I was wondering if you people who accept and argue for BOD if you can tell me if this applies to any other sacrament?

Specifically, Confession.

Here is the classic case. A man in a state of mortal sin needs to go to Confession. He has been a serious Catholic his entire life. He says an act of contrition and starts doing penance on his own in anticipation of his confession and to properly examine his conscience.

He drives to the Church to make it at the appointed time, 4:45 to 5:00 pm on Saturdays. Last time he went he was cut off as Father had to celebrate Mass and he was the next one in line. He drives fast to make it on time. But he is running a little late. He runs across the street and gets hit by a truck and dies.

Now, did the penitent have what could be termed a Confession of Desire, or COD?

Or is he just DOA and on the quick elevator to Hell?

I have to disagree with you on this one, Stubborn.

Perfect contrition (or contrition with perfect charity), accompanied by the will / intention to receive the Sacrament of Confession, can restore the soul to a state of grace.  Perfect contrition, of course, is extremely rare, and I agree that God will allow His elect to receive the Sacrament rather than to be cut off from it by death.

Confession differs from Baptism in this regard.

What you all seem to miss is the function of Baptism in removing Original Sin and imprinting the character which enables the soul to have supernatural faculties so that the soul can enter into the Life of the Holy Trinity (i.e. to experience the beatific vision).  That's why St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist, etc. had to wait for Our Lord before they could enter the kingdom of heaven (aka enter into the beatific vision).  This character simply cannot be supplied by desire any more than Holy Orders can be received by desire.

This again, really?

You know, it can be explained to Crossbro that Jesus Himself promised the indwelling of the Holy Trinity to any man who loved Him, that St. John (the Apostle whose Gospel you wrest) says he who loves is born of God, that St. James says he who loves has fulfilled the law etc. ( can you quote any Father teaching John 3:5 as you interpret it? No.) To Cantarella that the Church Herself teaches that John 3:5 means that the translation from the state of death to the state of grace is impossible without baptism or its desire, where the Gospel has been promulgated (False).To Bowler that the Saints and Doctors did believe that those who loved God sincerely would be enlightened by Him about Christ before the end of their lives, but they themselves say this is only a pious and probable opinion, with which anyone is allowed to disagree (NOTE that you left out Fathers, for no Father taught any such thing. I'd like to see the other BODers read what you just wrote, that BOD of the catechumen is "only a pious and probable opinion", that is what I've been telling you all along about even baptism of desire of the catechumen. Now if  BOD of the catechumen is "only a pious and probable opinion", then salvation by implicit faith is a useless opinion! )  So they are not on your side, if you want to say it is more than that.

But, to Bowler, I ask you, can I propose a BOD truce on this forum? I ask this only because it seems to me that this subject and the opinions traditional Catholics have on it today really vexes you. I mean, really, really, makes you very unhappy. At least it seems so. (it bothers you BODers, the discussion is a rebuke to your conscience, it bothers not one iota to discuss the truth any time any where any long.)

Now, I absolutely don't agree with you, but I empathize with you more than you think. You once lived in a world where almost all lay Catholics intuitively understood what I'm going to explain, and now it seems to you that all Catholics, even traditional, believe the opposite. Hence your difficulty.

Traditionally - and this is enshrined in the Code as well - it is for very good reason the default presumption in the external forum that nonbelievers, especially in the vicinity of Catholics where the Church has been established - whether unbaptized pagans or baptized heretics - who are past the age of reason are culpably ignorant and therefore outside the Church and in need of conversion.

Likewise, concerning the departed, it is the default judgment of the Church in Her Canon Law and elsewhere - a judgment made with moral certitude (in this case, the best judgment that can be arrived at when all possible known facts are taken into account) - that anyone who has not given external signs of conversion is lost.

Now, all of this based and founded on the most solid reasons was as a matter of fact entirely overthrown in the Conciliar and post-Conciliar era.(in the USA at least, it was overthrown many years before Vatican II, Vatican II which YOU interpret according to tradition teaches what you believe, that people are saved by implicit faith.

If you ask properly, I think you'll find at least 98% of traditional Catholics - including those who believe in implicit faith and Baptism of Implicit Desire - nonetheless in their lives believe and operate on exactly the same principles I've enumerated above.(If they did, they would not be here defending salvation by heroin BOD , the SUBJECT of this thread and all of my threads!)

At least this was certainly the case for some of the great men you most unjustly criticize - Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Garrigou Lagrange and others. Therefore, the apostolic mission of the Church was in no way harmed and in fact very greatly enhanced by their contributions to Her. (their belief, what they wrote about salvation by implicit faith and such, is enshrined in Vatican II's teachings on religious liberty and ecuмenism)

So I ask again, if all Catholics here believed the above - that heretics and pagans  past the age of reason whom we encounter are to be presumed culpably ignorant and therefore outside the Church - would you agree to a BOD truce? [color=red](Sounds akin to you wanting for all Catholics to "agree to a truce" to stop debating about Vatican II according to your thoughts on it. You are a dreamer who thinks he cracked the code of life.)[/color]

There are people here on CI who actually defend the teaching that there is salvation for those who objectively lived believing that they were Jews, Protestants, Hindus, pagans etc., and who objectively died not explicitely desiring to be Catholics. If that is not at least "implicitly" saying  that Baptism is optional, and one can be saved in any religion, then real life and words have no meaning.

Quote

Bishop Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976):
“We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; ]we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church, but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it...”

My translation of Abp. Lefebvre's quote above , which IS a clear manifestation of what I am saying in the opening post of this thread:

We just "think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church". BUT, that is not so, because people are in reality saved "even outside the Catholic Church", even if  they objectively lived believing that they were Jews, Protestants, Hindus, pagans etc., and objectively died not explicitly desiring to be Catholics, "even if they do not know it, even if they are unaware of it”, they are "saved".

Quote from: Stubborn

Well, you are free to disagree - but if you want to depend on a contrition which "sometimes happens" as assurance that your sins are forgiven, and then call that a COD - and Trent an imbecile or a deceiver, then feel free. I admit it could sometimes happen - but a "COD"? Never.

We cannot depend on any such thing.  In fact, depending on perfect contrition would in fact ironically undermine the desire to receive the Sacrament and render it incapable of restoring one to a state of grace (as Father Feeney famously said about the desire for Baptism).

Quote from: Stubborn

The fact is Trent does not teach of anything even remotely called a  COD for a reason - because there is no such a thing - I say that whoever constantly preaches that there is such a thing as a BOD or even a COD should expect God to give them the opportunity to practice what they preach when their last hour nears - they certainly won't be needing the last sacrament after they've been preaching that an infidel can be rewarded salvation without any sacrament at all.

You make an interesting point.  Confession of Desire should be considered a term completely repugnant to Catholics.  Yet why is Baptism of Desire any different?  Only because people coined the term and kept repeating it.  The minute you would start talking about Confession of Desire as such, you would start undermining the Sacrament itself ... just as the term BoD does for Baptism.  So I understand your visceral repugnance to the notion.  In fact, if anyone started talking about CoD, I would immediately want to slap them down.

Another interesting point to consider is that Trent teaches there's no such thing as the Sacrament of Confession for those who have not been Baptized.  So for any unbaptized person who would fall from a state of grace (allowing only for the sake of argument that they could be in a state of grace to begin with), there would be absolutely no remedy.

Quote from: Trent

Moreover, neither before the coming of Christ was penance a sacrament nor is it such since His coming to anyone before baptism

Notice, there is NO SACRAMENT OF PENANCE to the unbaptized.  So how then could the unbaptized be restored to a state of grace by a desire for the Sacrament of Penance?  They are incapable of receiving the Sacrament of Penance.

That's yet another argument against salvation by so-called BoD.

BoDers claim that perfect charity alone (without the Sacrament of Penance) can restore to a state of grace.  That's condemned by Trent.  Trent teaches that the fruits of the Sacrament are applied via the desire for it and that perfect contrition alone does not suffice.  But how can the fruits of the Sacrament be applied to a soul who is not capable of receiving it (the unbaptized)?

Session 13
Chapter 7

Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one, conscious to himself  of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This the holy Synod hath decreed is to be invariably observed by all Christians....