Very few priests indeed reject Baptism of Desire.

That's not necessarily the equivalent of not believing in EENS.  St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus all clearly believed in EENS, and held to versions of BoD that did not intrinsically undermine EENS.  So I think that it's important to distinguish.

I have in fact met some priests, inside the SSPX, and elsewhere, who believed that explicit Catholic faith is necessary for salvation (at least in the bare minimum as taught by the Church) even though they believed in BoD.  I would not categorize that as "not believing EENS".

I do believe they're mistaken, but that's a separate issue from your question.

One of the mistakes made by the dogmatic Dimondite crowd is in fact to equate BoD with EENS.  I think the greater dogma that's being rejected is Trent's teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  Most promoters of BoD articulate their position in such a way as to contradict that dogma, and also slide into Pelagianism.

Now, those who veer off into claiming that infidels can be saved, those do in fact not believe in EENS.  They think they do, but their positions clearly reject Catholic dogma.  I doubt many of them are guilty of pertinacious heresy, but they have been confused and befuddled by their teachers, and believe that they are in fact following Catholic teaching.

Then there is a branch of the CMRI whose position should be clear since the case of Fr. Crawford. There are also two independent priests who split from the SSPX over the issue of Sedevacantism and who write very eloquent polemic articles which I admire them for. However, I contacted them and they told me they believe "Feeneyism" is heresy.
All in all I am a bit lost since the accusation "Feeneyism is for laypeople" seems quite true. But in the end I have to follow what makes sense from the Church's teachings and I don't see how I could arrive at a different conclusion.

Kindest regards and God bless

I disagree with this and do not believe in BoD for myriad reasons.  Even if theoretically possible, there's this implicit premise here that God can be thwarted in His Providence by "impossibility".  For me, the biggest problem is that the character of Baptism is essential for entering the Kingdom of God and therefore being recognized as part of the family fo the Holy Trinity, and is also one and the same as the faculty that enables us to see God as He is where we lack that faculty in our nature.  I'd be more sympathetic with a notion of BoD that allowed people to receive the character of Baptism.  But I now digress.

One of the mistakes made by the dogmatic Dimondite crowd is in fact to equate BoD with EENS.

I'm OK with anyone who holds a version of BoD that doesn't destroy the visibility of the Church, such as those who hold that catechumens can be saved via BoD. 

If someone is a catechumen and they die before baptism, to me, this seems like a move of Providence on the part of God, as Calvinistic as it may sound.

From all these passages of Scripture, St. Augustine formulated this classical definition: "Predestination is the foreknowledge and preparedness on God's part to bestow the favors by which all those are saved who are to be saved." St. Augustine is still more explicit on this point when he writes: "God already knew, when He predestined, what He must do to bring His elect infallibly to eternal life."


Garrigou-Lagrange, Rev. Fr. Reginald. Predestination: The Meaning of Predestination in Scripture and the Church (p. 7). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

And there is nothing wrong with a variation of the "Feeneyite" position that holds that all those to be saved will receive water baptism. I believe the "Feeneyite" position only becomes a problem if one affirms that it is impossible for one to be saved without water baptism.

It is a problem if it is a position which is contrary to the Roman Cathechism, which it would be.

I agree with the logic of what you say, and have argued that before  myself here, repeatedly. But neither I (nor you) can acceptably be opposed to the Roman Catechism. I see being against the Roman Catechism as a "problem." 

See my PS (revision).......
PS (revision) - actually, the RC in maintaining that it is possible to be saved by a desire for the sacrament accords with Trent, since, as Lad notes, the laver would still be required for justification if an explicit desire for it is necessary, and the RC talks about a catechumen who has that explicit desire.