On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things?

If you believe in BoD, you must state that the Sacrament, operating through the votum, or "desire", saves; to state that the subjective dispositions can be salvific without reference to the Sacrament is heretical ... and it's also Pelagianism.  So you must state, as the post Trent Doctors did, that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved without it.

St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into
which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

The same could be argued about St. Gregory nαzιanzen, eastern doctor of the Church . Was he infallible when he explicitly denied the notion of a salvific Baptism of Desire?

What think you?

Now let's look at another ancient Father whose words are used in the Treatise to attempt to deny BOD:

St. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: "Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it… "If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?"

    There are really two separate quotes in this. The first part has a really serious omission. Looking up the quote as given in Fr. Jurgens' book, it reads in full (and I underline that which was omitted):

St. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: "Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it… I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less because it was not through wickedness as much as through foolishness that they brought about their own failure. The third group will be neither glorified nor punished by the just Judge; for though unsealed they are not wicked. They are not so much wrong-doers as persons who have suffered a loss… If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?"

    Unhappily, the two ellipses still showing here in this second and correct giving of the quote are contained in the passage as provided in Fr. Jurgens' book. There is no way to tell whether these gaps represent gaps in the surviving docuмent or gaps in what Fr. Jurgens saw fit to present, but notice the significant passage edited out. It mentions a first group (the utterly animal and bestial) who spurn baptism, thus plainly adding that sin to their other sins, and who will be punished most severely, then a second group (those who delay out of carelessness or insatiable desire for other things), and who will also be punished, though not as much as the first group, and then a third group consisting of those unable to be baptized (the infants who do not get baptized by their parents). Because of the ellipse in Fr. Jurgen's book, it is not clear whether he would have gone on to mention those who were prevented from being baptized by some involuntary circuмstance as a fourth group who attain eternal life, or if he intended to lump such within the category of the unbaptized infants, but either way the unbaptized adult who dies thus unbaptized through no fault of his own is in no way to be punished as the Treatise would have one falsely believe. His description of the fate of the "third group" does seem a startlingly accurate description of the Limbo of the Children, specifically.

    Regarding the latter half of the quote, it doesn't take much to see that he is speaking here not of God's judgment, but of the Church and how the Church is to judge someone. For as he puts it, "you" (that is the Church officials who must make some juridical or disciplinary decision) would not be in any position to judge if a man merely intends (but has no chance to carry out) a murder, then likewise neither is it your place to assume (on your part) a good intention on the part of one who has not received water baptism. But of course God who sees into the hearts of all most certainly CAN judge the murderer in the heart and the adulterer in the heart, and by that same token can also judge as to whose failure to obtain water baptism is through no fault of their own. And finally, the point is made that one cannot substitute the desire (even full and proper and capable of qualifying one for a Baptism of Desire should they die peremptorily) for the act, the actual celebration of the mystery of water baptism. Such a desire for baptism does not become a Baptism of Desire until and unless they indeed die somewhere short of the baptismal font through no fault of their own. Hence the rights and responsibilities in the Church, and most notably, to receive the other sacraments, does not belong to him, his mere longing does not qualify him for any of that. So again, there really is nothing here against BOD, and obviously nothing against BOB either.

So, then Blessed Pope Pius IX was a promoter of heresy and non-Catholic?

There are virtually no strict Thomist BODers on CI who actually have the interest to participate in these threads except for perhaps Nishant.

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's very straightforward. Trent dogmatically taught that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Consequently, to say that is heretical.

Get off your high horse already. The stuff you do is condemned on principle. All you're doing is misleading people and piling up more to answer for at your judgment.

I would pack up and quit the show if I were you; play it safe. Going to Hell is not worth playing theologian on some forum, and all for nothing.

If even 1 person gets mislead because of what you disseminate, you will pay for it dearly.

Trent dogmatically defined that Baptism is necessary by necessity of means for salvation.

Consequently, those who claim that people can be saved without Baptism are promoting heresy.

If you believe in BoD, you must state that the Sacrament, operating through the votum, or "desire", saves; to state that the subjective dispositions can be salvific without reference to the Sacrament is heretical ... and it's also Pelagianism.  So you must state, as the post Trent Doctors did, that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved without it.