Trent says you can't be justified without the laver of redemption OR without the desire thereof. (Trent speaks in Latin, not English. In the Spanish, the translation says what I inserted, a second "without". Some English translations also say without twice.)

Latin for reference, italics added:
1524 796 Cap. 4. Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et 'adoptionis filiorum' (Rom 8,15) Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei' (Jo 3,5).

I'm not sure it makes any difference, but the "sine" is not repeated in Latin.

You can't get groceries without cash or without credit.

St Alphonsus died in the late 1700s, 200 years after Trent.  That’s 200 years of “emotional theology” which arose to save the supposed-good-willed native.  St Alphonsus is a man, a fallible man who is subject to sentimentality just as we all are, just as St Bellarmine was when he said that damnation for the ignorant “seems too harsh”.  Let’s not treat St Alphonsus as some infallible oracle who’s incapable of error.

We're closer in time to Vatican I than he was to Trent.  Yes, he was a great saint, but he made a fair number of mistakes also.  That can happen when you write 1,000 pages per year.  St. Augustine, hands down the greatest theologian in the first millennium, issued an entire BOOK called "Corrections," where he corrected his prior opinions on a wide range of subjects.

But.... I’m to trust you and others who hold your position, that Trent was mistranslated for 400 years, and that Saint Alphonsus was wrong? You expect me to bet my immortal soul that you are right and Saint Alphonsus was mistaken when he claimed it is de fide? No thanks, I’ll stick with the “sentimental” Saint Alphonsus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Robert Bellarmine.

Nobody's stopping you from believing in BoD.  I have no problem if you want to believe it.  So long as, at the same time, you don't try to promote this heretical nonsense that non-Catholics can be saved under the guise of BoD.

Even IF you want to read Trent this way, there's nothing there to suggest any kind of positive definition.  Mention of it appears in a narrative portion of the docuмent, and it's mentioned almost in passing.  At the very best it's leaving the possibility open, but it's not actively defining anything about it that must be believed.

But.... I’m to trust you and others who hold your position, that Trent was mistranslated for 400 years, and that Saint Alphonsus was wrong? You expect me to bet my immortal soul that you are right and Saint Alphonsus was mistaken when he claimed it is de fide? No thanks, I’ll stick with the “sentimental” Saint Alphonsus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Robert Bellarmine.

But this is the entire history of BoD ... a tenuous chain of "authority."  St. Bernard was responsible for BoD becoming widely adopted by the schismatics, and he only agreed with it tentatively, "whether in truth or in error," due to the "authority" of St. Augustine.  St. Bernard was not acquainted with St. Augustine's vehement retraction of the opinion later in life.  Then everybody else bases it on the "authority" of St. Thomas, etc.

There's zero indication that BoD was part of the Deposit of Revelation; it was never anything more than sheer speculation.  Even when St. Augustine first floated the idea he said that he had gone back and for on the issue and that it "seemed to [him]" that [BoD].  There was nothing here of, "this is the teaching of the Apostles".  There was no universal consensus of the Church Fathers.  In fact, more Fathers explicitly rejected it than "accepted" it.

I'll go with St. Gregory nαzιanzen and St. Fulgentius and St. Gregory of Nyssa ... all of whom explicitly rejected it.

So you're afraid to disagree with St. Alphonsus, who got it from St. Thomas, who got it from St. Bernard, who was afraid to disagree with St. Augustine.

But this is the entire history of BoD ... a tenuous chain of "authority."  St. Bernard was responsible for BoD becoming widely adopted by the schismatics, and he only agreed with it tentatively, "whether in truth or in error," due to the "authority" of St. Augustine.  St. Bernard was not acquainted with St. Augustine's vehement retraction of the opinion later in life.  Then everybody else bases it on the "authority" of St. Thomas, etc.

There's zero indication that BoD was part of the Deposit of Revelation; it was never anything more than sheer speculation.  Even when St. Augustine first floated the idea he said that he had gone back and for on the issue and that it "seemed to [him]" that [BoD].  There was nothing here of, "this is the teaching of the Apostles".  There was no universal consensus of the Church Fathers.  In fact, more Fathers explicitly rejected it than "accepted" it.

I'll go with St. Gregory nαzιanzen and St. Fulgentius and St. Gregory of Nyssa ... all of whom explicitly rejected it.

So you're afraid to disagree with St. Alphonsus, who got it from St. Thomas, who got it from St. Bernard, who was afraid to disagree with St. Augustine.

Actually, before Trent I would probably have sided with you. After Trent there is not a single theologian that I know of who interprets Trent the way you do. 

Actually, before Trent I would probably have sided with you. After Trent there is not a single theologian that I know of who interprets Trent the way you do.

Yes, out of about 3 or 4 who actually even talk about this passage.  Father Cekada could only find two dozen theologians who mentioned BoD at all, most of them in passing.

Again, however, I am not asking you to side with me.  Baptism of Desire is not an issue that's of primary interest to me.  I'm more concerned about EENS and the ecclesiology that results from lax EENS.  I've had half a mind before just to pretend that I believed in BoD for catechumens just so we could put aside this distraction from the real issue.  I'd have no serious problem in principle accepting it ... I simply don't because there's no proof for it, and I am a firm believer, along with St. Augustine that God will not fail to bring the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect.  I do not believe that God is constrained by "impossibility".  So if some catechumen were to die without Baptism, then God willed that to happen.  But why would God will one of His elect who sought Baptism and had all the necessary dispositions for it to not receive it?  Why would God cut such a one off from Baptism?  Whatever happened to "seek and ye shall find."?  Even if some uphold it as a theoretical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner.

So after the Church had dogmatically declared that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, I really need to accept as dogma, as St. Alphonsus claims, the very opposite, that the Sacrament is not necessary for salvation?  I'll follow the thinking of Pius IX here:  All I know is that there is no salvation outside the Church and that Baptism is the way into the Church.  Apart from this I know nothing, and Pius IX said to inquired beyond that is impious.

Yes, out of about 3 or 4 who actually even talk about this passage.  Father Cekada could only find two dozen theologians who mentioned BoD at all, most of them in passing.

Again, however, I am not asking you to side with me.  Baptism of Desire is not an issue that's of primary interest to me.  I'm more concerned about EENS and the ecclesiology that results from lax EENS.  I've had half a mind before just to pretend that I believed in BoD for catechumens just so we could put aside this distraction from the real issue.  I'd have no serious problem in principle accepting it ... I simply don't because there's no proof for it, and I am a firm believer, along with St. Augustine that God will not fail to bring the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect.  I do not believe that God is constrained by "impossibility".  So if some catechumen were to die without Baptism, then God willed that to happen.  But why would God will one of His elect who sought Baptism and had all the necessary dispositions for it to not receive it?  Why would God cut such a one off from Baptism?  Whatever happened to "seek and ye shall find."?  Even if some uphold it as a theoretical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner.

So after the Church had dogmatically declared that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, I really need to accept as dogma, as St. Alphonsus claims, the very opposite, that the Sacrament is not necessary for salvation?  I'll follow the thinking of Pius IX here:  All I know is that there is no salvation outside the Church and that Baptism is the way into the Church.  Apart from this I know nothing, and Pius IX said to inquired beyond that is impious.

As you know and just to be clear, I believe in the orthodox “conservative” position with regard to BOD. You said: “ Even if some uphold it as a theoretical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner.” How do you explain the case of Saint Emerentiana?