Your realistic inclusion and willingness to oppose an extremist “Traditional Catholic” position by a fringe RC is commendable, nor do i hold that all Catholics are lost, but i do think that the TC view has substantial weight in official pronouncements as requiring formal submission to the Pope for salvation.
Or that most Prot baptisms are disallowed because the minister does not intend to do what the Catholic does in administering her sacrament, which is necessary for a sacrament to be efficacious (of course, if one cannot be sure that the minister does indeed have the proper intent, then one cannot be sure he has truly received a sacrament, which is another issue).
And baptism is held to operate ex opere operatos in effecting remission of sins and regeneration, resulting in justification because of an actual interior holiness (”infused, vs. imputed” righteousness).
In contrast, in classic Prot theology it is such faith as is expressed in baptism that appropriates remission of sins, and is counted for righteousness.
The closest Catholicism comes to this is in baptism by desire, (which some do not allow) in which the intent is counted for the act, due to a perfectly contrite heart of faith (contritio caritate perfecta).
Which relates to a thread just previous to this one, in which a Catholic insisted that Cornelius and company did not receive regeneration and remission of sins prior to baptism, even though he was compelled to assent to baptism by desire, for which Acts 10 is sometimes invoked (and he also severely Prot restricted salvation to Anglican type Prots).
I invited him (and by extension all other readers) to find another poster who agreed with him on Cornelius and company, but no one responded. Should have pinged you i suppose.
Daniel — read the post above, he’s an ex-Catholic...