CathInfo.com

How lucky are we, no one to correct saint Alphonsus' "error" for centuries until two youtubers from NY came along. No pope, no bishop, no theologian, no catechism, nor canon law to pick this "error" up. I mean this "devilish grave sin" was being promoted left right and center. How absurd are you!

Lad, lad, lad.. You poor man. Do you think Our Lord is happy when you call someone a lying scuмbag when you have zero evidence to substantiate such a calumny. You indeed might be better off forum, seems like you lost your patience and means of normally communicating with others when disagreeing. Or you have simply morphed with how your NY mentors normally communicate to others. 

You Dimond cult followers do not understand the difference between explicitly rejecting the BOB/BOD (or as you say “Theologians disagree with him on a fair number of points”) and quoting what no one here disputes (namely the necessity of being baptised to be saved).

See, if in this case if you could quote one single theologian that says- Alphonsus teaches it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4” however he is in error because of a, b and c I would agree with you in a heartbeat, but of course you cannot do that. 

That would be a true disagreement with this saint. When saint Thomas Aquinas argues something, he cites what the objection is or what he intends to dispute and then goes on to dispute it. When saint Alphonsus teaches moral theology and tells us this is mortal sin, he quotes the other side he disagrees with and goes on to dispute it.

 If the so called majority of Church Fathers rejected it, you’d be quoting these “rejections” out of your sleeve which you of course cannot. All you can do is find what Dimond brothers have fed you to interpret or explain.

 I don’t care to explain the actions of a rouge non theologian priest contra canon law of 1917 and consensus theological teaching at the time of canon law promulgation.
 
 Canon 1239 declares that “Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without baptism are to be treated as baptized.” Now go on Lad, rip it apart. Go on explain (and don't forget to add insults while doing so) how code of canon law 1917 teaches grave sin and heresy. 

Stubborn, we have a problem, don't we.

-St Alphonsus teaches the above quote.
-St Alphonsus teaches that BOD is de fide.

St Alphonsus was either forgetful (as to what he wrote), contradicted himself gravely or simply taught BOTH (which of course is the only possible answer).

Now for you mathematicians, logic professors etc.. it might come as a surprise that both can stand on its own without mutual contradiction and not everything can always be put through syllogism. That's why we have had Church approved theologians who unanimously taught on the subject, but to hell with their heresies too, right? We have forum members and NY bros to clarify instead right?

I will give you a very simple example:
-For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.  (Rom 3, 23)

Now all of course does not mean Our Lord, Our Lady, St Joseph etc. Yet, if we follow your tunnel vision approach it would have to be all as all is all, isn't it? No ifs or buts.

Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation and all without it will perish. Church also teaches that there could be exceptional circuмstances through where person would be treated as baptised. (see Canon 1239)

If I am heretic because of it, guilty as charged. But don’t you dare not call st Alphonsus one and canon 1917 as well. Because as sure as the sun comes out, they have put those words out black on white.

Matter a fact, you might as well amp it up and blame all others for the sin of omission who had a duty of correcting this “grave heresy” in these writings for centuries and canon law for decades and did not. And we had valid popes in the period who allowed it to stand like that in canon law, didn't we?