Too bad there aren't any medically verified cases of people coming back from the dead. Then again, that might be taken as "proof" for all sorts of Hasty Puddin'

Do you deny that a person is judged at the moment of death?

Has apparently forgotten our last little "chat", only reinforced by his double-standard of asking much, yet beholden, apparently not even to God almighty, to none to answer. Seems proper company for Myth.

If you were given the choice of martyrdom before baptism or denying Christ so you could get baptized which would you chose?

.
I'm not a Latin reader, so I don't know anything about "mox"; a few dictionaries I've consulted give the primary meaning as being soon in the respect of being next in time or position (which makes perfect sense, given the dogma-- it's distinguishable from the "soon" that you say to a five year old who asks if you're there yet).  But shouldn't the dogma speak for itself, rather than having us have to rely on dictionaries to understand it?  Dictionaries aren't infallible.  If the Church teaches primarily-- or only-- through solemn definitions, then it follows that she, being capable and divinely equipped to execute her mission, speaks clearly in solemn definitions.  Right?  If you're finding an ambiguity of language, that's your problem.
.
So, we're back to a problem of methodology.  Now, for those of us whose methodology allows and encourages us to learn from the Church's ordinary teaching, we find out that the usual translation is immediately simply because the doctrine is that the particular judgment occurs immediately after death, with the sending to Heaven/Purgatory or Hell immediately or instantaneously to the judgment (Parente, 1953).  We might, in a manner of speaking, say that such souls do not ascend or descend immediately, but only because they must be judged "first."  Not because they can be preserved in a stasis or slumber pending judgment and punishment or reward.
.
Interestingly enough, GJC's contention (which you are repeating here) of some stasis or slumber is positively condemned; it's not just a matter of being very difficult to reconcile with Benedictus Deus or any of the other creeds that reinforce the immediacy of Heaven or Hell after death, but "the soul's slumber" is an idea that was tossed around and already condemned (McHugh, 1910).  
.
So, you see?  I am "learning from man." :D 
.
I agree that you don't need these pious stories as proof of your conclusion.  So stop defending them.

Your choosing not to answer is even more revealing.  

No your question is moronic, only a person that does not believe in divine providence would ask such a puerile question.
Your unbelief is the cause of your illness.

1. Who is ceding that there is such a thing as pre-baptismal martyrdom?
 1. Danger of equivocation re: "martyr",  no?

There are "martyrs" for "Manchester United" for cryijng out loud.

Both choices reveal your unbelief of divine providence and God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. Your unbelief is the root of your obsession with the subject of salvation of

Do you understand the definition of the word "necessary". The definition itself means absolute or no other means. The word relative implies something that is general but not always. This would change the meaning of the definition to mean something it does not say. We all know that it is not lawful to change the intended meaning of a Dogma.
Please tell me you know what necessary means.

You obviously don't get it.  I'll pray you somehow manage to save your soul and avoid speaking on an issue you know nothing about.