CathInfo.com

He won't.  He's got nothing other than an illogical interpretation of Trent, and some saints here and there who made statements at one time or another in which they speculated about the possibility of BoD, often before retracting their position on the matter.

Finally, he doesn't WANT BoD to be heresy, because then he will have to change his whole life around again to separate himself from the heretics.

Also, DeMaistre, have you recognized Benedict XV as an antipope yet?  Why do you still have Pio on your Blog?  He was a schismatic at least and possibly a heretic.  Bellarmine was a BoD heretic, and 'canonized' by an antipope.

I'll make my opening statement. The Catholic Church professes ONE Baptism for the remission of sins, and solemnly declares that it is only through the laver of regeneration (water baptism) that one is joined to the Body of Christ, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.

That doesn't exclude the possibility that the effects of this one baptism can be applied in another mode.  You are confusing an affirmative statement with an exclusive one.

Its clear if you look at the Holy Mass, that catachumens are not members of the Church. This is why they are dismissed before the Mass of the Faithful, because they are not among the Faithful (aka members of the Church). Therefore, a catachumen, should he expire before baptism, cannot be saved. To say otherwise is to deny the Catholic dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

You infer from one fact the impossibility of an unrelated question, whether in fact, one can be baptized by a desire for the sacrament if necessity presents itself.  A good portion of logical thinking involves making legitimate inferences.  This is an illegitimate inference.  

The idea of "Baptism of Blood" is probably just an extension of the fact that a martyr is forgiven all his sins, and it (BoB) is destroyed single handedly by Cantate Domino.

How so?

"Baptism of Desire" on the other, is a more sticky mattter, since its never been condemned by name, however, it has never been declared that it must be believed de fide either. I now leave Raoul76 to make his opening statement.

What is of the ordinary magisterium must be believed as well.  In addition, it could be argued, as Ligouri asserts, that it is in fact De Fide based upon the Council of Trent.  In addition, you'll have to contend with hundreds Fathers, Doctors, Theologians, Popes, and Saints that say the contrary.  Considering that you haven't perceived the difference of an affirmative vs. exclusive proposition as well as making a very bad inference blunder all in the same post, I think it is highly doubtful that you will succeed in overcoming this dogmatic tradition of the Catholic Church.  What ever happened to that thing called 'humility'?  I suppose it has no place in considering what constitues catholic doctrine.