To anyone - Simply read the two quotes provided above, one from the Council of Trent, and the other from the Summa Theologica.  I am certain you will find that neither contradicts the other.

Quote from: J.Paul

Lo?,

Quote

but that does not speak to whether it's absolutely necessary.

"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved"  

 That sounds absolutely necessary to me, when you consider Who said it.

That is not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute fact.

How did Bernard, Ambrose, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Trent, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII miss this?

Obviously they did not, and therefore it is obvious that they did not hold to the elastic and loose interpretation of necessity of the sacraments that you do, for they would have to have disregarded the words of Our Lord, to believe as you do.

At the Council of Trent, the Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Holy Bible.

Keep carefully avoiding quoting St Thomas on the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church":

“After the Incarnation,” Saint Thomas says, “all men if they wish to be saved…are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” ...

“After the Incarnation…all men in order to be saved…are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (Summa Theol. , Part II-II, q. 2, art. 7; and idem  art. 8)

As far as BOD/BOB st. Thomas actually only allowed the possibility for martyrs and catechumens "who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent (votum )"

For just as a man cannot live in the flesh unless he is born in the flesh, even so a man cannot have the spiritual life of grace unless he is born again spiritually. This regeneration is effected by Baptism: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” It is manifest that all are bound to receive baptism, and that without it there cannot be salvation for men. (Collat. de Pater. Ex. of the Ap. Creed , 10th Art. Summa , Part III, q. 68, art. 1, In Corp. )

Selective quoting may be misleading and no balanced.

Quick question for you Ladislaus; this seemed the appropriate place.  You've outlined a formulation of BOD with which you wouldn't generally take exception (or at least would "leave alone" as it were), though you've mentioned that you personally still wouldn't accept it.  With your fantastic defense of canonizations, General Councils, and universal disciplinary laws in mind, how do you square the 1917 Code with your own framework vis-a-vis ecclesiastical burial for Catechumens?

Again, notice that the 1917 Code speaks very specifically of Catechumens, which is perfectly in line with a Catholic understanding of BoD.

I've dealt with the 1917 Code before.  As such, a code of law, it's disciplinary and not doctrinal.  It's not defining anything.  So, in the context of burials, for pastoral reasons, it allows for the possibility that a catechumen might be saved via BoD; it's contrary to the earlier discipline of the Church.  So I have taken exception to the Dimonds who believe that even the limited, properly understood BoD, is heretical ... since the Church has always allowed the opinion.  In fact, I consider that view to be schismatic.  But, as per my previous post, the BoDer crusade isn't about the occasional catechumen who MIGHT be saved, but about undermining EENS.  Just as there's no guaranteed that ANYONE who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, so there's no guarantee that any catechumen who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, just that the Church leave it open as a possibility in the pastoral context.  There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by BoD or that God would will any of His elect to be saved by this means when it's easily possible for Him to bring the Sacrament to any of His elect.  I see BoD as speculative theology for which there's no actual or practical need and for which there's no actual proof.

So, if you want to believe that some catechumen or other who died without Baptism (which probably happens once in a blue moon) MIGHT be saved via BoD, then more power to you.  But when people start talking about Great Thumb worshippers being saved via some distorted "BoD", that's when I have problems with you, and the Doctors of the Church are all ON MY SIDE on this matter, as is the Magisterium of the Church.  In fact, once you start extending salvation to non-Catholics, you've got all of Vatican II in a nutshell, and LoT and Ambrose, who hold the same ecclesiology as Vatican II, are schismatic for rejecting Vatican II, since they have nothing to stand on.

Theologians after Trent started to say that, in BoD, people received Baptism in voto rather than being saved WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism.  Basically, a Catholic understanding of BoD, given Trent's dogmatic teaching about the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, states that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification operating via the desire.  To say anything else is HERETICAL.  It is Baptism, the FORMAL OBJECT of the desire, which objectively justifies THROUGH the desire, rather than the subjective desire itself.  What the desire does is to supply the cooperation of the will that Trent teaches is necessary for justification via Baptism.  To say that subjective desire is salvific in itself without Baptism is essentially Pelagianism and it rejects the dogmatic teaching of Trent.

Perhaps the so-called BoDers should be referred to as simply Cushingites from now on.  :scratchchin:

Sure, for those that support calumny.  

Cushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.

Ambrose,

Cushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.

Only that he was a champion of the modernist understanding of it, and thus, is one of your brethren.