Here is the offending thread:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Reason-for-All-BOD-Threads

He knowingly and willfully ignored my warning to NOT duplicate posts in BoD threads. He posted the same post about 12 hours apart (or less).

Also, the nail in the coffin was calling members female who are not female.

From time to time, I have been known to refer to opponents' posts as "feminine" or "acting like a woman", but I don't call them female. That's crossing the line.

Just so there's no confusion: I am not banning him because of his position. Only because of his breaking of the rules.

Matthew, you need to recall the teaching of Bishop Williamson; he denounced with great vigor as one of the greatest errors of our modern times the notion that "ideas don't matter".  You clearly haven't given it much thought.  We're not arguing about BoD (it's the BoDers who keep trying to pretend that it's the core issue when it's not).  We are arguing about this modernist ecclesiology rooted in the notion that non-Catholics are really within the Church.  This IS the primary error of Vatican II, the "subsistence" ecclesiology, the ecuмenism, the religious liberty (due to subjectivized criteria for salvtion based on the "nitheness" that Bishop Williamson also rightly criticized).  This is not some sideshow issue.  It is THE issue, the CORE issue of our day.

One Traditional Catholic after another just bloviates about the errors of Vatican II but has absolutely NO CLUE about what these errors are or why they're errors.  They roll back the clock to 1957 and think that this would fix everything.  Bishop Williamson admirably traced the woeful decay into subjectivism back to the Renaissance.  It's why Bishop Fellay thinks V2 can be reconciled with Tradition.  Because he DOESN'T GET IT.  In fact, if you believe in the Ambrose/LoT ecclesiology, Bishop Fellay is 100% CORRECT that V2 can be reconciled with Tradition, and we're all schismatics for rejecting Vatican II.

These ideas DO matter.  These ideas are EVERYTHING.  Without a proper understanding of these ideas, our very raison d'etre as Traditional Catholics becomes as so much vapor and smells-and-bells.  This isn't about some guy dressing up in a clown suit and prancing down the aisle in one church or another.  This isn't about Karol Wojtyla being smeared with dung.

Maybe if I said it with a British accent like Bishop Williamson you'd suddenly care.  But I'm afraid that you're asleep like 99% of all Traditional Catholics.

Ladislaus:
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I never said ideas don't matter. And Bishop Williamson wasn't a Feeneyite; he didn't obsess over the BoD issue. He picked other battles, and plenty of them.

I can understand why Feeneyites are universally despised in the Catholic world. They are abrasive. They are obsessive. They argue endlessly. They only care about the Salvation Dogma (or "The Dogma" as they call it) which is extremely annoying to normal Catholics.

And most of them are the "spawn" of the Dimond Brothers, who are at least schismatic. Like ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, Feeneyites have to "recruit" which is why they love arguing so much. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs live on debased pleasure; Feeneyites live on pride, vainglory in being the only "real Catholics", and puffed-up arguing.

That's been my experience.

Not only is the issue not practical, it isn't even the main error of the World (or the Church) today.

They're the equivalent of a child that pets a cat backwards and pulls its tail.

Who cares if God gives each man at least one small chance to save his soul? Some small grace that could be rejected or accepted? Isn't that only just? Wouldn't the contrary be evil and unfair? That actually makes sense to me -- why would God create some men with zero chance of salvation? Wouldn't that militate against God's goodness? Now a *small* chance would be sufficient. Grace is a free gift of God; freely given, not owed. Not everyone is equal. But Catholic doctrine teaches that everyone in Hell is there for their own personal fault. If you were born with a 0 chance of salvation, then Hell would be a foregone conclusion and not your fault.

Anyhow, assuming this were true, what would the end results be?

Need for water baptism? A resounding "Yes" in all cases
What about missionaries? We NEED them with a capital "N". The pagan milieu makes it morally impossible to save one's soul. If Catholics often lose their souls, with all the helps they receive, where would that leave pagans?

So if we all agree that water baptism is necessary, and that it is imperative to get missionaries out there to convert people, then what's the disagreement about really?

See, it's all academic.

Is the problem that we don't know everything? That some things are mysterious, or "for God's eyes only?" I'm OK with that. I have bigger things to worry about.

But, when it comes right down to it, I'm not a Theologian and working out controversial elements of Theology is not part of my duty of state. ALL OF YOU are nothing more than armchair theologians, even if (like Bowler) you pride yourself on having argued Feeneyism for 20 years. You're still an armchair theologian, nothing more.

In the end, I just accept everything the Catholic Church teaches and move on with my life. Knowing the objective truth about Baptism of Desire just doesn't enter into my daily life -- at all. If I meet someone who hasn't been baptized, I will certainly push for them to be baptized. It's not like it's optional.