CathInfo.com

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Elena

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Elena

Quote from: Ambrose

To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.  For those that reject this de fide teaching of the Church, you place your soul in grave peril.

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, 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 of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

(Emphasis added)

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire.  That is a statement on the requisites for baptism.  The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration.  One cannot have justification without the desire for it.  Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism.  This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned.  Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion.  You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.  

Then you are not reading it carefully.  It is a clear and explicit teaching that baptism or the desire for it transfers one from the state of sin to the state of grace, and that baptism or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God.

Oh, but I have read it.  Many, many times.  What I described above is what you need to read so you understand what it says.  It is impossible to read the sentence the way you read it once you see how it should be read.  Because the words are impossible to misinterpret, unless you view them in a way so as to undermine Church teaching.  No salvation outside the Church does not mean salvation for some outside the Church.  No salvation without water and the Holy Spirit, or Jesus is a liar.  Be washed for your sins, or scripture misrepresents itself.  That sentence in Trent can only be interpreted in one way.  It speaks for itself and it does not contradict Church teaching when seen as it was intended.  

Probably bears repeating that BOD is not salvation for those outside the Church.  Those who are justified via BOD are very much part of the Church.  This is how the theologians have explained it.  

 Those who are justified via BOD are very much part of the Church.  

How? if BOD is obviously not the sacrament of Baptism, which is the only entrance to spiritual life. You mean the invincible ignorant? because it is evident that BOD adherents are not talking here about a sincere and unlucky catechumen that dies ON HIS WAY of receiving water baptism, but the "anonymous Christian".

However, to affirm that non-Catholics can be saved is to destroy absolutely the principles and merits of Catholic life.  

First, to believe in BOD / BOB for catechumen / martyrs is not a heresy, given that there has clearly been Church teaching on them. But BOD/BOB have never been dogmas, only theories that belong to the realm of speculation. Because they are fallible, they can be change, and so they should, since BOD is the loophole the modernist liberals have used to undermine the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as only means of salvation and deny EENS.

Again, the discussion is not about BOD/BOB really but salvation of non-Catholics.

Second, what is the merit of being a Catholic if also a Muslim can be saved? Imagine what had become of Our Catholic religion if the great conquistadores and evangelists had held the heresy of invincible ignorance. There had not been any need to convert the pagans or the natives. It is very simple, indeed. There had not ever been Christendom nor civilization. All of the worthy missionaries, valiant crusaders, courageous martyrs, did what they did because they wholeheartly believed in the exclusivity of the Catholic Faith for salvation. None of them undermined or denied EENS.  

Third, reflect on this picture about the invincible ignorant. Perhaps it will demonstrate what is it that we are talking about.