Yes, I know he is safe to quote anything in his Moral Theology. That the sacrament is necessary for salvation is a dogma, it was defined at Trent and therefore belongs with Dogmatic Theology, not Moral Theology. Yet he got it absolutely correct in my previous post to you.

Again, Trent's "no justification without the desire" does not mean "justification with the desire". It simply doesn't. The way Trent infallibly puts it, one may or may not be justified via desire, they left it that way on purpose.

1) If you were asked, "can one be justified if they have a desire for the sacrament"? You must answer - "all I know for sure is that without the desire, they cannot be justified".

2) If one were to ask you "is anyone saved without the sacrament"? You must answer - "the sacraments are necessary for salvation".  

You can never be wrong by repeating Trent, which is what 1 and 2 both do.

Aside from the canon saying it explicitly in the first part, the negative tenor of the second part of the canon teaches that the only sure way of obtaining justification is to receive the sacrament, which is also necessary for salvation. Without the sacrament, no one can attain salvation or justification. Without the desire for the sacrament, no one can be justified. Whatever anyone else teaches that differs from this, this is the teaching of Trent.

If you're understanding of Trent does not agree with this, then you are not understanding Trent's teaching.  

A heretical, schismatic non-Catholic layman such as yourself has no say on interpreting a Holy Roman Catholic Church council such as Trent.

I am fairly certain Papa Pius V is NOT LoverofTruth nor the other.  However, I do wonder whether he is some other former poster.

Trent never says a justified, unbaptized goes to heaven.  St Thomas THEORIZES they would go to purgatory.  But the Church has never said.  If you say otherwise, you’re delusional.

I wasn't talking about Trent.

St. Thomas says: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

After purgatory the catechumen goes to heaven eventually according to a Thomistic understanding.


As for some Church teachings on the matter:

In his decree about a Jew who, in danger of death, attempted to baptize himself, since those around his death bed refused to baptize him, Innocent III decrees:

We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immєdιαtely, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Dz. 413, emphasis added).

Pope Innocent II taught the same with regard to a priest, when after his death it was found that he had not been baptized. He writes:
Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Innocent II, Letter Apostolicam Sedem, Dz. 388, emphasis added)

1.  These are OPINIONS, not Church teaching.  St Thomas is a man, not the Church.
2.  If you quote OPINIONS concerning Jews or the "invincibly ignorant" and mix-n-match this with OPINIONS like those concerning Valentinian's BOD, you contradict yourself.  Since BOD can't apply to non-catechumens, (which you earlier agreed with), then you can't apply these OPINIONS to the discussion.
3.  Valentinian's situation is the only one relevant to the discussion, because he was a catechumen, and even though SOME Church Fathers say he was saved, it is not an article of Faith, and anyone can question it, which is basically, Fr Feeney's outlook.
4.  Fr Feeney questions BOD because of the slippery slope which leads to believing in salvation for the "invincible ignorant" or "pious jew"...and such a slippery slope of sentimentality over facts was proved by yourself, who only a few posts ago, claimed that BOD only applied to catechumens.  If you can't see this danger, you need to ask God to show you.

Fr Feeney never mentions St Thomas, nor invincible ignorance, nor Valentinian.  You are putting words in his mouth, then objecting to his imagined words.  You make no sense.

Again, Fr. Feeney was an obstinate heretic who had Calvinistic leanings and was condemned along with his positions by the Church.

Anyone who follows him is condemned as well just as is the case with those who follow any other leader of heresy.

Same as Trent, who say if anyone says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation but superfluous, let him be anathema. You say the sacraments are superfluous and not necessary for salvation, so you are the one who is anathema.

You imply that you know the things Fr. Feeney taught, which means that there's one thing for certain, you cannot plead ignorance. Fr. Feeney taught the exact same things Trent taught.  

Fr. Feeney was a heretic and you are a heretic on top of being a schismatic buffoon who continously interprets Trent contrary to the Church.