CathInfo.com

1) Pius XII M. Corporis

103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet), and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation(meaning they are still outside the church). For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them(meaning they haven't come into the Church yet) with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.(Christian, also, even if this statement said what you think it said, this still isn't infallible)

Well evidently you didn´t understand my point. Pius XII was talking here about the posibility of salvation for those non-members of the Church. As you agreed he is talking of non-members, but see that he says "to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation" ergo eventhough they can´t be secure of they salvation yet they can, absolutely speaking.

Are you sure the encyclical was not infallible? Do you think it is disputable wheter the episcopal jursidiction of the Bishops comes directly from the Pope (and not directly from Our Lord) or that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body are one and the same thing? These two things were clearly tought in M.C....
I think you are confusing infallible statements with de fide definitions...

2) The common teaching of all (unauthoritative)theologians and (unauthoritative)canonists (even "fallible" canon law itself) affirming you can have the effects of the sacrament of baptism through baptism of blood and of desire. This is Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.(docuмents from theologians, canon lawers and even canon law are NOT an examples of infallible dogmatic church teaching)

1) Do you really think the Church may give a universal law contrary to faith and morals????

2)

Even in the matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith, it should still not be restricted to those things that have been defined in the obvious decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs or of this See, but must also be extended to that which is taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the entire Church spread throughout the world and which, as a result, is presented as belonging to the faith according to the common and constant agreement of the Catholic theologians.
But, on the matter of that subjection to which all Catholics who are engaged in the work of the speculative sciences are obliged in conscience, so that, by their writings, they may bring new advantages to the Church, the members of this assembly [a convention of German theologians] must take cognizance of the fact that it is not enough for them to receive and to venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary that they subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations and to those points of doctrine that are considered by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and con¬clusions which are so certain that opinions opposed to these points of doctrine still merit some other theological censure, even though they may not be designated as heretical.

Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, DZ 1683 f.

There is a definite reason why the scholastic theologians as such can be cited as authorities in the work of teaching revealed doctrine. By far the greater number of these theologians have been priests who at one time or another were charged with the teaching of sacred theology in some university, seminary or religious house. As such they have acted as competent and authorized instruments of the hierarchy both in training candidates for the priesthood and instructing those priests who are preparing for theological degrees...
...however when the entire body of scholastics theologians asserts that some thesis is of Catholic faith, their testimony is absolutely reliable. Because of the particular function of the scholastics, if all of them should be in error on a point of this kind, then the Catholic Church would be deceived. They are the qualified exponents of Catholic doctrine in the schools of the Church. Their unanimous testimony to the effect that a definite doctrine has been reealed by God and is to be accepted by all with the assent of divine faith mirrors the teaching of the Church itself.
This unanimity of the scholastics must be reckoned in the same way as that of the Fathers of the Church. The moral unanimity in the scholastic testimony to the divine origin of a certain thesis is no way impaired if, in the course of the academic history, a limited number of writers have called this thesis into question. The fact that such a denial has been reproved by an overwhelming number of theologians would consitute this thesis as one attested  by the moral unanimity of the scholastics.
The testimony of the theologians is valid even for propostions which are put forward as theologically certain. When a proposition is universally received as a theological conclusion, then the contradictory to it may be qualified as a simple theological error. Should the teaching of the theologians be sufficiently clear on a point that is not received with full unanimity, the opposition to this thesis would take the form of a rash or temerarious proposition"

Fenton, "The concept of sacred theology" pages 139.141)

3) How do you interpret the words of Our Lord "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day." (Jn VI, 53-54). ( Protestants and Apostates reject this Bible teaching, plus the Church dogmatically declares that those outside the Church, such as the Eastern Orthodox, receive NO sanctifying grace from the Eucharist because they receive Jesus illlicitly. )

Again, you misunderstood my point. I was referring to members of the Catholic Church who have not received the first communion yet. Suppose a 10 years old boy died 5 minutes before receiving first communion, will he be damned or you accept a votus or desire with regard to the Eucharist?

Cristian

agreed he is talking of non-members, but see that he says "to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be secure of their salvation", ergo eventhough they can´t be secure of their salvation and yet they can, absolutely speaking.

What !?!? You say they can´t be secure of their salvation and yet they can ?!?!? What king of strange logic is that ???  If you use real logic, then he is saying they have no security in their salvation because they are NOT members of the Church. I'm glad you at least agree they are not members of the Church.

Also, you seriously think the laity(Catholic theologians) have authority and are infallible in their teachings if the majority of theologians agree on a particular teaching? Can you show me any infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church which says that the Holy Spirit protects college theologians from error? Many of these so called academic University theologians are liberal modernists leading souls straight to Hell.

If common consent of theiologians were correct then Arianism would have been held correct since most theologians, laity, clergy and Bishops of the Church accepted Arianism

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’

Suppose a 10 year old boy died 5 minutes before receiving first communion, will he be damned or you accept a votus or desire with regard to the Eucharist?

First Communion does not remove original sin and is not the door by which a soul becomes a member of the Church. Instead it is the Sacrament of Water Baptism which does that.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:* “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.* And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. *The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” DZ 696

They that have not received the Mark/Seal of Baptism can not receive any of the other sacraments:
Pope Pius XII "On the Mystical Body of Christ,"June 29, 1943-# 18: "Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments