I would say we agree on what the canon says, only you read "necessary" as meaning the actual receipt of the sacrament is required, whereas Trent says a desire for the sacrament maintains the necessity of the sacrament without the receipt.

Well, when I read that a certain thing is necessary for salvation, I accept that it means what it says, which in this case means the sacraments are necessary unto salvation, if anyone saith that they aren't, then per Trent they're anathema.

If Trent would have said anything along the lines of: "if anyone saith the desire is not necessary is anathema," or if in some way they would have said: "if anyone saith that the sacraments are not necessary either in fact or desire is anathema", then certainly, I would agree with what you wrote above. As it is, they said in no uncertain terms that the sacraments themselves are necessary.

In order for me to have a desire for something, that something is necessary; the thing desired is necessary for the desire for it.

Think of it in terms of a spiritual communion at Mass. Could you have such without the Eucharist? The Eucharist is necessary to spiritual communion with it.

Yes, of course the object of desire is necessary lest there could be no desire for it. Yet desiring the object is not a guarantee of receiving it, nor does Trent make any such guarantee of receiving what is desired, nor the action associated with the reception of it. And I agree your example of spiritual communion, but the subject of the canon is the condemnation of heretical ways to obtain justification. 
 

As I said, I agree, but, again, it comes down to the "or," which, again and again and again, is "disjunctive," and so agree all our fellow Catholic saints and theologians who have considered the issue since Trent, even Father Feeney.

I'll rephrase my hastily constructed attempt at explanation from my last post: the "faith alone" that is being condemned is just that, faith alone without a desire for the sacraments. Faith with at least a desire for the sacrament of baptism as sufficient for justification is not being condemned (Trent teaches it), because then "faith" is not "alone," since it is coupled with a desire for the sacrament.

So Trent: faith with a desire for the sacrament is necessary. The removal of the blue leaves faith alone, and that is what is condemned.

The bolded is contrary to Session 6 Ch 4. Again, the canon says *without* the desire, not *with* the desire. Without the sacrament or without the desire, all hope of obtaining justification is condemned as justification through faith alone.

Trent says *without* a desire there is no justification. You are saying *with* a desire there is justification. Do you see these are two entirely different propositions? 

A point of fact is that nowhere does Trent teach justification is guaranteed to be obtained *even with the actual sacrament itself,* only that *they* (sacraments) are necessary for salvation - "though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual."