"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; ...let him be anathema". This means what it says. A BOD makes the reception of the sacrament not necessary, i.e. superfluous.

This canon is saying the same thing that is repeated in the other canons - there is no contradiction among Trent's teachings. Trent is clearly saying the sacraments are necessary for salvation and they are saying it in a sine qua non sense, i.e. no sacrament = no salvation.

To say a BOD saves is saying exactly what Trent condemns in the above canon for the simple reason that a BOD is not a sacrament, therefore it can never save anyone.

Correct me if I am wrong, but BODers, while reading Trent, necessarily must say within themselves a lot, "it doesn't mean that", and "what they really mean is _____" But when understood as it is written, it does mean that, always has, always will because it means what it says.    
 

Let's turn now to the text of Trent:

Text: Quae quidem translatio post Evengelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: <<Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.>>

Translation: Indeed, after the promulgation of the Gospel, this translation [from original sin to the state of grace], cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration, or if one cannot receive it, a desire for it [i.e. the laver]; as it says in Scripture, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Commentary: Trent uses the exclusive disjunction "aut" because of the phrase "fuerit non potest." Although baptism and the desire for baptism aren't mutually exclusive, receiving baptism and not being able to receive baptism are.

Indeed, after the promulgation of the Gospel, this translation [from original sin to the state of grace], cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration, or if this is not possible, a desire for it [i.e. the laver]; as it says in Scripture, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

That this bσɱbshell translation is bad should be obvious, the only way it would not be obvious is if *all* of Trent's other teachings on the sacrament are completely ignored.

If one person can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, then all people can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, which makes, as Trent condemns, the sacraments themselves superfluous. Prove me wrong.

That this bσɱbshell translation is bad should be obvious, the only way it would not be obvious is if *all* of Trent's other teachings on the sacrament are completely ignored.

If one person can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, then all people can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, which makes, as Trent condemns, the sacraments themselves superfluous. Prove me wrong.

Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem: anathema sit. 

If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

Ok. Again - I mentioned this earlier regarding "superfluous" - let's look at the actual language of Trent.

Canon 5 from Session VII on the sacraments says:


The translation of Denzinger that I am now looking at (edition 43 edited by Peter Hunermann), translates this as:



The key word here is "liberum," translated as "optional." As Trent says, this word liberum/optional is itself glossed, "hoc est non necessarium," or "that is, not necessary."

"Liberum" comes from "liber," and I believe is being used in the sense of "free or exempt from," - Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, līber (tufts.edu)

As you can see from reading the passage "as written," "not necessary" is being equated with optional or free or voluntary, as if the sacrament of baptism can be dispensed with because of, e.g, the truth that justification can come from a "desire for the sacrament."

That is what is condemned by Trent "as written;" that is the type of "necessity" Trent speaks of baptism as having: it is not optional, or something one can forego as not necessary.

This is a discussion in search of truth, and I'm no Latinist, so I welcome correction or another view.  

Not sure I understand you correctly, Do you believe the original Latin is saying opposite of what is translated in Denzinger? IOW, you believe it says that "baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation"? Is that what you are saying?

What are you going on about?

The objective of the false BODer is to send an un-baptized non-Catholic person to heaven:
 
1)  without the sacrament of baptism
2)  without the indelible mark
3)  without the sacrament of penance
4) without being a member of the Body
5) without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity
6) even without any desire to be a Catholic, indeed, even while despising the Church, Christ, and the Trinity
 
All the points above are hurdles, which the False BODer is obsseed with overcoming and for which he seeks teachers according to his own desire.

I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure what you're saying.  I believe that ANY type of necessity would be contrasted with "optional".

Very good. So even "necessity" in the sense of St. Thomas in the Summa (see my post #106 above) would fit. Supports my point contra the argument - posed by Stubborn based on the text "as written" sans the commentary of theologians for example - that the necessity here is a sine qua non necessity. 

While Trent doesn't explicitly explain the type of necessity (absolute vs. relative, of means vs. of precept), I believe the unanimity of theologians hold that it's "absolutely necessary by necessity of means".  I believe that one of the Catechisms often cited in favor of BoD asserted that it was "absolutely" necessary.

Sure. I am exploring the type of necessity being spoken of by looking at the language of Trent itself. I think it's a dangerous stance for the Feeneyite position to look to theologians in support: the same theologians who speak of "necessity of means" regarding baptism virtually unanimously read Trent as speaking of a "desire" for baptism as sufficing for justification. 

And as to necessity of means, I want to modify something I said earlier: the only time I am aware of the Magisterium using "necessity of means" is in on the issue of faith - namely, a decision of the Holy Office on the Trinity and I believe the incarnation as being necessary as a necessity of means for supernatural faith. Nothing in that regard from the Magisterium on baptism that I'm aware of. 

Even if it's absolutely necessary by necessity of means, there's still the question of whether that necessity is maintained by the theory that one can receive Baptism in voto.  After all, ...

the Sacrament is necessary to be able to have the votum to receive it and
the votum is necessary for justification

So by kindof like a "transitive" logical property, it would still be necessary even in a BoD scenario.

I agree, and have taken that position on this forum myself: for something to be desired it must exist (and be in the consciousness of the one desiring) to motivate the desire That is not part of my discussion with Stubborn. 

This deserves a massive facepalm.  potest fieri is the main verb of the sentence, having translatio for its subject, and is not in some kind of subordinate clause like si fieri potest.  Oh, for crying out loud.  Talk about desperation (and ignorance of Latin) from a rabid BoDer.  [Unless that was a typo, he also botched the very conjugation when citing it later.]

This shows the danger of what happens when you have an idiot (vis-a-vis the Latin language) with a pocket Latin dictionary.