo for all eternity?
no one is lost who dies in the state of graceSo were the Old Testament Just who went to Limbo "lost"? Obviously not.
.
I agree with them that the underlined is a dogma, and so the contrary is heresy.
According to you, some justified souls, who died washed in Christ's Blood, and sanctified by His Holy Spirit, are eternally deprived of the Beatific Vision. I consider that impossible.
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].
The Baptismal Character also causes a man to belong to the Body of the Church. But as explained in the article, the dogma doesn't say "one must belong to the Body of the Church to be saved", but "outside the Church there is no sanctification or salvation". Those in justifying grace belong to the Soul of the Church. As the Soul is within a person, those in the Soul of the Church are within Her. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X teaches the Soul of the Church. St. Robert Bellarmine and Catholic Theologians also do.There is no Soul of the Church except the Holy Ghost. Everything with these false BODers has an answer that is an end run. They keep repeating the same errors over and over and over no matter how many times they are corrected it is always the same thing. If their teaching were building, a high rise, it would be windows magically floating in the sky. At every turn when they meet a dogma that obstructs them, they come up with an interpretation that is not what the dogma clearly teaches.
XavierSem says - Outside of the Church there is no salvation, but there are also the soul of the Church people who are not baptized, which the Holy Ghost forgot to inspire the councils and popes to include in any dogmatic decrees of EENS, till I discovered it on the internet.
The Baptismal Character also causes a man to belong to the Body of the Church. But as explained in the article, the dogma doesn't say "one must belong to the Body of the Church to be saved", but "outside the Church there is no sanctification or salvation". Those in justifying grace belong to the Soul of the Church. As the Soul is within a person, those in the Soul of the Church are within Her.
BOD is mentioned once, in a small phrase, in all of the vast pages of Trent. It is the exception. You can't read Trent with the exception in mind (i.e. BOD); that's dishonest. You must assume that Trent is talking about the rule (i.e. sacramental baptism), not the exception.BOD is never mentioned in Trent. What is mentioned in Trent is votum for the sacrament, and the question, the debate, is whether it means that votum for the sacrament of baptism alone suffices for justification, or the sacrament and votum are required. The quote ends with "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" , so for someone to say that this only place in all of Trent mentions BOD, is to directly contradict the "as it is written".
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On BaptismCanon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.CANON 2.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].
XavierSem says - Outside of the Church there is no salvation, but there are also the soul of the Church people who are not baptized, yes, that's what the soul of the Church is, a bunch of unbaptized nice people, but the Holy Ghost forgot to inspire the councils and popes to include that any dogmatic decrees of EENS, till I discovered it on the internet.
XavierSem says- I don't agree with anyone who teaches salvation by implicit faith and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God miraculously appeared to them and scared them to convert or go to hell. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
LOL. Don't you people ever read your Catechisms? The uncreated Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, and His Gift of Sanctifying Grace. The created Soul of the Church refers to all those in the State of Grace. Soul of the Church is not just a theory but a doctrine.
There was also a Pope who said "Outside the Church there is neither salvation nor forgiveness of sin". All who receive forgiveness of sins, i.e. justification, as Fr. Feeney admits, must necessarily be WITHIN the Church. They may not belong to Her Body, but to Her Soul.
You can see the liberalism in the Baltimore Catechism and even in St Pius X's catechism. Liberalism was creeping in everywhere in the 1800s. cινιℓ ωαrs were going on in every country in the 1800s. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was strong in the 1800s and controlled much. (Now it controls almost everything, but that's another topic). The point is, the 1800s was not all roses and dandelions when it comes to orthodoxy. Especially related to EENS. And because the catechisms are not infallible, we must be wary.
XavierSem-isms
XavierSem says - Outside of the Church there is no salvation, but there are also the soul of the Church people who are not baptized, yes, that's what the soul of the Church is, a bunch of unbaptized nice people, but the Holy Ghost forgot to inspire the councils and popes to include that any dogmatic decrees of EENS, but I, the great XavierSem, discovered the omission on the internet.
XavierSem says- I don't agree with anyone who teaches salvation by implicit faith and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God miraculously appeared to them and scared them to convert or go to hell. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
Last Tradhican, nice strawman. I don't believe Muslims, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved as they are, but only upon becoming Catholics or Christians, believing explicitly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.Translation to the truth:
I, XavierSem, don't believe Muslims, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved as they are, but only upon becoming Catholics or Christians, believing explicitly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost. However, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God miraculously appeared to them and scared them to convert or go to hell. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
Catechisms aren't infallible. ..... You can see the liberalism in the Baltimore Catechism and even in the fake translated versions of the St Pius X's catechism.There, that's better
Is baptism of desire contrary to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? Bishop George Hay, Bishop of Edinburgh, Scotland (d. 1811), in his excellent Catechism, The Sincere Christian, devotes a good portion of Volume II of the work to the question of salvation out of the Church. He says that it is impossible to be saved outside the Church, because the Church is the rule or measure of faith, without which faith it is impossible to attain heaven. Natural good will is not enough to be saved. Anyone who dies with natural good will alone cannot be saved. However, if God gives the grace to embrace the true faith, and one accepts - that is baptism of desire - he is truly a member of the Church, and can therefore be saved inside the Church. In Volume I he explicitly affirms that baptism of desire saves souls who cannot receive baptism of water. Let us conclude this article with the teaching of this great bishop: Quote
|
Translation to truth:
I don't believe Muslims, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved as they are, but only upon becoming Catholics or Christians, believing explicitly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
I, XavierSem, don't believe Muslims, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved as they are, but only upon becoming Catholics or Christians, believing explicitly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost. However, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God miraculously appeared to them and scared them to convert or go to hell. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
XavierSem says - Outside of the Church there is no salvation, but there are also the soul of the Church people who are not baptized, yes, that's what the soul of the Church is, a bunch of unbaptized nice people, but the Holy Ghost forgot to inspire the councils and popes to include that any dogmatic decrees of EENS, but I, the great XavierSem, discovered the omission on the internet.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?A. No.Q. Why not?A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.Q. What do you mean by this?A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Last Tradhican, why don't you address the Catechism of the Council of Trent, approved by Pope St. Pius V, that was quoted above?What for? It matters little to discuss details with someone who believes that no matter what kind of life anyone lives, or what god they worship, or whether they are not baptized, they can be miraculously saved in the last seconds by Christ scaring them to convert, and then they go to Heaven. "All nice people can be saved that way".
It just means that, by an extraordinary miracle, in response to the prayers of the Church, God may choose to save some.XavierSem once again confirms his bottom line end run belief, that an extraordinary miracle can bypass all the dogmas and save a person.
I, XavierSem, don't believe Muslims, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be saved as they are, but only upon becoming Catholics or Christians, believing explicitly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost. However, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God miraculously appeared to them and scared them to convert or go to hell. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
XavierSem says - Outside of the Church there is no salvation, but there are also the soul of the Church people who are not baptized, yes, that's what the soul of the Church is, a bunch of unbaptized nice people, but the Holy Ghost forgot to inspire the councils and popes to include that any dogmatic decrees of EENS, but I, the great XavierSem, discovered the omission on the internet.
Question for LastTrad and Ladislaus (or other orthodox persons): Is it possible that there are 2 kinds of justification?Who is the author of life and death? To the believers in BOD & BOB of any kind, one comes to life by chance and dies by chance. To the believer in BOD & BOB, a person learns the faith and gets baptized by his own work. Therefore, to the believer in BOD & BOB, a person could go all the way to the baptismal font by his own volition, and if he was by chance killed before being baptized, he would be saved by his desire. Basically, the BODer gratuitously, without the sacrament of baptism, justifies a person of any false religion, removes all sin, that is original sin and actual sins, then kills him and asks what happens to him? Then they answer that they go to heaven by BOD.
.
1) Catholic justification, which comes from the sacrament of baptism, which includes removal of original sin and all other sins, plus temporal punishment.
.
2) non-catholic justification, wherein original sin remains but all actual sins were removed due to repentance. Example: A heathen starts going to a protestant church and repents of sins, while still not being baptized. Example 2: Jonah preached repentance to the pagan city of Ninevah. Example 3: The Old Testament just still had Original Sin on their souls, did they not?
My question has nothing to do with baptism. God told Jonah to tell the Ninevites to repent of their sins, not to be circuмcized and join Israel (which might come later). Many pagans "become christian" (i.e. protestant) by repenting first, then later, they are baptized. For non-catholics, it seems there's a way to be "justified" (maybe that's not the right word), apart from baptism. Am I way off?Justification in Trent means you go straight to heaven if you die two seconds after being justified by the sacrament baptism. You receive the indelible mark and original sin and all your actual sins are blotted out.
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.
A doctrine doesn’t have to be designated as de fide in order for it to be sinful for denying it.There are enough infallible statements that there is no possibility for BoD being a real doctrine.
There are enough infallible statements that there is no possibility for BoD being a real doctrine.
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
No problem here, BOD pertains to people who have reached the age of reason. Unbaptized infants can’t be saved without the sacrament of baptism.
No problem here, BOD pertains to people who have reached the age of reason. Unbaptized infants can’t be saved without the sacrament of baptism.
Please read it again. It's not just about infants. He's talking about each an everyone who desires Baptism forfeiting the Kingdom. Infants do not desire Baptism. Pope says either infants "OR" those desiring it.
And the way you express this speaks to the grave error floating around. When you say unbaptized infants can't be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, the implied corollary is that adults can be saved "without the Sacrament of Baptism". This is in fact a heretical proposition. NO ONE CAN BE SAVED "WITHOUT" THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. In all cases, the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. At best you can say the Sacrament can be received in voto, but not that anyone is saved WITHOUT the Sacrament.
In fact, this is probably the top argument against the BoD interpretation of Trent. Same thing applies. If you claim that this is an either ... or proposition, that justification cannot happen without the Sacrament or else the Votum for it, there's an implied heretical corollary that one CAN be saved "WITHOUT" the Sacrament.
I could go into other problems with the BoD interpretation of Trent, but I'll leave it here because this point dovetails with the implied heresy in your statement.
So the teaching in Trent can in theory have one of two senses:
1) I cannot write a letter without a pen or a pencil. This means I can write a letter with one OR the other, and it also means that I CAN write a letter without a pen (so long as I have a pencil) or vice versa.
2) Wedding cannot take place without the bride or the groom. In this sense, both are required. If one OR the other is missing, the wedding cannot take place.
In sense #1, there's the implied corollary that it CAN happen WITHOUT one or the other, and therefore that justification CAN happen WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism. Problem there is that Trent explicitly condemned that proposition as heretical.
Finally, right after the passage, Trent adds, [paraphrase] "Our Lord taught that one must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit."
Water corresponds to the laver, and the Holy Spirit to the votum, which as Catholic Encyclopedia even states, entails much more than a simple desire for Baptism, but rather all the dispositions required to be baptized unto justification. And Trent had just spent several paragraphs explaining that it is the Holy Ghost who inspires and motives these dispositions.
So the have Trent adducing this as proof text for the either ... or reading would be tantamount to saying ...
"We cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since Bob says that we need a bat and a ball to play baseball." ... saying that this sentence mean that we can play baseball with EITHER a bat OR a ball.
No matter which angle you take, the BoDer reading of Trent fails.
Finally, the problem here is that nowhere does Trent positively teach BoD, even IF you accept the either ... or interpretation. At best, Trent is saying that it's erroneous (heretical) to hold that the Sacrament is not necessary AT LEAST in desire. This means that Trent would be leaving open the BoDer interpretation as non-heretical, but not positively teaching it as true. When Trent intended to teach something in a positive way, there's a Canon at the end reinforcing the teaching.
It would be similar to me, if I were unsure about BoD, saying, that Baptism is necessary at least in desire. One poster here who's a BoDer, actually reads Trent this way, that it's just saying that you must hold that Baptism is necessary at least in desire, but is not necessarily teaching positively that desire suffices.