Ambrose,

Also, Baptism of Desire itself does not make one a member of the Church.  The process is invisible and the Church is visible.  Only The Sacrament of Baptism makes one a member of Church.  

It does not make one a member of the Church, and there is absolutely no salvation outside of the Church, how then is such a person invisibly saved?

In the Church=Saved

Outside of the Church=Lost

The invisibility of desire=???

Baptism=in the Church

No Baptism= outside of the Church

These guys rely upon Msgr. Fenton's idea that one can be inside the Church without being part of the Church.  Msgr. Fenton just comes up with that notion, after having dismissed 95% of the BoDers formulations one finds on CathInfo as heretical.  Interestingly, Msgr. Fenton does not and cannot cite ANY MAGISTERIAL SUPPORT WHATOSEVER for this distinction, not a footnote to a Church Doctor, no papal docuмents, nothing.  At the end of the day, Msgr. Fenton makes this up out of thin air in a futile attempt to reconcile Suprema Haec with Traditional Catholic ecclesiology ... instead of dismissing it for the fraud and hoax that it is (cf. the Suprema Haec thread).

Quote from: J.Paul

Ambrose,

Quote

The Church defines these terms, not the modernists or the Feeneyites or the Dimond brothers.

Yes, Her definitions are clearly present in Her dogmatic declaration. The problem arises when the emotions and sentiments of man will not allow him to accept them, as the Church has once declared them.

Dogmatic theologians are not emotional writers.  

Dogmatic theologians do not determine the sense or meaning of proclaimed dogma. They submit to it.

Here are the latest reasons I heard from the Feeneyites believe the Catholic teaching of BOD is wrong.

1.  Because SVs believe it is true

2.  Because someone watched TV seven years ago.

I kid you not.

Now here is the Catholic teaching which the Feeneyites ignore and wish away:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

Crybaby alert.  There is a Ladislaus on the loose.

You can have Peter Abélard, Fr. Leonard Feeney and Peter Dimond

I'll take St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes of the holy Catholic Church.

A rather considerable amount of space in the Treatise is spent in refuting any number of anti-Catholic positions, ranging from those who see no necessity in being baptized, in being subject to the Supreme Pontiff, in belonging specifically to the Catholic Church, in reading the ancient magisterial docuмents only in the sense in which they were originally written, or even being a Catholic, in order to be "saved." One could argue that Peter Dimond was attempting to take on all positions other than his own, be they Catholic, Protestant, Modernist, Liberal, Agnostic, Deist, Atheist, or whatever.

This thread pretends BOD is not a Catholic teaching which is manifestly false.  The below shows the part of the Dimonds brother book against BOD that only have some flaws rather than being heretical.  It is a big book.  Most of it is heretical nonsense.  

The result of this is that a number of the chapters of the Treatise can basically be ignored here since their basic contentions are in no way challenged by any Catholic of the sort who would be persuaded by what the Pre-Vatican II Popes and Councils etc. have infallibly taught. This applies to sections 2 (The Keys of St. Peter and His Unfailing Faith), 3 (Believe Dogma as it was once declared), 7 (Subjection to the Church/Roman Pontiff), 9 (partially, namely the requirement that the water used for water baptism be literal water, Water is Necessary for Baptism and John 3:5 is literal), 10 (Infants Cannot Be Saved Without Baptism), 11 (Those who Die in Original Sin or Mortal Sin Descend into Hell), 13 (The Athanasian Creed and There is No Salvation for members of Islam, Judaism or other heretical or schismatic non-Catholics sects), 24 (Catholics Must Believe and Profess that the Sacramental System as a whole is Necessary for Salvation), and the three Appendices (The Form of Baptism, The Profession of Faith for converts to the Catholic Faith, and The Apostle's Creed). Though some of these sections may contain certain flaws, what few such flaws as are in them are simply borrowed from other sections and it would be redundant to address them here. I have therefore nothing further to say about the above listed sections.