That's not what Trent is saying.  Trent is saying that 1) baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, 2) Penance is necessary for those who need it, 3) the Eucharist is necessary for those who are able to receive it (thus desire suffices, in some cases).  But one cannot properly desire the Eucharist who is not a Catholic, being that Baptism makes one a child of God and gives sanctifying grace.  A non-baptized person cannot desire the Eucharist with the proper spiritual intent, because their soul is in darkness due to Original Sin.

Yeah sorry my thoughts got muddled there, I didn't mean that the Eucharist saves. What I meant is: When we speak of BOD, we say that God would give Baptism to anyone who earnestly sought it and that BOD is a rejection of God's Providence. Why don't we extend that principle of God's Providence to the Eucharist? Why don't we likewise say that God would grant the Eucharist to anyone who sought it, and therefore reject Eucharist of Desire? 
I'll reiterate what ByzCat said, I'm not denying or doubting what Trent teaches here, just I can't see the distinction in why we reject BOD due to God's Providence but not "EOD". 

Here is a good article about it.

Father Feeney expressed concern in his lectures about the abuse of the idea of spiritual communions. Not that he was opposed to the devotion as it was promoted by many saints for those who, in past times, were not permitted to receive every day. But he was worried over the fact that liberals were equating spiritual communion with Real Eucharistic Communion, as if the former could effect the same grace as the latter.  Father, no doubt, counseled those who were reluctant to receive because of some uncertainty in their mind as to their state of grace to make a spiritual communion, but he did not want them to make a habit of it. It was a good thing to do, but it was not a Eucharistic thing to do. Eucharist means “good thanks” and the best way to thank God at Mass is to accept His invitation to Holy Communion.

In Holy Communion, Jesus assimilates us into Himself in an utterly unique way. The full effect of this cannot be accomplished by a mere spiritual communion. Father’s chapter on the “Great Gift of God” in his book Bread of Life is all about this. “Christianity is a concorporeal spiritual life!” Father writes, and “The same cowards who make the Church an invisible society, have tried to make the Blessed Eucharist a purely spiritual communion, with nothing to do with our body. The priest says in the Mass: ‘Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et Sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis . . .— ‘May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my entrails . . . .’ May we be formed and fashioned out of the same substance, concorporeally united, so that we may become other Christs.” If you have not read Bread of Life you are missing out on a theological and devotional masterpiece.

Cardinal Walter Kasper has taken spiritual communion, or what he calls a “sacrament of desire,” to a new level of equivocal abuse. In his interview with EWTN journalist Raymond Arroyo he expressed his position by referring to none other than Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). Monica Migliorino Miller, writing for Crisis Magazine, offers an excellent commentary: “In 1994 the then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a letter to bishops affirming that divorced and remarried Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist, yet they may avail themselves of “spiritual communion.” Kasper seizes on this point and argues that by spiritual communion the person is “united with Christ he cannot live in grave sin, this would be a contradiction.” He believes if the divorced and remarried can receive the spiritual benefits of Holy Communion through “spiritual communion” (through sacrament of desire) it is illogical to forbid them to actually receive the Eucharist.” You can read her timely and insightful article here.

Thank you for this Stubborn.  The link cited takes us to 'The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary'.   Would they be in the same boat as the neo-SSPX with Papal approval for the Sacraments of Marriage and Baptism?


..

Thank you for this Stubborn.  The link cited takes us to 'The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary'.   Would they be in the same boat as the neo-SSPX with Papal approval for the Sacraments of Marriage and Baptism?

What Colin said and yes, I believe they are in a worse boat than the SSPX because they bowed to the conciliar authorities a long time ago, like maybe a decade or more ago I think. SSPX will certainly meet a similar fate if they don't stop the sell out asap, it's just a matter of when. 

I have not kept up with the Slaves since even before they split up because something is not right there. I think they splintered into at least three different groups and although they all preach the true faith, their reliance on the conciliar authorities leaves me scratching my head. Maybe they're more like the FSSP, except they insist on having a big mouth about EENS, which is definitely *not* part of the conciliarist program. Their situation is crazy imo.




 

I have spent a few years reading Stubborn's and Ladislaus' posts on BOD and they, along with others, convinced me that BOD is a novelty. There is just way too much evidence to the contrary to take it seriously. 

The issues that made me vacillate were the catechisms from the 1800's forward that all taught BOD. I spent the $$$ and acquired them, from about 1880's forward and they all taught it. But then I realized that some of the catechisms prior to Vatican I taught against papal infallibility, so it shows that even catechisms can err.

Because the sacrament of the Eucharist requires preparation and learning from the Catholic.  One can desire to receive Holy Communion but have to wait, as does a newly baptized catholic.  Baptism is necessary for salvation; the Eucharist is a normal progression of the spiritual life in the Church, but not necessary to the same degree.  One who receives Baptism but never completes his Faith by receiving Christ is guilty of a sin of omission, in a sense.  (This assumes the person does not have extenuating circuмstances which prevents them from receiving the sacrament (i.e. persecution, death, health issues, etc)).

Makes sense, thank you.

With regards to the last bracketed sentence of your post, does it mean that martyred unbaptised catechumens are saved? I believe I've heard some Saints say so, but I've read others here argue against it too. 

Fr. Stehlin gave a wonderful sermon for Corpus Christi last year on Eucharistic Miracles, Spiritual Communions, everything related to the Bread of Life and its Supreme Importance. I was visiting the priory at the time. Fr. S is very holy imho. Father said, we are encouraged by Mother Church to make many acts of Spiritual Communion throughout the day, beside the Sacramental Communion we receive once. And - which surprised me at the time, but which on further reading turned out to be well docuмented in traditional authors - by Spiritual Communion, we can often receive graces comparable to actual Sacramental Communion. Writing in the 19th century, Fr. Mueller said we can even sometimes gain greater graces by Spiritual Communion than someone else, without fervency and devotion, gains in reception of the actual Sacrament. See below for more on that.

There is no doubt Baptism of Desire exists, and that we may obtain justification by it; Baptism of Desire is nothing other than an Act of Contrition or Perfect Love of God united to the Desire of receiving the Sacraments; this is taught by St. Alphonsus and Pope St. Pius X.

In the Bible, as Fr. Haydock explains, we see Cornelius, for e.g. receive justification before receiving Baptism, through contrition and desire. Fr. Feeney never denied that the grace of justification could be obtained by BOD, but held the grace of final perseverance would be bestowed on the faithful soul after the reception of the Sacrament. It appears St. Augustine taught something similar to Fr. Feeney.

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? Wi. — 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. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. S. Aug. sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4. Taken from: https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml

"This devotion [Spiritual Communion] is so full of grace and consolation that it is of the greatest importance that everyone should know how to practice it. I will therefore say a word in explanation of it. 

Spiritual Communion, according to St. Thomas, consists in an ardent desire to receive our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament. It is performed by making an act of faith in the presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and then an act of love, and an act of contrition for having offended Him. The soul then invites Him to come and unite Himself to her and make her entirely His own; and lastly, she thanks Him as if she had really received Him sacramentally. 

The Spiritual Communion may be made in the following manner: "O my Jesus, I firmly believe that Thou art truly and really present in the Most Holy Sacrament. I love Thee with my whole heart, and because I love Thee, I am sorry for having offended Thee. I long to possess Thee within my soul, but as I cannot now receive Thee sacramentally, come at least in spirit into my heart. I unite myself to Thee as if Thou wert already there; never let me be separated from Thee."

 The graces which are bestowed in this way are so great that they may be likened to those which are imparted by an actual reception of the Sacrament. 

One day Our Lord Himself told St. Jane of the Cross that as often as she communicated spiritually she received a grace similar to that which she received from her Sacramental Communions. He also appeared to Sister Paula Maresca, foundress of the Convent of St. Catherine of Siena at Naples, with two vessels, one of gold and the other of silver, and told her that in the golden vessel He preserved her Sacramental Communions and in the silver vessel her spiritual Communions. The Fathers of the Church go so far as to say that one who has a very great desire for Communion, accompanied with great reverence and humility, may sometimes receive even more graces than another who, without these dispositions, should actually receive Our Lord in the Sacramental species; for as the Psalmist says: "The Lord hears the desire of the poor, and fills their hearts with good things." 

Proponents of BoD regularly contradict one another and themselves.

So, for instance, one of the Pope Innocent quotations in favor of BoD states that those who die immediately after justification by BoD go immediately to heaven.  Yet St. Alphonsus states that this is not true, that the temporal punishment due to their sins is not entirely remitted.  Now, this letter from Innocent has the same authority as another letter cited by St. Alphonsus as allegedly making it de fide.  So by his own standards this would make St. Alphonsus a heretic (objectively speaking) for claiming that temporal punishment is not remitted.

It's the clear dogmatic teaching of the Church (in Trent) that this state of initial justification (vs. re-justification after Confession for instance) entails a complete rebirth after which no stain of sin can remain.

Various proponents of BoD (including top-tier theologians) cite the Holy Innocents as examples for BoB and the Good Thief for BoD ... without realizing that neither of these has any probative value because Baptism had not been made mandatory yet and the mode of justification in force was still that of the Old Dispensation.

BoD is shrouded with mirk and mess, and it's caused nothing but confusion ... especially after it got later extended from the original application to Catechumens all the way down to infidels who merely follow the natural law.

In fact, the very origins of the new Vatican II ecclesiology derive from BoD theory.  So all the modern errors ultimately go back to that.  If I believed in implicit BoD, I would immediately drop any objection to Vatican II ... since it all follows from that.

False, there's plenty of doubt.

Looks like someone has fallen into BOD-doubtism now. Say, Ladislaus, when are you gonna actually start learning your Faith from the Catholic Church, and not from the Dimon Brothers?  ;D

St. Robert Bellarmine seems specifically to be answering you: "De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

Our Lord Jesus Himself told St. Catherine of Sienna, He poured Water and Blood from His Sacred Heart, to show us the Baptism of Love. "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed." This is what is called baptism of desire, to desire Baptism with the affection of love. But of course who is a mere St. Catherine, or even the Lord Jesus, compared to Ladislaus and Peter Dimond, right?

And this is the passage of St. Alphonsus: Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment." Perfect Contrition remits mortal sins. Venial sins remain. This is true both before and after Baptism. Even after forgiveness of mortal sin, temporal punishment for forgiven sins remain. It is part of the extraordinary effect of the Sacrament of Baptism that all mortal sin, all venial sin and all else is removed.

St. Alphonsus says there's no doubt about BOD mainly because of the Council of Trent, which is a dogmatic Council; the letters of Pope Innocent, which you misrepresent and misunderstand completely, are authentic teaching where the Roman Pontiff purposely passes judgment on a disputed question that must therefore be adhered to with religious assent as Pope Pius XII taught.

"if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Humani Generis, p.20)

So by his own standards this would make St. Alphonsus a heretic (objectively speaking) for claiming that temporal punishment is not remitted.

No, o erring man of great temerity, you have fallen into heresy, and you need to reflect on the state of your soul. You need to question why Doctors of the highest learning and of the greatest sanctity disagree with you. But you are a Dimond disciple and they have confused you. Unlike Catholics, you don't get your understanding of Scripture from Church-Approved Catholic Commentaries.

Fr. Haydock tells you Cornelius was justified as a Catechumen. A sensible Catholic would therefore not doubt that BOD is divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture, by the Holy Ghost through the first Pope St. Peter himself, "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."