Co-sign

You cannot admit the fallacy of your position.  Because you are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.  Or both.  But not neither.  

All hail the chosen one…

Thank you.

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

I've already answered this question for him.  I would not, by God's grace, deny Christ, no matter the consequences.  If that meant dying before receiving the Sacrament, then that's what it would mean.  I would accept it as God's will that He chose not to give me salvation and the beatific vision.  Glory to God for denying me this.

.
It seems to me you're patronizing the short-sightedness of your opponent with this answer, Ladislaus.
.
I would answer differently. I would say that if I was hoping to receive Holy Baptism, that I would be confident that God would not deny me this grace if I honestly asked Him for it. Our Lord said that anything you ask the Father in my name you shall receive. How could it be any different for the most basic of human necessity? 
.
It comes down to faith in divine providence, that fulfilling His own requirement is not beyond His ability to provide. Therefore, He could send a saint to me as I lay dying as He has done in many instances throughout history. If for whatever reason that is not possible, He could send an angel if He so chose, but for me to place limits on God's omnipotence is one and the same as having no faith in God. Rather, our faith in the Providence of God should be sufficient. 
.
BTW LoT must be absolutely delighted to see his name being the topic of so many threads. This is his objective, to draw attention to himself, sheer and tangible vainglory, which is a miserable vice.
.

In short, the poster does not truly believe that God can provide for the conversion and baptism of a non-Catholic, and so from there he goes into theological speculation to get around every single word in the dogmatic declarations on EENS, the sacraments, and justification. The mental gymnastics is so overwhelming that at the end he does not know what he believes and ends up with the idea that; Any non-Catholic can be saved if he dies in a state of sanctifying grace.

Well, that is like saying anyone that goes to heaven is saved. It says  nothing. Yet he thinks he's "cracked the code".

He says he is being submissive to the teachings of the Church, that the Church has not definitively decided on the issue of the damnation of those who do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, on the other hand, he rejects the teachings of the Church that one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace to be saved. That is a teaching of the Church too, and yet he vehemently rejects it and hates the teaching with a passion. Interesting.

No theologian in at least the first 1500 years of the Church ever taught that Pagans, Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus etc... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards, and after that time period it was not till the late 1800 that some obscure theologians started pushing the speculation to the point where it was the majority opinion of the theologians at Vatican II.

We reject that teaching which was enshrined at Vatican II (indeed, the docuмent constantly brought forward by the poster, the 1949 letter, is referenced in Vatican II). We know that it is a teaching of the Church but it is speculative teaching, strictly tolerated at this point in time. We have the right to reject it. 

On the other side, the poster rejects the constant teaching of the Church that to be saved one must be a sacramentally baptized member of the Catholic Church in a state of grace at death. We have for years been bringing forward all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, theologians, that is teach the same as us. It is also Church teaching, and has a longer tradition than the recent streak of salvation by belief in a rewarder God. Not one such "strict interpreter" of EENS has ever been declared a heretic, indeed, they are all Saints. Yet the poster hates the teaching so much that he dedicates all his time to counter it.

In short, the poster does not truly believe that God can provide for the conversion and baptism of a non-Catholic, and so from there he goes into theological speculation to get around every single word in the dogmatic declarations on EENS, the sacraments, and justification. The mental gymnastics is so overwhelming that at the end he does not know what he believes and ends up with the idea that; Any non-Catholic can be saved if he dies in a state of sanctifying grace.

Spot on.