CathInfo.com

The only possibility for BOD or BOB I see is just as a notion of the justification of souls who have already received baptism. A baptized Catholic in a state of sin shedding his blood for Christ would constitute a "Baptism of blood" as the act itself removes all sin and they go straight to heaven. With the "baptism of desire" being basically an act of perfect contrition.

It's as was already pointed out, there is only one baptism per the teaching of Scripture, as well as four Councils; not three as some try to stretch BOD and BOB into two baptisms in their own right, when they are just accidents of the justification already received by the baptized. If you aren't baptized by water and the Holy Ghost (John 3:5), you aren't a member of the Body, and therefore, will not be saved.

So this idea of Fr. Feeney of the unbaptized being justified but unable to enter heaven is plausible, but also is not really different than the "Dimondite" thesis that all unbaptized go to hell since Limbo is a part of hell minus the torment of fire.

It's a pious belief held by many that when someone makes religious vows, they receive a second baptism. It could be the same for martyrs. Yes, as you say, that would fall under perfect contrition, as defined explicitly at Trent. BOD has never been defined and never will be. The Holy Ghost protected the Church from doing that.

So, people claim that Catholics MUST believe in BoD.  OK.  Well, what must I believe about it?  Apart from the fact that the expression "Baptism of Desire" appears absolutely nowhere in the Catholic Magisterium, there appears to be a different understanding or version of "BoD" for each person that believes in it.  Is it just for catechumens?  Does it "work" for infidels?  I've even heard some apply the term to validly-baptized Protestants.  It's become codeword for "sincerity saves".  Apart from a passing mention of a phrase votum in Trent, something without which justification cannot take place, the closest thing comes from a letter of Pope Innocent II/III (can't remember which) to a bishop in France.  In it he said he was relying on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose" (mistakenly IMO) to believe that an unbaptized priest (whatever that means) went straight to Heaven "without delay".  St. Alphonsus used this letter to assert that BoD was de fide.  That was before VI had defined the notes of infallibility.  This was clearly a pope opining about a matter and sending a letter to some bishop, and was in no way teaching the Universal Church with HIS authority (but was relying on his understanding of Augustine and Ambrose).  In any case, in a very similar letter to a bishop by Innocent III (I believe ... I get II and II confused sometimes from memory), that pope opined that the consecration at Mass was valid if the priest only THOUGHT the words of consecration.  St. Thomas rightly took him to task over that.  But, getting to my point, St. Alphonsus held the letter about the "unbaptized priest" to have dogmatic authority -- and yet CONTRADICTED the pope.  St. Alphonsus claimed that with BoD (unlike BoB), temporal punishment remains in the next life.  But that Pope Innocent letter stated that such a one would go to Heaven immediately and without delay.  So, was St. Alphonsus a heretic?

BoD is fraught with uncertainty, lack of clarity, and a variety of interpretations.  That is prima facie evidence that it's not de fide or even really TAUGHT as such.  In order to believe something, you have to know what you're required to believe about it.

BoD is NOT something that has been revealed and therefore not even definable as Catholic dogma.  More Church Fathers rejected the notion explicitly than who tentatively and temporarily opined in its favor.  So there's no dogmatic consensus among the Church Fathers.  Nor has anyone every made an argument to prove that BoD necessarily follows from other revealed truth.  Without either one of those conditions, it's clear that BoD is not revealed and therefore cannot become de fide.

It's clearly nothing more than a piece of theological speculation that the Church has permitted.  And, in and of itself, if applied to, say, a catechumen who has all the other proper dispositions to receive the Sacrament, it does no harm to Catholic ecclesiology or soteriology.  Where it becomes a real problem is where it gets extended even to infidels.  There's no evidence that any top tier Catholic source (pope, Doctor, or saint) ever believed that BoD could apply except to the case of a catechumen.  Holy Office rejected the notion that lack of belief in at least the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  St. Robert ONLY applied it to catechumens, asking "Whether catechumens who [died before receiving the Sacrament] could be saved."  Pope Innocent was talking about a "priest" who had not been baptized (again, not sure how that's possible).

Backing for BoD is incredibly weak, and 99% of its proponents don't care about the isolated case of a catechumen who may have died before Baptism.  What they care about is using it as a weapon to undermine EENS and to use it as the mechanism by which non-Catholics (even infidels) can be saved.

Yes, the extension of BoD to infidels is nothing short of Pelagianism and completely guts the teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments and how they work.  Even when applied to catechumens, it's a bit of a stretch, which is why I don't believe in the commonly-held notion of BoD even in that case.  And I have a big problem with reducing the character of Baptism to relative insignificance.  With BoD theory, it's reduced to a Sacramental non-repeatability marker, or a badge of some kind that some people in Heaven have and others don't.  I'd be more amenable with a theory of BoD that held that the souls also received the Sacramental character (even if in extraordinary manner).  But no BoD proponent holds that, and the result is the reduction of the Sacramental character to meaninglessness or triviality.