CathInfo.com

T. The necessity of Baptism is so great that if anyone were to die without reception of Baptism, or at least desire for it, he could by no means enter heaven. Because infants are liable to danger of this sort, and can easily die, but still do not have capacities to desire Baptism, therefore it is necessary to baptize them as soon as possible. And although they do not understand that which they receive, nevertheless, the Church supplies that which it responds and pledges for them by means of the godparents, which suffices. Just as by Adam we have all fallen into sin and disfavor with God when we still did not know it, so also it is enough for God if, through Baptism and the Church, we are freed from sin and received in its grace even if we do not yet notice.

The argument is simply this: the defect of a lack of receipt may be "supplied." It is impossible "to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition." Nothing more. I'm quoting from Orestes Brownson, whom I quoted a few pages back.

So let's make distinctions.

If you can understand that core concept which is a common denominator of every saint, doctor who is a BOD proponent (and there are none post-Trent who aren't) - and no one who says you must apply it beyond catechumen who are desiring baptism has any authority to insist on their particular understanding - why do you reject it because some take it further than it has been taken?

Do you reject Vatican I and the plenary jurisdiction and power of the pope because some believe it means a pope has the authority to promulgate the changes of the New Mass? I trust not.

This type of "slippery slope" argument can be used against almost any legitimate principle. One need be very careful making it, as it could lead to rejection of valid principles because of the fallibility of men in running with them. It's a type of ad hominum argument addressed not only against an individual but mankind in general.

The principle should be examined on its own merits.