Haydock commentary on Acts 10:47

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? Wi. — Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. S. Aug. sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.

Ladislaus, I was searching for your old posts.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/effects-of-the-heresy-of-denying-baptism-of-desire/msg387293/?topicseen#msg387293

There is NOTHING that is impossible for God.  You're just proving that BoD is predicated upon this idea that God in some cases cannot bring His elect to Baptism.  That's essentially heretical (cf. Sacred Scripture -- "With God all things are possible.")  If someone were to be saved by BoD, it would only be because God directly willed for that person to be saved by BoD rather than to receive Sacramental Baptism.  But why would God ever will for a person to be saved by BoD?  Answer:  He wouldn't.  If such a one did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, it was because God did not will for that person to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.  If God willed that someone should receive Baptism, then he WILL receive Baptism.

It just dawned on me, we're not talking about what God permits, but what he positively wills.

If no man can prevent the sacrament of Baptism from being carried out, the only other way would be God Himself would have to prevent the sacrament of Baptism from being celebrated, and substitute Baptism of Desire in it's place.

I personally think the "God wouldn't do that" argument is a very poor one, no matter the subject.

Absolutely.  That's precisely what St. Augustine was referring to as a vortex of confusion.

We don't do theology based on our speculations regarding what God would/wouldn't do.  We do theology based on what He has revealed that He DOES do.  Necessity of Baptism for salvation has been revealed to us.  BoD has not been revealed but is mere speculation.

Absolutely.  That's precisely what St. Augustine was referring to as a vortex of confusion.

We don't do theology based on our speculations regarding what God would/wouldn't do.  We do theology based on what He has revealed that He DOES do.  Necessity of Baptism for salvation has been revealed to us.  BoD has not been revealed but is mere speculation.

.
The deposit of faith becomes gradually explicated over time, as I'm sure you would agree.  The fathers all taught some degree of BoD (sometimes just for martyrs).  Most of the material you find from the fathers where they seem to argue against BoD is explained contextually by the sermons in question being directed to catechumens, and in an environment where there was a problem of catechumens remaining in the catechumenate indefinitely, so that they could engender social standing with Christians while not having the moral obligations of a Christian and being able to quickly "pivot" out of Christianity if a persecution were to occur.  Obviously in that context you're going to find the fathers exhorting their catechumens to baptism and not telling them to trust in their own justification, just as if a priest was preaching to a Gallican crowd he's not going to even consider mentioning the fact that we can have a bad pope, or St. John Vianney speaking to the people of Ars isn't even going to consider mentioning that culture actually plays a role in rules for modesty.
.
By the time you get to Trent BoD is ordinary teaching, and by the time Trent concludes, it's abundantly clear this is the case.  Bellarmine, writing in the immediate wake of the council, witnesses that BoD is taught by all the theologians. 
.
The point simply being that it's far more than "speculation."  Maybe during the Arian period there was some doubt as to the quality of teaching of BoD, but at bare minimum it's been clearly the teaching of the Church since Trent, and none of the authors who've taught it have understood it to be in conflict with baptism's necessity. 
.
But we're going backwards, aren't we?  I would like your input on how, if there's no chance that someone not baptized can go to Heaven, the Church can offer ceremonies for them and bury them on sacred ground.  It seems that one must admit BoD in principle in order for such a law to be legitimate.

I provided Church approved commentary on the canon cited.
The simple matter of fact is that baptism of desire is taught by the Church.  Your opinion to the contrary is your own.

Baptism of desire was never taught by the Church, only by men.  Big difference.  It may be found in lots of writings, but it contradicts everything the Church teaches.  One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism?  Uh, no, they say, there are three baptisms.  Baptism is necessary?  Uh, not quite, because there's bod.  Christ insists water and the Holy Spirit are necessary?  Their answer: if you get super creative you will see that water is included in the desire. 
What gives people the right to redefine terms?
If anyone is prepared to receive Baptism, but dies on the way, there is no reason to believe that God goes against Church teaching because circuмstances are beyond His control. It certainly isn't any more problematic for God to do it the right way.  
 

I provided Church approved commentary on the canon cited.
The simple matter of fact is that baptism of desire is taught by the Church.  Your opinion to the contrary is your own.

Horse manure!  You could find other sources to promote this false belief of yours, but the Canon Law is not one of them.

It's very curious to me that people find a tension between the necessity of baptism and BoD, because they seem to make this argument based on the "plain" or "obvious" use of the word necessary precluding the possibility of the necessary item being supplied for.
.
As an example, it is perfectly sensible to speak of hard work as being necessary to support one's family, and no one who says its necessary would, by saying so, intend to preclude the fact that someone born into a trust fund really doesn't need to work hard, since the property and finances have been supplied in another way.  We could think of a million things that are truly necessary that can be supplied for.  Point simply being that there's nothing "plain" or "obvious" about the word "necessary" radically excluding a supplication of effect; indeed, if we actually "go to the Church" (instead of "Churchmen", as happenby is wont to distinguish) we read that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, which tells you everything you need to know.  Instruments are metaphysically substitutable, while principals (in this case, Christ's passion) are not.  Which is why the Old Testament Fathers, despite doing everything that was asked of them for justification, did not go immediately to Heaven-- because there was not yet a principal efficient cause of their justification.
.
Anyways, the tension between the necessity of baptism and BoD is just a fabrication, both with regards to what the Church teaches and in regards to the very foundation (i.e., "ordinary" language and "plain" meanings) on which the case for a contradiction rests.

Absolutely.  That's precisely what St. Augustine was referring to as a vortex of confusion.

We don't do theology based on our speculations regarding what God would/wouldn't do.  We do theology based on what He has revealed that He DOES do.  Necessity of Baptism for salvation has been revealed to us.  BoD has not been revealed but is mere speculation.

Absolutely, God knows intimately every soul who will be saved, he has no need or justification to go outside of His established order. If His attributes are all perfect( and they are), those who are lost are lost according to His justice, and everyone who is saved are saved by his mercy.
Theologians are sometimes the bane of the Church in that they can make something clearly revealed by God into something which is now unclear or in question. The Truth is never unclear, but we know that these propositions have led us to the more or less universal salvation of the Vatican II, which many Traditionalists now believe in.