CathInfo.com

But to argue - as the Dimonds do - that the Council doesn't speak of BOD in light of the Catechism necessitates a rejection - which is radical - of what most "Feeneyites" don't reject - a view of the Magisterium and its "indefectibility" on pre-Vatican II terms, such as the impossibility of the Ecclessia Docens to teach serious theological errors in propagating the Catholic faith. Most "Feeneyites" want to have their cake (rejection of BOD) and eat that too (the "indefectibility" of a Magisterium that has taught BOD in its catechisms, etc.).

You keep reasserting this notion over and over again, despite it having been completely debunked.  There's no indication whatsoever that the Catechism is "interpreting" the contested passage in Trent.  In fact, it's going completely off script, attempting to explain something that was not directly addressed in Trent, namely, why infant Baptism should not be delayed, but it's OK and even advisable to delay adult Baptism.  And, as mentioned, what the Catechism writes does NOT translate to BoD.  It simply states, almost as St. Ambrose did, regarding Valentinian, or St. Fulgentius did when he stated that God would keep someone alive until they could receive the Sacrament, that God will take care of a properly-disposed adult.  Nowhere does it state the BoD principle:  "If such a one were to die before the Sacrament, he would be saved."  There's nothing in there along those lines, despite how hard the BoDers try to read that into it.  We could be talking about a scenario where someone gets badly injured, and yet God keeps him alive long enough to receive the Sacrament.  We could be talking about St. Ambrose's concept regarding Valentinian, that he would be "washed" even if not crowned.  We don't know.  And Trent doesn't answer the question either about HOW God would take care of such an individual.  Once you take off the table the bad translation (probably deliberately bad, just like the "except through" translation of Trent) to "accident", which in English implies some kind of fatal mishap, but in the Latin does nothing of the sort, there's absolutely zero reference to the BoD thesis found in the Catechism.

1) Trent itself cannot be interpreted as teaching BoD.
2) Catechism of Trent does not teach BoD either, but leaves it open, how God would take care of well-disposed adult, and gives no indication of its being an interpretation of the contested passage in Trent.

None of this is undone by the constant gratuitous re-statement of these claims by the BoDers, and the arguments for 1 and 2 above have not been refuted.

This is typical of BoDer dishonesty, to simply keep restating their begged questions while refusing to address or refute the arguments presented against their opinions.