CathInfo.com

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 ####o non baptizato” and of 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.”

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Oops I misread your title.  

But "faith of desire" is a novel term and not used by the Church when she teaches BOD.

Correct.  This is my term to distinguish your heretical views from what you claim the Church teaches.  It is in fact YOUR IDEAS that are novel and heretical, and that's why I am deliberately distinguishing them from what the Church teaches.  I am granting for the sake of argument only that the Church teaches BoD.  So please don't take this thread off the rails and make it yet another BoD thread.  I am GRANTING in the context of this thread that the Church teaches BoD.  Granting that Church teaches BoD, you yourself do not hold that, but rather to the heretical Faith of Desire.

You keep arguing BoD as if by showing that the Church teaches BoD that you prove that non-Catholics can be saved.

I pointed out in the list of sources cited by Ambrose as proving that the Church teaches BoD that each and every one of these is referring SPECIFICALLY to CATECHUMENS and that your heretical extension of BoD beyond catechumens has never been taught or endorsed by the Church.

So, for instance, you cite the 1917 Code of Canon Law ... dishonestly ... as somehow proving your claim that non-Catholics can be saved, when the 1917 Code of Canon Law provision you cite speaks only of "CATECHUMENS" (uses the term explicitly).  As does every other source cited by Ambrose.

It is you who twist BoD beyond what the Church can be seen as having endorsed ... into your heretical notion that no-Catholics can be saved when the Church has taught dogmatically that THEY CANNOT.