Supernatural Faith AND charity are required and have been at ALL times, for salvation.

Correct. They are both bestowed upon a soul by baptism, even an infant's soul, so you can stop badgering Don.

So that means if a mute or infant is baptised...and he can't say with his mouth..."'Jesus is Lord"...then he's damned, right?

Is that what you're saying?
 

The sacraments were not (before they even existed)

Correct.

and are not today in ALL cases.

Absolutely false.  Show me ONE dogmatic definition that you believe supports this position, and I will show you half a dozen or more that reveal you to be distorting the meaning of the definition.

In fact, the very decree that so many baptism of desire heretics use to support their heresy specifically states "since the promulgation of the Gospel, this translation (to the state of justification) CANNOT be effect WITHOUT the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof."

First, Trent does NOT teach that the vow or desire to receive baptism may in itself bring about justification, which is the sacramental effect of baptism.  It teaches that WITHOUT this vow, justification is NOT possible, hence a person who receives baptism, but does not believe, and therefore does not truly desire the sacrament, but does it for human respect, etc. IS NOT JUSTIFIED.

Likewise, the Council teaches that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration.

It specifies these two things, without which there is no justification.  It does NOT propose one as an alternative to the other.  Anyone who believes that it does is inconsistent unless they believe a person can be justified by baptism without the desire to receive it.

Which baptism of desire heretic will stand up and say this?  Which of you believes that a person who is baptized against his will is cleansed of original sin?  I want an answer.

And if this is impossible, that is if the sacrament without the vow does not justify, then do you not now see that you are arbitrarily and hypocritically assigning this power to the vow without the sacrament?

He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And, according to the Fathers and the saints, this Law went into effect,

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

So the argument of the Good Thief, while superficially compelling in favour of BoD, is actually meaningless, since;

1) There is no proof he wasn't baptized already
2) He did not go to heaven, but to paradise (the limbo of the Fathers, which no longer exists) and Christ likely baptized everyone while He was there.
3) The Law of baptism had not been promulgated yet at that time anyway.

All other arguments for BoD are either emotion driven, or they neglect or explain away the dogmatic and irreformable definitions of the Holy See, which are to be understood not as they were interpreted by the practice of the hierarchy, or the writings of clergy, theologians etc, but as they were once declared (so saith Pope Pius IX, in an infallible, irreformable decree).

The very words of the definition are infallible and irreformable, of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, as it is written.