CathInfo.com

Right. That's the "position." Better?

I don't get the joke. But that position is Trent's.

I asked him repeatedly, repeatedly, if I was correct in believing that he held the view that it was impossible to be saved without the sacrament of baptism, and he never denied that.

Again, if one dies justified, one is saved. You can make as many distinctions between justification and salvation as you want - obviously, you're not saved until you go to heaven, for example - but if you die in a state of justification, you will be saved.

You were alleging contradiction based on a false dichotomy, where both the opposites were strawmen of my position.

My contention regarding the inerrancy of the Magisterium contradicts my contention that BoD is an error.  [Assumed premise:  BoD was taught by the Magisterium.]

I never said that I believed the Magisterium to be absolutely inerrant.

I just said that the Magisterium cannot become so corrupt that it's harmful to souls, certainly not to the point of requiring Catholics in conscience to sever communion with the Holy See and the hierarchy over it.

Then I stated that while I disagree with BoD, I do not characterize it as any kind of error (just a speculation with which i disagree) ... EXCEPT when it's articulated in its extreme Pelagian form that undermines EENS dogma.  And the Church has absolutely never taught that latter expression of the amorphous "BoD".

With all that said, I do not concede your premise that the Magisterium has taught even the non-extreme form of BoD ... but that ventures off into a separate argument altogether which has been tangential to the main point of contention.

Now, while I do not hold the Magisterium to be absolutely inerrant, had the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire clearly and set out what must be believed about it, I would of course have immediately accepted that.  I don't believe that an Ecuмenical Council can err at all, and Vatican II could not have taught error had it been legitimate.  What I had in mind was something along the lines of that curious letter by Pope Innocent regarding the "unbaptized priest".

But I reject the assertion that Trent taught a "Baptism of Desire" in a way that includes the proposition that those who die without the Sacrament could be saved (enter the Kingdom and the Beatific Vision) without the Sacrament.  But I will not digress into what we've already been discussing.

I see no contradiction anywhere.

What's strange though is that you started promoting the sedevacantists (who would agree with me in calling your position heretical) as if they were your allies in this contention, and started basically promoting their position that the Magisterium is inerrant, while at the same time believing yourself that it can be corrupted badly ... such as you assert of Vatican II, along with the New Mass.  That seems dishonest.  You were promoting a position that you yourself do not believe to convince me (or others) into believing it, so that your allegation of a contradiction could stand.  

I don't get the joke. But that position is Trent's.

Never mind, I get it now - but it is still clearly, Trent's teaching.

Since, per Trent, it is infallible that:
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration), 
2) or the desire for the sacrament of baptism, and
3) since we are bound to accept this and Trent's inclusion of John 3:5 as it is written,
4) there is no other means for those unbaptized to obtain justification because Trent infallibly teaches that
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)

Why is it not clear that #2 condemns the idea of a BOD?