There isn't any.  That's the entire point.  And there's no mention of deprivation of Baptism in the Catechism either.  

"With regard adults who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, for instance, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out a different manner of proceeding... On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this sacrament hastily: She will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." (p124,125 of the text)

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

Says, "deprived." Bad translation?

Completely dishonest?

Well, you're well-known for ascribing the moral fault of dishonesty to other members, so at least I'm in good company.

But where do you get off? Especially when you're reading into the text yourself, big time. I honestly think the Rheim's annotation is closer to the Catechism, and your reading makes no sense: there's a real "danger" to be concerned about in someone dying while waiting for baptism than in the baptism being called off and having to be scheduled later because of a church fire or a winter storm or whatever  . . . don't ya think?

Hey, since your reading is much less reasonable than mine, I guess you're, what, completely completely dishonest?

I could just as easily say that St. Fulgentius has nothing to do with the Catechism and your reading into it. 

I cited this as an example of a possible reading, and drew the conclusion that Trent was silent about HOW these dispositions would avail.  I never said that this IS the meaning, but said that it's a possible meaning, and that you can't conclude from the Catechism that this means someone who died without the Sacrament could be saved, as the Catechism remains silent about how this would be accomplished.  Unlike yourself, I am not going any farther than the evidence takes us.

You're constantly shifting accusations, charges, etc. trying to save face and win arguments. It's pathetic.

I never said the BOD meaning is the meaning either. I said that the Catechism "seems much closer" in meaning to the Rheims annotation, with its BOD reading. I originally asked you to post the Fulgentius quote and said it would be nice to see them all, the St. F quote, the Rheims annotation, and the Catechism quote lined up together to compare them . . . that how "dishonest" I am.

I will add that the BOD reading does have going for it that about every single saint, Catholic Bible annotation, and catechism that discussed the issue post-Trent coming down for BOD.

 As with Trent, so with the Catechism of Trent: do you know of any, any theologian or pope/bishop post-Trent who reads the Catechism your or the non-BOD way?

But hey, Laddie knows best.

You falsely accused me of reading the St. Fulgentius interpretation into Trent, when I did no such thing.