I can accept debate about BOD for catechumens and BOB for martyrs.

But I cannot accept anyone who claims that salvation is possible without explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation as anything but a dullard, a weasel and an apostate, nor anyone who claims that such a thing as baptism of "implicit desire", for those who die as apostates in denial or ignorance of Christ (which all Jєωs, Muslims, pagans and atheists are), is anywhere to be found in divine revelation, either cotained in the scriptures or in apostolic tradition, as anything but a damned liar too.

With regard to the sede position, I came back to the Church when I was older, at that time I really didn't know anything about the Faith. I read profusely for years and almost from the beginning, concluded that JPII was a punishment from God and I told people that. However, I have never pushed the sede position on anyone mainly because all the sede groups teach that anyone can be saved without baptism and Christ in any way shape or form. Same goes for the SSPX. If the sedes and SSPX came to the conclusion that say the dogmatic Athanasian Creed means the complete opposite of what it says by their "theological analysis" , how can I believe them on the sede position, since our current situation is unprecedented while EENS is likely the most dogmatically docuмented teaching in the Church.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law is very clear on the topic:

CAN. 1239 § 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.

"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.

Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."


May I inquire of which "sede groups" you are referring?  And if at all possible, a reference to the statement made?

Because JAM knows that if he can slip this in there, it opens the door for all the rest of the stuff you are talking about. If one can be saved, in whichever way, without the actual reception of Baptism in water, then the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary. It would be allowable to assert any type of exception so long as one makes a vague reference to something Church related being necessary. You guys who claim to be lenient on certain types of reception of the Sacrament other than through water, are opening the door just by making that little distinction.

There's an example of a person winging it with an end run.

This person obviously is defending the sede groups & SSPX teaching, the subject of this OP is about, since he has been clearly warned three times that this thread is about the sede groups and SSPX teaching that people can be saved without  baptism and Christ in any way shape or form (without belief in baptism, without desire to be Catholic, without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity), in short, this person also totally rejects the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, he is 100% in agreement with the sede groups, the SSPX, and Vatican II on this matter.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”


Athanasian Creed (4th Century)
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

It certainly is possible when modernists opt for a "deeper understanding" of Church teaching. This has been clearly obvious over the last few centuries or so.

Where do you think the Novus Ordo sect came from?

The canon above is what you want to bring forward for BOD. The canon from Braga is the one I want to bring forward in contradiction of yours. Yours says catechumens are to be treated as Baptized, mine says they are not. Which one is correct? Also, who decides whether the catechumen's death was "through no fault of their own"?

From my perspective, this discussion is not about Baptism of Desire, but rather it is about the erroneous notion that the Church would promulgate teachings contrary to Herself.  Specifically, I believe it is incorrect to interpret one Truth in a way that makes it contradict another.  The proper orientation would be to show how each does not oppose the other.  In this specific instance, the manner in which the Church treats a Catechumen who dies before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, Canon Law would prevail as the Church's teaching on the topic.  God, and God alone, would know the circuмstances of the Catechumen's demise.