CathInfo.com

Without spending more time on the rest of it, right out of the gate, your MAJOR is patently false.  Men are justified all the time after they through Confession ... even though there's no rebirth in Confession.  So please try to think through what argument you're actually trying to make and present it in a correctly-structured syllogism.

You are entirely misconstruing the major. People who are justified through the sacrament of penance or perfect contrition and the desire for it, have already been born again in baptism. Hence it is true that no man is justified who has not been born again in Baptism, as the Council of Trent teaches:

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”

You hold the contrary, that a man who has never been born again can be justified.

POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

• Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. (DZ 1031)
• That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins. (DZ 1032)
• A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained. (DZ 1033)
  

Here's food for thought since I know where you're coming from.. The Dimonds reject every single Manual of Moral Theology, Canon Law, Catechism, Holy Office decree, Doctor/s of the Church, Bishop, Priest, and Pope/s that believed and taught BOD. But what authority do they have to reject a decree or docuмent from a valid pontificate and the valid hierarchy? One can't have it both ways, it destroys the very notion of the hierarchy to self appoint oneself a censor and inquisitor of all valid "non-infallible" docuмentation, if this were the case, how then, could the fallible Church organs exact any submission? Think about it, If the Church's organs were all "materially heretical" in the thousands of instances where BOD was taught, on what authority do they supplant the most current and valid Church docuмents? It's absolutely incoherent.

Syllabus of Errors (Ex Cathedra)

Condemned Proposition:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

Lamentabili Sane (Ex Cathedra)

Condemned Proposition:

7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.