Yes. The Dimondite interpretation is not authorized, and thus cannot be safely taught by Catholics, as discussed in another thread.

But anyway, since the discussion has come up, and at least some Catholics have fallen into the error of the Dimonds, here's the issue.

If someone says "I cannot eat noodles without a Spoon AND a FORK", its very plain that both are necessary. The Spoon and the Fork.

But rather if someone said, "I cannot eat without a Spoon or a Fork", and a Spoon is Sufficient, it's manifestly clear that a Fork also is.

And this is the real analogy here. Why? Because we know Baptism is Sufficient for Justification. Therefore, the Desire is also Sufficient.

The case goes: Either Baptism or its Desire is needed for justification. But Baptism is Sufficient. Therefore, the Desire also is Sufficient.

Go back to the analogy to understand why. If I cannot do something without A or B, but can do it with A, then I can do with B also.

Take any analogy and this will be very clear: Look at the bride and groom. A bride alone is not sufficient, and thus the analogy is wrong.

Because Baptism confers justification, as we already know from the Council, therefore, we legitimately infer the Desire also does so.

That's the issue. Take the other example given by Ladislaus: A bat and a ball for baseball. Firstly, saying "a bat or a ball" is incorrect.

Both are needed, so AND should be said. Secondly, a Bat alone is not sufficient for baseball, so "Bat" is not analogous to Baptism.

Baptism truly effects justification. Hence it would not be truly said "no can be justified without Baptism or X" unless X also did so.

Moreover, the Analogy with Penance shows what was meant. Trent says "Aut Eorum Voto" in its Canon to include the Desire of Penance.

This phrase is the exact plural of "Aut Eius Voto". This phrase shows that the Desire of Two Sacraments obtains the Grace of Justification

What can those two Sacraments be? Clearly only Baptism and Penance. Therefore, Baptism and Penance aut eorum voto are needed.

There is a third confirmation, which no one has answered. Trent says Baptism and Penance are necessary for salvation in the same way.

It is clear as crystal. Some of the persons here, in the past, have said things like "Only 1% of Catholics at most will be saved".

If someone really believed that, he should be out there handing Scapulars to other Catholics, so that much more can be saved.

But of course that rigorist opinion is not true. Some people want to believe they are the only remaining Catholics on earth.

That everyone else is going to be damned, including almost all other Catholics. A false and rigorist opinion that leads to this confusion.

Go, evangelize, call others to Baptism, hand out Scapulars, promote the Rosary, the Blessed Sacrament, Adoration and the Mass.

That is the way to save souls and increase the number of saved souls. Not by denying doctrine, attacking the Church, and accepting error.

Do you think people should place hope in baptism of desire? 
 

Xavier is definitely LOT-lite.  The resemblance to that (happily) former member is uncanny.

Yep, either he is LoH or one of LoH's students.

"This faith conformable to Apostolic tradition catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism." Seems to indicate that whatever faith they have is different in the supernatural order than those who receive the sacrament.

"For the completion on the salutary doctrine on justification...it seemed proper to deal with the most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins (baptism), or having begun is increased (other sacraments), or being lost is restored (penance)."

It appears there is no true justification outside the sacraments, and none that is initial without the sacrament of baptism.

Well said.  What you speak of as the pre-Baptismal faith, is referred to by theologians as the fides initialis, a natural analogue to true supernatural faith, but still on the natural order.  It is only with the Sacrament that the true supernatural virtue of faith is infused into the soul, which is why the catechumen is asking for faith at the beginning of the Baptismal Rite, despite already having a certain kind of faith that led to his requesting to receive the Sacrament.  That is why the Church never considered catechumens to be among "the faithful" ... even if they said they agreed with or "believed" (naturally) everything that the Church teaches.

Catechumens are a bit tricky in that they are certainly not enemies of God, and can be considered to be in an analogous state as the Old Testament just, for whom whatever faith they had was also in an inchoate state, since they didn't know about what Our Lord would actually reveal.  Catechumens have ONE of the characteristics of membership in the Church, in that they publicly PROFESS the faith.  St. Robert Bellarmine held that the outward profession alone was the characteristic of membership in this regard (so that, for instance, secret heretics who did not have the supernatural faith were still regarded as members due to their outward profession).

Do you have any theologians references for what you said about the fides initialis for the catechumens? No one will believe me without references. Also, most BOD people say catechumens are a part of the faithful even though that is clearly not true. Thanks

Right, many claim they are the faithful, but they are not.  It was actually Msgr. Fenton who wrote a nice piece in which he completely dispelled the notion that Catechumens are among the faithful.  Let me look around for references to the fides initialis.  I believe I ran across it in the Catholic Encyclopedia.