CathInfo.com

Hey Xavier, here is a Lutheran website talking about their doctrine of baptism, they sound just like you - do you author articles there?

If not, why not post a few quotes of where they err?

There are Three Proofs that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, from Session VI, Session VII and Session XIV respectively.

First Proof: From Session VI 
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

Trent taught: "the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof (aut eius voto)" (Sess. VI, Cap. IV).

Error 1.  The commentary from Trent (or any council) is not infallible.  Only canons are infallible.
Error 2.  Baptism and Penance are separate sacraments.  You cannot explain/infer sacramental theology about baptism from penance.  Each sacrament has it's own special requirements, purposes and gifts.
.

Second Proof: From Session VI
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm

Trent taught: "without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification" is condemned. (Sess. VII, Can. IV)

In the second place, the analogy with the Sacrament of Penance - which no doubt confers the Grace of Justification, even when received in voto, as even the Dimonds admit - also shows that the Grace of Justification can be obtained through the Desire of Baptism. For Trent would say, as we will see below, "without them, or without the desire thereof", no one obtains justification. But the Dimonds admit this means that, with the desire of Penance, the grace of justification can be obtained. But "aut eorum voto" here is in the plural. Therefore, there are two Sacraments at least, the desire of which obtains the grace of justification. Those two can only be Baptism and Penance.

Same errors as above.
Error 1.  The commentary from Trent (or any council) is not infallible.  Only canons are infallible.
Error 2.  Baptism and Penance are separate sacraments.  You cannot explain/infer sacramental theology about baptism from penance.  Each sacrament has it's own special requirements, purposes and gifts.
.

Third Proof: From Session XIV 
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm

Trent taught: "And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation ; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated." (Sess. XIV, Cap. II)

Thirdly, Trent teaches that Penance is necessary for salvation (for those fallen after Baptism) as Baptism itself is necessary for all. But Penance is necessary, as everyone admits, in re or in voto. Hence, it follows, as the Doctors correctly conclude, Baptism itself is also necessary in re or in voto, for salvation, just as Penance is.

Same error as above:
Error 1.  The commentary from Trent (or any council) is not infallible.  Only canons are infallible.
Error 2.  Baptism and Penance are separate sacraments.  You cannot explain/infer sacramental theology about baptism from penance.  Each sacrament has it's own special requirements, purposes and gifts.
.
Now, to respond to the Objections: 

(1) The Dimonds claim "without Baptism, or its desire, justification cannot be obtained", does not mean "with Baptism, or its desire, justification can be obtained". They give an example from the Council itself, "Without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Spirit, man cannot believe and love as He ought". 

(2) Next, they say, that if someone says, for e.g. "A marriage cannot take place without a bride or a groom", this means both the bride and the groom should be present, and not just one of them, either/or.

This is really the same argument.  The "or"/"and" debate is due to people not understanding the english language and logic.  In this instance, the use of "or" is an abbreviation for the longer idea being conveyed.  If you FULLY write out the sentence, you'll see what I mean:
.
A marriage cannot take place without a bride, or a marriage cannot take place without a groom.
.
If either one is missing, the marriage cannot take place.  If only one is present, the marriage cannot take place.
.
Discussion over.  Logic wins.

The second objection gives an incorrect analogy. It should be: "a marriage cannot take place without a bride AND a groom". Only from this correct statement does it truly follow that both should be present. But Trent didn't say "AND". It could have if required, but it didn't. Trent's wording is very significant, in showing that not both one and the other are necessary, but either one can suffice.

This is just an alternate form of writing the same idea as I explained above.  Both sentences confer the same language, ESPECIALLY when Trent (in another infallible canon) tells us that "desire" for a sacrament is necessary (i.e. again, in historical context, Trent was condemning forced baptisms).

And again the example of the Sacrament of Penance shows us what Trent meant: Penance or its desire suffices for justification, as we all know, and the Dimonds concede. Therefore, the same follows for Baptism: Baptism or its desire suffices for justification as well.

Garbage theology.  Sacraments are different.
.
Conclusion:  Xavier quotes Trent's COMMENTARY as infallible and having a plain, clear-as-day meaning (when it doesn't).  But when he reads infallible, clear-as-day canons, he interprets them to his own liking (which is heretical).  What a backwards, modernistic, anti-catholic understanding/attitude towards Church councils!