As I noted in the language of Trent itself, it says "in adults" there is a period of preparation before receipt of the sacrament, referring to the period of catechesis before baptism. There is, again, a distinction being made between adults and infants - as there is in the "other means" or "other remedy" language of the Catechism, Florence, and Pius XII - this time in terms of the administration of the sacrament.

You've convinced yourself that BOD is a phantom, that's all. 

Look, here's the bottom line for me. It's not a question of what I, you or anyone here thinks makes sense or what is right, but what God has determined to do. Has He determined to save men through water baptism alone since the promulgation of the Gospel, and determined that that is the sole way He will justify men and apply to them the Blood of Christ, without whom there is no redemption (Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 3)? John 3:5 can be read that way, and indeed some of the Fathers speak that way. As I have said, I was a former "Feeneyite" and am not adverse to that view (despite what some around here think).

But it is ridiculous to argue, for example, that the Catechism of Trent doesn't speak of a BOD and therefore lend the authoritative, interpretive voice of the Church to the meaning of Session VI, Chapter 4 of the Counsel. Even the Dimonds recognize that the Catechism speaks of BOD, but reject it on other grounds. In my view, it's simply not credible to argue that the Catechism doesn't express BOD - kudos for the Dimonds for not making that weak argument.

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.).

I say you can have one - rejection of BOD - but not the other (belief in the "indefectibility" of the universal teaching of the hierarchy on matters as essential to the Catholic faith as justification and the necessity of the actual receipt of the sacrament of baptism).

I'll entertain with you or anyone else (as a former Feeneyite) the rejection of BOD, but not the acceptance of an "indefectible" Magisterium as traditionally understood. To do so would be to embrace a contradiction, which is incompatible with truth - which is the necessary condition (in my view, and indeed the dictate of infallible and "indefectible" logic/reason) for holding any belief.

Maybe it's just me, but that's my issue. 

Happy Easter.

DR

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.).

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.

The necessity of Baptism is so great that if anyone were to die without reception of Baptism, or at least desire for it, he could by no means enter heaven. Because infants are liable to danger of this sort, and can easily die, but still do not have capacities to desire Baptism, therefore it is necessary to baptize them as soon as possible. And although they do not understand that which they receive, nevertheless, the Church supplies that which it responds and pledges for them by means of the godparents, which suffices. Just as by Adam we have all fallen into sin and disfavor with God when we still did not know it, so also it is enough for God if, through Baptism and the Church, we are freed from sin and received in its grace even if we do not yet notice.

5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.



Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
 

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

. . .


Baptism Of Adults


With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.

They Should Not Delay Their Baptism Unduly

If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism. Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.

They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

Council of Florence, from the Bull, Cantate Domino

Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. (Dz 712)

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed


The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

Decem,
The catechism isn't infallible.  It can't be looked at as a "interpretation" of a council.  That's not it's purpose and you're using this tool for the wrong job.

Secondly, to get a clear view of this catechism, we'd have to go back to the original latin.  As has been proven many times, once things get "translated" from latin into vernacular languages, the opportunity for corruption/liberalism is great.  One only has to use the "for many (latin)" and "for all (english)" heresy as an example.  But such mis-translations/additions also happened way back in the 1600s.

Even then, no one is obligated to read, own or believe a catechism.  I've never read Trent's catechism and I don't plan to.  And this won't affect my salvation at all.  Which means, a catechism isn't "doctrinal" (if it was, i'd have to give unquestionable assent to it) nor is it as important as you make it out to be.

51) But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request?* But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified his desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7).
(52) Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected … He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace?
(53) Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.