And the assertion that the heretical schismatic Feeney was condemned under the 'Holy Office' under Antipope Pius XII doesn't matter at all.

Feeney was wrong in teaching that justification could take place in the soul of a person who was unbaptized, and he adhered to the false Church under the line of 20th century antipopes, which began with Benedict XV.

So if a person dies with supernatural faith in Christ and charity, you CM are going to condemn him to hell because he/she was unable to be baptized before death? You've gone so far in Feeneyism that you even condemn Feeney as a heretic. :pop:

So if a person dies with supernatural faith in Christ and charity, you CM are going to condemn him to hell because he/she was unable to be baptized before death? You've gone so far in Feeneyism that you even condemn Feeney as a heretic. :pop:

Supernatural faith, you say.  How exactly does one get that faith if they are outside of God's Church?  There is no supernatural faith outside of God's Church.  You have to be a member of the Church to be saved, and you have to be baptized to become a member of the Church.  Period.  The dogmas tell the truth.

Why does the church delay their baptism if the can go to hell if they die? isn't she endangering their salvation.

No.  If the Church baptizes someone who is not ready to live a Christian life, they are baptizing them unto greater condemnation.  The judgment for fallen away Christians is far greater than that for pagans, etc.

2 St. Peter 2:21: "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them."

Furthermore, the Church needs to be sure that the catechumen believes rightly and does not hold to any errors or heresies before baptism, for the same reason.

So a cathechumen should deny Jesus if his life is in danger. since whether he denies him or not he will go to hell!
much better to apostesise and live since he can have an apportunity to get baptized and be saved!

So we are encoureging the greatest sin.

You cannot apostatize if you are not yet Christian.  If someone is not baptized, then they are not in the Church.  If someone persecutes you and says "Renounce your Faith or die!"

Not only would there be no sin in saying "I'm not a Christian" it would not even be a lie.  A person is only Christian when they are made members of Christ's body.  However if the same person said "I don not believe in Jesus Christ" then they are sinning and lying, because they have NATURAL belief in God, enlightened not by supernatural grace, but by natural reason.

Besides, would God allow one of His elect to slip through His fingers?  That's what this all boils down to.  God gets baptism to those whom He wishes to save.

Is anyone denying His ability to do this?  Because you certainly are denying His words.  Almost everybody is denying His Words, and saying that one is free to do so, just because a some people who are recognized as Holy have also done so.  They even say that one decree from Trent means something entirely contrary to another, which is contrary to the following decree form Vatican:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4: "5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

6. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

7. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false"

Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are heresy, contrary to dogma, lies, untrue, soul damning poison and totally false.

Please, please, please spit them out.

Excuse me Caraffa, but you are taking my words out of context, and you are making an unproved assumption by saying people outside the Church receive supernatural faith through grace.  In another thread,

...The necessary dogmas are contained in the Athanasian Creed, and their necessity is testified to by Pope Eugence IV, when he asserts the following:

"This is the Catholic Faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

So a person who does not believe the Catholic Faith cannot be saved, neither is this person Catholic.  A person who believes, but is not baptized has natural faith, which may be a gift of prevenient grace from God, insofar as it disposes him to seek baptism, but it cannot save him without this sacrament.

Perfectly in line with infallible Catholic Tradition:

Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 5:"The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification..."

How do they convert themselves to their own justification?  As was laid out in the chapter immediately before this one:

Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 4: "By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

So the burden is upon you not to refute a strawman argument, which you have built by implying that I said there is no grace outside of the Church, but the burden of proof is upon you to refute my assertion that it is the sacrament of baptism alone that confers SUPERNATURAL FAITH.

Furthermore, I offer you this ex cathedra decree to reassert that without the sacrament of faith, a person may not be justified:

Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 7: "Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;"

The dogmas tell the truth.

Ah, but do you tell the truth about/properly understand the dogmas?

Vatican II is a "counter-syllabus" as Benedict XVI put it. It was meant to be in direct opposition to Tradition.

If the meaning of Sacred Dogma is ever to be maintained, and the church has always consistently defended baptism by blood or desire, though not applying it as liberally as the present, should we not understand the dogma to take into account these?

This is THE ONE AND ONLY infallible decree that baptism of desire adherents are ever going to bring forward, and as we will see, this decree actually teaches CONTRARY to their heresy.  Read this carefully, it's laid right out in black and white, and if you still believe in baptism of desire after this, it's because you WANT to.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, 1547, Decree on Justification, Chapter IV, ex cathedra: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (St. John 3:5)"

The problem here for baptism of desire and baptism of blood is twofold. First in order to believe in baptism of desire one has to falsely understand this decree in a manner, which necessarily involves denying the Canons on baptism, when the correct understanding does not necessitate this: The translation (to the state of grace) cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (water baptism) or the desire thereof, in the same sense as a man cannot sail a boat without a body of water upon which to sail, or the will to do so. Absence of either one renders the desired result impossible, until the absence is remedied. In this interpretation, no dogmas are denied, thus it is the correct interpretation.

This is further attested to by understanding the rules of logic when dealing with statements worded in this manner. This is the important section of the decree to pay attention to: "...cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."

We are dealing with the negation of a compound statement. We are talking about something that CANNOT take place without this or that. In other words we are stating the circuмstances , which are necessary to exist for this event to be incapable of taking place: the absence of only one of the two above elements, the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof. Only one has to be missing. Things would be entirely different if the disjunction were changed to a conjunction, that is if the word "or" was switched to the word "and", OR if the "cannot be effected, without" were switched to "can be effected with". Either one of these changes would completely alter the meaning of the phrase, whereas if both changes took place, there would be no change in the meaning whatsoever.

Here is a further breakdown of the rules of logic involved in the negation of a compound statement, as can be shown by this website:

Negating a Conjunction (and) and a Disjunction (or):

If we were dealing with a conjunction:
"This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof."

The above statement would mean that BOTH must be missing for the translation the the state of justification to be impossible. Since BOTH have to be missing, this means that the presence of only one is sufficient to effect justification. Baptism of desire adherents would like it if the decree used a conjunction, but this is not the way it was decreed. The council used not a conjunction, but a disjunction:

Disjunction:
"This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof."

If the translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, then it cannot be effected if EITHER one is missing. So it can be said that "This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration" and "This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the desire thereof."

Now that we see this is the only way to understand this decree, it behooves us to examine ta common he one seemingly legitimate objection, namely that infants, since they have not attained the use of reason, cannot actively desire the sacrament of baptism. It is clear that the God would not decree something that is impossible, so it is clear that He means that in those receiving the sacrament, who have the use of reason, and are thus capable of desiring, it is necessary that the desire for the sacrament not be missing. Otherwise one would have to assert that baptism on infants is never valid. And the context of this session of the Council of Trent is
further attested to by Chapter 5 of the same session:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter V, On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds, AD 1547, ex cathedra: "The Synod furthermore declares, that IN ADULTS, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ..."

Second, if the Council had purposed to teach baptism of desire, which would have been an exception to the dogmatic canons stating that water baptism is necessary, it certainly would have done so explicitly in the Canons on baptism, as would be fitting, rather than in the Decree on Justification. In fact, this Council did exactly that with regard to making an explicit exception in the decree on original sin, when it stated the following at the end of the same decree:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session V, Decree Concerning Original Sin, 1546, ex cathedra: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews."

And just for anecdotal purposes, don't you think, Caraffa, that if the decree were meant to teach baptism of desire, it would have said thins instead, which would not then appear to be contradictory:

Hypothetical decree with the Scripture verse that would have more likely been used to teach baptism of desire (as if the God the Holy Ghost could contradict Himself in these decrees!) "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can be effected, with the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)"

Food for thought.