In other words, a justification without salvation ... just as Father Feeney held.

"Again Fr. Laisney hurts his own argument. Brother Francis comments:

We would just like to make some brief points about the by-now-well-known "Funeral Oration' of St. Ambrose for his deceased friend, the Emperor Valentinian, which was hardly the occasion for a doctrinal treatise on baptism. It Is the earliest reference cited as 'proof for the early Church's belief in "Baptism of Desire." The text quoted usually begins thus: "But I hear you grieve because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

Let us stop St. Ambrose at this point and reflect on what was just quoted. All of the faithful that have gathered for the memorial services of the Emperor were grieved. And why were  they grieved? St. Ambrose says they were grieved because there was no evidence that the Emperor, who was known to be a catechumen, had been baptized. Now If "Baptism of Desire" was something contained in the "deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why then would these faithful be grieved that Valentinlan had not been baptized with water?

The reason these faithful were grieved was because they believed that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." Perhaps too,  they had been Instructed by Ambrose himself, who said: 'One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be  baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: 'For unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.' Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace." - (De Mysterlls,-THE DIVINE OFFICE).

However, the fact remains that St. Ambrose seems to contradict these above words when, in the funeral oration, he asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for?" And then concludes, "Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it."

Was St. Ambrose guilty of the "presumption" of which Father Laisney writes? We think not. We think that the Saint
was merely trying to console bereaved friends, himself included. We also think that, despite his stated opinion to the contrary, Ambrose had no way of knowing, with certainty, that Valentinian had not been baptized.

In summary, on the one hand, St. Ambrose's words bespeak his hope that Valentinian was provided with the requisites of salvation. On the other hand, this quotation does not tell us that Valentinian died without Baptism. We may just as easily speculate that before he died, one of his ministers or servants baptized him, something which St. Ambrose had as yet not gotten news of. Again, our not knowing something is not a proof of anything.

Further, St. Ambrose's use of these two verses from the Scriptures is not proof that the Scriptures mean what the Saint is illustrating, or rather, what Father Laisney is trying to prove. Here Father is taking advantage of his readers' possible want of knowledge as to how we who preach may apply the Scriptures..."

I won't go through the mental gymnastics necessary to make God absent during a salvific BOD event. I am of the opinion that the whole idea of preaching a BOD displeases Almighty God because it's saying there are situations where God finds it impossible to provide the sacrament which He made a requirement for salvation.

"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics." - Fr. Feeney

You are condemned here along with feeney on you erroneous idea that you can be justified and not be saved.

What about the Fathers before Trent like St Gregory nαzιanzus? He and many others denied or held strictly to water baptism but they opinions are never considered... (yes I know they are before Trent but Trent doesn't *clearly* define BoD).

To be honest I didn't read your posts, they were long winded and seemed like fallible cope. Short and concise is easier on the attention span.

Pope St. Sulpicius dogmatically condemned it when he wrote that each and every one of those desiring Baptism would lose the Kingdom if they did not receive the Sacrament before they died (here he was urging emergency Baptism for those in danger of death).  Nothing could be more clear.  But somehow this one is ignored by the BoDers, who rely instead on some confusing and dubious nonsense by one or another of the Innocent popes, who also were known to have opined erroneous in various letters about other subjects as well as their reading of BoD into Trent, and there's no evidence that it's there, and certainly no positive statement that it's required belief, but merely leaving it open as a speculative possibility (even if you believe that it had BoD in mind with the votum passage).

In your reliance on an exclusive and literal reading of John 3:5