The first (at the very least implicit) Dogmatic teaching on BOD/BOB was Pope St Leo I letter "The Tome" in 449 AD which states:

"Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God ? It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony--Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."

This file may be interesting to those who have read the Dimonds long list of fathers who, apparently, did not support Baptism by Blood or Desire.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CEXELJ40

I have created it in Microsoft word for ease of reading.

This file may be interesting to those who have read the Dimonds long list of fathers who, apparently, did not support Baptism by Blood or Desire.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CEXELJ40

I have created it in Microsoft word for ease of reading.

First of all, many of the Fathers quoted also teach the reality of baptism of desire, so to construe their words as contradicting their other doctrine is disengenous.  Secondly, tell me why one should accept this supposed doctrinal tradition and not the other very long doctrinal tradition teaching baptism of desire?  Why the arbitrary picking and choosing, especially when a) a consensus of the fathers compels assent which is clearly established with respect to baptism of desire and b) the magisterium, in doctrinal explanations and even through canon law itself, have taught baptism of desire?  The doctrine is found in the Summa itself along with every theological manual approved and published by the authority of the Church.  Prior to Trent every Father, theologian and doctor who has addressed this doctrine ex professo has affirmed its truth based tradition and scripture and after Trent asserted its truth based upon Trent itself.  This is pure hypocrisy all because of a misunderstanding on the part of certain people who cannot grasp proper distinctions and who act as if God is intrinsically bound by His own sacraments.  Shallow and narrow minds are always the cause of error and deceit whether they are attempting to interpret Scriptures or the doctrinal tradition of the Church.      

...certain people who cannot grasp proper distinctions and who act as if God is intrinsically bound by His own sacraments.

Does God keep his oaths, Matthew?  Yes or no?

And here is your fatal flaw, one among many I suppose.  God has promised, made an oath if you will, to save men through  baptism.  Now if God ended up by not saving men through baptism by withdrawing His saving powers from it then you could say that God broke His promise.  But if God chooses to supply the effects for baptism by another means, that doesn't amount to breaking His promise, for He can save a man in any way He desires without being prejudicial to His own sacraments by temporarily extending the power of one in certain cases of necessity.

But revelation has taught that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and that is what we should teach without reserve, for even though sometimes a desire for baptism, among other things, can justify, it is not in any way equal to or beside sacramental baptism.    

When will it dawn on you two that you are arguing like the old heretics?