Then it should be no problem to retract the false attribution.  But, for some reason, it is.

Thank you DR.  Have a blessed Sunday!

Lots of BoDers keep falsely keep claiming that the Church Fathers unanimously endorsed BoD when almost the opposite is true.  

Chapter 22.

30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture, was received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. Yet they were baptized, and for this action we have the authority of an apostle as the warrant. So far ought all of us to be from being induced by any imperfection in the inner man, if it so happen that before baptism a person has advanced, through the workings of a pious heart, to spiritual understanding, to despise a sacrament which is applied to the body by the hands of the minister, but which is God's own means for working spiritually a man's dedication to Himself. Nor do I conceive that the function of baptizing was assigned to John, so that it should be called John's baptism, for any other reason except that the Lord Himself, who had appointed it, in not disdaining to receive the baptism of His servant, Matthew 3:6, 13 might consecrate the path of humility, and show most plainly by such an action how high a value was to be placed on His own baptism, with which He Himself was afterwards to baptize. For He saw, like an excellent physician of eternal salvation, that overweening pride would be found in some, who, having made such progress in the understanding of the truth and in uprightness of character that they would not hesitate to place themselves, both in life and knowledge, above many that were baptized, would think it was unnecessary for them to be baptized, since they felt that they had attained a frame of mind to which many that were baptized were still only endeavoring to raise themselves.

CHURCH FATHERS: On Baptism, Book IV (Augustine) (newadvent.org)

In the fourth book, when I said: "Suffering can take the place of baptism,” 5 I cited the example of the thief, which is not quite appropriate, for it is uncertain whether he had been baptized

Augustine Retractations : St Augustine : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Here's the sole retraction regarding the very section at issue cited above:

Where's the "retraction" of BOD? For the sake of truth and being accurate, he's simply correcting a statement about the good thief, since in his case "it is uncertain whether he has been baptized." That's it.

If St. Augustine indeed "retracted" a support of BOD, that would have been the time, while scrutinizing error in the very section where he supported BOD.

He didn't retract his support of the concept.

There’s no one who isn’t retracting it.  We all retract it.  Future citations will be to “an article published by the SSPV”, just as we cite “an article published by the CMRI” entitled “The Salvation of those Outside the Church” — which I did look up. This is a case of a poster attributing it incorrectly and people repeating it without looking it up.  There was no malice here.  It’s even possible that Fr. Cekada quoted it in some other context that we can’t find, causing the original poster to believe it was his own.  Not sure how the mistake was made, but I doubt it was done on purpose.  Very few of us have the time to look up every single quote.  There are probably a dozen or more fake “sayings of Padre Pio” on the web that live on for the same reason.

When people cite it, it’s to demonstrate an IDEA that we contend is actually behind WHY most people end up being BoD zealots.  When you scratch beneath the surface, you almost always find that this sentiment is actually what drives it.  It’s to your credit that you’re honestly looking at this issue despite the fact that an implicit BoD would comfort you regarding your mother.  In this quote we have someone finally admitting this motivation honestly, which is why we keep referring to it.

He's just finally gotten fed up with the BoD spamming and said, "see, we can do it too."

Next time someone spams in those same 3 or 4 BoD quotes, I'm going to have my own copy-paste job handy.

See, I always take the time to give a thoughtful response and rarely spam, but I'm getting sick of wasting my time refuting the same crap over and over and over again.  I'm this close to joining the game.

I have half a mind to spam in the entire 300-page Dimond treatment of No Salvation Outside the Church.

Sorry if I offended you, but now you know how we feel.  It would be a better idea to spend your energy on converting all these infidels you worry about that are going to steal a place in heaven.