Firstly, concerning St Augustine, I can only say that he went back and forth on the issue.  If he were alive today, he could give a clear answer but his writings do contradict themselves, to some degree.

I wish to explain what is meant by "back and forth".  He did not go back and forth in the sense that he favored BoD, then rejected it, then favored it again.  Early on after his conversation, he floated what he admitted was speculation regarding BoD ... after having gone back and forth in his mind about it.  It was a very tentative piece of speculative theology ... and he admits it.  THEN, after he matured and had battled the Pelagians, he forcefully rejected the opinion and has issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence.  Once he rejected BoD, he did not ever go back to it, and his final position was one of rejecting BoD as Pelagian.

St Ambrose said in other works that water was necessary (Duties of Clergy):
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."  No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.
.
So here we have another example (in addition to St Augustine) where a Church Father who is a "BOD supporter" contradicts BOD some other time. 
.

As for Saint Cyprian, regardless of whether he held that re-baptism was necessary, that doesn’t take away from the fact that Saint Cyprian held that those who he believed were not validly baptized, could still be saved.

St Cyprian was excommunicated for his flawed views on baptism and re-baptism.  He's a saint and much holier than I am, but his views on baptism can't be trusted.
.

BOD and BOB don’t require the reception of the sacrament of baptism which in essence puts a big hole into the BOD denier’s theory since in both cases they are similar in that the actual sacrament is not absolutely necessary and can be satisfied in another way. Thus, if you believe in BOB, you really should have no problem believing in BOD.

Not true at all.  You need to read more on the Church Fathers.  BOB was explained as a sacrament; BOD has never been.

Not true at all.  You need to read more on the Church Fathers.  BOB was explained as a sacrament; BOD has never been.

I cited that 5th century theology manual that for a long time had been attributed to St. Augustine, stating quite clearly that BoB was the only exception to the normal Baptismal ceremony because all of the Sacramental elements (aka matter and form) were present.  St. Cyprian called BoB a SACRAMENT and explained that the angels pronounced the words of the form over the dying martyr, whose blood served as the matter for the Sacrament.

We have several Church Fathers rule out BoD by saying that martyrdom is the ONLY EXCEPTION to normal Baptism.  But even then they held it was no real exception because all the elements were there.

This pretending that the BoB Fathers accepted BoD by inference is absurd and dishonest.  Even St. Alphonsus admits that they're different, with BoB acting "quasi ex opere operato".

St. Ambrose

Quote

Quote

If he has died without Baptism, I now keep back what I know.

I've not seen this, and this clearly proves my assertion that there's some question about whether he died without Baptism and perhaps some news that he received emergency Baptism.

The 700 years of unanimous teaching against BOD, touted by Lad, has been refuted, thus putting another hole into the deniers of BOD’s theory.

Could you actually please READ what I wrote?  I wasn't saying there was 700 years of unanimous teaching against BoD.  This is the second or third time now that you've misunderstood (or deliberately distorted?) something I wrote.

I was citing a different doctrine, St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell and suffer (albeit very mildly).

Point here is a counter-example to Xavier's allegation that something held unanimously is effectively infallible.

Abelard was the first to question this doctrine, and the Church ended up agreeing and Magisterially overturning this opinion that had been unanimously held for 700 years.  Read all about it in Catholic Encyclopedia.  Xavier admitted this on a different thread.

It's a good thing that Vatican I didn't define the Cekadist theory that the universal consensus of theologians is yet another form of infallibility.  Of course, suddenly Xavier finds an ally in the dogmatic sedevacantist Fr. Cekada.

Fr. Cekada, God rest his soul, wasn't a dogmatic sedevacantist.

  Fr Cekada is the father of dogmatic sedeism in our times!!
.
You have no credibility anymore.  I can't trust you know what you're talking about at all.

@Pax Vobis. I've actually conversed with Fr. Cekada. Have you?

I know what Dogmatic SVism is, and completely disagree with it.

Unless someone has redefined the term, Fr. C was not a DSV in my opinion. 

You can agree or disagree with me just as you want about it.

It has nothing to do with the subject here. Catechisms have taught BOD as Church Teaching.

Manuals have taught BOD to seminarians, and all who became Priests would be familiar with it.

That includes those who went on to become Popes, Saints and Doctors. They have taught it too.

Give us examples of something Catholic Theologians have held to be de fide which was later heresy.

Did the Council of Trent teach BOD? Theologians are unanimous it did. Pope Bl. Pius IX says we must agree.

@Pax Vobis. I've actually conversed with Fr. Cekada. Have you?

I know what Dogmatic SVism is, and completely disagree with it.

Unless someone has redefined the term, Fr. C was not a DSV in my opinion.

Fr Cekada was widely written on the topic.  What he wrote, he wrote.  I also have many, many, many (to fill a book) stories of friends who live in the OH area and have been (and still are) turned away from the sacraments by Fr Cekada and +Dolan for not being sede.  Their 'dogmatic sede' actions far, far outweigh anything Fr Cekada told you.
.
I don't trust your audio/reading comprehension when it comes to your talks with Fr Cekada.  You have some sort of undiagnosed learning disability, or simply bad will.