I completely agree with you on this issue but do be careful about relying on "gut instincts" - we should use reason not emotion :)

I know Jamie, I have given many convoluted arguments for it before, but I just wanted to explain to CM that I really feel, beyond all the debates, an inner conviction in the reality of baptism of blood and desire.  The Holy Ghost itself wants me to keep preaching BoD!  Whatever is in CM's soul that makes him disbelieve it is not in my soul.  I don't even feel like this is my opinion; I somehow KNOW there is BoD and BoB.

St. Thomas gives another meaning for "one" baptism ( which Feeneyites always say means that there is "one type" of baptism ).  It means that baptism cannot be repeated.  

Before I'd explained "one baptism" by saying that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not really baptisms, and that is also confirmed by St. Thomas -- "The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect."  Calling them "baptisms" is just a form of shorthand.  They do what baptism does, short of imprinting the indelible character of baptism, but aren't technically baptisms.  

Where I disagree with St. Thomas is that someone who dies with only baptism of desire goes to Purgatory.  This makes no sense since the effect of the sacrament of baptism is to remit all sins original and actual.  Also, if this were true, the Church would be harming the dead catechumen by not praying for him, when he is in purgatory and needs prayers!  CM pointed out this practice of the Church to refute BoD and BoB but actually it just refutes St. Thomas' half-formed teaching on BoD and BoB, because St. Thomas surely had no idea what a lightning-rod this would become and probably spent an afternoon or two writing about it.

This is one of those times when St. Thomas compromised a little and tried to play both sides.  He was trying to show how baptism of blood is superior to baptism of desire, and it is in terms of the merit that attaches to it with God, but not in terms of its effect, which is exactly the same.  

I'm sure people will call me arrogant for saying that St. Thomas erred but this one is impossible to deny.  He says all three "baptisms" have the same effect in one article, and then later that they don't; that one, BoD suffices for partial remission of sins and the other, BoB, for the full remission... Huh?  BAPTISM remits ALL SINS, and so does the invisible sanctification by God, as he calls it, that replicates the water baptism that is unavailable.  This invisible sanctification comes in two forms known as BoD and BoB.

Otherwise what you have are two full "baptisms" -- BoB and water baptism -- and one half-baptism, baptism of desire.  This makes mincemeat out of the very concept of baptism as a washing away of sins.  What St. Thomas calls baptism of desire is really "partial remission of sins of desire."  But what is desired by the penitent catechumen, and what is given to him by God by the intervention of the Holy Ghost if he dies before baptism, is the effect of baptism which is full remission of sins.

A very odd error from St. Thomas but as in the case of the Immaculate Conception, I think he sometimes felt he had to lower one thing to raise another.  So he lowered Mary to raise Christ; and lowers BoD to raise BoB.  

I just noticed for the first time that in Q.66 Art. 11 that treats of BoD and BoB, St. Thomas refers to the "gloss" speaking of BoD and BoB.  At first I thought he was referring to St. Jerome but that can't be.  He's referring to his own Bible with its annotations.  That means that in his time, just like in the later time of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Church annotated the Bible by teaching BoD and BoB!  

P.S. BoB if you think about it really is BoD with a little extra oomph.  The person is not saved by their martyrdom in-itself but by their desire for baptism, and they just happen to get martyred on top of that.  To get more specific, there are not three forms of baptism.  There is one baptism, water baptism, and ONE form of invisible sanctification that can be given directly by God the Holy Ghost to those who desire baptism but don't attain it, baptism of desire, which contains within itself a more meritorious variant called baptism of blood.  Phew.

Mike you have basically admitted in this thread that you cannot reasonably overcome each objection to BoD, yet "something", which you believe to be God, is telling you to believe in it anyway.

Satan is telling you to be a heretic and you're obeying.

Troublesome.

No I'm not, you're reading the Council of Vienne through eyes of pride.

You have to be able to explain the REASON why it is pride.  Pride blinds Mike, it causes us to hold firmly to something without reason.

You have to be able to demonstrate that my position does not logically follow from the words of Vienne.  But it's one sentence and it says the one baptism regenerates all.  You have to quite literally CONTRADICT IT for BoD, because BoD is NOT the sacrament, and if the sacrament regenerates one person it has to be that which regenerates all.

Your accusation of pride, even if it were to prove true (and it is, probably just as much for me as the next guy - I'm no saint), would mean nothing without being able to reconcile the above difficulty in BoD.

But pride makes us hold to a position when reason itself shows it untenable.  So while I am tempted by pride every day, it would be folly for me to say that a proposition that either contradicts the Solemn Magisterium or necessitates 2+2=5 is not heresy.

For a while I thought your pride was relaxing but it is back in full force.

My convictions have not wavered Mike, so why would I relax my profession of the truth?  That would be silly.

You're starting to use that witch-burning icon constantly,

Because I believe you're a heretic at the moment, yes.

talking about how you're offering up insults received to the souls in purgatory,

Catholic should do just that.

calling your position "the Catholic Faith" in capital letters

If I didn't think that's what it was, why would i hold it?  If I couldn't reasonably defend it as I have been doing, why would I hold it?

And if I believe it is the Catholic Faith - why would I not capitalize it as is fitting for the Divinely revealed religion?

-- pray and look carefully at the other side before you dig yourself a hole you can't climb out of.  That's all I ask.  

Which argument from the other side is left?  I told you that I have deliberately sought out objections that could prove me wrong and here I am believing BoD is heresy.

As if to show that this is what He meant, elsewhere, Christ says only that we must be born again OF THE SPIRIT, leaving out the water.  Do you think the Son of God spoke carelessly, CM?  Is He another fallible authority?

Interesting.  You are making an inference here regarding St. John 3:8, as if to imply that Christ said "A man only needs to be born of the Spirit". Did He say that Mike?  No.

Obviously He's not a fallible authority but He spoke in obscure words at times, and the Solemn Magisterium DEFINES the meaning thereof.

As for implicit faith... I'm not even sure it's a heresy...  It was allowed to be discussed.  I will worry about if it's a heresy if I find a priest who has every other correct position except that he believes in implicit faith.  Until then, it's not top priority.  Better just to leave it alone.

You're being inconsistent and that is not a good sign at all.  You already know that a proposition is heresy by the mere fact of being a recession from the Solemn Magisterium (Satis Cognitum) and you already know the definition of the Vatican Council says that it's the very words of the definition that are irreformable, not what was on the pope's mind when he said them.

In other words the tools have been given by the Church for people in the time of the Great Apostasy to know what is and is not heresy when no authority would do so.

P.S. No, I didn't tell you I couldn't reasonably overcome objections.  I told you that the Holy Ghost which you call "Satan" is telling me to believe in BoD

So you accuse me of pride, and yet INSIST that there is no way you are yourself being deceived by the devil, and in fact that you are a Divine oracle?

Oh boy.  This doesn't fill me with confidence in your assertions Mike, especially when in this instance you can't just plainly agree that 2+2=4.

Vienne said ONE baptism regenerates ALL the members of Christ.  Florence says without the sacrament of Baptism there is no heaven for us.  Trent says without the laver or without the desire thereof there is no justification.

Put them all together now and you have no choice but to reject BoD, unless you want to reform the words of the definitions, which are, "of themselves and not by consent of the Church, irreformable".