Well there is the debate. You believe the catechism can be wrong, and they can. Yet you doubt the catechism writers could have made such a blunder. And we both agree on this. The debate enters because you try to justify two contradicting teachings whereas I say that was no blunder, I say that even if it were added on good faith, it was put in there on purpose and has mislead many.

There are some things in the otherwise excellent Baltimore Catechism that need correcting.

So I am asking you out right, Scripture says: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", the question is, how many kinds of baptisms are there? (if you don't answer with the obvious answer, then the debate goes on) that's really all there is to it.

It's because the catechism writers have elevated the theological opinions of saints such as St Alphonsus to a status of "de fide", just like Sean does.  Such questions which are not settled should not be in the catechism at all, until the Church decides the matter clearly.
.
But because most want to (their personal desire, not based on doctrine) believe that their non-Catholic friends and family have a chance to be saved, and because they can't humanly understand the mysteries of Divine Providence (which is none of us can, so why are they trying?) and how God knows who will or won't accept His graces...because of all of this, they accept the theological OPINION of BOD as a doctrine and put it into the catechism.  It's an example of liberalism.

Hold on, your argument is that they did this on purpose?

My problem with this is that the logic seems similar to the Protestant "one mediator" argument.  If a fine distinction can be used in the latter case, it can be used in the former case as well.

I believe the answer to your question is that there's one baptism, and three different ways of receiving it, or at least, I believe that's the pro BOD answer.

At least that is an honest and logical approach.  Except Trent does not clarify whether BOD provides heaven.  It only says it gives justification.
.
Contrary to popular belief and many lies, Feeneyites do not believe that a justified, unbaptized person goes to hell (and that this is "de fide").  We only say "it's not clear."  Our opinion is they go to Limbo.  We hold this question as still unsettled.
.
BOD'ers, on the other hand, call Feeneyites heretics.  And they also ignore the fact that many evil men have used this unsettled question to push the boundaries of salvation from a catechumen to anyone who simply "desires God" (see V2).  This is what Feeneyites call "heresy".
.
BOD is not a heresy.  Yet neither is it "de fide".  The heresy is in the application of BOD anyone who isn't a formal, public catechumen.  If the Church came out tomorrow and declared that an unbaptized, justified person goes to heaven, i'd believe it in a heartbeat.

Logically, I don't see how a justified man who dies justified could not wind up in heaven.  That doesn't seem consistent.

The only thing that I'm not clear on is the idea that its "heresy" to apply BOD to "anyone who isn't a formal, public catechumen".  That's the thing that hasn't been adequetely demonstrated to me yet, and I think some people here are elevating their own, understandable but nevertheless definitely questionable, reading of old church docuмents as though it was equivalent to an actual rebuke by the Church.

You mistake Fr. Feeney for Trent.

Trent teaches that noone is saved without a sacrament.
Trent teaches that there is no baptism without water.
Trent teaches that you need the laver of regeneration as well as the desire for it.

It is intellectual dishonesty to say that Trent mentions BoD. Trent requires the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof.

The statement "Noone can write a thesis on rocket science without a pen or a pencil" does neither imply

- that folks with a pen can write a thesis on rocket science
- that folks with a pencil can write a thesis on rocket science
- that folks with a pencil and a pen can write a thesis on rocket science

To be able to write a thesis on rocket science, much more than pen and/or pencil is needed.

The Council of Trent explains in detail what is needed. You just have to read the whole Decree on Justification (spoiler: water, the sacrament of baptism, as well as desire thereof are included).

It is my opinion that they did this on purpose, whether due to ignorance or malice I cannot guess, but certainly it's not something in there by accident. This forum alone proves it is a teaching that contradicts Scripture, tradition and infallible dogma.

The prot's logic has it's foundation in "Christ did everything, we only need to accept Him as our Savior to be saved." Whereas we Catholics must be told by the Church what we must do in order to be saved, which the prots wholly, some vehemently, reject. So I do not get the connection you are trying to make.

Being that there is only one baptism, and being that Our Lord specifically made the matter water, and He specifically made the form "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and since the recipient must desire to receive that one baptism in this manner, if there were any other possible way to receive that baptism, we do not know of it, as such, any other method would only be speculation.  

Also of interest is the fact that the only ones who promote a BOD, are already baptized. You will never hear an unbaptized person promote it - never.