These are some questions I have about BOD.
1. Can someone with zero knowledge of Jesus Christ obtain a BOD?
2. Can someone with animosity towards Jesus Christ say a Jew or Muslim obtain a BOD?
3. Where does the contrition come from? Is it formed internally? Is it actual graces?
4. Does the person getting the BOD have to have a firm purpose of amendment to not to repeat their sins or is this only an end of life situation?
5. Whom do they offer their contrition to if they don’t know the True God?
6. Does the BOD have anything to do with immanence? We all have a little piece of God in us, therefore God resides in every soul.

If you read some of the things written in various catechisms etc., a BOD happens to everyone not baptized, even if they never heard of the existence of the sacrament of baptism. It's crazy.
 

These are some questions I have about BOD.
1. Can someone with zero knowledge of Jesus Christ obtain a BOD?
2. Can someone with animosity towards Jesus Christ say a Jew or Muslim obtain a BOD?
3. Where does the contrition come from? Is it formed internally? Is it actual graces?
4. Does the person getting the BOD have to have a firm purpose of amendment to not to repeat their sins or is this only an end of life situation?
5. Whom do they offer their contrition to if they don’t know the True God?
6. Does the BOD have anything to do with immanence? We all have a little piece of God in us, therefore God resides in every soul.

Depends on which BoDer you ask ... which is prima facie evidence that nothing has been defined by the Church.  I am not required to believe in "words" or "phrases", like, muh BoD.  We believe in and assent to actual PROPOSITIONS, and at no point has any proposition about BoD ever been produced from the Magisterium in terms of WHAT it is that we're required to believe about it.  Really, the only common denominator among all those who believe in BoD is that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation ... which is in fact heresy per Trent.

Yes, consider the case of native Indians who lived before Christopher Columbus discovered America. They were living in invincible ignorance of Christ and of Baptism. Christopher Columbus, who had great missionary zeal, wanted to discover and lead all such souls to Christ and His Church, and he knew some of them had good will and would accept the Gospel when it was preached to them, as indeed some of them did. Cardinal De Lugo, a roughly contemporary Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, also believed in and taught baptism of desire.

Calvin and heretics like him are ok with saying all such non-Catholics who lived before the preaching of the Gospel there are necessarily damned. The Church is not. She says, through Pope Pius IX, all who lived according to their conscience and observing natural law as best they could, before the arrival of Catholic missionaries, could have been saved, by the Mercy of God, through means known to Him. Baptism of desire is operative when one cannot receive the Sacrament. Not when one can but has refused to.

OAbrownson, read the data carefully: "Two-thirds of the world's population -- more than 4.4 billion people -- live in the 10/40 Window. Unreached and unevangelized: 90% of people in the 10/40 Window are unevangelized. Many have never heard the Gospel message even once." I'm not speaking of someone in contact with you who refuses to join the Church after he has been convinced of its necessity. We are speaking of those who live in poor countries, don't have basic facilities (internet being one means among many God can use), have not heard the Gospel, nor encountered Catholic missionaries, nor seen churches, let alone traditional churches etc.

But the question is not when did this or that person defect.  The question is, when did the moral body - Apostolic/Episcopal College - defect by becomming a new Church?

I answered that - no one knows the exact time, perhaps because the new faith was perpetrated on the world more like a blanket being thrown over it starting at one end, than someone flipping a light switch.

One reason is becaue you could be completely convinced that something was true, which, in fact, is not. For example, you could be convinced that the universal Church based in Rome -  the same visible organization that has existed since the time of the Apostles - became "substantially different" than what it was sometime around 1965ish, and therefore cannot now be the true Church.  In that case, you could end up denyining the indefectibility of the Church, which is de fide.  That's one example.

When it comes to this subject, all anyone has to do is use their own eyes to see that what happens in the conciliar church since V2 goes contrary to what the Church has always taught, I mean, it's no big mystery far as that goes, and because of this, we know that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. ALSO, this answers your 2nd last question.

I like this explanation the best, from Fr. Wathen's book, Who Shall Ascend?:
"The reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, viz., the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic
Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved. We say that we speak thus with genuine charity, because true charity seeks to inform  one's neighbor what he must do for his salvation, and when he is in danger of losing it.

Conciliar Catholics with normal intelligence ought all finally to be able to wake up to the fact that they are being made fools of by their Conciliar priests and bishops."

But if the moral body defected, it doesn't only mean it is not the true Church now; it means it was not the true Church then (i.e., before Vatican II), because the true Church is indefectible.  If the moral body had the four marks before Vatican II, it also had the attribute of indefectibility, and therefore must have the four marks now.  If it does not have the four marks now, it logically follows that it didn't have them then, since the Church with four marks is indefectible.

But a faithful bishop or two within a false Church does not make the false Church true.  He doesn't give a false Church the four marks, infallibility, or indefectibility, which are necessary properties of the true Church.

You are correct, the conciliar church is not now, nor was it ever the true Church. To put it plainly, we had our Pentecost at, well, Pentecost, the conciliar church had it's pentecost at V2. Pope John Paul II even said that it is the church of the new pentecost and the church of the new advent. 

You're right, a faithful bishop or two within a false Church does not make the false Church true, rather, a faithful bishop or two in the false church are always treated as enemy invaders and exterminated immediately once they're discovered, lest they spread their disease of the true faith within the false church. Reference +ABL and +Vigano for examples.

My final question is: If the moral body is no longer the true Church, where is the rue Church? Where is the infallible, indefectible Church with four marks and unity of government, that was estblished as a visible society by Jesus Christ, and which has existed since that time, according to His promises - "the gates of hell shall not prevail"?  Where is that Church?

Fr. Hesse gave a great answer to this, essentially he said that because Christ and the Church are one and the same (quoting pope Pius XII I think), where Christ is in the Holy Eucharist, there is the Church visible.

Stubborn, you were talking about Divine Providence. BOD itself is Divine Providence, both for those I mentioned above, whom Christopher Columbus discovered (after centuries/100s of years of them not hearing the Gospel), and those in many regions of the globe even today who don't have much presence of Catholic missionaries or churches. God will judge them according to the little you have. You don't need to worry about that other than by striving to preach the faith to as many non-Catholics as possible and inviting them to come into the Church.

I disagree that BOD itself is Divine Providence. If anything a BOD is a hopeless, faithless and dying soul first desiring, then corresponding to certain graces, but this is not Divine Providence, if anything this is salvation through faith....which the Church condemns, not to mention that this requires a faith that the BOD recipient does not have. Remember, without the faith it is impossible to please God no matter how contrite one is.

What is always ignored or forgotten is that it is by the very same providence that you were baptized that all are baptized - the same providence. IOW, God provides the water and the minster and the time for everyone, exactly as He did for you - if He didn't, no one would ever be baptized, including you and me. By God making water and the Holy Ghost the requirement, He committed Himself to provide that requirement to all who desire baptism.

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

"Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching."

Foolish. God gave you, I presume, baptism from your cradle. If you were born to Catholic parents, you have a blessing about 7 billion people around the globe do not have.

Why do I even need the blessings if it is possible to get to heaven without them?

Otherwise, if Catholics are lazy and don't do God's work and don't send or support missionaries, that is not their fault. That is the fault of Catholics, and of those who should have been missionaries but preferred to do something else......If you disagree, be prepared to call Pius IX, Pius X, Leo XIII and Pius XII all as heretics for allegedly contradicting Trent and teaching baptism of desire. Oh, and add Pope St. Pius V as well.

Well, now you're just being ridiculous blaming Catholics for those who die unbaptized.

Scripture tells us who bears some of the guilt, and it's not Catholics: "The Lord is patient and full of mercy, taking away iniquity and wickedness, and leaving no man clear, who visitest the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. [Numbers 14:18]

Another thing that's crazy is when BODers call upon popes and councils as if they taught a BOD. Ridiculous.

God is not bound to work continual miracles ...

Sure, but God is bound by impossibility.  God's Providence doesn't require miracles.  Are you that brainless?  I guess that heretical bad will does that to people.