Yes, this is an extremely ambiguous passage.  Elsewhere St. Ambrose taught that even sincere catechumens who died without Baptism could not be saved.  Perhaps the idea was that they did not know all the details (before the days of Twitter) and that someone close to him could have baptized him while he lay dying.  Or else he envisioned a possible BoB since he was killed for turning against Arianism.  Or perhaps he received some remission of sin from his Desire and not necessarily salvation itself.  We'll never know and it's a mistake to turn this into a doctrinal statement of support for BoD.

BOD was taught at Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4, and so infallible in that regard as "agree[ing] with past dogmatic statement[]." So much for the Catechism not being infallible on that point.

“… tu es, inquit, Christus filius dei vivi [Mt. 16:16], nec inmerito beatus est pronuntiatus a domino et a principali petra soliditatem et virtutis traxit et nominis qui per revelationem patris eundem et dei filium est confessus et Christum, quia unum horum sine alio receptum non proderat ad salutem et aequalis erat periculi dominum Iesum Christum aut deum tantummodo sine homine aut sine deo solum hominem credidisse.”

“You are, he said, the Christ, the Son of the Living God [Mt. 16:16], and not undeservedly was he pronounced blessed by the Lord and did he derive from the original Rock [i.e. God] the solid character of both [its] virtue and [its] name, [he] who through the revelation of the Father confessed that the same [i.e. Jesus] was both the Son of God and the Christ, because one of these [truths] received [i.e. admitted] without the other was unprofitable to salvation, and it was of equal danger to have believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was either God only without [being] man or man only without [being] God.”

BOD could be part of the UOM even if some Fathers rejected the idea - if it was taught universally by the pope and the bishops in union with him at some point in time.

The universality requirement is synchronic, not diachronic. This is just common sense. Otherwise, the Church could never authoritatively and definitively resolve and teach on any issue where the Church Fathers, or its theologians, differed and disputed. I would say, at a minimum, BOD was taught by the UOM via the Roman Catechism.

So BOD is part of the UOM, and the "big guns" (St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus) support the view that it was taught infallibly at Trent.

You will disagree with me. Fine.

You will go beyond disagreeing with me and say my view is heretical, because "Trent condemns" BOD. Too bad only a few Dimondite Feeneyites know about it. The Church actually made those who taught your "heresy" doctors of its doctrine.

If you're right, so much for the City on the Hill, and the lamp on the lampstand.

Quote

Quote

BOD could be part of the UOM even if some Fathers rejected the idea - if it was taught universally by the pope and the bishops in union with him at some point in time.

To be part of the UOM,  BOD must have been taught by all, always and everywhere.  "At some point in time" doesn't cut it, unless it was taught ex Cathedra (which it was not). Also, all means "all" the Popes and Church Fathers. As I said many Church Fathers rejected the idea. Pope St. Siricius also rejected the idea. It also should be noted that "tolerated" does not mean "taught".

"If the Canon is considered in context, and together with the explanations set forth by Saint Vincent, it appears that its meaning is as follows:
 
a) The absolute antiquity or apostolicity of a doctrine is not proposed as a mark whereby to establish anything else; it is itself the very point being investigated.
 
b) As marks by which the apostolicity of a doctrine can be known, two characteristics are proposed:
i) universality, i.e. the present consensus of the Church, and,
ii) the consensus of antiquity,96 to be understood in a relative sense, i.e. a consensus shown to have existed before the controversy arose.
 
By either of these two marks absolute antiquity can be known and inferred. For when, by virtue either of a solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (whether of an ecumenical council or of the pope) or by the unanimous preaching of the Church, a universal present consensus is clear and manifest, this alone suffices of itself; but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then—says Vincent—appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers."

*****The rest of the quote is available here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-uom-(bishop-williamson-v-bishop-sanborn)/msg565787/#msg565787

"St. Thomas's doctrine is briefly as follows:

• the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienneof 1311;
• the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
• though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;
• the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas's teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

Even if you think that Trent VI.4 is referring to BoD, the statement there falls about as far short of a definition as you can get.  Trent never teaches that Desire ALONE can suffice for justification ... just that it cannot happen without it.  Trent teaches that Desire is a necessary cause but falls short of declaring it a sufficient cause ... due to the "cannot happen without" language.  Trent does not positively teach that justification (and then salvation) CAN happen WITH DESIRE ALONE ... as Trent does for Confession.  Not to mention, Trent makes NO mention of how it works and the conditions necessary for it to work.  Consequently, I've probably heard half a dozen different explanation of the requirements for BoD.  That's prima facie evidence that the Church has never defined it.  Really the greatest common denominator among BoDers is this notion that Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

I read Trent as teaching that BOTH BAPTISM AND THE DESIRE are necessary for justification.  Why?  Because of the passage immediately after it, the citation from Scripture which says that one cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.  Trent was making an analogy between laver:Sacrament::desire:Holy Ghost (if you know analogy punctuation -- if not I'll explain it).  So Trent is supposed to be saying, "One cannot be justified without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that water (Baptism) AND the Holy Spirit (desire) are necessary for being born again?  That doesn't make sense to me.  I used to believe in BoD for Catechumens ... because I thought it was in Trent ... but then I sat down and read the entire Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it jumped out at me that Trent was teaching no such thing.

Language is similar to this:  "You can't play baseball without a bat or a ball."  This is ambiguous on its own.  It could mean that you can play if you have one or the other (BoDer interpretation of Trent) or else that you can't play with either one missing (my reading of it).  But when Trent follows this up with citing as Scriptural proof "water AND the Holy Ghost" ... that immediately disambiguates it in favor of how I read it.

Obviously this "necessity" can be met by desire for the sacrament, since Trent affirmatively states that with regard to Penance.

The Council of Vienne merely defines that the soul is the form of the body. St. Thomas teaches this, but also teaches that the rational soul is infused into the body after conception, and the Roman Catechism follows Thomas. Here's the CE from the entry on "Soul":

You apparently don't do any independent research or do any independent thinking but merely adopt the Dimonds' slip shod arguments. St. Thomas taught that the rational soul was the form of the body. The Roman Catechism taught in accordance with St. Thomas, and did not teach that the rational soul was not the form of the body. You assume that teaching violates the Council of Vienne, which doesn't address the issue of the timing of the rational soul's infusion into the body, only saying it's the form.

You repeatedly show yourself as not competent to handle the nuances of complicated issues like this, and neither are the Dimonds apparently - whose parrot you are.

And so now St. Thomas and the Church itself - and not only St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine - is teaching "heresy." And you make that allegation without, apparently, any hesitation - or else you'd have done some independent thought and research.

You are incapable of thinking through these issues, and merely repeat the mantras of your schismatic instructors.

Your pompous, dogmatic bloviatings about the "heresies" of other Catholics, including saints and doctors and in universal catechisms, are an embarrassment to the Feeneyite cause.