With and without WHAT? discern it for me. Is it with and without FAITH or with and without BAPTISM? Which is it?

Don't pretend as if you don't know what I am talking about. Look at the quotes I reprinted, and portions I made bold. Muller denies those, and you are trying to say you accept all of the quotes! That's modernistic. You are getting sucked in.

:applause:

Of course, Laszlo, you just beg the question repeatedly. Yes, yes, yes, we know what you think, but you cannot support what you think, and each time you bail out of a discussion, you show that.
Right now we are talking about catechumens alone. And waiting to hear from Cantarella and Greg.

What prevents an Angel from performing the Sacrament of Baptism?

That was actually St. Cyprian's explanation for Baptism of Blood, that angels pronounced the words of Baptism during the spilling of blood.

That's FATHER Muller. And the quotes say without baptism, not without faith! Talk about lacking discernment. Fr. Muller is emphasizing that it is explicit faith which is visibly confessed that puts one in virtual unity with the visible Church.
YOu don't even say this much.

 
You are presented multiple quotes from Popes, Doctors of the Church, and bishops (altogether, the magisterium), and not only do you ignore all of them, but you respond with a quote from a priest and defend it at all costs. SO hypocritical. The First Vatican Council demands that we believe the magisterium.
 

 
This discussion has gone very far off topic - no doubt the Feeneyites want this because they haven't been able to address the issue in the original post. Here's where we left off:
 
 
1. Many quotes were provided earlier in this thread confirming the dogma of the infallibility of the Church, which GUARANTEES the Church cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. This is incontestable as it is found in Scripture and in any Catholic book that covers the subject of infallibility.
 
2. Because we have this GUARANTEE, we know that the Church cannot possibly allow heresy to go unchecked. Looking at one of the greatest attacks on the Church in its history (Protestantism), we see it took about 25 years to call the Council of Trent to order so that the heresy could be condemned, so this could be used as a potential worst-case example of how long a heresy might linger.

3. Some tried to bring up the lame argument of error versus heresy, but everyone reading this knows that if someone were to tamper with the critical doctrine on baptism, it would no doubt be HERESY.
 
3. When the Church DOES condemn a heresy, we can see plenty of examples in the General Council texts and papal encyclicals that the Church ALWAYS describes the heresy by name, along with listing those who taught the heresy. No such condemnation exists for baptism of desire or blood, or implicit desire/soul of the Church.
 
4. With the above facts in mind, and before any Feeneyites even opens their mouths to present an argument, we already have the GUARANTEE that baptism of desire and blood, and doctrine on soul of the Church are NOT heresy, because the Church has both taught and allowed these doctrines for over 20 centuries and 4 centuries respectively, and it would be a DENIAL of the dogma of infallibility of the Church to say otherwise.
 

You Feeneyites have not been able to address this undeniable fact ALL of this time. You pretend to be great defenders of dogma, but when presented with another dogma that destroys your entire movement, you show your true colors and rebel against it. And as we've seen throughout this entire thread, when you are pressed on this issue, you eventually fall quiet or change the subject. What more needs to be said? Your little rebellious movement is OVER.

 
 

In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love (that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith), and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains.
-- from the Catholic Concise Encyclopedia
-- Imprimatur by Fancis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956

Interesting that this quote you provide here only appears in online Feeneyite discussions, but cannot be found in any actual books online. You shouldn't be too quick to copy and paste from forums because you never know if it is authentic. Once it is confirmed authentic, then we can discuss it.

Maybe you should try staying on topic and focus on the massive elephant in the room; the summary I just posted of this discussion that no one seems to have an answer for.

Interesting that this quote you provide here only appears in online Feeneyite discussions, but cannot be found in any actual books online. You shouldn't be too quick to copy and paste from forums because you never know if it is authentic. Once it is confirmed authentic, then we can discuss it.

Maybe you should try staying on topic and focus on the massive elephant in the room; the summary I just posted of this discussion that no one seems to have an answer for.

Although not a Feeneyite, I take the same position regarding the necessity of explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity, the Incarnation, that God is a rewarded of good and punisher of evil, and that he created a supernatural as well as a natural order in order to arrive at salvation.
Furthermore, it requires not only faith but hope and charity- hope in the promise of eternal life and charity, which charity contains with it true contrition and sorrow for sin and the love of God for his own sake.
If you wish to contest or debate this, it is for this purpose I have signed up. Name the time place and topic.