So you object to the period of 450 years.  But if you're correct, then most of the Church Fathers are wrong, which means that for the period of 1,300 years, (early Church to St Thomas), that God allowed error.


Which is worse - 1,300 years of error or 450 years? 

Either way, God allowed a "predominate" view for a long period, and both periods directly contradict each other.  Solution?
1.  It's not a settled matter.
2.  It's certainly not doctrine.
3.  I'd trust the Church Fathers long, long, long before I'd trust the theologians post Trent, who were few and far between and were dealing with the ravages of Protestant error.

And for 700 years, everyone accepted St. Augustine's position that unbaptized infants suffer (albeit mildly) in Hell (of the damned).

So?

Abelard (who was also anti-BoD) was the first to dispute it.  St. Thomas then fully endorsed the notion of Limbo Infantium ... to the point that very few later believed otherwise.

Also, for 1500 years, it was taught and believed by all Catholics everywhere that explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation.  Until a Franciscan and a couple Jesuits came along to reject that.  Why not ask why it's OK for them to discard that teaching (which was actually backed by not merely theological opinion but unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and even taught solemnly in the Athanasian Creed)?  I don't see these pro-BoD types going after the Trad clergy who claim that infidels can be saved.

Quo, do you accuse the Trad clergy who (and I can't think of one who doesn't and who isn't at the same time a Feeneyite) assert that infidels can be saved without explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity?

Similarly, very few Trad clergy (including hostile anti-Feeneyites) are geocentrists, and yet they'll try to beat us on the head with the Suprema Haec Holy Office decision (rendered under mysterious circuмstances by the same Modernist heretics who would bring us Vatican II a few short years later) ... while ignoring the Holy Office decision that was clearly backed by the Pope declaring that not believing in geocentrism is proximate to heresy.  Latter was fully approved by the Pope, and the former didn't even appear in Acta Apostolicae Sedis and could very well have been tampered with (since Cushing, the only one who published it, inexplicably sat on it for a couple years after the Cardinal who allegedly signed it had died).  Also, the Holy Office effectively rejected "Rewarder God" theory, referring to believe in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation as required by a necessity of means for salvation.

Contradictions and dishonesty everywhere regarding this issue of BoD.

So you object to the period of 450 years.  But if you're correct, then most of the Church Fathers are wrong, which means that for the period of 1,300 years, (early Church to St Thomas), that God allowed error.


Which is worse - 1,300 years of error or 450 years? 

Either way, God allowed a "predominate" view for a long period, and both periods directly contradict each other.  Solution?
1.  It's not a settled matter.
2.  It's certainly not doctrine.
3.  I'd trust the Church Fathers long, long, long before I'd trust the theologians post Trent, who were few and far between and were dealing with the ravages of Protestant error.

No, for 1300 (?) years it was *disputed*. For 450 years it was taught without exception with many of the Ecclesia docens teaching that it was de fide. HUGE HUGE difference!

 No matter how you people want to twist the teachings of Trent, no matter how much you proof text Scripture, the Fathers, the popes and the councils, every single Catholic, whether they were part of the Church teaching or part of the Church believing, held the doctrine of BOD. Period. Frankly, this is what the modernists do, they appeal to tradition.

No, for 1300 (?) years it was *disputed*. 

??  The only pro-BOD advocate was St Augustine.  Until he recanted.  St Thomas floated an opinion.  If anything, the majority opinion was anti-BOD.

For 450 years it was taught without exception with many of the Ecclesia docens teaching that it was de fide. HUGE HUGE difference!

Untrue.  Plenty of theologians in the 1700/1800s were strict anti-BOD.  You just ignore anyone not name St Alphonsus (who, btw, contradicted Trent).

every single Catholic, whether they were part of the Church teaching or part of the Church believing, held the doctrine of BOD. Period

This is one of the most ludicrous statements i've ever read.

Please give me the names and references.

Not from 1700s, but St. Peter Canisius rejected BoD.  He was actually a theologian at Trent who spoke a couple times during the Council, and in his Catechism (written after Trent), he footnotes the alleged "BoD" passage from Trent with 2 citations from the Church Fathers that reject the possibility of salvation for catechumens.  Interesting selection of quotations to explain a passage that allegedly teaches BoD.

But, again, so what, if most theologians believed in BoD the past couple hundreds years?  They're not the Magisterium.  In fact, when Father Cekada surveyed theologians, he only found about 2 dozen who even mentioned it, most of them merely in passing:  "Yep.  BoD.  Next point."  That's it.  There has been no theological analysis of the subject since probably St. Thomas (pre Trent) and St. Robert Bellarmine.

Please give me the names and references.

Archbishop George Hay (d 1811) wrote extensively on the strict application of EENS.  Fr Wathen quoted him in multiple pages, in his book "Who Shall Ascend?".

St Alphonsus upheld strict EENS.  But he also *appeared* not to.  Either way, he contradicted Trent and said that BOD'ers would have to go to purgatory, while Trent said (infallibly) that the justified go directly to heaven.

There are others but I don't have a list.

Please cite the reference from Saint Peter Canisius.

9:32 - 12:30 in the video below.  St. Peter, Doctor of the Church, in attendance at Trent as a theologian, who spoke twice at the Council, cites not only the famous "BoD" passage but in the same footnote, one passage from St. Augustine and another from St. Ambrose stating that no matter how good / pious / devout a Catechumen might be, he cannot be saved.  That would be rather odd to do, to cite St. Augustine and St. Ambrose directly contradicting the possibility of justification by desire in the SAME footnote (explaining the necessity of Baptism for adults) if that passage actually taught Baptism of Desire.  As the Brothers point out elsewhere in the video (I don't agree with every point they make, especially their discussion of "necessity"), nowhere in an extremely large Catechism does St. Peter ever mention Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, though he had ample opportunity to do so.  But the citations in that footnote are conclusive that St. Peter most certainly did not read this passage as teaching BoD.  He would be juxtaposing it with 2 citations that directly contradict BoD and therefore contradicting this very passage from Trent.  Not possible.

No, the correct interpretation of BoD is that there's no such thing.  I'll take the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers against it over the musings of Bishop Hay ... as St. Augustine retracted it and St. Ambrose rejected it also (cited by St. Peter Canisius), with his reference to Valentinian being wrongly interpreted.

Here's a quick 21 popes, saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church who say you're wrong:


Baptism of Blood and of Desire
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”

Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”

2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”

4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another… If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).

5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

• Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
• That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
• A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated… and expressed his intention to be baptized… Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”

7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic… The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).

8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”

9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa”(Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).

10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.

11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quidem, 1856:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”

12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”

13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II – 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.

14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:

• “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
• “Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
• “Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire… both cause sanctifying grace. …Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment…”

15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:

• “Baptism of Desire… is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition…”
• “These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
• “…Even an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith….”

16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).

17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.

18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II,1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; …but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).

19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV – 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.

20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation…
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water… Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).

21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II),Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected…
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)…; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.