CM says about the Council of Trent statement "... laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof"...

But the problem for you is twofold if you are advocating the false translation that it can be effected with only one or the other.

First, you have to admit that a person who receives baptism, even though they are kicking and screaming in defiance, even if they are forced, and do not desire the sacrament, they are still justified.  Otherwise you are simply being arbitrary.

Well, aren't babies brought to the baptismal font often seen to be kicking and screaming in defiance?  Ha ha.

This statement of Trent is only concerned with rebirth through water, not rebirth through the Holy Ghost.  But an adult who desires baptism has ALREADY been born again of the Holy Ghost, even if he doesn't attain the water.  Just as some babies may attain the water but not be born again of the Spirit until they reach the age of reason years and years later.

If a baby can be saved with just the water, as it is dogmatic that babies who die after baptism are saved, why can't an adult be saved having been born again of the Holy Spirit but without the water?  Actually, the latter scenario seems far more plausible to me.  ( I grant you that a baby may be reborn through the Holy Spirit at the same time he is reborn through the water, but that is a complex subject I have not researched yet ).

Christ does say you must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit but then in another place He only says "spirit."  Just as in one place He says you must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life; while in another he only says "body."  The Council of Trent determined on this basis to give communion in only one species.  

Christ seems to give preference to rebirth through the Holy Ghost over rebirth through water, just as he gives preference to eating His body over drinking His blood.  Undoubtedly He anticipated this debate and I think He gave a very clear answer.  REBIRTH THROUGH THE SPIRIT IS ENOUGH FOR SALVATION.  AND EATING HIS BODY IS ENOUGH.  

You refuse to acknowledge this point.  If you are going to be literal and say we must be born again of both the water and the Holy Spirit, then why not be equally literal and say we must eat both His body and drink His blood?  Why not reject Trent and join the Hussites?

As for the hypothetical person "forced" into baptism, I don't think it even occurred to the theologians of Trent.  Such a person clearly would not have their sins washed away but the Trent doctors don't need to say that explicitly, as it is so obvious to common sense.

As usual Pius X says it best in HIS catechism

Now you are muddying up the waters again.  The Catechism that bears his name was originally released as "A Compendium of Christian Doctrine" and was not written by him.  It was compiled from the many books of text in use in the Dioceses of Italy, along with texts previously approved of from the Bishops of Piemonte, Liguria, Lombardy, Emilia and Tuscany.  Furthermore, in promulgating it, Pius X made no move to say that it was binding on all the faithful.  It is entirely possible, and based on his stance against Modernism, I firmly believe, that it was modified after he had given his approval.

Notice here not only love of God is needed but the desire for actual baptism in the CATHOLIC CHURCH.  The movement of the soul towards "God" as that particular soul understands God is not enough; the movement of the soul must be towards the Church outside of which no one can be saved, showing that that soul knows the true God.  Here Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is not violated.

Only when you understand Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to mean something different than whatthe ex cathedra decrees say.

I think that the modern heresy is that faith and/or desire can be implicit.

If we are going to use the Latin, it is "ecclesiam" in this instance.  Carry on...

Has anyone read Mr Patrick Henry Omlor's article on this matter?  It is quite good.

So to sum up, there are six realities that must be borne in mind when reading the following quotes, so as to read them in the sense always and forever intended by the Church, and with the Mind of the Church, understanding them exactly as they were written, and not with the alien interpretation foisted upon them by the likes of Peter Dimond and Fr. Feeney:

Six REALITIES?  Let us examine these 'realities', by which you approach the dogmas of Holy Mother Church, and draw them into the light, and expose every facet of them for all to see.  And then we may proceed in determining whether they are indeed realities.

I propose to measure them against the dogmatic standards of the Church.

1) Those passages referring to damnation of those outside the Church always carry a sense of "do not" and never "have not."

Please explain this one in greater detail before we can proceed to discuss it.  I am not quite sure I understand your assertion here.

2) Those passages that make sweeping generalizations would naturally have to admit certain limited exceptions, as can be defended by other doctrines as applicable.

Really?  According to whom?  I'd like to see your argumentation, which posits an INFALLIBLE decree, in which a sweeping generalization is made and leaves room for no exceptions, can later understood in a sense different than what it conveys upon the first reading.

Do you believe that we may also understand a dogmatic decree that DOES NOT make a sweeping generalization as being capable of admit of exceptions as well? Why or why not?

And how does your statement not contradict the following dogma?

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Next:

3) Those passages referring to saved souls can only be speaking of those who are in either Purgatory or Heaven, nowhere else.

Correct, obviously.  This is a dogmatic reality.

4) Those passages referring to the Church as the only means of salvation mean that no other "church" can save, but do not limit the Church's methods for applying God's Grace to souls.

Which grace might you be referring to, O sly one?  Prevenient grace?  Sanctifying grace, perhaps?  Please do clarify this point.

5) Those passages referring to the necessity to "abide" or "remain" or "continue" in the Church have no bearing on questions of BOB and BOD and entrance requirements since they speak only to those who are already in the Church Militant.

This is a very bizarre assertion.  How can you abide in something you have never entered?  Is entrance no longer a prerequisite to abiding therein?

6) Those passages which speak of water baptism as being the only means of entering the Church are speaking of how to enter the Church Militant, the only one of the three levels of the Church which one can voluntarily join.

So you argue that a person can skip right from being a pagan in the state of original sin to being either in Purgatory or Heaven?

In other words, the person never voluntarily joined the Church Militant (even if they desired baptism), but they were just placed by God in the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant?

I have more questions for you, but this will suffice for now.

Please respond.