I will no longer tolerate any further discussion from a promoter of bod until they admit the following, namely, that:

the Majority of Church Fathers opposed bod.

Then we can have an honest discussion ... regarding the implications of that.

But this I see as a mark of honesty which could lead to a fruitful discussion.

If they refuse to admit this, then their promotion of bod is simply dishonest and not worth our time to address.

Louis, BOD is different than BOB.  So, yes, it does matter.

Yes, most Church Fathers did not believe in BOD, but the majority, if not all, believed in BOB.
Now we can move on to the next question, does it really matter? The Church Fathers are not the magisterium.

Thank you.  Correct, they are not the Magisterium.  There is, however, this notion taught by all theologians that they can reflect the Deposit of Revelation.

There are only three ways in which a doctrine can be definable as revealed dogma:
1) found in Scripture
2) shown to be of Tradition by unanimous consent of the Fathers
3) derives necessarily from other revealed premises

Now, #3, some theologians would describe as "de fide ecclesiastica" vs "de fide revelata".

Based on reading the Fathers, there's no indication or proof there that any dogma of bod was revealed by Our Lord, or in Scripture ... as interpreted by the Fathers and Tradition.

So if bod can be classified as a dogma, it must be in category 3.

But I have never seen any theological proof of #3.

When you look at the first "Magisterial" mention of bod, in Pope Innocent II (or III), he stakes its existence directly on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose" and is not teaching it with his own authority.  So the link is that he's opining in favor of it based on Patristic authority.  But, as we have seen, there is in fact no Patristic authority behind a bod that suffices for salvation.  St. Augustine was clearly speculating (in his own words) and then retracted it.  St. Ambrose, on the other hand, believed that it could "wash" from sin but not result in the "crowning" (entry into the Kingdom and Beatific Vision).

So his reason for opining in favor were not valid.  There is in fact no authority of Ambrose and Augustine behind this.  And he ignores (or, more likely, is unaware of) the contrary teaching of 5 or 6 Church Fathers.

Then the other Magisterial backing for bod is in Trent, but Trent is speaking of justification, not salvation ... and post-Tridentine theologians clearly distinguish between the two, so that too is no proof of a SALVIFIC bod.

St. Thomas comes close to making some theological argument, namely, that Sacraments include both a visible and invisible aspect, but he does not prove that they are separable in Baptism.  They are, in fact, inseparable in Holy Orders, for example.

So the entire theological history of bod rests on the "authority" of Augustine and Ambrose.  Once you pull that out, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

Thank you.  Correct, they are not the Magisterium.  There is, however, this notion taught by all theologians that they can reflect the Deposit of Revelation.

There are only three ways in which a doctrine can be definable as revealed dogma:
1) found in Scripture
2) shown to be of Tradition by unanimous consent of the Fathers
3) derives necessarily from other revealed premises

Now, #3, some theologians would describe as "de fide ecclesiastica" vs "de fide revelata".

Based on reading the Fathers, there's no indication or proof there that any dogma of bod was revealed by Our Lord, or in Scripture ... as interpreted by the Fathers and Tradition.

So if bod can be classified as a dogma, it must be in category 3.

But I have never seen any theological proof of #3.

When you look at the first "Magisterial" mention of bod, in Pope Innocent II (or III), he stakes its existence directly on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose" and is not teaching it with his own authority.  So the link is that he's opining in favor of it based on Patristic authority.  But, as we have seen, there is in fact no Patristic authority behind a bod that suffices for salvation.  St. Augustine was clearly speculating (in his own words) and then retracted it.  St. Ambrose, on the other hand, believed that it could "wash" from sin but not result in the "crowning" (entry into the Kingdom and Beatific Vision).

So his reason for opining in favor were not valid.  There is in fact no authority of Ambrose and Augustine behind this.  And he ignores (or, more likely, is unaware of) the contrary teaching of 5 or 6 Church Fathers.

Then the other Magisterial backing for bod is in Trent, but Trent is speaking of justification, not salvation ... and post-Tridentine theologians clearly distinguish between the two, so that too is no proof of a SALVIFIC bod.

St. Thomas comes close to making some theological argument, namely, that Sacraments include both a visible and invisible aspect, but he does not prove that they are separable in Baptism.  They are, in fact, inseparable in Holy Orders, for example.

So the entire theological history of bod rests on the "authority" of Augustine and Ambrose.  Once you pull that out, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

I agree that it can reflect divine revelation if it is unanimously held by the Church Fathers, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here especially when we bring in the issue of BOB.

Some theologians have argued that BOD can be conceived of scripturally. For example our Lord says: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”
The above, while not proving BOD, certainly seems to disprove the Fr. Feeney interpretation of EENS. But if they are not saved and not condemned then where do they go?

Interesting, do you have some quotes regarding the theory of alternate modality of the sacrament from the Church Fathers?

Yes.  I'll have to dig around for the St. Cyprian quote on the angels.  I posted it here before but can't find it out there on Google.  But here's the one from the 5th century theological manual.

Fifth Century Theological Manual: De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus

In addition to these influences on the early schoolmen in Paris, there was the question, current at the time, as to the authorship of a fifth century theological manual, which specifically denied baptism of desire. It was De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus. In chapter 74 we find the curious profession: “We believe that only the baptized are on the road of salvation. We believe that no catechumen has life everlasting, although he has died in good works, excepting martyrdom, in which all the sacred elements (sacraments) of Baptism are contained.” It was commonly believed, until the thirteenth century, that Saint Augustine was the author of this theological work. Saint Thomas (+1274) challenged the belief in his Commentary on the first chapter of Matthew (Catena Aurea). The Angelic Doctor denied Augustine’s authorship, attributing the work, rather, to a semi-Pelagian named Gennadius of Marseilles. But, on the other hand, when Peter Lombard was composing his Book of Sentences, he referred to the work as Augustine’s in several places. (Lib. II, dist. 35, cap. “Quocirca”; Lib. III, dist. 1, cap. “Diligenter”; Lib IV, dist. 12, cap. “Institutum.”)

https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

Thank you. That was very helpful.


I wonder then if we can come to an agreement that it is possible to hold to a BOD and BOB with the belief that angels do the Baptism of water because the person desires it and simply could not get it because of some sort of barrier. I think St. Thomas mentions this possibility.

Thank you.  Correct, they are not the Magisterium.  There is, however, this notion taught by all theologians that they can reflect the Deposit of Revelation.

There are only three ways in which a doctrine can be definable as revealed dogma:
1) found in Scripture
2) shown to be of Tradition by unanimous consent of the Fathers
3) derives necessarily from other revealed premises

Now, #3, some theologians would describe as "de fide ecclesiastica" vs "de fide revelata".

Based on reading the Fathers, there's no indication or proof there that any dogma of bod was revealed by Our Lord, or in Scripture ... as interpreted by the Fathers and Tradition.

So if bod can be classified as a dogma, it must be in category 3.

But I have never seen any theological proof of #3.

When you look at the first "Magisterial" mention of bod, in Pope Innocent II (or III), he stakes its existence directly on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose" and is not teaching it with his own authority.  So the link is that he's opining in favor of it based on Patristic authority.  But, as we have seen, there is in fact no Patristic authority behind a bod that suffices for salvation.  St. Augustine was clearly speculating (in his own words) and then retracted it.  St. Ambrose, on the other hand, believed that it could "wash" from sin but not result in the "crowning" (entry into the Kingdom and Beatific Vision).

So his reason for opining in favor were not valid.  There is in fact no authority of Ambrose and Augustine behind this.  And he ignores (or, more likely, is unaware of) the contrary teaching of 5 or 6 Church Fathers.

Then the other Magisterial backing for bod is in Trent, but Trent is speaking of justification, not salvation ... and post-Tridentine theologians clearly distinguish between the two, so that too is no proof of a SALVIFIC bod.

St. Thomas comes close to making some theological argument, namely, that Sacraments include both a visible and invisible aspect, but he does not prove that they are separable in Baptism.  They are, in fact, inseparable in Holy Orders, for example.

So the entire theological history of bod rests on the "authority" of Augustine and Ambrose.  Once you pull that out, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

Well said. Additionally, even Karl Rahner, in his Theological Investigations, Volume II, admits that, "St. Augustine, in his last anti-pelagian period no longer maintained the possibility of Baptism of Desire."

I also will not discuss this subject with those who insist on promoting their obsession with BOD/BOB; 

You're accusing the wrong parties of obsession.  Until Xavier came along and started 15 threads on the subject, I think that perhaps one thread got started every two weeks by people who don't believe in BoD.  And, yes, please don't discuss this subject anymore.