CathInfo.com

I don't see what's wrong with BoD as long as you admit that everyone who is saved has to have a water baptism. 

A good catechumen or someone who's invincibly ignorant/has implicit desire will come to the faith before they die, period. Therefore, they will also receive a proper water baptism before they die- Trent makes this very clear- or will truly repent in their last moments if they already have that baptism. Only evil people will go to Hell. God provides every sufficient means for our salvation, but that doesn't mean we see all of the means given. An angel could, 100%, provide baptism for a good-willed person who is about to die having not gotten their baptism. Certainly this falls under theological opinion, though, as Baptism of Desire should. If a kind, hopeful, faithful catechumen dies before their scheduled baptism or a Hindu is dying yet would likely accept Christ wholeheartedly given the chance, then we don't know if he was saved, because an angel could have come and baptized them. God alone has that power. If they were truly sincere, then they were truly baptized with water and enlightened in the faith, and thus they were saved at death. It would be a mystery we couldn't understand fully, but certainly one that's possible. 

If you make the distinction that the desire alone isn't what saves, but also the water baptism obtained by that desire, then BoD isn't wrong anymore. Moreover, anyone who refrains from converting someone who's genuinely interested in Catholicism out of a feeling that they would go to Hell would certainly be wrong. But to call people Feeneyites for saying you need water baptism to be saved is just silly. 

I don't see what's wrong with BoD as long as you admit that everyone who is saved has to have a water baptism.

A good catechumen or someone who's invincibly ignorant/has implicit desire will come to the faith before they die, period. Therefore, they will also receive a proper water baptism before they die- Trent makes this very clear- or will truly repent in their last moments if they already have that baptism. Only evil people will go to Hell. God provides every sufficient means for our salvation, but that doesn't mean we see all of the means given. An angel could, 100%, provide baptism for a good-willed person who is about to die having not gotten their baptism. Certainly this falls under theological opinion, though, as Baptism of Desire should. If a kind, hopeful, faithful catechumen dies before their scheduled baptism or a Hindu is dying yet would likely accept Christ wholeheartedly given the chance, then we don't know if he was saved, because an angel could have come and baptized them. God alone has that power. If they were truly sincere, then they were truly baptized with water and enlightened in the faith, and thus they were saved at death. It would be a mystery we couldn't understand fully, but certainly one that's possible.

If you make the distinction that the desire alone isn't what saves, but also the water baptism obtained by that desire, then BoD isn't wrong anymore. Moreover, anyone who refrains from converting someone who's genuinely interested in Catholicism out of a feeling that they would go to Hell would certainly be wrong. But to call people Feeneyites for saying you need water baptism to be saved is just silly.

This actually brings out a very important distinction.  Even if people believe in a hypothetical Baptism of Desire, do we have any proof whatsoever that anyone has ever been saved without water Baptism and that God didn't miraculously provide water Baptism to all those who are claimed to have been saved by BoD?  St. Thomas teaches that God would, if necessary, bring an angel to preach the faith to someone of good will.  This same angel could also confer Baptism.  I mean, if he's already there to enlighten that soul about the faith, why not just also take the next logical step and confer Baptism?  Or come along to confer it on someone who already had the faith?

Now, there's an interesting point about Baptism of Blood.  St. Cyprian taught that no one could be saved without the SACRAMENT of Baptism.  But then he stated his belief in BoB.  Was this a contradiction?  No.  Elsewhere he taught that in BoB, blood took the place of water for the matter of the Sacrament, while angels pronounced the words (of the form).  In other words, he merely saw BoB as an extraordinary manner of conferring the SACRAMENT of Baptism, and he saw BoB as no "exception to the rule" as it were.