It doesn't?  Why wouldn't this apply to BOD? This isn't just talking about infants. The section even says that these people have NO SIN, and they still can't go to Heaven.  How is that not the opposite/contradictory of what you're saying the OUM teaches on BOD?

This is my issue.  BOD is NOT consistently taught.  There are ambiguities...enough to give other Catholics SLACK when you want to accuse them of being contradictory wrt their position on the Crisis.


Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven

"Die without baptism" is the key here.  Which form of baptism?

I disagree on the first point, agree on the second.

I was taught that miscarriages or deaths of born babies who did not have an opportunity to get baptized with water but whose parents would have if they had the chance, receive baptism of desire.

What you were taught is highly-problematic ... and IMO objectively heretical.  Cajetan floated that opinion, but St. Pius V ordered that it be struck from his works.

"Die without baptism" is the key here.  Which form of baptism?

Which form do you think it's referring to [given that the phrase "die without baptism" is preceded by the phrase "through no fault of theirs"]?

Matthew, you've got a couple of forum members whose contributions, I argue, hurt rather than help healthy discussion of Catholic issues.  Since your warning 7/10/22, only Ladislaus seems undeterred and unrepentant.  He keeps bringing up arcane matters in which few, I surmise, take much interest. He remains argumentative, self-righteous and self-absorbed.  He constantly accuses others of not enjoying the clarity of perspective that he does.
There is hardly any activity on the popular "Resistance" section since 7/10, and, I suspect, it is because of him.  I think you must be aware of this.  Ladislaus, speaking plainly, just turns off the rank and file.  They simply stay away from him.  I know I do.

If by "bringing up arcane matters in which few, I surmise, take much interest" you're referring to turning this thread into an argument about BoD, it was not I who brought the subject up.  As for being the ONLY one "undeterred and unrepentant after the 7/10 warning," you ignore the fact that even after said warning SeanJohnson persisted in and doubled down on calling me a "sodomite" and a "homo".  In fact, the tone of the argument heated up in the first place precisely because of that insult in response to a post where I simply pasted a link (without comment on my part) to some text from Father Noel Barbara.

So with regard to both these accusations, you assert that I am the ONLY culprit, whereas in point of fact both were instigated by others ... whom you curiously leave unaccused, leaving me as the ONLY culprit.  So, basically, it's a lie ... and I surmise that you single me out because you don't like my positions / opinions on this subject.

As for being "argumentative ... and accus[ing] others of not enjoying the clarity of perspective that [I do]", sure, guilty as charged, in the context of these subjects at least, as that's what typically happens when you believe something strongly and have the arguments and plenty of evidence to back it up, when you're convinced that you're right and that those who disagree with you are wrong.  EVERYBODY who argues a topic could be characterized as "argumentative" and "accusing [their adversaries] of not enjoying their own clarity of perspective".  If I thought these others were right about a particular subject and had a "clarity of perspective" about it, I wouldn't bother arguing / debating with them in the first place.  Those who were arguing AGAINST my positions were equally "argumentative" and felt that THEY "enjoy[ed] a clarity of perspective" that I do not.  But even though it takes more than one person to argue, and (at least) two to tango, you single me out as if I were the only culprit and had been unilaterally launching unsolicited attacks on others, nay, practically arguing with myself, since I was evidently the ONLY one doing that.

Your additional accusation of my being "self-righteous" and "self-absorbed" ... that's simply your spin on the same phenomenon, that I'm convinced that my position is correct and that of SOME others is wrong.  You spin "he thinks he's right and the others are wrong" into "self-righteous" and "self-absorbed".

In the final analysis, you're singling me out, from among others who engaged in precisely the same behavior either because you don't like my positions on these subjects or else due to some old baggage where I argued with YOU in the past (your defense of Valtorta, and your recent IMO irrational, emotional, and exaggerated contempt for any and all things SSPX).  You are no stranger to being "self-righteous" in your merciless condemnation of anyone in the neo-SSPX, whether you have any evidence for your allegations or not.

And, ironically, I find this post of yours to be entirely "self-righteous" ... as you sit in judgment of me, my motives, and my character based on pretty much nothing other than that you don't like my opinions.

Matthew, you've got a couple of forum members whose contributions, I argue, hurt rather than help healthy discussion of Catholic issues.  Since your warning 7/10/22, only Ladislaus seems undeterred and unrepentant.  He keeps bringing up arcane matters in which few, I surmise, take much interest. He remains argumentative, self-righteous and self-absorbed.  He constantly accuses others of not enjoying the clarity of perspective that he does.
There is hardly any activity on the popular "Resistance" section since 7/10, and, I suspect, it is because of him.  I think you must be aware of this.  Ladislaus, speaking plainly, just turns off the rank and file.  They simply stay away from him.  I know I do.

Ladislaus, despite a couple of serious errors (cough* Feeneyism-related, mainly *cough) is always a gentleman and a scholar.

 You, on the other hand, are a malicious creep who seems to have no interest in any discussion except salacious stories about clergy.

What's the problem? Not enough Michael Voris talk around here lately to keep you entertained?

Lad:  

and I surmise that you single me out because you don't like my positions / opinions on this subject.

Actually, Lad, you must have some support on this increasingly (I believe) irrelevant forum.  After all, I got five thumbs down (to date) for my post about you.  So you must enjoy some support.
Lad, believe me when I say it- I have absolutely no interest in your "positions."  It's not that I don't like them.  They simply don't matter to me.  They don't in any way occupy my thoughts. 
I am beginning to think that you may be a trad with some incipient mental health problems, which suggests that traditional Catholicism itself, as often represented and reflected upon on CI, may make unsettling contributions to your state of mind.