Bump.  I want to hear what you, Ladislaus or anyone else, have to say on this.  I like to get to the heart of the matter.  It didn't start with Father Feeney.  It started before him. Who first started talking about BoB and BoD in the Catholic Church? I assure you that I have no preconceived notion or point I am trying to make.

So ... if you're not going to do the research, we get weary of rehashing it every time.  Nonsense about the pretense that you have "no preconceived notion" or point ... when you were sitting there begging the question that the widespread adoption of that opinion would constitute a "defection" of the Church.

Among the Church Fathers, the first (and ONLY) known mentions of BoD were from St. Augustine and (allegedly) St. Ambrose.  St. Augustine, in his youth ... where a section if almost always cut off the quote by the BoDers, said that "having gone back and forth on the question, I find that ... [BoD]".  Clearly he's uncertain and HE "finds", not that he's handing on some kind of received Tradition.  Also ignored by the BoDers is that St. Augustine forcefully retracted the opinion later in life and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence.  But those are conveniently ignored.  St. Ambrose allegedly promoted BoD in the Oration for Valentinian, except that elsewhere he says the exact oppposite, in his De Sacramentis, and if you look at the full context of the oration, he expresses hope that the condition of Valentinian might be similar to that of unbaptzied martyrs, who are "washed but not crowned".  What he's clearly doing is distinguishing between being freed from punishment due to sin but not entering the Kingdom, likely meaning that they end up in a Limbo-like condition.  St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in rejecting BoD, famously said that there are some who are not bad enough to be punished, but not good enough to be glorified.  Outside of these tentative and dubious "affirmations" of BoD, the there are about 10 Church Fathers who explicitly reject the idea.

After this treatment among the Church Fathers, not a peep is heard about the subject among Catholic theologians until the proto-scholastics, so for 700 years or so.

During the first half of the 12th century, the early scholastics were debating BoD (Abelard against and Hugh of St. Victor for).  Peter Lombard went to St. Bernard to "break the tie", and St. Bernard responded that "he'd rather be wrong with Augustine than right on his own".  With all due respect to the saint, that's utter nonsense, to prefer St. Augustine to truth, an anti-rational pseudo-piety that I'll get back to in a moment.  He also was evidently unaware that St. Augustine retracted the opinion.  In any case, Peter Lombard opined for it in his Sentences, which became something of a textbook for the scholastics.  But it was when St. Thomas Aquinas opined in its favor that the opinion began to spread and become the majority opinion.

As an aside, St. Bernard violently opposed the method of Abelard that he had laid out in Sic et Non ("Yes and No"), which basically made him the father of the scholastic method, where he would pit opposite sides of disputed matters against each other, such as the scholastics later did by addressing Objections.  St. Bernard claimed that subjecting faith to reason was impious and blasphemous, thus expressing pseudo-pious nonsensical sentiments like where he'd rather be wrong with St. Augustine.  You'll note that he himself provided zero theological justification for the position.  St. Bernard wanted Abelard burned at the stake for pioneering the same method that St. Thomas and others later popularized.

You had a couple Pope Innocents in non-infallible private letters opine in its favor.

Then we get to Trent's Treatise on Justification.

As for the strange notions of "defection" that many radical sedevacantists hold, where any error on any level, whether in a papal allocution, a private letter, or if a Pope is passing wind in the vestibule ... it's all infallible for them, for all practical intents and purposes.

For about 700 years, the opinon of St. Augustine was universally taught and held regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism ... but then this was challenged by the same aforementioned Abelard, and St. Thomas adopted it ... after which time the notion of Limbo becamse the majority opinion.

Widespread adoption among various theologians of a given opinion is absolutely NOT tantamount to some kind of infallible solemn definition, depite the invention of that position out of thin air by one Father Cekada.

Of course Father Cekada CONSTANTLY contradicts himself, without even appearing to care ... since NOT A SINGLE THEOLOGIAN can be found after Vatican I and before the Council who believed that papal infallibility extended as widely as they claim, NOT ONE, nor hold that theological consensus is a rule of faith ... to say nothing of the fact that theologians (with one exception) unanimously approved of Vatican II and the New Mass.

But that's all I have time for ... and you can go look up what happened after that.

Everyone runs to St. Ambrose's funeral oration for Emperor Valentinian II as "proof" that he taught baptism of desire. But that completely ignores almost everything else Ambrose ever wrote on the subject.

In De Mysteriis 20 (PL 16, col. 411), he stresses the absolute necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins, even for catechumens who already believe and have been signed with the cross. He insists that the sacrament requires all three witnesses: water, the blood/cross of Christ, and the Spirit - and the full Trinitarian form. Take away any one, and the sacrament doesn't hold.

Here is the key passage:

English:

Therefore, you have read that there are three witnesses in baptism: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8). Because if you take away one of these, the sacrament of baptism does not stand. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. And again, without water, there is no mystery of regeneration: For unless a person is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Moreover, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which he himself is signed. But unless he has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins, nor can he draw from the well of spiritual grace.

(Latin: Ideoque legisti quod tres testes in baptismo unum sunt, aqua, sanguis, et Spiritus (1 Ioann. v, 8); quia si in unum horum detrahas, non stat baptismatis sacramentum. Quid est enim aqua sine cruce Christi? Elementum commune, sine ullo sacramenti effectu. Nec iterum sine aqua, regenerationis mysterium est: Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei (Ioann. iii, 5). Credit autem etiam catechumenus in crucem Domini Jesu, qua et ipse signatur: sed nisi baptizatus fuerit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, remissionem non potest accipere peccatorum, nec spiritualis gratiae munus haurire.)

The editorial footnote (19) in Migne makes the point even clearer. It highlights two things from the passage: first, the necessity of baptism for washing away sins even in catechumens (citing his comments on Psalm 118), and from that it directly concludes that Ambrose "was by no means of the opinion attributed to him regarding Emperor Valentinian." Second, it emphasizes that the baptismal form must necessarily express the three divine persons, and any claim that baptism under Christ's name alone is valid is wrongly pinned on him.

English:

19. Two points must be noted from these words: 1) the necessity of baptism for the removal of sins even in catechumens, which is likewise taught in Psalm 118, sermon 3, page 991, from which we conclude that Ambrose was by no means of the opinion attributed to him regarding Emperor Valentinian; 2) that the form of baptism must necessarily express the three divine persons; hence we deduce that the view of the validity of the sacrament administered under the name of Christ alone is mistakenly attributed to him. But more on both matters in their proper places.

(Latin of the footnote:  Duo ex his verbis advertere est: 1º necessitatem baptismi ad peccatorum etiam in catechumenis ablationem, quod similiter docetur in Psal. cxviii, serm. 3, pag. 991, unde inferimus Ambrosium in ea opinione quae ipsi de Valentiniano imperatore tribuitur, nequaquam fuisse; 2º ad baptismi formam tres divinas personas necessario exprimi oportere; ex quo sententiam de sacramenti ejusdem sub Christi tantum nomine administrati validitate perperam ipsi imponi deducimus. At de utraque re suis locis.)

You can see the page here: https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecur16mign/page/206/mode/2up

Citation: Ambrose, De Mysteriis 20 (PL 16, col. 411). Jacques-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina (Paris: Migne, 1844–1855; repr. various), vol. 16, col. 411.

While the funeral oration shows Ambrose hoping for God's mercy on his friend who died a catechumen after expressing desire for baptism, his clear teaching in De Mysteriis and elsewhere insists on the water sacrament itself as essential for remission of sins and full grace. Valentinian II was just 21 years old when he died on May 15, 392;  he was found hanged in his residence at Vienne in Gaul. To this day historians debate whether he committed ѕυιcιdє or was murdered (most ancient sources point to foul play by his powerful general Arbogast, whom he had tried to dismiss, though some modern scholars lean toward ѕυιcιdє).

His background adds another layer: his father, Valentinian I, was a Catholic emperor, but his mother, Justina, was strongly pro-Arian and influenced the court toward Arianism during his early years. Both would have believed in the necessity of infant baptism.  Valentinian II himself later rejected Arianism, became a catechumen, and sought baptism from Ambrose, but obviously he died before St. Ambrose could baptize him. The editors of the Patrologia Latina go out of their way to say the "baptism of desire" interpretation for Valentinian doesn't match Ambrose's own beliefs/words.

Council of Trent Session 7 CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Commentary by St. Alphonsus Liguori on Trent, Session 7 Canon IV:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, 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 (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)"

Excellent catch Stubborn.

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) teaches: “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 Presbytero 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.”- Moral Theology Book 6.
 

Good morning Tarmac, I brought this up to BODers about mid-December..none seemed to want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Maybe you want to take a stab at it

St Alphonsus' says BOD is de fide, and he gives us a definition of it. Here it is, reposted, please note the bolded:

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 presbytero non baptizato" and of 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.'"

Now here is what Trent teaches:

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”

Please note that Trent says that unless you are born again, you would never be justified

Sess. 5
Decree Concerning Original Sin

5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven

Now see how Trent describes the man "born again", especially the last sentence.

Compare this with St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, which he believed to be de fide

Not every Catholic book has the Imprimatur, which simply means "it may be printed."  

It was (and still is) VERY unusual for a Catholic book to not have an Imprimatur, and Catholics (regardless of which "camp" they are in, should probable avoid those books that don't.

I think every student in pre-VII parochial school, by about fourth grade, learned what an Imprimatur was and that it meant "Let it be printed".  The Church was giving its ecclesiastical permission for the book to be printed, and one can hardly imagine the pre-VII church casually allowing books contrary to the faith to be printed.

What is being left out in the above quote is that almost every book with an Imprimatur also has the Nihil obstat, which means that the book has been examined by an official censor and found to contain nothing oppose2d to faith and morals.  Catholic bibles and missals may have an Imprimatur and not the Nihil obstat, as having been translated from approved sources they wouldn't necessarily need to be examined for doctrinal or moral error.  Books with such designation are not infallible, but the Church has declared that they are not heretical.  All of the catechisms I listed in Reply #362 (ALL pre-VII, some from the 19th century) have BOTH an Imprimatur AND the Nihil obstat