1) If water Baptism is strictly necessary in every case, then there are no exceptions to it at all. No loopholes! - as Cantarella has said after you.

Quote

Had St. Pius X stood up and condemned BoD for anyone except catechumens and those who consciously embraced the Catholic Faith, then Vatican II could never have happened, since the heresy would have been pre-condemned.

Now you have finally done it to yourself, Ladislaus. You have condemned yourself with the words of your own mouth.

You cannot limit Baptism of Desire to "catechumens and those who consciously embrace the Catholic faith," for two reasons.

1) If water Baptism is strictly necessary in every case, then there are no exceptions to it at all. No loopholes! - as Cantarella has said after you.

2) There is no perfect way to decide who a catechumen is, and there is especially no way to decide who exactly has consciously embraced the Catholic faith. All this does is shift the question one step further back. Instead of asking "And who is Baptized?" we now must ask "And who has consciously embrace the faith?" Could it not be that God gives to certain virtuous pagans and Protestants in their last agony the chance to consciously embrace the faith? That's all that BoD-ers are defending! You've just endorsed our whole position.

St. Pius X could not have condemned the "heresy" you speak of because it is not a heresy at all. It would have made the faith untenable. He was prevented not only by infallibility but also by good sense from doing what you wish he would have done. Furthermore, the idea of pre-condemning an unmooted heresy is a little strange. That is not what popes do. They do not speculate on every heresy that might arise; they condemn error when it does arise.

But in the nature of the case, Baptism of Desire has been explicitly taught as doctrine by the Catholic Church since at least the Council of Trent. Is it really possible that all those tracts and books and catechisms carrying episcopal imprimaturs got it wrong? Is it really possible that nobody in the 400 years between Trent and Fr. Feeney noticed that this horrendous error was spreading, and moved to stop it? Of course not, because there is no error here.

I am begging you to reconsider your position. This isn't doing you or anybody else any good. And don't say "But it does no harm in the practical order," as you said above. These divisions needlessly weaken the Church in a time of crisis and the adherence to nonsensical doctrine makes Catholicism look ridiculous. Please stop it now. Repudiate this madness and distance yourself from your less articulate hangers-on (one of whom, I see, has been quite busy in the time I took to write this).  Your education I'm sure would be greatly valued in the service of truth.

If you want to talk to somebody privately I'm sure none of the regulars here would spurn a PM, nor would I.

Ladislaus said:
At the end of the day, prescinding even from who's right or wrong about the issue, the Baptism of Implicit Desire (BOID) crowd have the SAME "subsistit" ecclesiology as Vatican II, whereby the actual MEMBERS comprise the subsistent core, and yet there are those outside of this subsistent core who nevertheless belong to the Church.  Consequently, we have separated brethren all over the world and in every religion ... separated materially but brethren formally.[/b]  Consequently, since right intention has become the criterion for salvation, and clearly people have a right to please God and to save their souls, then they have the right to practice their religion ... even if they're in material error, because it's the new soteriology.  This is why Dr. Fastiggi destroyed Bishop Sanborn in their debate, because he clearly showed that Vatican II ecclesiology was logically consistent with Bishop Sanborn's own stated principle that non-Catholics can be saved.

If you were to convince me that BOID is in fact Traditional Catholic teaching, then I would have to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.  I would go join and Eastern Rite or FSSP or something like that because I personally find most implementations of the Novus Ordo Missae inconsistent with my own spirituality.

You guys reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II while yourselves holding THE VERY SAME ERRORS AND HERESIES.  If your views are not heretical, then you are schismatic for separating yourself from Vatican II (which teaches the SAME thing that you yourselves hold).

Catholic Apologetics, by Fr. John Laux 1928. (pp. 125-6 TAN). [/u]

 3. But are not all non-Catholics and non-Christians condemned to Hell by this doctrine [outside the Church there is no salvation]?

 The Catholic dogma, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," must be rightly understood. It must not be regarded as an isolated doctrine, but as part of the whole system of Catholic doctrine; and it must be put in its proper place in this system.

 a) It was not originally directed against non-Catholics as individuals, but against heretical sects in so far as they are sects. Its purpose is to safeguard the truth that there is only one Body of Christ and therefore only one Church which possesses and communicates the fullness of the blessings brought to men by Christ. No church set up by men against the original Church of Christ can be a means of salvation. In so far as these churches are non-Catholic and anti-Catholic, they cannot give a supernatural life. None of them can be called a mater ecclesia, a "Mother" Church that gives life to her children and nourishes them.

 b) But the non-Catholic churches are not purely un-Catholic and anti-Catholic. When they separated from the Church of Christ, they took with them and kept a considerable portion of the Catholic treasure of faith and some means of grace, above all the Sacrament of Baptism. The Church has always upheld the validity of Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Blessed Trinity. She also admits the validity of Holy Orders in the Schismatic churches of the East and in the Jansenist and Old Catholic churches of Europe. In these churches the true Body and true Blood of Christ is received, not because they are the true Church of Christ, but because in spite of their heresy and schism, they have kept a part of the primitive Catholic inheritance. It is the Catholic element in these churches that enables them to be a means of grace and salvation.

 c) When the Jansenists of the 17th century maintained that the Sacraments administered outside the Church were only objectively valid, but not subjectively effective; in other words, that "No grace was given outside the Church," their teaching was condemned by Pope Clement XI.

 Since the Sacraments administered outside the Church do confer grace, there is no reason why there should not be found outside the Church, for example in the Eastern churches, men and women of marked piety and even holiness of life.

 d) According to Catholic teaching the grace of Christ works not only in those who profess the Christian Religion, but also in non-Christians, in Pagans, Jews and Mohammedians. Every Catholic Catechism speaks of the Baptism of Desire as a substitute for Sacramental Baptism. Baptism of Desire is an act of perfect contrition combined with an ardent wish, either explicit or implicit, to receive Baptism and to become a member of the true Church. A person who does not know the necessity of Baptism, but wishes to do all that is required for salvation, is said to have an implicit desire of Baptism. "Every one that loveth is born of God" (1 John 4:7).

 Since Christ appeared on earth and founded His Kingdom, there is no longer any purely natural morality. "Wherever conscience is aroused, wherever man raises his eyes to God and proclaims his readiness to do the Divine Will, the grace of Christ is at work and puts the germ of supernatural life into the soul."

 e) Thus we see that God does not refuse grace to anyone in good faith, to anyone who is outside the Church through invincible ignorance; but it is essential that he must be in good faith. Whoever, without his fault, is not a Catholic, but sincerely seeks the truth and keeps the commandments to the best of his knowledge, does not indeed belong to the visible body of the Church, but in spirit, as it were, belongs to the soul of the Church, and therefore can be saved. He is not saved without the Church of Christ and against her, but through her. "For the grace of Christ never operates in an isolated manner in this or that person. It always works in and through the unity of His Body." There is no invisible Church beside the visible one; there is only one true Church of Christ in which both what is visible and what is invisible are organically united.

Quote from: Ott

Page 239
II. The Universality of Grace, sec. C,  “ There is also the possibility that God, in an extraordinary manner, remits original sin to those children who die without baptism, and communicates grace to them, as His power is not limited by the Church’s means of grace. However, the possibility of such an extra-sacramental communication of grace cannot be proved.”

Compare above quote from 1952 with the new CCC.

Quote from: Ladislaus

I invite the BoDers to either

1) reject and repudiate these statements by Fr. John Laux.

OR

2) accept the teachings of Vatican II.

Still waiting.  My way of "bumping" this.

Quote from: Man of the West

You really are insane, Ladi. So when completely orthodox, imprimatur-bearing, canonically approved writings from licensed Church theologians teach that BOD is acceptable, that does not prove that your Feeneyite position is wrong, it proves that they are all heretics and the conspiracy goes much wider than anyone but you imagines?

You're missing the point, which is that Vatican II could have been lifted verbatim from this theology manual.  If you accept the manual, then you must accept Vatican II.  If you reject Vatican II, you must reject the manual.  Non Datur Tertium