Whatever. You'll always find a theologian to support any idea you want, even the idea of "Cosmic God" by a Jesuit theologian who was praised by B16.

You literally can get almost any belief you want and you'll find a theologian that support it.

Good luck in your journey.

P.S: You hold that Baptism of Desire is a dogma, YOU have to provide proof from Church teaching and not theologians.

You're dishonest and no matter what I say you will reply like a spoiled girl.

Nice example. I think most here would agree that any theologian the modernist Ratzinger praises is most likely a modernist also.  So, if I can find any opinion, as you say, then why can't you?  Then you call me dishonest?  What exactly have I done that is dishonest?  Quote from Church authorities to support my position in the discussion?  And then, you have the audacity to refer to me as a spoiled girl?  Seriously?  You lack maturity.

Yet another silly reply.  I do not believe you can produce a single Church reference that explicitly says there is no Baptism of Desire in the same context that the Church has taught it.

Exactly.

Why hasn't the Church condemned the writings of theologians, saints, and catechisms, which support BOD? There was plenty of time before VII to do so. And on such an important matter, the Church would surely have issued a clear condemnation, if it were an error.

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Yet another silly reply.  I do not believe you can produce a single Church reference that explicitly says there is no Baptism of Desire in the same context that the Church has taught it.

Exactly.

Why hasn't the Church condemned the writings of theologians, saints, and catechisms, which support BOD? There was plenty of time before VII to do so. And on such an important matter, the Church would surely have issued a clear condemnation, if it were an error.

I put LucasL on HIDE because he seems unable to handle himself in a civil manner.

This is really not a complicated discussion.  It is unimaginable to me that a Catholic would question this most obvious Truth.  It is well known that the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas was placed on the altar besides the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent.  How could anyone imagine the Decrees of Trent being contrary to the Catholic Truths elaborated in Saint Thomas' Summa?

On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
   "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."

"are to be treated" for the purposes of funerals.  This is merely a pastoral presumption leaving open the possibility of their salvation.  And, as others have noted, earlier Canon Law has made the OPPOSITE presumption.

The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
   "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."

This is completely false.  There's no presumption of salvation ... not for ANYONE who receives a Catholic funeral; it merely means that the Church leaves open the possibility.  Conversely, the Church has always denied funerals to ѕυιcιdєs.  Neither did this mean with certainty that such are not saved, just that there's a presumption in the external forum against it.  And it's also done for pastoral reasons, to deter people from ѕυιcιdє and to underscore the gravity of the act.

Quote from: clare

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Yet another silly reply.  I do not believe you can produce a single Church reference that explicitly says there is no Baptism of Desire in the same context that the Church has taught it.

Exactly.

Why hasn't the Church condemned the writings of theologians, saints, and catechisms, which support BOD? There was plenty of time before VII to do so. And on such an important matter, the Church would surely have issued a clear condemnation, if it were an error.

I put LucasL on HIDE because he seems unable to handle himself in a civil manner.

This is really not a complicated discussion.  It is unimaginable to me that a Catholic would question this most obvious Truth.  It is well known that the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas was placed on the altar besides the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent.  How could anyone imagine the Decrees of Trent being contrary to the Catholic Truths elaborated in Saint Thomas' Summa?

This just silly self-serving pious drivel.  St. Thomas was not infallible.  Having great respect and even reverence for St. Thomas does not equate to the Church dogmatically endorsing every single opinion of his (cf. the Immaculate Conception).

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: clare

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Yet another silly reply.  I do not believe you can produce a single Church reference that explicitly says there is no Baptism of Desire in the same context that the Church has taught it.

Exactly.

Why hasn't the Church condemned the writings of theologians, saints, and catechisms, which support BOD? There was plenty of time before VII to do so. And on such an important matter, the Church would surely have issued a clear condemnation, if it were an error.

I put LucasL on HIDE because he seems unable to handle himself in a civil manner.

This is really not a complicated discussion.  It is unimaginable to me that a Catholic would question this most obvious Truth.  It is well known that the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas was placed on the altar besides the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent.  How could anyone imagine the Decrees of Trent being contrary to the Catholic Truths elaborated in Saint Thomas' Summa?

This just silly self-serving pious drivel.  St. Thomas was not infallible.  Having great respect and even reverence for St. Thomas does not equate to the Church dogmatically endorsing every single opinion of his (cf. the Immaculate Conception).

St. Thomas' teaching on the - now dogma of the Faith-, Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, was an error. Enough said.

BoDers believe in it because they WANT to believe in it.

"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." -- Demosthenes

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to Saint John

3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Most telling.  Given a choice between the clear, unmistakable words of Jesus and a sidenote by an unnamed author (which effectively render's null the words of Christ), JohnAnthonyMarie chooses the latter.

 

Actually, you can find this annotation online here.

I read the 2 chapters on baptism, (one chapter is strictly infant baptism) and I must say that it is an amazing thing the lengths one will go to in order to prove infallible canons are worthless in their pursuit to find evidence of there being salvation without the sacrament.

If you read those chapters and everything in them, you will find literally dozens upon dozens and dozens of teachings referencing Scripture saying no one gets to heaven without the sacrament. They make many, many explicit references to the necessity of water and the sacrament and how without water, no one is saved etc. - but in all of the writings, there is one sentence squeezed in saying;
 

......our Savior's words being plain and general.

Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his owne freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before the could be baptized, or els depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remedilesse nesessitie could not obtaine it.

I mean someone must have looked and searched, literally for days to find this snippet of error while COMPLETELY ignoring the dozens of Scriptural  references echoing Trent and the words of Our Lord that they necessarily HAD TO SEE in order to find this snippet of error.