I'll dismiss 12-21 as nothing but mindless repetition by various modernist-influenced Jesuits (for the most part) and as irrelevant in establishing the dogmatic nature of this opinion.

I'll get back to 1-11 (which involve a hodge-podge of misinterpreted / misunderstood quotations) ... tonight when/as I have time.

You'll notice that the derivative / source "authorities" are always Augustine and Ambrose.  Augustine proposed the idea in very tentative language (never "taught" it) and then later rejected the idea, unbeknownst to his medieval followers, while St. Ambrose clearly did not teach BoD (his oration about Valentinian has been misinterpreted).  Meanwhile you have other Fathers (lesser authorities?) who openly reject the idea but are lesser known because they're Greek Fathers.

I'll trace everything in coherent logical order to show that there's ZERO evidence for the existence of BoD anywhere other than in the realm of speculative theology.

PS -- you have the key to the correct understanding of Trent right there in your St. Thomas quote but don't have enough sincerity and good will to see it.

You readily admit to dismissing the teaching of the theologians.  Do you have any comprehension of what you are saying?  

It is always a mortal sin to reject the teaching of the theologians when they are in consensus.  In this case, the teaching, however is of a higher note, as Trent taught it, it is de fide.  

Btw, this is not my work, the link to the source is at the bottom.   This collection of teaching is only the tip of the iceberg.  There are many more Doctors, theologians, catechisms and approved writers who teach the same.  

I've yet to see any magisterial statement condemning belief in Baptism of Desire as heretical. It's not like theologians haven't taught it for centuries, before Vatican II, without censure.

If it were an erroneous interpretation of the teaching on Baptism, there would have been a clear condemnation of it, explicitly. The Church had ample opportunity to muster up a condemnation before Vatican II happened.

I've yet to see any magisterial statement condemning belief in Baptism of Desire as heretical. It's not like theologians haven't taught it for centuries, before Vatican II, without censure.

If it were an erroneous interpretation of the teaching on Baptism, there would have been a clear condemnation of it, explicitly. The Church had ample opportunity to muster up a condemnation before Vatican II happened.

Pure speculation on your part.

Did the Church explicitly condemn the teaching that Our Lady was conceived with original sin or did the Church, without regard to the teaching or persons teaching that error, simply declare the infallible truth?

Likewise the Church did not need to explicitly condemn a BOD when She infallibly declared the sacraments are a necessity for salvation - that decree alone is enough to condemn a BOD, combine that with her numerous other infallible decrees on the necessity of the sacrament, and only the fool continues to insist the Church did not mean what she infallibly and clearly declared.

Ambrose uses the end run scare tactic of the conciliar church, "believe that black is white or you are a heretic!". You are a shameless liar Ambrose!

see my comments in red:

..As a Catholic, you must believe in Baptism of Desire.  It is not optional.  It is part of the Deposit of Faith, and to deny it is heresy. (This is a lie. BOD is a theological opinion which I can oppose)



.. It is always a mortal sin to reject the teaching of the theologians when they are in consensus.(this is another lie that has been answered to you many times. The teaching of BOD is NOT the teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium. )

In this case, the teaching, however is of a higher note, as Trent taught it, it is de fide. (there you go parroting your defide lie again)

The Church has never declared as heretics all the Fathers and Saints who believed John 3:15 as it is written. All of the Church's dogmas on EENS and baptism are consistent with the belief in John 3:15 as it is written. On the other hand, to believe in BOD, ALL of the dogmas on EENS and baptism must NOT be read as they are written. In other words, to believe in BOD white dogmas must be believed to be black.

Ambros seeks teachers according to his own desires

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:  And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"

The copy and pasted quotes below from Ambros have been altered to appear to teach what Ambrose wants to believe. I won't waste time on them since this has been said many times here on CI to Ambro, so I write in red my quicK observations. Bottom line is that Ambros is not to be trusted for he is a shamesless liar:

Baptism of Blood and of Desire

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):

“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.” (this canon is not talking about baptism alone, it is about the Sacraments in general. Can I desire to be marry or to be a priests? Of course not, but why? Because if you go to the section on baptism is says you must be sacramentally baptized to be saved, and nowhere mentions desire as a substitute. Almost as important, this quote from Trent has been cropped to exclude the part that specifically rejects BOD. This shows clearly that subterfuge is at work here)

Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):

“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto[/i]) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).” (this translation is purposely changed to give the impression of BOD. This translation was made by Karl Rahner. Trent does not say "except through", again another subterfuge. That is why it makes no sense with the ending quote from John 3:15)

2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):

“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De ####o Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” (I made a whole thread about this canard of defide, see "Justification by BOD and Being Born Again". Everyone has shown Ambro innumerable times that this quote contains many errors, yet he continues to use it . Moreover, he cuts out the ending in which St AL teaches the heresy that unbaptized children can be saved by baptism of blood. Again I made a thread explaining this, see "St. Alphonsus BOD Defide Canard" , yet Amdro continues his tactic of cutting out that part!)

3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)

“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.” (this canon dies not mean anything. It is  fallible. If anyone thinks that it means anything, then I ask them to consider what the opposite side that the Church for 1917 years forbid Christian burial for catechumens! So for 1917 years not even the catechumen was thought to "have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire". Again, this has been shown to Ambro innumerable times, yet he continues to parrot it)

4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:

To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
(it has been shown to Ambro that this lketter is a forgery
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:

You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jєω, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jєωs, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413). (First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown – it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II (1130-11430 – and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly
non‐magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire. Now Ambros has been told this innumerable times, yet he continues to post this lie)


5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572) (this quote is irrelevant)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567

Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.

A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

6. ST. AMBROSE

“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”( It has been shown innumerable times to Ambro that this eulogy is not clear. Here he cuts out all the parts that prove my point. It has been shown innumerable times to him where St.Ambrose clearly teaches that even a catechumen can't be saved by desire, with direct clear quotes from St. Ambrose. In other words, it has been shown to Amdro that St. Ambrose is actually a foundational source that agrees 100% with the so-called "Feeneyites." Yet he continues to butcher the Valentinian oration to that one line, in his desperate search for "teachers according to his own desires")



7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God (Again, It has been shown innumerable times to him where St.Ambrose Augustine clearly teaches that even a catechumen can't be saved by desire, with direct clear quotes from St. AmbroseAugustine. In other words, it has been shown to Amdro that St. Ambrose Augustine is actually a foundational source that agrees 100% with the so-called "Feeneyites." Yet he continues to post these quotes from St. Augustine, in his desperate search for "teachers according to his own desires")


“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).

 I will leave it at that,  that should be enough to show that St. Ambrose is a bad willed obfuscator, and a shameless liar
[/size]
 

I've yet to see any magisterial statement condemning belief in Baptism of Desire as heretical. It's not like theologians haven't taught it for centuries, before Vatican II, without censure.

If it were an erroneous interpretation of the teaching on Baptism, there would have been a clear condemnation of it, explicitly. The Church had ample opportunity to muster up a condemnation before Vatican II happened.

It does not get any more clear than this:

Infallible Magisterium:

A. Council of Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith:

The sacrament of Baptism, which at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely the Father the Son and The Holy Ghost, is solemnized in water, rightly conferred to anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation.

B. Council of Florence, Exaltate Domino (1439):

Holy Baptism...holds the first place among the sacraments....the matter of this sacrament is real and natural water, it makes no difference warm or cold.

C. Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):

In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.

D. Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.



The Church has consistently and infallibly taught that Baptism of water is necessary to obtain life everlasting. Also accepting Baptism of Desire as a substitute for the real Baptism opens up the possibility of salvation for members of false religions. On this, the Church has infallibly declared:

Infallible Magisterium:

* Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, proclaimed ex cathedra:

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jєωs, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

* Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215):

"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved".  

* Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302):

"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  

This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as "part" of the Church of Christ. It is clear as water why the so called Baptism of Desire cannot ever become dogma since it would be contradicting Infallible teaching.



Even more, those who believe that someone with only the "desire" for Baptism can be saved presume two things that the Church has solemnly condemned:

1. That the Sacrament of Baptism, commanded by God and instituted by Christ Lord, is impossible for some to receive.

2. That the Sacrament of Baptism could be optional for some (those who die with the desire for Baptism).

Infallible Magisterium

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch 11:

God does not command impossibilities but by commanding you admonish you to do what you can do, to pray for what you cannot do, and He assists you that you may be able. For God does not forsake those who have been justified by His Grace unless He first be forsaken by them.

And

If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for a man who us justified, impossible to obtain let it be anathema.  

Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism, Canon 5:

If anyone says that Baptism of optional, that is not necessary for salvation, let it be anathema.



Even the Holy Mother Church Herself has no power to contradict or change in any way what Our Lord Christ said and taught when He came to earth. No bishop, no council, no pope, no saint, NO ONE, can change the essential matter or form of a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord. It is part of the Deposit of Faith.

In several occasions the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church has positively declared that no one has the power to innovate anything whatsoever regarding the substance of the Sacraments (substance meaning matter (in this case, natural WATER, and form (words, as expressed in John 3:5).

Infallible Magisterium

Pope ST Pius X: "It is well known that the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching the substance of the Sacraments". Thus even the Church Herself has no power or authority to alter the words or matter in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism.  

Pope Pius XII: " As the Council of Trent teaches the seven sacraments  of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance of the sacraments ".

I'm sure the saints and theologians who taught BOD were aware of all that. And I'm sure the Church was aware of what they were teaching.

Yet there works were not corrected.

Perhaps because they didn't actually contradict Church teaching.

Only in the last 50 or so years, it seems, have folks taken issue with them.

It is because of this:

(Posting from another thread)

Ladislaus said:

"
So BoD went from

1) NONE

to

2) Catechumens

to

3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism

to

4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)

to

5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mystires of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants

to

6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God

to

7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God.  Definitely, though, if he works in a soup kitchen (despite being on his fifth marriage ... to a man).

It's a joke and an abomination.
"

As you see, the concept has gradually degenerated into a complete dangerous heresy, with disastrous consequences for the Church. It a disgrace all around.

I don't deny it can be taken too far.

But, in itself, it isn't an error.

I would expect a clear condemnation from the pre-V2 Church of "this pernicious error that goes by the name 'Baptism of Desire'" or something like that.

clare, if the discussion of Baptism of Desire revolved around catechumens as did every single one of the citations made by Ambrose before the 20th century Jesuits, I probably would just let it rest.

It's precisely because of what it's morphed into, becoming the theological segway into religious indifferentism and Vatican II ecclesiology that the question needs to be re-examined.

It's because in the context of a Catholic world where everyone believed in EENS that discussion of BoD for catechumens was relatively innocuous that the Church tolerated the opinion.  But now there's a need to re-examine everything.

My problem is with all those people who reduced EENS into nothing by using the EXCUSE of BoD, the heroin BoD as bowler has termed it, that I fight this battle.

If I believed in the heroin BoD, then I would have to accept Vatican II.