Author Topic: Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian (Read 7176 times)

SJB · « **Reply #45 on:** October 11, 2013, 11:03:51 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

You belittle the Popes and Councils with your rejection of the truth.

Are you really that delusional? Pope St. Pius X has rejected your ignorant opinion, and in an area where you can't even have an opinion!

Stubborn · « **Reply #46 on:** October 11, 2013, 11:11:43 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
You belittle the Popes and Councils with your rejection of the truth.

Are you really that delusional? Pope St. Pius X has rejected your ignorant opinion, and in an area where you can't even have an opinion!

Oh that's right, you need an interpreter to interpret literal teaching - but you've never said how you can be sure the interpretations don't need interpreting.

Cantarella · « **Reply #47 on:** October 11, 2013, 11:31:55 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Cantarella,

To use this canon as a proof against Baptism of Desire is perverse.

The Canon states:

Quote
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament of baptism, nor is it a metaphor for the sacrament. Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament at all, and can never be substituted for it.

True and natural water must be used for the sacrament of baptism. Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament of baptism. If someone is justified through Baptism of Desire, he must still receive the sacrament of Baptism, as there is no substitute for receiving the sacrament of Baptism.

Ambrose, you say in your own words:

A) "there is no substitute for receiving the sacrament of Baptism"

B) "True and natural water must be used for the sacrament of baptism"

C) "If someone is justified through Baptism of Desire, he must still receive the sacrament of Baptism"

Now look:

Council of Trent (seventh session, De baptismo, canon V): "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation: let him be anathema."

Conclusion: you are not saved until you receive the sacrament of baptism with true and natural water.

Cantarella wrote:

I wrote this reply to a poster on this forum who, like you, uses these sacred canons from Trent to argue against the Church's de fide teaching on Baptism of Desire:

Quote
Regarding Session VII, Canon 5: Baptism is not optional, we are commanded by God to receive it. Anyone that says it is optional to either receive it or not receive it, is anathema. Baptism of Desire has nothing to to with this Canon. Those who are justified through Baptism of Desire are not saying, "Baptism is optional, so I choose to not receive it." No, they are actively seeking Baptism, and they are not treating it as an option.

Regarding Session VII, Canon 2: Real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism. There can be no substitute. As with Canon 5, this has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament of Baptism, therefore it is not a metaphor for the Sacrament.

I see a contradiction in your statement and you still did not address my questions. You said the same thing.

So you are accepting that "Baptism of Desire" is not a sacrament and not substitute for real Baptism? Desire alone maybe sufficient for justification, but never for salvation.

Do you believe that one needs to be baptized in water before one dies to get into Heaven?

Cantarella · « **Reply #48 on:** October 11, 2013, 12:12:36 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: saintbosco13

Your statement is irrelevant. There is nothing in Church teaching that says something must be specifically defined as infallible before we believe it. Rather, the First Vatican Council says we must believe ordinary teaching, AND solemn teaching.

Pope Pius XII clarifies this when he states the following in his encyclical, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):

"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."

The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 is a perfect example of this. When you insist that something be infallible before you believe, it shows you do not not even understand how Catholicism works.

Yes. But Catholics are indeed bound to believe that what is infallible first and foremost. You cannot simply contradict or reform what is infallible. It is infallible precisely because it cannot be contradicted.

Your statement shows you do not understand the definition of infallibility.

The First Vatican Council teaches:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

So the ordinary teaching office (ordinary magisterium) is equally as infallible as solemn pronouncements from the papacy.

The definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary” concurs with this: "Infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.

Notice these definitions show infallibility has 3 components: A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium = Infallibility. You and other opponents of baptism of desire consistently state that Catholics need to believe A and B, and you completely ignore C. You need to keep reading the statement from the First Vatican Council (above) over and over and over until it sinks in, that Catholics MUST believe the ordinary magisterium equally.

Catechisms should explain what the Church has always taught and have their merit as long as they do not contradict Magisterial teaching. The Church has always taught that there is only ONE Baptism and that of water and the word. It is a Catholic dogma that there is only ONE Baptism, celebrated with water. (I can provide exact quotes from the Infallible Magisterium if you want me to prove that this is what the Church has always taught). This is de fide. Statements original to the cathechism' text itself do not belong to the Magisterium and are not infallible. For example, it is believed that the Baltimore Catechism indeed contain errors.

My point is: if you want to make a case for the so called "baptism of desire", please use only sources of the highest Magisterial authority (Councils, infallible pronouncements, decrees, canons) but not catechisms.

Ambrose · « **Reply #49 on:** October 11, 2013, 12:48:00 PM »

Canrarella wrote:

Quote

So you are accepting that "Baptism of Desire" is not a sacrament and not substitute for real Baptism? Desire alone maybe sufficient for justification, but never for salvation.

Yes, Baptism of Desire is most certainly not a sacrament. Nor is it a substitute for Baptism.

If one is justified, they, as Trent teaches are in the state of grace, and God has adopted them as sons. A person in this state, if he is seeking Baptism, and remains in the state of grace, if he dies prior to the sacrament of Baptism would most certainly be saved.

Quote

Do you believe that one needs to be baptized in water before one dies to get into Heaven?

It really does not matter what I believe, as I am a subject of the Church, so I believe what the Church tells me to believe. If one dies prior to Baptism, and is in state of grace then he is most certainly saved.

Jehanne · « **Reply #50 on:** October 11, 2013, 01:33:50 PM »

It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:

Quote

Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.

Ambrose · « **Reply #51 on:** October 11, 2013, 02:08:50 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:

Quote
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.

Jehanne,

I was not ignoring you, these threads are moving quickly, and I must have missed your post.

I agree with you that cases such as these are most likely not common. Baptism of Desire is a transitory state that ends in sacramental Baptism, or in death, whichever comes first.

A possible case that I think may be relevant in our times may include baptisms that were done incorrectly by the Conciliar church, so the person believes they were baptized correctly as a baby but were not.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #52 on:** October 11, 2013, 03:47:09 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Jehanne
It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:

Quote
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.

Jehanne,

I was not ignoring you, these threads are moving quickly, and I must have missed your post.

I agree with you that cases such as these are most likely not common. Baptism of Desire is a transitory state that ends in sacramental Baptism, or in death, whichever comes first.

A possible case that I think may be relevant in our times may include baptisms that were done incorrectly by the Conciliar church, so the person believes they were baptized correctly as a baby but were not.

I actually know a Novus Ordite that came to tradition as a result of investigating his own baptism.

He asked his mother if the "priest" ever poured water over his head. His mom said that she does not remember him doing that, on top of that all of the witnesses to the baptism are either dead/untrackable. Even before some Missionaries not through any fault of their own sometimes had individuals who were never baptized in the regenerative waters of baptism, although they had lived even to 90 years old thinking they were members of the Church. Very sad case, but to God who is a rewarder of the just and injust, nothing is far from His Providence.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #53 on:** October 11, 2013, 03:53:14 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

This thread is branched off into many different topics. Let's get back to the purpose of it.

To summarize the purpose of this thread, we can see from the original post that Pope Saint Pius X very well knew and approved of the catechism published in his name in 1912. We can also see he plainly teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and speaks of people being saved in the soul of the Church. This is something we've all known all along, of course, but the Feeneyites have been blue in the face, squirming every which way, denying these things the entire time, because they cannot let go of their heresy.

Now let me guess, will you Feeneyites declare Pope Saint Pius X, an incorrupt Pope and Saint, to be a heretic, now that the proof has been placed right under your noses?

Please define what is meant by the soul of the Church. Does that mean that a pagan that dies in his state of paganism can be saved (go to heaven)? Remember that the difference between traditional magisterial teaching or modernist heretical teachings is but one thread away when dealing with this topic. All I want is clarity so that I am absolutely sure what you mean by that term which is unfortunately hijacked by the modernist. Appreciate your answer.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #54 on:** October 11, 2013, 06:52:31 PM »

.

Among the nearly incalculable number of false doctrines being
promoted by the present Roman Church is the false doctrine of
the "spiritual Church," otherwise mistaken for the "soul of the
Church."

For the soul of the Church is none other than the Holy Ghost.

But regarding the mistaken idea, this "spiritual Church"
maintains that one can differentiate between the spiritual
Church and the Catholic Church, so that the Catholic Church,
as well as other "churches," realize the "Spiritual Church." The
(false) doctrine of a "spiritual church" is one of the fundamental
and erroneous presuppositions of false Ecuмenism. It is
essentially a protestant principle. As such, it attempts to
spiritually unite Christian communities that are otherwise
separated from one another in faith and worship. These
various communities think of themselves as 'branches' of the
same tree, taking a page from a dusty book on philosophy
that says the 'treeness' of a tree exists only in the mind.
Therefore, the church of Christ exists only in the mind, so
they say. It becomes a subjective reality. Of course, HEBF
says it's a "concrete reality" in his speeches to schmooze
the Accordistas back to sleep.

This is one of the ways that Modernism sprouts its wings to fly.

Here is Bishop Eugenio Correcco of Lugano: "The principle
which must guide all efforts to reconcile Christians with each
other is the community, realized in various degrees, but always
in a more perfect congruence of contents of the faiths, worked
out in the life of the individual parts of the Church, together
forming the World Church of Christ" (Swiss Church Newspaper,
September, 1986, p. 537).

+Fellay could have read that article and others like it, 22
months before his consecration as bishop!

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #55 on:** October 11, 2013, 07:42:06 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: saintbosco13

Your statement shows you do not understand the definition of infallibility.

The First Vatican Council teaches:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

So the ordinary teaching office (ordinary magisterium) is equally as infallible as solemn pronouncements from the papacy.

The definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary” concurs with this: "Infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.

Notice these definitions show infallibility has 3 components: A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium = Infallibility. You and other opponents of baptism of desire consistently state that Catholics need to believe A and B, and you completely ignore C. You need to keep reading the statement from the First Vatican Council (above) over and over and over until it sinks in, that Catholics MUST believe the ordinary magisterium equally.

Catechisms should explain what the Church has always taught and have their merit as long as they do not contradict Magisterial teaching. The Church has always taught that there is only ONE Baptism and that of water and the word. It is a Catholic dogma that there is only ONE Baptism, celebrated with water. (I can provide exact quotes from the Infallible Magisterium if you want me to prove that this is what the Church has always taught). This is de fide. Statements original to the cathechism' text itself do not belong to the Magisterium and are not infallible. For example, it is believed that the Baltimore Catechism indeed contain errors.

My point is: if you want to make a case for the so called "baptism of desire", please use only sources of the highest Magisterial authority (Councils, infallible pronouncements, decrees, canons) but not catechisms.

AGAIN, dogmatic magisterial teaching of the Church consists of A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium. All 3 components are considered infallible. It's right there in black and white above, docuмented from the First Vatican Council. You already have your "highest magisterial authority". Open your eyes!

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #56 on:** October 11, 2013, 07:51:19 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:

Quote
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.

Only God knows when baptism of desire or blood applies to a person. It is not for us to try and guess where it applies. Our job as Catholics is simply to adhere to the teachings of the Church, and one of those teachings says baptism of desire and blood are a possibility. We need not take it any further then that.

Cantarella · « **Reply #57 on:** October 11, 2013, 08:15:34 PM »

Then do as you say and believe what the Church teaches. A cathechism is not infallible. Nor Aquinas is. Non-infallible teachings can contain error. Not all teachings are infallible so adhere yourself to what it is.

A human beign that is properly and sincerely disposed will receive the necessary Sacrament of Baptism, just the way Our Lord instituted it, before he dies. Why would you doubt that God can and will get this person properly baptized somehow?. To doubt this, is to doubt God's words since He has commanded Baptism as necessary for eternal salvation and He does not deceive us nor command impossibilities. Again, God can make it possible for a person that truly seeks and asks salvation, to be baptized and enter Heaven. Every single human being can be baptized in water for water is everywhere! What is the problem with accepting that? God will ensure that his elect gets baptized. To say otherwise is to contradict the Infallible Magisterium:

Council Of Trent, on Justification (Chapter 11)

God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, pray for what you cannot do, and He assists you that you may be able. For God does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them.

And

If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man who is justified, impossible to observe; let him be anathema (Canon18)

God can see into the souls of people, and if He finds unworthy dispositions, then He could very well keep that person from receiving Baptism. "For the lord searches all hearts, and understands all the thougts of minds. If you seek Him, you shall find Him, but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever" (Chronicles 28:9).

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 11, 2013, 08:19:40 PM »

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

Please define what is meant by the soul of the Church. Does that mean that a pagan that dies in his state of paganism can be saved (go to heaven)? Remember that the difference between traditional magisterial teaching or modernist heretical teachings is but one thread away when dealing with this topic. All I want is clarity so that I am absolutely sure what you mean by that term which is unfortunately hijacked by the modernist. Appreciate your answer.

The definition of "Soul of the Church" in the "New Catholic Dictionary" (1929) provides an explanation for the origins of the term:

Soul of the Church: "From the 16th century, the Catholic theologians expressed more definitely the theological doctrine of the distinction between the Soul and Body of the Church. . . This distinction. . . is formally expressed by Bellarmine in his study on the members of the Church. According to him, men belong to the Body of the Church by virtue of external profession of the faith, and participation in the sacraments; and to the Soul of the Church through the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity. He draws three general conclusions relative to the members of the Church. There are those: (a) Who belong always to both the Body and Soul of the Church; (b) Who belong to the Soul without belonging to the Body; (c) Who belong to the Body but not to the Soul. This teaching has generally been followed by Catholic theologians."

Examples of this teaching:

St. Robert Bellarmine: The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 2: "Others, however, are of the soul but not of the body (of the Church), as Catechumens and those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible."

Baltimore catechism: Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

Pope St. Pius X: The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

Catholic Encyclopedia: The Church: "Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body."

A Commentary on Canon Law (Augustine 1918): Canon 2258: "The relation of the individual Catholic to the body of the Church is sometimes styled external communion, whilst his connection with the soul of the Church is called internal communion. This latter communion is not per se severed by excommunication, as grace and charity can not be taken away by the penal sword of the Church, but are lost only through grievous personal guilt. And as this guilt can be repaired by perfect contrition, it may happen that one is excommunicated and yet lives in the friendship of God. Besides, faith and hope may coexist with mortal sin."

A Catholic Dictionary (1931): The Soul of the Church: "The Holy Ghost is the soul of the mystical body of Christ, the Church, as Pope Pius XII declares in Mystici Corporis Christi. But the expression "soul of the Church" has often been used in a metaphorical sense to designate all those who actually are in a state of grace in dependence on the merits of Christ and of the sanctifying action of the Holy Ghost; many of these persons who are not seen to be members of the visible body of the Church. But to say that such persons belonging to the "soul of the Church" is not altogether free from objection. It is better to say of the non-Catholic in good faith that "he belongs invisibly to the Church," as being "related to the mystical Body of the Redeemer by some unconscious reaching out and desire" (Pope Pius XII).

Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949): Canon Law Digest, 1953, pg 525, Canon 1324 (Dangers to the Faith) (Excerpts): "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6)."

Jehanne · « **Reply #59 on:** October 12, 2013, 03:34:22 AM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Jehanne
It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:

Quote
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.

Only God knows when baptism of desire or blood applies to a person. It is not for us to try and guess where it applies. Our job as Catholics is simply to adhere to the teachings of the Church, and one of those teachings says baptism of desire and blood are a possibility. We need not take it any further then that.

Then, as "a Feeneyite," I think that you are "pounding on open doors." The position of the Saint Benedict Center is that neither "Baptism of Desire" and/or "Baptism of Blood" are heretical or even false. If we wish to have faith and hope that the omnipotent Triune God can bring sacramental Baptism to each and every one of His Elect, such a view, even after being presented to the Magisterium of Saint Pope Pius XII, to the Holy Father and to every living Cardinal, was greeted with silence. I guess that you can consider it to be heretical, if you wish. Perhaps the SSPX does, also; however, they still openly give the Holy Eucharist to "Feeneyites". Perhaps they are of the opinion that we err in "good faith." So be it.

On the other hand, if some of God's Elect end this life without sacramental Baptism, so be it. Certainly, the Syllabus condemned the presumption of knowing, at least with certainty, the state of any such individual. And, if there is one single error of modernism and Vatican II that one could point to, it is is the presumption (or, assumption) that non-Catholics can or will be saved, apart from any explicit faith in Jesus Christ (for adults), the Sacraments (or any explicit desire for them), and/or submission to the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of God, or in the case of sedes, the Chair, now vacant.