CathInfo.com

Yes, it is actually a bit remarkable imo when you consider that the term "baptism of desire" is not found in any encyclical or official papal teaching, or any Church docuмent, only condemnations of the idea.

The proponents of a BOD only look at the whole thing with "BOD eyes," which is to say they see only what they already believe, and what they do not believe, they do not see. In this way they are completely confident in the idea, while believing wholly contrary to the de fide teachings of the Church.

It is interesting. I was never actually taught BOD in my sad, Novus Ordo "catechesis". That was a good thing

I first heard of Fr. Feeney very early on in my conversion to actual Catholicism, most likely when I was lurking here. It just made sense, Our Lord said it Himself, Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost... There is nothing preventing God from furnishing anyone with the opportunity and means to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

Talking to an SSPV priest over the phone, he was gauging my knowledge of the Faith as I was trying to schedule a general confession. One of the questions regarding baptism was, "How many kinds of baptism are there?". (Now, I'm not sure how this question in particular pertains to making a good confession, I had already correctly answered all other questions about the Sacrament of Baptism..but I digress) I answered something like, "Well, there is the Sacrament of Baptism. I've read about BOD/BOB but I know that there is some debate about those"

He proceeded to give me the spiel about the 'heretic' Fr. Feeney and how he was condemned, excommunicated, etc. etc., how BOD is 'doctrine' and must be accepted. I never ended up going to confession with them. I called up an SSPX priest, asked about general confession, and made one a couple days later. There was no mention of BOD, probably because it was irrelevant to my desire (haha) to make a confession.

I remember in 4th or 5th grade Novus Ordo "CCD" the teacher asked the class what the Roman soldier did to Our Lord's Body after He had died on the cross. I answered that he stabbed His side with a spear, and that blood and water came out. The teacher, believe it or not, said something like, "Yes, but I don't know about water. I think it was just blood." I repeated myself and everyone just looked at me funny. I didn't understand the significance of it at the time, but I knew that it was blood and water

You guys suffer from severe cognitive dissonance and it seems you are circle-jerking in order to avoid the dissonance.

I just quoted Trent Council's infaillibly and you still persist in your error.

If you think numbers matter in the eyes of God, you are severely mistaken. 

You guys suffer from severe cognitive dissonance and it seems you are circle-jerking in order to avoid the dissonance.

I just quoted Trent Council's infaillibly and you still persist in your error.

If you think numbers matter in the eyes of God, you are severely mistaken.

Lazarus, this is what you posted from Trent:

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them, men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."
Source: Council of Trent, Session VII (March 3, 1547), Decree on the Sacraments, Canon 4 on the Sacraments in General.

Trent is, in part, condemning those who say that men can obtain the grace of justification through faith alone without the sacraments or without the desire for them. Who in this thread is denying that? 

Do you believe that men can obtain justification through faith and the sacraments, but without the desire for the sacraments?