Lad,

I'm not going to follow suit with your splitting up of my posts as though these thoughts are unrelated, all needing to be treated separately.  You're taking me out if context and not reading what I'm saying right out of the gate. It's clear, in fact explicit, that what I said about necessity was directed at happenby.
.
I know that this approach is a good way to bury the question I asked you three pages ago and basically reset the discussion to square one. But that doesn't help anyone, and it's probably the source of your impatience-- even if we disagree I've not done anything to warrant that attitude of yours .

Since you refuse to answer the simple question, will you answer why you refuse to answer the simple question?

Do you disagree then that "I. You must believe the teachings of both the solemn and the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church (Vatican I)."?

No, I do not disagree.
That has nothing to do with Fr. Cekada intentionally(?) misquoting Pope Pius IX to spread error- which is a tactic he employs regularly. You need to beware of that whenever you read or hear anything from him.

Rahner was HONEST ... even if heretical.  He had every reason to distort the historical / Patristic record, but he wouldn't do it because he had a certain amount of intellectual integrity that most Traditionalist BoDers lack.

No one has ever explained to me the difference between what they think and what Rahner, theologian of Vatican II, postulated, which was also taught in Lumen Gentium.

Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.

This discussion among traditionalists is absurd because it is really never about the catechumen; but about the hypothetical anonymous Christian described by Rahner above which ends up being the "nice guy" next door. I notice more understanding on the remote possibility of a "Baptism of Desire" among conservative Novus Ordites. At least, they make the connection between the Baptism of Desire and actual dying catechumen.  

Section V, item #1. Read what Fr. Cekada said the pope said, then read what the pope actually taught, and you will see the blatant misquote which in my opinion, was intentional.

With that misquote, Fr. Cekada is accusing the pope of preaching a NO doctrine.

Section V, item #1 is a summary of Section I:II-III

II. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith (Pius IX).
• “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.

III. You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as theological truths and conclusions. (Pius IX).  
• “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

Which of these quotes are you saying is incorrect?

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

Modern theologians categorize?  How does that stack up against the teaching of Christ that without water and the Holy Spirit, anathema?  Bod is a contradiction, denies the omnipotence of God, the necessity of Baptism, and was never held or taught in antiquity, except to be redressed by Augustine who soundly tossed it in the round file.  People who promote bod do so at the expense of the ignorant and unbaptized who might otherwise take greater pains to get the Sacrament of Baptism.      

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, on The Sacraments, Question 68 - Of Those Who Receive Baptism, Second Article - Whether a Man Can Be Saved without Baptism?

"I answer that, The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wish to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacraments, in regard to those who have the use of free-will.  Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire:  for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism.  And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.  Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."


(The council fathers at Trent placed the Summa theologiae on the altar during their deliberations.)

Sections II, III, and IV in the linked article clearly demonstrate the both Baptism of Desire and of Blood are "held by common consent".

Who cares what Cekada thinks?  He's no authority. His argument is in part with the Feeneyites and flawed throughout.   For instance he says:
"They did not, however, unanimously defend an error as a doctrine of the faith."  Bottom of page 6

This is a logical fallacy in this context because it begs the question and suggests that since its impossible for theologians to unanimously defend an error as a doctrine of the faith, then bod is a doctrine of the faith.  False on at least two accounts, but probably several more.  First: Bod was criticized heavily by Saints and not held unanimously, not to mention it was intermittently crushed by Councils like Trent whose canons make it impossible for anyone to be saved without Sacramental water as canons 2 and 5 on baptism so clearly say.  Second: Only recent theologians even remotely suggest bod is/might be a doctrine.  And that is a fairly recent development.  I spoke to big daddy bod'er Fr. William Most before he died, and neither he, nor any of his buddies even dared to suggest bod was a doctrine.  Back in the early 90s I specifically asked Fr. Peter Stravinskas visiting to solidify the acceptance of bod at our parish, if bod was a Catholic doctrine and he squirmed for 10 minutes before he admitted "no".  At least he was honest about it.
Undermining Baptism is a far greater evil than not believing people are sailing off to heaven without Baptism.  Without begging the question (by answering that its a teaching) what good is accomplished for my believing it?  Does it benefit the dying guy who isn't going to get Baptism? Does it benefit those who fear when people don't get Baptism?  What Catholics believe about a 'maybe' amounts to vaporware.  
Conversely, not believing bod has lots of benefits!  How much more studious, diligent, concerned and harder working would people be if they didn't placate themselves with bod that all but eliminates their responsibility to do more.
If I don't believe bod and defend the necessity of Baptism, everything's fine and my position in the Church is fine.  
If I don't believe the Words of Christ, that water and the Holy Ghost are necessary, anathema sit.