The guy with the most ironic username ever, will not even be so honest as to answer this question.

I have answered the question.  Name-calling.  A great sign of intellectual prowess.  Regurgitating the objection someone else came up with like you are doing something fancy.  You wish you could trip up Alphonsus and Augustine and thereby discount what all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Popes who spoke to the issue taught:

St. Augustine, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th-5th Century): The Seven Books of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Ch 22: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."
Ch23: "But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting."
Ch24: "And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity..."

The feeneyites think they can just blow off Augustine and Alphonsus and ignore Emerentiana or make up a ferry tale to get out of it.  Yuck.  

Impossible to get in a sane conversation with public feeneyites = Yuck:

 St. Pope Pius X (early 20^th century): Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Catechism of St. Pius X):

The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Is Lover of Hate a girl? I think she is. She writes like a girl. And she spells like a cretin. Sorry Cretins--didn't intend to insult you. 

Is Lover of Hate a girl? I think she is. She writes like a girl. And she spells like a cretin. Sorry Cretins--didn't intend to insult you.

Ah.  Scholarly.  That should settle the debate.  Next topic.

Ah.  Scholarly.  That should settle the debate.  Next topic.

One can't debate with a Hater and a dodger. 

Scholarly like your YUCK was scholarly, Hater? 

They use the Good Thief as an example.  So according to Feeneyites not only was Augustine wrong for using the example but Alphonse after all that time still didn't see that it was wrong to give the example.  My answer is that I trust Sainted Fathers and Doctors who are in agreement on the same issue and then I bring up Emerentiana for the 20th time with still no response.  She was after the Gospel was promulgated no?  
The above is perfectly acceptable and frankly, blatently obvious to Catholics.  Where is the problem?

Well now that we've been excommunicated, who's for flan?