The sacrament of faith is another name for the sacrament of baptism. Who added that "(faith)" ?

It's from papalencyclicals.net:

the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm

instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi, quod est "sacramentum fidei", sine qua nulli umquam contigit iustificatio

qua is female while sacramentum is neuter and  fides is female.

Thus it's the faith here, without which ...

I've always thought that those in Limbo of the Patriarchs were under the old law which did not require baptism. As far as if they were in a state of sanctifying grace (justified) I never thought about it. I do not believe they could be in the same state of grace as those that are baptized, because those that are baptized are born again by the blood of Christ. Remember that Limbo of the Patriarchs was not just Jєωs, it contained 5000 years of peoples of all races and beliefs, from all over the world.

Sounds good to me. Also agrees with Pax re: they died under the old dispensation wherein they were justified without the sacrament. Which brings us back to the question if it is possible under the new law to attain justification before reception of the sacrament of baptism.

Fr. Feeney just said he did not know, Trent says, assuming the translation is correct, that the sacrament of baptism, "which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified". Seems to say that it is faith that is necessary for justification. No?

So?  Faith is a necessary cause of justification.  This does not mean that the Sacrament is not.  In fact, Trent teaches that the Sacrament is necessary for justification also.  So what's your point?

It sounds like you're trying to turn a necessary cause into a sufficient cause, and that's faulty logic.

I cannot live without water.  From which you conclude that I can live on water alone.

Calm down, please!

Why fight strawmen? You ask questions, imagine possible or impossible answers of mine, just to be able to throw an accusation of "faulty logic" at me.

I have answered a specific question of Last Tradhican. The addition "(faith)" on papalencyclicals.net seems to be a hint to the reader that the relative clause grammatically refers to the faith.

Whatever conclusions someone may draw from that specific statement in question, the Decree on Justification unequivocally teaches that since the promulgation of the gospel nobody born in sin is justified without the sacrament of baptism, and that nobody born in sin is justified before the death of Our Lord.

Hold on there. I know some theologians teach that - maybe even St. Thomas - but it contradicts Romans, Galatians, Hebrews (regarding the old sacrifices which didn't justify from sin), and the Magisterium of the Church. I'll find the quote from Denzinger, but I'm pretty sure that one of the popes quoted in there said circuмcision didn't justify.

Voilà:

CHAPTER I.
 On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jєωs by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm

Voilà:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm

. . . not even the Jєωs by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom . . .

Yes, I saw that. I was thinking of another quote which I have highlighted in my Denzinger, but I don't have it handy.

Will the Real Catechism of Pius X Please Stand Up?

On the website of the Museo San Pio X in Salzano (Venezia) there are digital transcripts of three versions of what is called "Catechism of Pius X" including


Scanning the text for "batt"esimo (baptism), "sang"ue (blood), and "desi"derio (desire) I could not find any reference to BoB or BoD.


The other two later versions found on that site do talk about Battesimo di sangue, Battesimo di desiderio, desiderio almeno implicito etc.

It's well known that the American Baltimore catechism of the 1800s had BOD and BOB in there, and the US bishops included them, not rome.  It would not be surprising that the US Bishops inserted BOD and BOB into Pius X's catechism as well.

BoB and BoD also were inserted ex post in the early 1800s in Bavaria, home of Adam Weishaupt, in the Catechism of St. Petrus Canisius. Differing versions are available on archive.org.

The italian wikipedia-page

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechismo_di_Pio_X

has a different story though on the "Catechism of Pius X." It starts with Il Catechismo di Pio X è una sintesi di un catechismo unico del Congresso Catechistico nαzιonale svolto a Piacenza nel 1889 and has, as far as I could find so far, no real proof that St. Pius X approved what is sold as his Catechism. It is an odd wiki-page with more footnotes than text.