I'm going to start a new thread on this due to Xavier's obnoxious tendency to drag threads off topic.

He'll ask a specific question or pose a problem.  Others will refute his example.  Instead of rebutting these counter-points, Xavier ignores them and proceeds to spam the thread with every manner of generic pro-BoD quotation he can find.

This is absolutely obnoxious, the same behavior that Lover of Heresy used to pull.

I ask that everyone abide by my request (as the OP) to remain ON TOPIC and discuss only the episode of Cornelius.  Some forum software allows the creator of the thread to delete posts, and I wish I could delete all off-topic posts.

BTW:  this same thing happens with SVism vs. R&R, where instead of sticking to a particular topic, the threads blow up into hundreds of pages.

I've also attached a poll here so that forum members can weigh in on who has won the argument.  PLEASE do not answer this poll question until we've gone a few pages into the discussion.  I'll make a post to the effect of "PLEASE VOTE NOW."  It would also be nice to have a feature where the OP can "open" the poll for voting at a particular point.

I simply can't take any more of the 500-page thread drifts on anything related to EENS and BoD.

Also, I do not believe it certain that Cornelius was justified.  All Sacred Scripture says is that the Holy Spirit was present.  But the activity of the Holy Spirit is there in all of the actual graces that ultimately lead to justification, as taught by Trent.  I believe that some of these authors are eisegetically interpreting this passage and injecting their own notion of BoD into it, where the text itself nowhere demonstrates this.  Is it possible that Cornelius was justified?  Yes, of course.  But it's not entirely certain from this passage itself.

The Cornelius incident proves (1) the Dimonds are wrong that Trent "rejected" Baptism of Desire. (2) BOD certainly exists and justifies.

I'm content with proving those two things to begin with. Trent says (3) those who now die in justifying grace will be saved, but that's different. Also I didn't derail the thread. I answered the questions posed to me, after asking others to limit discussion to one subject.

We'll start with Fr. Haydock, an authoritative Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, and the Council of Orange. Please give your view on them.

1. Fr. Haydock: "Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament." https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml

Comment: So here at St. Peter's preaching, Fr. Haydock says, because of the Grace of God toward Cornelius, and his great charity and contrition, he received remission, justification and sanctification before any external Sacrament. This shows BOD justifies at least.

2. Council of Orange: "According to the Catholic Faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness." https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/orange.txt

Comment: So the Council of Orange says we must certainly believe that the faith of the Good Thief, and of Cornelius post-Resurrection, was not a natural endowment, but a Gift of God's Kindness/Grace=Supernatural Faith. Hence, Cornelius was clearly in a State of Grace.

Baptism of Desire refers to the notion that someone can be SAVED being in a state of justification without having also received the Sacrament of Baptism?

The two are separate. Baptism of Desire at least justifies. It actually may still a disputable question whether it saves or not, although I've not seen any reference to a Church Doctor in the last millenium or post-Trent theology manual that says it still is. But I'm open to it.

I'll cite Fr. Laisney's words on the Council of Trent later on. Fr. Laisney showed imo that those who die in grace, now in the NT, will certainly be saved.

At best one can argue he entered a state of justification.

Yes. That's all that's being argued here at the moment. The related question, whether Trent said nothing else is required for the justified to be saved, to have fully satisfied the divine law, and truly merited heaven by their works done in God, than to die in grace, can be discussed next.

You say you are not personally convinced Cornelius definitely received BOD, but that it is plausible. Is that a fair summary of your position?

The Cornelius incident proves (1) the Dimonds are wrong that Trent "rejected" Baptism of Desire. (2) BOD certainly exists and justifies.

This harkens back to my earlier point that "BoD" means different things to different people.  Here you are using it to refer to pre-Baptismal justification.  Feeneyites do not deny pre-Baptismal justification.  That is more proof that the term BoD is not defined.  Others apply "BoD" to baptized Protestants, for crying out loud.

I'm going to number my questions going forward for easier reference. You can do the same if you wish, Ladislaus.

(1) Please explain your view of what Fr. Haydock said. Fr. Haydock gives a good explanation of how perfect contrition can obtain the remission of sins and the infusion of the Holy Ghost. Do you disagree with him? Do you have a different source on Acts 10:44-48?

(2) What about the Council of Orange? It said God inspires us to faith in Him and love for Him by His Grace, before we can do meritorious works. And thus we must believe Cornelius received not a natural endowment but the supernatural grace of faith, and thus he was in sanctifying grace i.e. justified. Do you disagree with the Council of Orange? Or have any other ancient Council on Cornelius?

You need to be clear that you're attacking the Dimondist position rather than the Feeneyite position.

I was. In that thread, I said I was speaking of Last Trad's opinion that "he did not believe in Baptism of Desire, even of the catechumen. He believes therefore that BOD neither exists nor justifies ... If Cornelius received justification by Baptism of Desire, BOD exists and the Dimonds who deny BOD are wrong on Trent."

About Fr. Feeney's postion as held by SBC, I said: "I have no objection to St. Augustine's position, especially as formulated by SBC in an article I cited earlier. It could be called the Augustinian position after St. Augustine. (1) St. Augustine admits BOD justifies. (2) Those who die in Sanctifying Grace will be saved. (3) He believes those who receive justification by BOD will also receive Water Baptism. That's fine, and it's not the position of the Dimonds which I'm arguing against in this thread. Do you believe BOD at least justifies? or do you deny BOD?"

You ask for a definition of BOD. The CE said the Council of Trent means not a natural desire for the Sacrament, but a Supernatural Desire for Baptism animated by Charity or Contrition. Pope St. Pius X and St. Alphonsus speak of BOD in the same way, love of God or contrition along with explicit or implicit desire for Baptism of Water.

Feeneyites in no way reject the assertion that justification is possible prior to the Sacrament of Baptism.

Ok. That's fine. I admit that. I would ask Feeneyites proper to explain what Fr. Laisney cited from the Council of Trent. I cited this elsewhere,

"See: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm by Rev. Fr. Francois Laisney.

"When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:
Quote

...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809]."

Do you believe this? That the justified have completely satisfied the divine law, by their meritorious works performed in Grace, and have truly merited eternal life itself, that they will certainly attain in due time, if they but die in the State of Grace.

My view is the opinion that someone dies in the State of Grace, today in the New Covenant, and does not ultimately go to Heaven, is heretical. And SBC seems to agree: "Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith."

which is why I don't object to SBC's position. (3) Do you believe the same as St. Benedict's Centre does on this point?

God Bless.

Not at all. Even BAPTISM ITSELF does not confer salvation, otherwise all the baptized are saved. Baptism only confers Justification, just like Baptism of Desire. Baptism, or its Desire, confers justification. That is the Catholic Doctrine I'm defending.

And here I have to question whether, in your own words, you are "a true Feeneyite". Why? Because no true Feeneyite has any objection e.g. to the Catechisms that teach BOD. They teach that Baptism of Desire can secure the remission of sins. And the Feeneyite agrees. The Dimondite doesn't agree, and thus has to attack the Catechisms. The Feeneyite does not. 

I've said I'm open to Fr. Feeney's position, as articulated by SBC. (1) BOD certainly exists and justifies. (2) Those who die in justifying grace are certainly - and dogmatically - saved. (3) It is permitted to hold all who receive BOD will also receive Water Baptism.

I've only used the Cornelius incident as proof of (1). As proof of (2), in case someone denies it, I would use the passage in the Council of Trent cited by Fr. Laisney. But SBC does not deny it. As for (3) I'd still like to see the pre-Vatican II manual, but I'm ok with it.

As Clemens Maria posted in another thread, the Church does now say that Feeneyism as held by SBC is an acceptable Catholic position. I am yet to see a pre-Vatican II, post Trent source for it, though. But I'm not objecting to that.

The Cornelius incident, again, certainly proves Baptism of Desire exists and justifies. If you want to debate whether it saves, that would require a more detailed discussion. Salvation=Justification+Perseverance in Grace only. 

We'd have to go into Trent and other things. I'm fine with the assertion that Cornelius does not disprove Feeneyism proper. I don't claim it does. But the case of Cornelius, plus the Council of Trent, poses some problems for it.

I've seen some Feeneyites deny that a person dying in Grace will be saved. That's completely wrong imo. But I have no problem with Br. Andre's formulation of it, who says he submits as to a dogma that someone who now dies in grace will be saved.

God Bless.

I vote no, but hold that it is likely that Cornelius the Centurion was justified before baptism. Even though I am not a Feeneyite, defenders of BOD should not use him as an example. It is usually said that St. Cornelius is Roman or Italian and therefore it is assumed that he was a pagan. He was not, he and his household were God-fearers. God-fearers were Gentile followers of Judaism, a kind of quasi-convert, but who stopped short of becoming full converts because of things like circuмcision. He therefore already believed and worshipped the true God.