CathInfo.com

Byzcat,
If one were to boil the multitude of protestant heresies into 1 over-arching error, it would be the rejection of the real Christ, through the rejection of His VISIBLE church and a return to "loving" God like the Jҽωs did in the Old Law - faith (in Christ's sacrifice) and reading of Scripture.  All the protestants did was replace faith in the Redeemer for faith in Christ's death and reading of the Old Testament for reading of (most) of the Old and New.  They deleted scripture references to priesthood, church, sacrifice, etc because they reject the New Law.  They rejected the real Christ and created an Old Testament version of Him.  The Jews totally rejected Christ; Protestantism rejected parts of Christ.
.
When you argue that the Old Law salvation has to be the same as the New Law, you are arguing from a protestant mindset.  You're a good poster and intelligent, but you need to recognize you've still got some protestant scars left to heal.

Precisely.  And this was my point in the "If I were Pope ..." thread.  While I would fall short of dogmatically condemning BoD, I would absolutely forbid any mention of it among Catholics.  By constantly harping on it, this actually undermines people's belief in the necessity of the Sacrament and can actually work against their desire for Baptism, and therefore jeopardize their souls.  What purpose does it serve?  If there is such a thing as BoD, believing in it doesn't make any difference.  If you didn't believe in it, you'd only desire Baptism all the more ardently, even desperately.  But the new super-dogma of BoD has done little more than to undermine faith and has led to religious indifferentism.  Therefore, all discussion of it and of the possibility of salvation for anyone but Catholics must cease immєdιαtely under pain of grave sin [if I were pope, that is].

It really has become a super dogma. Consider the various ways people interpret it.  Only some are saved, perhaps many, the invincibly ignorant, catechumens only, anonymous Christians, now pagans, finally, all men are saved.  As long as you don't literally believe water and the Holy Ghost are necessary for salvation.  They manage to have one BOD to bind them.       

And Trent for me clearly takes the distinction of before/after the promulgation of the Gospel and makes it de fide:


I've never heard an adequate response to this argument based on Trent. The response I've heard from those who were trying desperately to avoid it was that the phrase "promulgation of the Gospel" meant individual, personal notice or awareness of the Gospel, which totally discounts the way the Church has understood and used "promulgation of the Gospel" as a time divider, period - basically from the time of the Christ's death and the preaching of the Apostles.

The argument against the bod interpretation is in the words Trent uses.  Cannot without laver.  Cannot without desire.  The word cannot applies to both terms.  Both water and desire for the sacrament are necessary, as it is written...
Unless one is born again...etc.
The final phrase clinches it and absolutely negates the possibility they were talking about desire alone being salvific because it reiterates the need for water and the Holy Ghost in baptism.