CathInfo.com

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.