St. Ambrose made this point explicitly in his funeral oration after Valentinian had died unexpectadly prior to his Baptism.  

It is an error to think that st. Ambrose taught "Baptism of Desire", certainly, he would have never even think of the modernist interpretation that Ambrose CI here promotes. Here is the actual st. Ambrose on the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

“One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water, for ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.’ Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.”

Pelagian heretic Ambrose resurfaces to continue referring to Baptism and Membership in the Church necessities of precept alone for salvation.

Yeh, sure,by your logic, the Catholic Church is Pelagian.  

I opt out of your sect, and choose to remain in the Catholic Church.  

No, you can never with certainty know if someone is in Hell.  We do not know the final dispositions of any man, in the minutes and even seconds prior to his death.

Until the very last second on earth, there is always a chance of final repentance. There is always a chance that a non-Catholic could cooperate with grace, be truly sorry for his sins, accept the Faith, and desire to enter the Church.  

I really think that this is a novelty of the past few centuries, which has pervaded even traditional Catholic circles.  Consider these quotes from the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott:

When St. Francis Xavier was preaching in Japan, his listeners raised the problem of the invincible ignorance of their ancestors:

“The principal trouble of those men of good will before they received the light of faith was inability to reconcile the infinite goodness and mercy of God with the fact that He had not made Himself known to them and to their ancestors before the coming of St. Francis. If it was true, as Francis taught, that all those who did not adore the true God went to Hell, then their ancestors must have gone there, even though they had been given no opportunity by God of realizing their duty to Him.

“‘Our Lord helped us to deliver them from this terrible misgiving [said Francis]. We gave them very good reasons for holding that the law of God was imprinted on men’s hearts from the beginning. Before even the law of the Buddhists came from China to Japan, the Japanese, their ancestors, knew that it was wrong and wicked to commit murder, to steal, to bear false witness, or to break any other of the Ten Commandments, and their consciences smote them if they did so, proving that they knew the commandments of God without having been taught them except by the Creator of all peoples.'” 4

St. Francis de Sales also wrote about the fate of the Japanese who lived before the coming of St. Francis Xavier:

“But concerning them that remain in the sleep of sin: Oh! what good reason they have to lament, groan, weep and say: woe the day! for they are in the most lamentable of cases; yet they have no reason to grieve or complain, save about themselves, who despised, yea rebelled against, the light; who were untractable to invitations, and obstinate against inspirations; so that it is their own malice alone they must ever curse and reproach, since they themselves are the sole authors of their ruin, the sole workers of their damnation. So the Japanese complaining to the Blessed Francis Xavier their Apostle, that God Who had had so much care of other nations, seemed to have forgotten their predecessors, not having given them the knowledge of Himself, for want of which they must have been lost: the man of God answered them that the divine natural law was engraven in the hearts of all mortals, and that if their forerunners had observed it, the light of heaven would without doubt have illuminated them, as on the contrary, having violated it, they deserved damnation. An apostolic answer of an apostolic man, and resembling the reason given by the great Apostle of the loss of the ancient Gentiles, whom he calls inexcusable, for that having known good they followed evil; for it is in a word that which he inculcates in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Misery upon misery to those who do not acknowledge that their misery comes from their malice.”

http://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html#a%29%20Invincible%20Ignorance

Here's another letter from Saint Francis Xavier:

One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1552xavier4.asp

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.

A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.  

From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.  

One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.

More pure prot BOD talk. Here are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all  belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.

           

I will stick with Catholic teaching, you are the one protesting the teaching, like all Protestants before you.

Tread carefully, there is no salvation outside the Church.  The Holy Office did not warn those in your sect for fun, this is serious.  

You preach the prot version, as I posted, of salvation by desire and you call that Catholic teaching. You know better - so you will not be able to plead ignorance.

You should read in fear and trembling the warning given by the Holy Office to your sect.  I posted it for you above.  You are jeopardizing your salvation by rejecting the voice of the Pope, and refusing to submit to his teaching.

For Catholics, submission to the Pope is not optional, it is mandatory.  

You can flap your lips all you want, but one thing you'll never be able to do is defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament for salvation. We know this because for about a year now you've had an open challenge and you've ignored that challenge for the whole year - which demonstrates your dishonesty in the whole matter.

You also will never be able to explain that video, which with precision meets your definition of a BOD - why do you ignore it, why do you not address it?

For Catholics, submission to the Pope is not optional, it is mandatory.  

But you have a personal disclaimer for that too - a "get out of jail free card". This is typical for sacrament despisers such as yourself. You only submit to the conciliar popes in their examples of a BOD, while you are denying it.
 

Quote from: Ambrose

The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.

A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.  

From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.  

One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.

More pure prot BOD talk. Here are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all  belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.

           

So Ambrose, your double talking ends up putting you in a corner.

The video above shows an explicit example of your a BOD in action wherein the explicit profession of sorrow for their sins takes place for you to see.

Yet they do even more by professing publicly their personal acceptance of jesus as their savior - something your preachings on a BOD has never even once mentioned as being a requirement.    

Surely these souls, belonging to the Church by desire are saved - something you've repeatedly promoted along with salvation via No Sacrament At All for as long as I remember - at least a year now.

There are tons of similar videos on youtube demonstrating your version of a BOD - I picked this one because it's only a minute long.

This is what you repeatedly preach is a teaching of the Church.    

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

The precepts are fulfilled through externals but also through a pure desire.

A drunkard may die in the barroom, but 5 minutes before his death be sorry for his misspent life, have perfect contrition and have the intention of going yo confession.  

From all appearances the man died a sinner, but known to God, the last minute change in this man may brought about his salvation.  

One must desire to enter the Church, this desire fulfills the precept, even if it remains unfulfilled in act.

More pure prot BOD talk. Here are those who fulfill everything you preach, so according to you, they all  belong to the Church by desire - (except I don't think anyone is drunk) and will be rewarded salvation.

           

So Ambrose, your double talking ends up putting you in a corner.

The video above shows an explicit example of your a BOD in action wherein the explicit profession of sorrow for their sins takes place for you to see.

Yet they do even more by professing publicly their personal acceptance of jesus as their savior - something your preachings on a BOD has never even once mentioned as being a requirement.    

Surely these souls, belonging to the Church by desire are saved - something you've repeatedly promoted along with salvation via No Sacrament At All for as long as I remember - at least a year now.

There are tons of similar videos on youtube demonstrating your version of a BOD - I picked this one because it's only a minute long.

This is what you repeatedly preach is a teaching of the Church.    

False.  Your straw man has nothing to do with Catholic teaching as explained by the Popes, the Holy Office and the dogmatic theologians.

But I have defended what the Church has taught.  You are not the Church.  Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.

Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.  

Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman?  Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.

I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves.  I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians.  It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.

You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.

The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library -  that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.  

But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:

"and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question  and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.

If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

But I have defended what the Church has taught.  You are not the Church.  Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.

Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.  

Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman?  Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.

I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves.  I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians.  It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.

You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.

The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library -  that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.  

But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:

"and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question  and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.

If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.

 

But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church.  I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.

BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video.   The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.  

BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification.  Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.