St. Irenaeus again, in The Proof of Apostolic Preaching:

Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal everlasting God.

As I have argued, the "seal" of Baptism is what renders us children by adoption of God (in our supernatural life), rather than of mortal men (our natural life) ... thus the second birth (into the supernatural life).

Tertullian, On Baptism, written between A.D. 200 and 206.

When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none’ (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless one be born of water, he has not life’ [Jn. 3:5]” (chapter 12)

Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, “Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith.” But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and has become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He says, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,” has tied faith to the necessity of baptism. 

Tertullian rejects the argument that in the New Covenant "faith is sufficient" for salvation.  While valid in the OT, it's no longer valid because the "faith has been enlarged," with explicit belief now in "His nativity, passion, and resurrection" (i.e. explicit faith).  He ties this explicit faith to the "sealing act" (character) of Baptism.

St. Hippolytus of Rome, Discourse on the Holy Theophany (written shortly after A.D. 200).

The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead.
...
For he who comes down in faith to the laver of regeneration, and renounces the devil, and joins himself to Christ; ... he comes up from the baptism brilliant as the sun, flashing forth the beams of righteousness, and, which is indeed the chief thing, he returns a son of God and joint-heir with Christ. 

St. Hippolytus also links adoption as a son of God to being a "joint-heir with Christ" after the resurrection from the dead.  So the physical aspect of washing the flesh is key.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ (mid 4th century):

Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, “Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ” Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:— for his visible body, water, the sensible element—for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably.

St. Gregory of Nyssa CLEARLY states here that the "Spirit alone [is not] accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism" ... because, as other Fathers also answered, human beings are both body and soul.

To channel my inner Croix, I applaud Ladislaus for these quotes, and declare:  “Church Fathers...for...the...win!”

Yes, it couldn't be any clearer.  All the Church Fathers distinguish multiple aspects of the Sacrament:  the "washing" (forgiveness of sin) and the "seal/illumination/crowning/glory".  Some distinguish the remission of temporal punishment for sin into a third aspect, which they call "grace".  In any case, while a few held that some washing or forgiveness of sin could happen without the seal, they indisputably hold that the "seal/illumination/crowning/glory/character" is required for entry into the Kingdom, ultimate salvation.

Some of them held bob to be the only exception (while ruling out bod), but they don't explain why.  Yet St. Cyprian and that 5th century theology manual hold that it's because they receive the SACRAMENT through being washed in blood rather than water, but that all the sacred elements (i.e. matter and form) are present in martyrdom.  St. Ambrose disagrees and says that even martyred catechumens, while "washed" are not "crowned".

So a bod that suffices for salvation is UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED by the Church Fathers, while bob is disputed, and in the case of those who accept it, generally considered to be THE Sacrament of Baptism received in an extraordinary manner.

See, both the Dimonds and the author of that article on catholicism.org about St. Augustine retracting bod, assert that there's a perplexing contradiction in St. Ambrose's oration on Valentinian.

But that's only due to their failure to understand that the Church Fathers clearly distinguish between the different effects of the Sacrament of Baptism, and that St. Ambrose held that they can be "washed" (remission of sins) ... we see that term throughout the quotes above ... but not "crowned".  That's why St. Ambrose elsewhere teaches that even virtuous catechumens cannot be saved, enter the Kingdom, without the Sacrament.  He's not in contradiction, but merely distinguishing the different effects of the Sacrament ... as nearly all the Church Fathers clearly do above here.

This distinction is the foundation for what I refer to in the thread title as Ladislausian soteriology.  It's kind of a middle ground that reconciles the apparent contradictions.  That there can possibly be a bod that leads to some remission of sin, concedo; that there can possibly be a bod that leads to salvation, the Kingdom, and the Beatific Vision, nego.  With regard to bob, it's possible that even they are not crowned, as St. Ambrose holds, or else I leave open the possibility that the angels could pronounce the form and render it the Sacrament ... except that Trent taught that natural water is the only proper matter for the Sacrament ... so that seems to end bod as a Sacrament speculation, and rule in favor of St. Ambrose, that they do NOT receive the Sacrament.

That is why Pope St. Simplicius taught clearly that each and every one who dies without the Sacrament even while desiring it would forfeit the "KINGDOM" ... even exactly as St. John Chrysostom taught.

It's mind-numbingly clear and puts a nail in the coffin of salvation by bod.

Lad,

If you postulate the remission of sins can be obtained by catechumens prior to the reception of the sacrament of baptism, and being that the remission of sins is not possible outside the Church, how can you not thereby include such justified souls in the bosom of the Church?

1) remission of sins by a non-member    ≠      remission of sins OUTSIDE the Church

2) remission of sins by a non-member    =   remission of sins INSIDE the Church

3) remission of sins by a non-member    ≠      INSIDE the Church of the Faithful without being one of the FAITHFUL


If 1 and 2 are true, how can number 3 not be false?

Some of the Fathers referred to baptized martyrs as having received a baptism of blood.

So, if you recall, Baptism consists of two aspects:

1) the cleansing of sins

AND

2) the entry into the Beatific Vision

So what if everyone is kind of right?

What if a Baptism of Blood effects #1 above (the cleansing of sins) but does not bring about #2.  In that case, it can said to supply SOME of the grace of Baptism, but not all, and could loosely be called a Baptism.

What if a Baptism of Desire could effect some (or perhaps all) of #1 as well.  I believe this is what St. Ambrose was saying of Valentinian, that his piety and his desire could also obtain some of this washing.

Pope Boniface VIII - 1302
Unam Sanctam
One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg744342/#msg744342

Monsignor Fenton wrote a paper where he admitted that the term "faithful" refers only to the baptized and positively excludes catechumens.

So how then did he get around the dogmatic teaching that there's no salvation outside the Church OF THE FAITHFUL?

He claims that one can be INSIDE the Church of the Faithful without being one of the FAITHFUL.

I call this undigested hamburger ecclesiology.  Just as a hamburger enters the body but is not actually part of the body.  It's like a foreign substance in the body, a parasite that goes along for the ride to heaven.

That's how ridiculous this has become.

That is why the Church has to define EENS over and over again.  So now the Church will have to be more specific to condemn the Fentonian "interpretation" of No Salvation Outside the Church of the FAITHFUL.

This particular dogmatic definition comes THE closest to rendering BoD, BoD in the sense of SALVATION (vs. justification) heretical.  On that other thread I started about "Ladislausian soteriology" I explained that St. Amborse, for instance, believed that there's a BoD of justification vs. salvation.  Even that article from St. Benedict Center and the Dimonds feel that St. Ambrose is contradicting himself.  He's not.  He's distinguishing between justification "washing" and salvation.