Contrary to this, BODers say the Church teaches that justification is attained without the sacrament.

Indeed, the vast majority of BoDers have embrace a heretical denial of these key dogma of Trent (believing that the only dogma Trent taught about the Sacrament of Baptism is that it's NOT necessary for salvation).  Now, one CAN articulated a very nuanced explanation of BoD, such as St. Robert Bellarmine did, in holding that Catechumens who might be saved by BoD are NOT saved "without" the Sacrament, but rather that they receive the Sacrament in voto.  Most BoDers claim that BoD is a "substitute" for the Sacrament and that people are saved without the Sacrament ... heresy.  That is why St. Robert was very careful to avoid any such language, saying instead that they simply receive the Sacrament in a different mode or manner, and thereby that the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification (as taught by Trent).  Now, how the Sacrament of Baptism is involved IN ANY WAY in some, say, worshipper of The Great Thumb being saved is absolutely inexplicable.  St. Robert Bellarmine, despite being misappropriated by the BoDers as some champion of theirs, limited BoD only (and tentatively) to formal catechumens, considering that they somehow belong to the VISIBLE Church.  If any theologian in the history promoted the notion of Church as Visible Society against the Prot heresies, it was St. Robert (many Catholic theologians would later say almost to a fault).

But, to your point, there's a different interpretation or understanding of BoD, how it works, to whom it applies, etc. for just about every BoDer out there ... with the only common denominator in all their opinions being that the Sacrament of Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation.  In other words, the common understanding of BoD is heresy.  And the vast majority of BoDers are Pelagians, such as the JCRev2033 individual who came on here declaring that people will themselves to salvation by seeking their final end.

Nor are the promoters of BoD content with limiting BoD to catechumens (as is always the context of any BoD statements the spam in here).  No, their point is to undermine EENS dogma, so that it does them no service to have the rare case of some catechumen who drops dead 2 weeks before his scheduled Baptism.  No, their understanding of BoD = the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation AND there's salvation outside the Church (both heresies).  This is their agenda, and not the simple notion of explicit BoD, but rather this broad "implicit" BoD ... for which you'll not find even a shred of support in anything remotely magisterial.

Assuming these sources promote BoD (they don't) ...

Roman Catechism is about someone who's studying to become Catholic and intending to be baptized (but deferring it for further instruction) ... aka catechumen.
1917 is explicitly about the catechumen who intended to be baptized but was cut off from it.
Same hold of those quotes from Innocent II and Innocent III.
Holy Office rejected "Rewarder God" theory, declaring knowledge of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to be necessary by necessity of means for salvation.

They cling only to their "Suprema Haec" which isn't even Magisterial (by Church law) since it never made an appearance in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and the only place it was ever published was in the heresiarch Cushing's own "Irish Ecclesiastical Review" ... and, strangely, he sat on it for nearly 2 years until the man who allegedly signed it had died, leading to the suspicion that it was somehow inauthentic (either altered or fabricated entirely).  But other than the claims of the docuмent itself, there's no indication it ever had the approval of Pope Pius XII (who by all accounts was badly ailing after 1955, and the curia was running the Church, including foisting the revised Holy Week Rites on people).  AAS was generally considered the guarantee of papal approbation, precisely to prevent funny-business such as what Cushing was up to.

Not that these SVs (or Trads in general) REALLY "care" about Holy Office decisions, since most of them reject geocentrism, and most of them reject the Holy Office declaration that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by necessity of means for salvation.  They just cherry-pick the ones they like and then puff up their authority.

Coming from an idiot who's thus far refused to answer every question put to him?

So you believe now that some note in the Rituale is infallible and tantamount to a dogmatic definition?

I've made it quite clear that the Church has long permitted belief in BoD.  What part oft hat doesn't compute to you.  I think it's wrong and imprudent, but there's nothing even close to any kind of doctrinal teaching there ... just as the Church forbade Christian burial for Catechumens, then permitted it, just like the Church forbade belief in heliocentrism, then permitted it, just like the Church banned usury, then permitted it, just like the Church continues to allow belief in Molinism (and the Thomist position) even though they're in conflict and one of them must be wrong.

Now, you answer the questions repeatedly put to you ...

Are you claiming that a note in an edition of the Rituale is an infallible dogmatic teaching?

Are you claming the Roman martyrology is infallible?

Are you claiming that the Roman Catechism is infallible?

You've dodged all these questions, and then demand that I answers yours.  Answers these first, jackass, since the validity of all your points implies Yes answers to all the above.

I've also repeatedly stated here that for someone who believes in a BoD for catechumens or those who explicitly intend to joing the Catholic Church, I'm not going to argue with them much, other than as a matter of personal opinion and disagreement.  What I have issues with are the thinly-veiled heretics, Pelagians who deny the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation and who believe that people can save themselves ex opere operantis, and whose ecclesiology is idenitcal to that of Vatican II (while they bloviate about the ecclesiology of Vatican II being heretical).

So, I've answered your question anyway.  Now answer the quetions (in bold above) that have been put to you and you've hypocritically ignored, while snowflaking that I ignored your questions.

Coming from an idiot who's thus far refused to answer every question put to him?

Yes, must be a democrat.

"I've made it quite clear that the Church has long permitted belief in BoD"


We got a miracle everyone. Feenyite accepting a possibility of BOD. Great stuff. So there is no dispute about the topic anymore. I don’t think any of the 3 mentioned things are infallible (which does not mean they are erroneous), and also know that Church could not allow for the error to creep up onto someones damnation as if BOD was not a thing. 

Stubborn, et tu, Brute? Your calumnies and projections are siding me with baby killers and sɛҳuąƖ deviants because you don’t accept BOD which is a low blow, sin, calumny and reason for you to see a priest (hopefully you can find a feneeyite one too and not be a hypocrite and have a confession heard.

"I've made it quite clear that the Church has long permitted belief in BoD"


We got a miracle everyone. Feenyite accepting a possibility of BOD. Great stuff. So there is no dispute about the topic anymore. I don’t think any of the 3 mentioned things are infallible (which does not mean they are erroneous), and also know that Church could not allow for the error to creep up onto someones damnation as if BOD was not a thing.

Stubborn, et tu, Brute? Your calumnies and projections are siding me with baby killers and sɛҳuąƖ deviants because you don’t accept BOD which is a low blow, sin, calumny and reason for you to see a priest (hopefully you can find a feneeyite one too and not be a hypocrite and have a confession heard.

Not meant to be a low blow, it's a description of one who accuses others of a wrong doing that the accused is innocent of, while the accuser themself is guilty of.

Trent taught the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism as dogma, so the only articulations of BoD that are not heretical are those that maintain the necessity of the Sacrament, such as St. Robert's careful statement that catechumens might receive the Sacrament in voto.  Anyone who starts talking about "substitutes" for the Sacrament or various things "supplying for" the Sacrament or saying that these can be saved "without the Sacrament" ... they've already slid into heresy, and alas this constitutes at least 95% of BoDers.  It's also Pelagian, since all the mechanisms they posit as substituting or supplying for the Sacrament work ex opere operantis.

In all cases, even if you believe in BoD, you have to hold that the Sacrament of Baptism acts as the instrumental cause of justification.  Of course, this is absurd in cases where the individual doesn't believe in the Sacrament, never heard of it, and never even heard of the Church or has any intention or resolve to join it.

So in addition to "Anonymous Christian" now we have "Anonymous Baptism", where these people are somehow mystically baptized without even knowing it, making a complete mockery of the Traditional dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.