Are you posturing that the canons and decrees from the Council of Trent are in anyway opposed to the positions expressed by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica?

Are you posturing that the canons and decrees from the Council of Trent are in anyway opposed to the positions expressed by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica?

Indeed I do. The Church trumps St. Thomas. (Although She usually doesn't have to) St. Thomas is not the Church.  In fact, Trent took care of any speculation St. Thomas had about bod and basically said, "no". 

I would reply in opposition to your opinion, in that the Council of Trent clearly agrees with Saint Thomas Aquinas, as does every Pope and Church theologian since the council (up to, of course, the Second Vatican council).

Other than your own misguided conjecture, can you provide a single authoritative Church reference that expressly denies Baptism of Desire?

The Council of Trent was quite explicit when they said whoever says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation and are superfluous, is anathema. Is a BOD the eighth sacrament now?

From: An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846, St. Alphonsus says: 

"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone [BOD], and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all."

Was St. Alphonsus misguided?

I would reply in opposition to your opinion, in that the Council of Trent clearly agrees with Saint Thomas Aquinas, as does every Pope and Church theologian since the council (up to, of course, the Second Vatican council).

Other than your own misguided conjecture, can you provide a single authoritative Church reference that expressly denies Baptism of Desire?

I can think of lots of them. 
The Catholic teaching of the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism is one authority.  Because it details how it must be administered, that it must be done by another, in water, while pouring, etc.  This teaching denies bod because bod is not Baptism.  Therefore, it cannot, by definition fulfill what the Sacrament demands or promises.  Another authoritative reference: Christ denies bod when He says water and the Holy Ghost are necessary for salvation. Canons in Trent also deny bod because one says water is necessary for Baptism, and another canon says Baptism is necessary for salvation.  How do bod'ers get around this without deviant mental gymnastics?  Just because saints had pious hopes?  Scripture is another authority: Ephesians 4:5 denies bod when it says, "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism".  What other baptisms is Scripture is excluding?  There are many more papal statements, definitions in councils, including the dogma "no salvation outside the Church."

When people go back and forth laying out this quote or that quote to prove what's true, you'll find a lot of redefining of what the quotes say, rather than what they literally say.  I've been through that scenario for years and its so tiresome.  I suppose I'm glad because I learned a lot.  My approach these days is a more simple and very reasonable one.  Take the teachings as they are written. All together they present a tower of opposition to bod.  Yet arguing back and forth about quote after quote is like pounding the tower's bricks hoping each one stands alone against the monster of indifference.

Seems that if the Devil wanted a way for Catholics to lighten up about getting every last person Baptized, bod would be just the ticket.  In the name of God's mercy no less.  Despicably brilliant.

The risks of getting this wrong should dictate what we ought to believe. 
 

 

What I asked for was...What I'm looking for is something that explicitly uses the term "Baptism of Desire" in the discourse.

Again, your lay conjecture is absolutely meaningless compared to the numerous authoritative declarations by Church theologians.  

Fr. A. Tanquery, Dogmatic Brevior, ART.IV, Section I,II - 1945 (1024-1)
Fr. Dominic Prummer, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949
Fr. Francis O'Connell, Outlines of Moral Theology - 1953
Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931
Fr. H. Noldin, S.J. - Fr. A. Schmit, S.J., Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis); Bk 2 Quaestio prima - 1929
Fr. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J., Theologiae moralis (Vol. III, Tractatus II) - 1948
Fr. Ludovico Billot, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacramentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931
Fr. Eduardus Genicot, S.J., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol II); Tractatus XII - 1902
Fr. Aloysia Sabetti, S.J. Fr. Timotheo Barrett, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis; Tractatus XII De Baptismo (Chap. 1) - 1926

You said: "What I asked for was...What I'm looking for is something that explicitly uses the term "Baptism of Desire" in the discourse."
In those terms, no.  Still, my response totally whizzed by you.  Bod is a serious problem because it attacks several different Catholic teachings and redefines what is necessary for salvation.  Bod'ers know this is a problem but seem to care less. Why do they do that?  I have yet to hear one that says, "Yea, I worry about that."  Or, "I can see how that might be a problem". They never do. And I know why.  They don't care about the real world, or real people because they have quotes.  Everyone knows there is a tangible laxity manifested in the laity who can't be bothered to spread the Faith. No wonder. Bod takes care of all the well meaning people anyway.  Bod has no definable parameters for the Catholic who wants to see mercy as they understand it. With the perquisites of Baptism out the way, each person sees it his own way and the extremes are mind boggling. Bod is a worm in the minds of Catholics who, to whatever degree they are inclined, prefer to believe a non baptism might reasonably take care of everything, rather than them having to do the work of Christ.  Even if they assumed wrongly one time and didn't do what they should, counting on bod, but doing nothing, they could be accountable!
I know what your quotes say.  I also know some of those quotes contradict not only the teachings of the Church, Popes, Scripture, and what is reasonable, but also each other.  When push comes to shove, the greater authority quotes supersede anyway.  Not only is it safer to approach this with respect for the higher authority, its ridiculous to think our personal belief about dead non-Catholics affects anything.
 

So, Lover of Truth is back?

Lol. Could be a LOT in JAM.

The life of Pope Pius IX and the great events in the history of the Church during his pontificate

By John Gilmary Shea, published 1877

pgs. 97 - 103

https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX1877

In an allocution to the cardinals on the Consistory of the 17th of December, 1847, Pius IX. congratulated the sacred college on the renewal of a cordial understanding with Spain, by means of which he had been enabled to appoint a number of bishops in that country once so devoted  to the Church. He alluded too to the favorable appearance of the Catholic cause in Russia, and repudiated certain theories ascribed to him. Against religious indifferentism so zealously advocated in our days, and made as it were a state creed, he said : "It is assuredly not unknown to you, venerable brethren, that in our times many of the enemies of the Catholic faith especially direct their efforts toward placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or of confounding it therewith, and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions.

But quite recently, we shudder to say it, men have appeared who have thrown such reproaches upon our name and apostolic dignity, that they do not hesitate to slander us, as if we shared in their folly and favored the aforesaid most wicked system. From the measures, in no' wise incompatible with the sanctity of the  Catholic religion, which, in certain affairs relating to the civil government of the Pontifical States, we thought fit in kindness to adopt, as tending to the public advantage and prosperity, and from the amnesty graciously bestowed upon some of the subjects of the same States at the beginning of our pontificate, it appears that these men have desired to infer that we think so benevolently concerning every, class of mankind, as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life."

We are at a loss from horror to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done us. We do indeed love all mankind with the inmost affection of our heart, yet not otherwise than in the love of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who came to  seek and to save that which had perished, who died for all, who wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth ; who therefore sent his disciples into the whole world to preach the gospel to every creature, proclaiming that they who should believe and be baptized should be saved, but they who should believe not should be condemned ; who therefore will be saved let them come to the pillar and ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which in its bishops and in the Roman Pontiff, the chief head of all, has the succession of apostolical authority, never at any time interrupted; which has never counted aught of greater moment than to preach and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaim ed by the apostles, by Christ's command; which, from the apostles' time downward, has increased in the midst of difficulties of every kind ; and being illustrious through out the whole world by the splendor of miracles, multiplied by the blood of martyrs, exalted by the virtues of confessors and virgins, strengthened by the most wise testimonies of the fathers, hath flourished and doth flourish in all the regions of the earth, and shines refulgent in the perfect unity of the faith, of sacraments, and of holy discipline."

Mirari Vos

Pope Gregory XVI - 1832

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”

Scroll down to read the quote

The Catholic Dogma by Fr. Muller

Excerpt from CHAPTER V., Part II.

http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Catholic_Dogma/Chapter-V_Part-II.html

"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?

To this question we give the following answer: "Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in his infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas.)

S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance." From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam praemissae." To give an example. The Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The true Religion and its dogmas:—

"This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, heaven will be, his home for eternity." We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely: "This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX.. In his Allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: "It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."

Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX. is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX. say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX. teach quite the contrary in the following words, which the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., quotes pp. 163-166?
"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church—which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord—will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which he chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity...

"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that he will throw down the wall of separation, that he will scatter the darkness of error, and that he will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."

Now does not Pius IX. say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found." And in his Allocution to the Cardinals held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX. says: "Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her Bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep, and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command . . . . . . We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THIS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH AND SALVATION." Now does not Pius IX. teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved, they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church?

Again, does not Pius IX. most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? that the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? that she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands, to shine in the kingdom of God? that the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX." To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it." If, in these words, Pius IX. says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX. thereby teach that such invincibly ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation—all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained? Pius IX. has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times," says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently—we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."

Mark well, Pius IX. uttered these solemn words against "certain men," whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith,—he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see"? The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX., from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions. (See Preface)

Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.

The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.

Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Saviour, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin." (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.

But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.

Hence Pius IX. said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."