Bad news Catholic Martyr.

Even ST. AUGUSTINE teaches baptism of desire.  So now tell me it's an "Americanist" heresy.

On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Chapter 22:

That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces  from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time.  For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment.

Oh, and lookie here, he even mentions the Good Thief, which I've been mocked for time and time again as if it were insignificant.

We've all been wrong but the test of a man is when he can admit it.  You can go against St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Pius X all you want, but it will be a lonely battle.  One I will no longer even bother to listen to.  Your mind is twisted, and you are seeing black and white and white as black.  FORCE yourself to health.  Learn from your betters -- not me, but the men I've cited.

We've all been wrong but the test of a man is when he can admit it.  You can go against St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Pius X all you want, but it will be a lonely battle.

I have noticed that you do not acknowledged my responses to your objections when I give them to you.

I have already explained to you that the catechism of Pius X was in fact not written by him, yet you keep mentioning it as though it is an ex cathedra decree by him.  It clearly is not.

For starters, he gave it's approval and stated it would be obligatory in the Diocese of Rome, and merely encouraged it to be used throughout the rest of Italy.  Hardly something he intended to bind on all the faithful.

Furthermore, you do not know if it was later altered, and considering the assault from Pius X on Modernism, I highly doubt that baptism of desire was contained in the draft that he approved.

Will you refuse to acknowledge these responses?  The fact is that the dogmatic decrees are abundantly clear and unambiguous, not to mention binding, and irreformable of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church.  This means that they are absolute truths fallen from heaven.

The definitions themselves are absolutely true.

CM is unfortunately the only person who ever fully understood dogmas 'as they were once declared'

We are all very blessed that he was given this insight, which is in contradiction to the constant tradition of the church, to show us how we are truly to understand what the church has taught.

BoD is not as old as the 5th century, it is as old as the Good Thief.  Dogmas do not change.

If St. Gregory nαzιanzus was against it, it is St. Gregory who was wrong, not St. Augustine.  Just as St. Thomas was wrong when he doubted Immaculate Conception of Mary.

St. Gregory says "I cannot see it."  You bolded this.  He is giving his personal opinion.  He doesn't say "The Church doesn't teach it."  

He personally cannot comprehend BoD and that is because he gets himself tangled in a specious argument, comparing someone who has the will to baptism with someone who has the will to murder.  The difference is that in the former case, the baptism is conferred by GOD, while in the latter case, that of the potential murderer, he cannot be a murderer until HE HIMSELF carries out that crime.  These are two totally opposed kinds of potentialities -- as opposed as the divine and the human.

Murder is not a sacrament of the Church and God is not its author.  Those who misuse their free will are the only authors of murder.  However, God IS the author of the sacrament of baptism, and if He wants He can be free with it.  He can save someone who desires to be baptized just as He can make the apostles walk on water, change water into wine, turn stones into bread, pull sheep out of the ditch on Sunday, etc.  

That is, He has the power to bend his own laws if He so chooses, as "With God, all things are possible."  He gave the example of the Good Thief to us as a clear confirmation of this, and I cannot even fathom the contumacy or obstinacy of those who deny it to the point where they won't even go to CHURCH with those who believe in BoD.  Do you think St. Gregory would have refused to go to Church with St. Augustine?

That being said, we are past the point where some believe and others don't.  It is now a defined dogma.  Catholic Martyr refuses to go to a priest, take communion, or confess, and the devil I believe has gripped his mind.  He interprets various papal sayings about the necessity of baptism as denying baptism of desire, but they do not -- that is his literal-minded misreading.  I am done with this Sisyphean debate; the quote from St. Augustine sealed it.

I will tell you, there have been moments where I flirted with Feeneyism because of him, because one area that he is right about is that the Church has been steadily infiltrated with liberals.  But BoD is not one of their heresies nor do I believe that any heresy was taught prior to Vatican II.  

Now I have to study "invincible ignorance" which still bothers me, because I don't yet understand it.

Very good questions, Adesto, and thank you.

I have never heard of St. Margaret Clitherow and her unborn baby before today.