Again, for the 4th time, it doesn't suffice by itself, but is necessary.  You can't have something in actu without first having it in potentia.  In other words, the Baptismal character is a necessary but not sufficient cause.

I cited St. Thomas and Fr. Fenton teaching that the character is a spiritual potency to receive the Eucharist.  If you reject this, and instead maintain that it is a potency to receive sanctifying grace, produce an authoritative source who teaches it.  Good luck.

Honestly, I do not see why any strict EENSer debates with these deniers of the need for baptism, the need for desire for baptism, the need to be a Catholic, the need to believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Their defending of BOD of the catechumen is just a smoke screen for total unbelief in EENS.

Correct, the ardent promotion of BoD and denunciation of "Feeneyism" has always been driven by a crusade against EENS in general rather than by sympathy for the rare case of a catechumen who would die before Baptism.  Sure, St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the subject ... in a couple paragraphs from thousands of pages of writing.  But for a lot of the Cushingites today it's become their life's mission to promote BoD.

Correct, the ardent promotion of BoD and denunciation of "Feeneyism" has always been driven by a crusade against EENS in general rather than by sympathy for the rare case of a catechumen who would die before Baptism.  Sure, St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the subject ... in a couple paragraphs from thousands of pages of writing.  But for a lot of the Cushingites today it's become their life's mission to promote BoD.

Do you see how they avoid mentioning their real belief, this Theo character must be the same guy that used the avatar of The Cure of Ars. 

and restricting His ability to justify soul by requiring a created reality, upon which He is dependent.  Such an idea subjects the Creator to a creature - the infinite to a finite.

Idiot.  WE are not restricting anything.  We're talking about the restrictions that God has placed on us, not the other way around, and understanding the conditions for salvation that He has laid down.  If God said that we could only be saved by smearing Jello Pudding on the tips of our noses, then we would be bound by that.

Do you see how they avoid mentioning their real belief, this Theo character must be the same guy that used the avatar of The Cure of Ars.

.
Interesting, as soon as you pegged him as LoT he disappeared from this subforum and hasn't been back. 

Everything about BoD revolves around speculation as to what would or would not be "fair" for God to do ... which does nothing more than open up a "vortex of confusion", as St. Augustine called it, once he had come to his senses and rejected his earlier youthful speculation regarding BoD.  He rejected it after many years of grappling with the Pelagians, and realizing that BoD led inexorably to Pelagianism.

I'm not so certain right now how that passage is to be taken, after reading earlier from the same treatise.

On the Soul and its Origin

Book II

Chapter 17

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15082.htm

The new-fangled Pelagian heretics have been most justly condemned by the authority of catholic councils and of the Apostolic See, on the ground of their having dared to give to unbaptized infants a place of rest and salvation, even apart from the kingdom of heaven. This they would not have dared to do, if they did not deny their having original sin, and the need of its remission by the sacrament of baptism. This man, however, professes the catholic belief on this point, admitting that infants are tied in the bonds of original sin, and yet he releases them from these bonds without the laver of regeneration, and after death, in his compassion, he admits them into paradise; while, with a still ampler compassion, he introduces them after the resurrection even to the kingdom of heaven. Such compassion did Saul see fit to assume when he spared the king whom God commanded to be slain; 1 Samuel 15:9 deservedly, however, was his disobedient compassion, or (if you prefer it) his compassionate disobedience, reprobated and condemned, that man may be on his guard against extending mercy to his fellow-man, in opposition to the sentence of Him by whom man was made.

Truth, by the mouth of Itself incarnate, proclaims as if in a voice of thunder: "Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 And in order to except martyrs from this sentence, to whose lot it has fallen to be slain for the name of Christ before being washed in the baptism of Christ, He says in another passage, "He that loses his life for my sake shall find it." Matthew 10:39 And so far from promising the abolition of original sin to any one who has not been regenerated in the laver of Christian faith, the apostle exclaims, "By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Romans 5:18 And as a counterbalance against this condemnation, the Lord exhibits the help of His salvation alone, saying, "He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

Now the mystery of this believing in the case of infants is completely effected by the response of the sureties by whom they are taken to baptism; and unless this be effected, they all pass by the offense of one into condemnation. And yet, in opposition to such clear declarations uttered by the Truth, forth marches before all men a vanity which is more foolish than pitiful, and says: Not only do infants not pass into condemnation, though no laver of Christian faith absolves them from the chain of original sin, but they even after death have an intermediate enjoyment of the felicities of paradise, and after the resurrection they shall possess even the happiness of the kingdom of heaven. Now, would this man dare to say all this in opposition to the firmly-established catholic faith, if he had not presumptuously undertaken to solve a question which transcends his powers touching the origin of the soul?

On the Soul and its Origin

Book III

Chapter 13

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm

If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined." There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: "We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ." Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.

I think after reading the earlier chapter from book II, "whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism" does not necessarily mean baptism of water, when reading this from St. Augustine, the emphasis is on "the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass."

The vortex of confusion seems to be in cases where it is purposed that God has ordained that such and such an event is to occur, but then to say it has not occurred. Not that God has willed some event, and we resist Him, but rather by the foreknowledge of God some event is to occur, but doesn't. Or rather predestination of some event cannot be overturned.