CathInfo.com

Trent actually spent a significant amount of time discussing the relationship between the votum and the Sacrament with regard to Confession.  There's no such explanation with regard to the mention of votum for Baptism.

Based on Trent's own statement Penance is different from Baptism in many respects, arguments about Baptism made from the section on Confession are simply not cogent.

There is once piece that is key, though.

Some people claim that BoD is heretical because Trent taught that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

But Trent also teaches that Confession is "necessary" for justification, and  yet clearly states that the votum or intention/resolve/commitment to receive the Sacrament suffices for justification.  This is why I hold that syllogisms that rest on the term "necessary" for the Sacrament are not valid.  That necessity can still be maintained even if it can be attained through the votum.

Now, this doesn't prove that the votum alone suffices for justification in Baptism, but I think we need to take that "necessary" argument off the table.

I do not think Trent puts it that way, do they? IOW, Trent does *not* say the votum to confess certainly suffices for justification, they only say that without the votum, justification cannot be obtained. Trent never says definitively that with the votum, justification is certain - they left that conclusion wide open, likely because it is impossible to know without the sacrament, no one, not even the person with the votum knows if/when God accepts or rejects it.
    
Is this not why the Church has always taught even if one achieves perfect contrition for a mortal sin they are still bound to confess that same sin at their next confession? - because without the sacrament, it is impossible for anyone to know for certain if that sin was forgiven via an act of perfect contrition.  

Trent teaches that perfect contrition + the votum for Confession suffices for justification.  It's interesting, though, that Trent's description of this votum is very concrete, that there has to be the intention to go to Confession "in due time."  Which means basically something along the lines of ("I intend to go to Confession when it's scheduled next Sunday."  In other words, you don't have to intend to call a priest immєdιαtely at 3AM to go to Confession.  So this notion of translating votum as "desire" is garbage.  It's more like intention and resolution.  Our word "vow" derives from it.  

There's a huge difference between a simple desire and an intention or resolution.  "I'd like to go to Confession some day." vs. "I'm going to go next Saturday when they're hearing Confession."  One is some kind of vague longing or yearning, and it can even be had by someone who has not concrete intention to Confess.  "I'd really like to go to Confession, but I'm too embarrassed to go."  That can be called a desire.  Contrast that with "I will go to Confession next Saturday."

Enemies of EENS deliberately translate it this way so that any kind of vague yearning, even by those who haven't heard of the Sacrament, can count as "desire".  According to them, even Protestants who openly despise and reject the Sacrament can somehow have a "desire" to receive the Sacrament.  Absolutely ridiculous.  They have no intention of ever Confessing, so no Protestant who rejects the Sacrament can EVER be justified by "perfect contrition".  People like Xavier pretend that "perfect contrition and charity" = "desire" for Baptism.  That is ABSOLUTE HERETICAL GARBAGE.  Trent explicitly taught about Confession that the "perfect contrition" does NOT justify without the intention to Confess.