Of course I deny it.  I've denied it many times.  What's your authority, the Baltimore catechism?

Now, answer my question.  Do you hold that there's a dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers in favor of BoD?

Then you deny what the Church teaches. You hold that the Church teaches error, what you believe will one day be condemned heresy. That is impossible. My authorities are the Popes, the Catechisms, the Saints and Doctors like St. Alphonsus and St. Robert, plus finally the Manuals that unanimously say Trent taught BOD.

Next Question: Please show us the Manuals, after Trent, that you claim referred to BOD as a disputed question.

I hold that: Baptism of Desire derives from Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Blood is explicit in Patristic Tradition. Baptism of Desire was a disputed question for a time, but is clearly taught by at least 4 to 5 Church Fathers. It was settled by the Church in the Middle Ages.

It wasn't a mortal sin to question it before it was settled, as for e.g. with Purgatory etc. It would be a mortal sin to deny them today.

Let me cite 5 sources that teach Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire was also called "Baptism by fire" at the time.

·     St. Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century): Canons of Hypolytus, Can. XIX: Concerning Catechumens: "Catechumens, who by the unbelievers are arrested and killed by martyrdom, before they received baptism, are to be buried with the other martyrs, for they are baptized in their own blood."
 
·     Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. Book V, Sec I, Concerning the Martyrs, para 6: (3rd-4th Century): (A compilation of writings from the Apostles and their immediate successors) "But let him who is vouchsafed the honour of martyrdom rejoice with joy in the Lord, as obtaining thereby so great a crown, and departing out of this life by his confession. Nay, though he be trot a catechumen, let him depart without trouble; for his suffering for Christ will be to him a more genuine baptism, because he does really die with Christ, but the rest only in a figure."

·     St. John Chrystostome, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."

·     St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison."


·     Eusebius of Caesarea, Church Father (4th Century): The Church History of Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter IV: "And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says."

There are many more citations at the http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ link. And 21 here: https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/baptism-of-blood-and-of-desire/ and here, including the Doctors, Manuals and Theologians. 

By the way, St. Augustine did not deny Baptism of Desire, but held that those who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water. This was explained in the SBC Article by SBC, which holds the same thing. Fr. Haydock etc clearly teach BOD.

An honest question;

When would it ever be impossible for God to get the Sacrament of Baptism to a soul before they die?
And not just any Sacrament, but the one He requires for souls to be cleansed so they may enter into His Heavenly abode to be with Him forever?

Do some believe that God sits on His throne in Heaven letting everything on Earth happen on it’s own or by chance?

Hi Carissima. No, it would not be impossible for God to do that, if He had so chosen. The question is, what has God chosen to do?
A reason that opinion is scarcely held anymore is because (1) St. Ambrose already said Valentian was in Heaven, saved by Baptism of Desire. and (2) Pope Innocent III said a person who was invalidly baptized is now in Heaven (St. Cyprian had also said those who came to the Church without Baptism are now in Heaven - he believed the Baptism of heretics was invalid, and was speaking of those received into the Church without rebaptism. St. Cyprian's answer to this case, "that the Lord is able to save them" shows He believed God would grant the the Grace of Baptism). So, it is considered unlikely that there is now no one in Heaven who did not receive Baptism of Desire only. St. Alphonsus expressly cites the second case as evidence that "it is de fide that souls are also saved by Baptism of Desire."

Can you explain how the Church could have authorized this to be taught by Her Doctors for centuries, if it is harmful to souls? 

Now, if you hold, as it seems you do, that all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water, I would not call that heretical. It would be a theological speculation. I have read Feeneyites speculate that such would also receive Confirmation, Penance and the Eucharist - in both kinds! - because Our Lord said "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My Blood, you will not have life in you."

That could be considered unnecessary, as it seems to require God to work miracles, but would not be considered gravely erroneous. The Council of Trent teaches that those who die in Sanctifying Grace are certain of being saved, and nothing more is considered necessary for them to have fully satisfied the divine law than those works done in Grace, and that they are assured of being saved if they die in Grace. A person in Sanctifying Grace is a Child of God, a Heir to Heaven, is within the Church and on the Way to Salvation.

The manuals, the Doctors, the theologians, the Popes, Catechisms, etc, after Trent, so far as I have read, are unanimous in teaching all these three things, Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition as the voto of the Sacrament of Penance, and Spiritual Communion, as having been definitively and dogmatically settled by the Council of Trent. That would come under the Church's OUM, which is also Infallible.

God Bless.

The Church has condemned her own teaching is what you are saying.

Benedictus Deus condemns your interpretation, which you keep trying to pass off as the Church's Teaching:

 " Furthermore, in order to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise, if each one were permitted, as he might think fit, to publish his own commentaries and interpretations on the decrees of the council; We, by apostolic authority, forbid all persons, as well ecclesiastics, of what order, condition, and rank soever they may be, as laymen, with what honour and power soever invested; prelates to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others, whosoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact,^[3] that they presume, without our authority, to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation soever touching the decrees of the said council; or to settle anything in regard thereof, under any plea soever, even under pretext of greater corroboration of the decrees, or the execution thereof, or under any other colourable pretext soever. But if anything therein shall seem to any one to have been expressed and ordained obscurely, and it shall, on that account, appear to stand in need of an interpretation or decision, let him go up to the place which the Lord hath chosen;^[4] to wit, to the Apostolic See, the mistress of all the faithful, whose authority the holy synod also has so reverently acknowledged." 

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Second_Part/Bull_of_our_most_Holy_Lord_Pius_Fourth

This is what all Catholics are authorized to safely repeat, as Cardinal St. Robert and Bishop St. Alphonsus were authorized to teach this by the Popes: 

St. Alphonsus: Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here. Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).


St. Robert: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

"

Benedictus Deus condemns your interpretation, which you keep trying to pass off as the Church's Teaching:

Only in your imagination.  St. Alphonsus and St. Robert are not the Church.

There is NO Magisterial definition whatsoever of what BoD actually is, with as many flavors of it as there are proponents.  St. Alphonsus contradicts Pope Innocent II.  If something must be believed of faith, it's imperative that it be defined WHAT must be believed about it.  What is it and what must be believed about it?  Various (often contradictory) opinions do not suffice to render something "of faith".  Even IF I were to grant, which I do not, that Trent was referring to Baptism of Desire, there's no indication that it was proposed for belief.  Otherwise, there certainly would have been an anathema attached to it.  Even if it mentioned it as a POSSIBILITY, it means nothing more that the Church kept open the POSSIBILITY, i.e allowed the opinion.

Desire for Baptism is mentioned in passing, in an expository section of Trent, and the only thing Trent says about it is that justification cannot happen without it.

St. Alphonsus: Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here. Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).


St. Robert: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

"

Interestingly, St. Alphonsus cites the dubious (its attribution to the Pope is disputed) de presbytero non baptizato as having solemn Magisterial force, but then contradicts the same docuмent, which states that this priest went straight to heaven "without delay" ... in his own speculation that temporal punishment remains in the case of BoD.  In a very similar letter (non-Magisterial), Pope Innocent III teaches the error that transubstantiation occurs even if the priest merely thinks the words of consecration ... an error for which he was rightly excoriated by St. Thomas.

St. Robert injects the term "in re" into Trent, which phrase appears nowhere.  He doesn't take time to consider the language of "cannot happen without", which speaks to necessary cause but not sufficient cause.

They're both mistaken.  And they are not God and they are not the Magisterium.

St. Robert, BTW, limits BoD to catechumens ... because he strongly (some argue to a fault) argue in favor of the Church as VISIBLE SOCIETY, along the same lines as Rahner indicated regarding the Fathers, that they considered catechumens to be joined to the Visible Church.  Do you?

St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine wrote thousands of pages of material, often disagreeing with one another.

To imply that all Catholics have to agree with everything they wrote is absurd.

I hold that: Baptism of Desire derives from Baptism of Blood

 Xavier quotes saints/doctors ad nauseam, then invents his own version.  
.
No two pro-BOD people explain/understand it the same way.  A logical proof that it's not true.  A truth is widely understood and clearly articulated in the same way, by everyone.