Do you think everything in the Holy Office is infallible? Do you know that no catechism meets the criteria for infallibility?

 If he isn't anathematized after the Church is restored, then the Church owes Honorius an apology.

Cmon Lad, you are better than that: "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."

Quoted from Tridentine catechism which clearly states this, and theologians confirm it.

MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).

But what do they know of course, we have forum members and upstate NY brothers we should rely on instead.

Of course you are the one interpreting that correctly over any approved theologian. Congrats! I beg you pardon fellow feenyite.
You claim this was not in the catechism of Pius X. Was it there being taught universally in the time let's say of Pius XII who did not do anything about it then?

Can canon law give poison unto damnation? Can catechisms? Apparently so. Let's also step on the neck of saint Alphonsus while we are at it, as of course he taught it as de fide. (now pull another quote from him to try to "disprove" him )

It sounds as if you feenyites use flowcharts when answering objections. It's always the same recycled asnwers. Catecisms are fallible unto damnation and heresy, so is canon law, popes were wrong for centuries, so were doctors (here insert saint Aquinas and Immaculate Conception), deny deny deny that Fathers have ever taught this, if something remotely resembles BOD say it aint so (in the case of tridentine catechism which body of theologians mention all the time. Gaslight, gaslight, galisght...

Heck, manuals of theology- good for dustbins. Mention how theologians have brought about Vatican II. No need for them, we have dimond bros after all. That will suffice.

It's just so tiresome. You will not change your view, neither will we. If only there were bishops and priests who supported your views so you don't cause so much havoc in the trad world. One can dream...

P.S Judas' views were never taught through UOM so I don't see the comparison. But okay...


 

"Catholic" Answers:

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings...

Yep, likely another moronic sedevacantist who claims that every time Pius XII passed wind, he was speaking irreformably and infallibly.  I guess we'd have to expand Denzinger to 300 times its size and include every one of Pius XII's long-winded 2-hours rambling speeches (he like to hear himself talk as much as Wojtyla did).

Pius XII was a scandal, both in his "doctrine", his toleration of Modernism, and even of his suspicious/scandalous fraternization with the "Popessa".  If he isn't anathematized after the Church is restored, then the Church owes Honorius an apology.

He's directly responsible for Vatican II.

In any case, the teaching of the theologians is quite clear that these low-level quasi-Magisterial come nowhere near to meeting the notes of infallibility, but this bad-willed moron knows better "by his own lights".

It's also clear that he holds the exact same ecclesiology that he condemns as heretical in Vatican II, thereby condemning himself of heresy by his own mouth.