We have the BoDers arguing desperately, tooth-and-nail, to salve St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in favor of BoD.  Why?  It's because that's ALL they've got in terms of Patristic "evidence."  Meanwhile, anti-BoDers have 5 or 6 Fathers.  Even if we were to concede that St. Ambrose believed it ... and that St. Augustine did for a time, that's not fatal to the anti-BoD case at all, since all that has to be demonstrated is the lack of "dogmatic consensus" on the Church Fathers.  Having 2 in favor and 5 against can hardly be said to constituted dogmatic consensus in favor.

Most of the time, in fact, I have tacitly conceded the St. Ambrose one, saying that AT MOST they have 1.5 Fathers who favor BoD.

Yes, desperation + agenda + poor reading comprehension + lack of understanding of the word "consensus" = bad theology.
.
.
Errors of the Jansenists, #30:  "When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in (St) Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope."  CONDEMNED by Pope Alexander VIII.
.
.
Fr William Jurgens:
We must stress that a particular patristic text (i.e. a particular statement from a Church Father) is in no instance to be regarded as a 'proof' of a particular doctrine.  Dogmas are not 'proved' by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church.
.
The value of the Fathers and writers is this:  that in the aggregate (that is, in totality, or by consensus), they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of revelation.

Also, Pope St. Pius V has pre-emptively condemned the Jansenist Dimonds in the Jansenist Michael Baius: "CONDEMNED:

Thus, the following propositions are dogmatic Truths, after Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent:

1. Perfect and Sincere Charity, in both Catechumens and Penitents, avails the Remission of Sins. (See also the Roman Catechism).
2. That Charity which is the fullness of the law IS always necessarily connected with the Remission of Sins, i.e. Confers Justification.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius V, and St. Charles Borromeo, of the Council of Trent: "if any unforeseen accident prevents them from being washed in the salutary waters, their desire and intention to receive Baptism will avail them to Grace and Righteousness".

Every post-Tridentine Theologian clearly considers Baptism of Desire is taught by the Church. 

BOD does not need to be defined by non-Saints,non-Doctors,non-Popes like Mirari Vos or myself.

It was defined by Pope St. Pius V, Pope St. Pius X and St. Alphonsus Ligouri as I showed earlier.

Also, Pope St. Pius V has pre-emptively condemned the Jansenist Dimonds in the Jansenist Michael Baius: "CONDEMNED:

 ... not the Baius crap again.  This condemnation has nothing to do with BoD.  We've gone through this and cited explanations for what actually was being taught by Baius and being condemned here.  Do a search at CathInfo.  We put this to bed so clearly that Lover of Heresy had to abandon the line of argument (and then move on to the next one, as those who are not intellectually honest tend to do).

Wow, talk about speaking with a forked tongue, that was Lover of Heresy.  He claimed that we were bound to accept St. Thomas under pain of mortal sin.  Then when I explained that St. Thomas taught that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were required for salvation, he would pay lip service to it.  But then about 2 days later would again be defending "Rewarder God" theory.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius V, and St. Charles Borromeo, of the Council of Trent: "if any unforeseen accident prevents them from being washed in the salutary waters, their desire and intention to receive Baptism will avail them to Grace and Righteousness".

"Grace and Righteousness" = justification.  It does not mean they are "crowned" (to use St Ambrose's word) and go to heaven.  Trent never said that the justified, unbaptized go to heaven.  Trent agrees with St Ambrose.
.
Fr Feeney never denied that BOD could provide justification.  But do the justified, unbaptized go to heaven?  He said "I don't know.  And neither do you."  And he's correct, because the Church has never told us what happens.
.
- St Thomas says the justified, unbaptized go to purgatory/heaven.  
- St Ambrose says they don't go to heaven, so that would leave the only possibility as Limbo.  
- Trent does not say either way.
- St Alphonsus says they go to heaven.
.
Conclusion - The Church has never said what happens to the justified, unbaptized.  

BOD does not need to be defined by non-Saints,non-Doctors,non-Popes like Mirari Vos or myself.

OK, so then please cite a Magisterial source that clearly defines it so that we can know exactly what we must believe about it de fide.

You get a different explanation of what it is and how it works from pretty much every single proponent of it that you can find.  Some even apply BoD to validly-baptized Protestands and to the Eastern schismatics.  You can't believe something of faith when it's that murky.  In fact, the greatest common denominator among all its proponents is that "Baptism is not required for salvation." ... which is heresy.

At best you have -- as I concede but do not grant -- a passing mention of it in Trent.  So you would have it that the Church declare a concept de fide without actually explaining it at all, but then leaves it to theologians and the Baltimore catechism to actually DEFINE what that is.

Declare and Define are also terms in computer programming, and they're analogous to how this BoD thing works in your mind.

Trent DECLARES BoD, but then subsequent lesser authorities DEFINE it.

In programming, you merely mention something (in this case a variable), i.e. give it a name, but then you don't assign some value to it sometimes until later.

So,

int x (means I am declaring an Integer value and calling it x, but its real value is unknown and can change)

x = 25 (means that I am assigning a value of 25 to x)

So this is in effect what you're saying, where the Church declares/names/mentions it, but then leaves it to others to actually define what must be believed de fide.

That's preposterous and has never happened in the history of the Church declaring dogmas.

So, for BOD:

1) some hold it can apply only to catechumens (St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance, and the 1.5 Church Fathers who MAY have believed it)
2) some hold it can only apply to those with explicit faith (St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus)
3) others (the vast majority) believe it can apply even to infidels (Hindus in Tibet or Great Thumb worshippers)
4) others believe it can apply to Easter Schismatics and Protestants who are validly baptized (making it synonymous with sincerity)
5) some have a Pelagian view where desire justifies on its own without any knowledge of Baptism at all
6) some believe it remits temporal punishment due to sin (Innocent III) while others that it does not (St. Alphonsus)

So which of these must I believe de fide ... lest I lose my soul?

Let no one say the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't define what Trent means by Baptism of Desire either, because it clearly does above.

... Trent didn't define it, but left it to the Catholic Encyclopedia to do it instead.



I think I've about seen it all.  So the Catholic Encyclopedia must DEFINE what Trent meant by Baptism of Desire ... since Trent didn't bother to do so.

This just gets richer with every post.

Xavier, if justification is all that is necessary to gain heaven, then why does the baptismal character matter? 
.
Why does St Ambrose make a distinction between the martyered catechumen who was not crowned and the martyred catechumen who was baptized and crowned?