And, strangely, the admittance of catechumens undercuts St. Robert's ecclesiology, where one of the essential criteria for membership in the Church is participation in the Sacraments.  St. Robert emphatically taught that the Church is visible society (some have contended that this was almost to a fault).  And this is why the only allowance he made was for formal catechumens, since he considered them to be partially in the visible Church (he used the analogy of being in the "vestibule" of a church).  But then this leads to a notion of partial or imperfect membership in the Church.  I recall Msgr. Fenton rejecting that notion of an imperfect membership, but I can't recall the details.

This is where I stand with the position that these theologians are simply speculating on these points, not holding them definitively like many "trads" tend to do these days. For the purpose of trying to tackle tough questions and problems.

The writings of Ss. Bellarmine, Alphonsus and even Thomas were all meant more for clerics and academics at that time, not laymen. Laymen got their theology from the pulpit and catechism. The phenomenon of internet lay-theologians is extremely recent.

Does not the Roman Martyrology speak about baptism of blood, for instance? It was prayed by popes and priests before VII.

Roman Martyrology
   January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
   April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
   August 25: At Arles in France, another Blessed Genesius, who undertook the office copyist, when he refused to transcribe the impious edicts whereby the Christians were ordered to be punished and, casting away his registers, in public he proclaimed himself a Christian, was arrested and beheaded and received the glory of martyrdom, being baptized in his own blood.


It is in the sedevacantist website I quoted.
I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm just checking the answers.

Yes, the way I see it, based upon the context Clemens outlines above, is that BOB means nothing more than the sanctifying grace received by the baptized Catholic who dies through martyrdom. That's all.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino”, 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Centuries ago, Baptism of Blood was known as a second baptism.  In other words, it was something that you received after having already received the Sacrament of Baptism.  In addition, you were still considered a catechumen even after you received the Sacrament of Baptism.  You didn't exit from the catechumenate until you had been fully catechized but you were baptized before you were fully catechized.  Obviously, that could lead to some ambiguity and confusion centuries later when all baptismal records are lost.  Pope Benedict XIV declared definitively that all those in Heaven were recipients of the Sacrament of Baptism.  I think some people will try to claim that Baptism of Blood is the Sacrament of Baptism but I have never seen a dogmatic definition of that.  Also, saying that BOB is the sacrament is problematic in view of Trent's dogma that true and natural water is required for the validity of the sacrament.  Also, no one can validly baptize themselves.  And the proper form is also required for validity.

Excuse me.  It was Pope Benedict XII: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/pope-benedict-xii-baptism-heaven/

Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 1336, ex cathedra: “By this Constitution, which will remain valid for perpetuity, We define with apostolic authority that, according to the universal ordering of God, [i.] the souls of all holy men who departed from this world before the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, [ii.] as also those of the holy Apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died following their reception of the sacred baptism of Christ, in whom nothing was to be purged when they departed, nor should be when they depart in the future, or if there was at that time, or should be, anything to be purged in the same, then, when they shall have been purged after their death, [iii.] and the souls of children reborn in that same baptism of Christ and of those to be baptized when they shall have been baptized, dying before the use of their free will, immediately after their death and the aforesaid purgation of those who stood in need of a purgation of this kind, even before the resumption of their bodies and the General Judgment, following the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into Heaven, have been, are, and will be in Heaven, in the Kingdom of Heaven and in the Celestial Paradise with Christ…”

This is where I stand with the position that these theologians are simply speculating on these points, not holding them definitively like many "trads" tend to do these days. For the purpose of trying to tackle tough questions and problems.

The writings of Ss. Bellarmine, Alphonsus and even Thomas were all meant more for clerics and academics at that time, not laymen. Laymen got their theology from the pulpit and catechism. The phenomenon of internet lay-theologians is extremely recent.

History is replete with various topics on which there were up to a half dozen opinions.  Later theologians found something like 4 dozen material errors in the writings of St. Thomas.  There's this faulty notion out there that these Doctors somehow had a quasi-Magisterial authority, where in fact they had nothing of the sort.  They often had conflicting views.  Only the Fathers ... to a point ... might have a quasi-Magisterial weight, but only when they are in unanimous agreement that something was taught by Our Lord to the Apostles (vs. just happening to have the same opinion) ... a distinction that's not often easily discerned.

Here's Catholic Encyclopedia about St. Robert Bellarmine (regarding the overturning of St. Augustine's opinion on the fate of infants who die without Baptism):

It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively. Hence he names Catharinus and some others as revivers of the Pelagian error, as though their teaching differed in substance from the general teaching of the School, and tries in a milder way to refute what he concedes to be the view of St. Thomas (op. cit., vi-vii). He himself adopts a view which is substantially that of Abelard mentioned above; but he is obliged to do violence to the text of St. Augustine and other Fathers in his attempt to explain them in conformity with this view, and to contradict the principle he elsewhere insists upon that "original sin does not destroy the natural but only the supernatural order." (op. cit., iv).

This erroneous opinion of St. Augustine was first questioned by Abelard (who also rejected Baptism of Desire).  BTW, this notion about the relationship between Original Sin, the natural order, and the supernatural order is also critical to the question of justification vs. salvation.  I was attacked for promoting the idea that there can be natural sense to justification that false short of leading to salvation ... but this very same consideration as applied here to Limbo can also be applied the way I did it.

And I find it mind-boggling that later theologians based BoD on the "authority" of St. Augustine, when he was CLEARLY speculating and very tentatively floating an opinion.  Here's the infamous quote:

. . . In considering which again and again, I find that not only suffering for the Name of Christ can make up for the lack of baptism, but also the Faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that lack of time prevents the celebration of the sacrament of baptism.

So, having gone back and forth on the issue, "I find" ....  So this is the definitive and authoritative TEACHING, where he's claiming that this is something that had been handed down from the Apostles as taught and revealed by Our Lord?

Come on, folks.  It's clearly a tentative personal speculation ... one which he made in his youth before he had sharpened his theological teeth fighting the various heretics.  In fact, St. Augustine later released an entire BOOK called "Corrections" where he changed his mind about different subjects as he learned more and matured in the faith.

We had one Pope and St. Bernard both appeal to the AUTHORITY of St. Augustine.  Never mind that St. Augustine, after battling the Donatists and Pelagians, came to forcibly retract this opinion, and ended up making some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence (which were presumably unknown to earlier theologians ... as not all his works were readily available ... and which are now filtered out with confirmation bias by those who want to believe in BoD and won't consider the subject with an open mind).

St. Bernard simply stated that he would rather err with Augustine than be right on his own.  With all due respect to the saint, this seems like a misguided humility, as the truth is more important than loyalty to St. Augustine.  Church actually had to condemn the proposition that it is permitted to prefer the opinion of St. Augustine to the teaching of the Magisterium, and the Church does not tend to condemn opinions that were not held by anyone.  So you know this attitude was out there.  Also, St. Bernard was mistaken in condemning Abelard's theological method.  As it turns out Abelard's method was in fact the precursor to scholasticism and nearly identical with the method detailed by St. Thomas, which became THE theological system of the Church.

So the works of the Doctors, saints, and theologians are FILLED with opinions, and none of them has been revealed or inspired or somehow protected by the Holy Spirit beyond a certain point.  They were human, and they made mistakes.  They often disagreed with each other, which means that some of them were wrong about one point or another.  But those with an agenda will inflate or "puff up" the authority of those opinions that back up their position while minimizing and often downright ignore those that clash with their pre-determined conclusions.

Does not the Roman Martyrology speak about baptism of blood, for instance? It was prayed by popes and priests before VII.De
  April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
  August 25: At Arles in France, another Blessed Genesius, who undertook the office copyist, when he refused to transcribe the impious edicts whereby the Christians were ordered to be punished and, casting away his registers, in public he proclaimed himself a Christian, was arrested and beheaded and received the glory of martyrdom, being baptized in his own blood.


It is in the sedevacantist website I quoted.
I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm just checking the answers.

Yes, and there were in fact a handful of Church Fathers who believed in BoB.  But BoB is NOT BoD.  In fact, these Fathers generally also explicitly condemned BoD in the same sentence or same paragraph, saying that BoB was the only extraordinary manner of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism (and I'll get back to that).

Here's the thing about BoB in the Church Fathers.  First of all, the expression is used even in reference to those who had already received the Sacrament of Baptism, such as in one case a priest (I think if was St. Lucian if I recall correctly).  Secondly, St. Cyprian appears to have been the first to hold to Baptism of Blood.  Of course, he referred to people with martyrdom as receiving the SACRAMENT of Baptism.  Later writers dismiss that as an error.  But I disagree.  Elsewhere, he speaks of how in martyrdom, the martyr's blood supplies for water, while the angels pronounce the words.  His notion of BoB was actually not some kind of exception to the necessity of the Sacrament, but rather merely an alterative mode of administration, with the martyr's blood being valid matter, and angels supplying the form.

With regard to the "catechumen" quotes above.  In times of persecution, it was very common for the Church to command emergency administration of the Sacrament even to catechumens.  But they would otherwise remain catechumens, continuing on with their normal instruction before being admitted to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion.  In fact, there are some texts that prove this, that certain baptized individuals were still called "catechumens" for this very reason.  So these texts here saying that "while STILL a catechumen," they were baptized in their blood, this is being called out in the sense of ... "even these who are not far advanced in the faith" received the heroic graces to be able to undergo martyrdom ... just as the texts would say that someone were martyred while STILL being young children.  It's to emphasize how God's grace can fortify those who are thought to be naturally weak.

So between the fact that being baptized in blood was regularly applied to those who had already been Sacramentally baptized, and that catechumens were regularly baptized during times of persecution, these texts are neither here nor there.

And then St. Cyprian, apparent originator of the idea, considered BoB to be the actual Sacrament ... just administered in an alternative manner, but still having the requisite matter and form for a Sacrament.

Thus it is typical of the BoDer dishonesty to conflate BoB and BoD, pretending that pro-BoB quotes back up BoD, when in fact some of the Fathers who uphold BoB explicitly REJECT BoD, and so the two are not to be conflated.  But the BoDers don't let that stop them.  I've seen two BoDers (priests) claim in writing that BoD was unanimously taught by the Fathers, which is either crass ignorance (that disqualifies them from the discussion) or dishonesty ... as 6-7 Fathers rejected BoD, and at best 1-2 upheld it (even though I dispute that).

And then, if everyone believed in BoB, why do we have recorded orders from Rome and from various bishops that catechumens must be baptized during times of persecution?  What's there to worry about if BoB was some kind of certainty?  If they DID get martyred, then they'd be saved for sure, right?  If people believed in BoD, why were the faithful in St. Ambrose's territory deeply distraught and grieving about Valentinian being killed before Baptism? ... so much that he felt the need to console them.  Could it be because St. Ambrose had taught them (explicitly in De Sacramentis) that even the most virtuous catechumens cannot be saved if they die before receiving the Sacrament?

Finally, if one interprets Trent as teaching BoD, then with that reading, Trent also rejects BoB.  That's because Trent says that there can be no initial justification without the Sacrament or the desire for it.  Period.  Understood the BoDer way, then there's no such thing as a BoB that does not reduce to BoD, since Trent gives no alternative for initial justification.  Gone is this notion promoted by St. Alphonsus of a BoB that acts quasi-ex-opere operato, where even infants can be saved by BoB.  In fact, St. Alphonsus' notion of BoB would be HERETICAL, since he'd be saying that people could be justified without the Sacrament OR the desire for it, as martyred infants have NEITHER.  So St. Alphonsus' reading of Trent would render his promotion of BoB heretical.  BoB would reduce to just an expression of a fervent and perfect desire for the Sacrament ... but would have no effect whatsoever on, say, infants.

As clearly demonstrated here, BoD and BoB theory is nothing but a morass of contradiction and confusion.  If you believe that Trent is teaching BoD, then you must reject as heretical the "Three Baptisms" taught by all these Modernist catechisms ... as in fact Trent teaches that there would only be TWO.

Any other questions?

God not constrained by His sacraments? God is absolutely constrained by His Word.

"Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  John 3:5

Anyone who says otherwise, is influenced by the devil. There is no way to add or subtract from John 3:5 without making it a lie.  The words are clear and absolute.  Waterless baptism is an oxymoron conjured up by a polymoron.     

It's terrible if you're looking at it through the lens of natural justice, but will always be the most just and merciful outcome on the part of God. We are not permitted to sit here and speculate on why God let person A die young while person B lives a worse life to old age. We are to accept it as the Divine Will and the best possible outcome of that causal chain.

This is why I hate the Divine Mercy "devotion". It presumes on God's Will and belittles His Mercy by making people think eternal Damnation is never a merciful act. Let alone ignoring His justice.
That book is outstanding. Honestly, life-changing. I remember Father recommending it from the pulpit, and I now make a point of re-reading it frequently. It puts Providence and God's Will in perfect context.

Yes, I have not read it in a while, but that is a book all BODers should read, then try to apply what it teaches to a BOD. It was after reading that book that it hit me about a BOD, that the whole idea of a BOD is based on us saving ourselves, that the only way a BOD works is without any divine help or intervention whatsoever - which is altogether contrary to the doctrine of Divine Providence.

The idea of a BOD leads me to believe it is an offense against the divine providence, which makes the whole idea a sin, the gravity of which depends upon how strongly one adheres to belief in it. Can you imagine how God feels when He is removed from the formula via some unforeseen accident? Seems to me that He would be greatly offended.

This holy doctrine of the Divine Providence means that in every single solitary sacramental baptism, God provides the minister, the water, the time and place to do it, and He does this whether it's a loud mouth baby or an adult catechumen.

This is what Fr. Feeny was saying when he said: "There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics."

The same must be said about every holy communion we receive, every confession we go to, every Last Rites received, every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and on and on.