Indeed, I'm not sure why they repeatedly need to "prove" that St. Thomas, for instance, believed in BoD.  We clearly grant this.  So why do they insist on re-spamming the same quotes over and over again?

Now, answer my question.  Do you hold that there's a dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers in favor of BoD?

I don't see what's wrong with BoD as long as you admit that everyone who is saved has to have a water baptism.

A good catechumen or someone who's invincibly ignorant/has implicit desire will come to the faith before they die, period. Therefore, they will also receive a proper water baptism before they die- Trent makes this very clear- or will truly repent in their last moments if they already have that baptism. Only evil people will go to Hell. God provides every sufficient means for our salvation, but that doesn't mean we see all of the means given. An angel could, 100%, provide baptism for a good-willed person who is about to die having not gotten their baptism. Certainly this falls under theological opinion, though, as Baptism of Desire should. If a kind, hopeful, faithful catechumen dies before their scheduled baptism or a Hindu is dying yet would likely accept Christ wholeheartedly given the chance, then we don't know if he was saved, because an angel could have come and baptized them. God alone has that power. If they were truly sincere, then they were truly baptized with water and enlightened in the faith, and thus they were saved at death. It would be a mystery we couldn't understand fully, but certainly one that's possible.

If you make the distinction that the desire alone isn't what saves, but also the water baptism obtained by that desire, then BoD isn't wrong anymore. Moreover, anyone who refrains from converting someone who's genuinely interested in Catholicism out of a feeling that they would go to Hell would certainly be wrong. But to call people Feeneyites for saying you need water baptism to be saved is just silly.

You seem to be suggesting that taking more than a sentence or two to explain something indicates that explanation is wrong.

No, the saint may be simply mistaken but most probably the chronicler has something wrong or your will blocks your intellect and you can't see alternatives to your own narrative.

As an example during the funeral oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely. St Ambrose was privy to the circuмstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a cινιℓ ωαr could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD.

Another example is the Venerable Bede and his relaying of the story of St. Albanus and his companion. As St. Albanus ascended the hill he stopped to pray and a spring of water was miraculously produced. Here Bede claims the purpose of the spring was refreshment but we see there is means (water and a minister), motive (St. Albanus is a Christian who knows baptism is a necessity for salvation), and opportunity (the soldiers allowed a stoppage in the process of execution). Means, motive, and opportunity is proof enough beyond a reasonable doubt for any prosecution. The same goes for the 40 martyrs on the frozen lake. The means (there is another person available to minister to the soldier and they are on a lake), motive (they are Christians who believe in the necessity of baptism), and opportunity (freezing to death takes time) are all supplied by Providence which is why St. Augustine says “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mєdιαtor”. In sum, these stories are sometimes misunderstood by us or by their own authors, in which case proponents of BOB detract from the author’s reputation by continuing their error.

I hope this helps.
 

I don't care what Rahner says. I care what real scholars like St. Robert Bellarmine say.