"Nor even imply?"

Here:

Quote

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

It certainly at least implies - to put it midly - that one can be saved by a desire for baptism with repentance. If "it is impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters," that desire and repentance will "avail them to grace and righteousness."

And what is the "danger as in the case of infants"?

Here:

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death,
Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.
This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one
baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the
faith.

It certainly at least implies - to put it midly - that one can be saved by a desire for baptism with repentance. If "it is impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters," that desire and repentance will "avail them to grace and righteousness."

And what is the "danger as in the case of infants"?

Here:

Ok, the RC first off states there is no danger of death involved, if there were, then the adult must be be baptized asap like infants who are more prone shall we say, to die at any time. This is why for adults there is a delay, but not for infants. However, when there is a danger of death, read the very next chapter, do that and you will see the RC teaches that:

To continue with  the first part where it says: "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Grace and righteousness are attributes of the living, not the dead. Neither Trent nor the RC are talking about the attainment of salvation, which is an attribute of the dead, not the living.

So yes, their intention etc. "will avail", which is to say will help, or aid them, and be of use toward grace and righteousness, which is justification, but it does not reward or even give them grace or righteousness, nor does it mean it will reward them salvation.

So your concern of being opposed to the RC really has no basis.

Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain 120 without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

I've addressed the Roman Catechism passage.  I don't believe that it means what people claim.  It means that for those who have the genuine votum for Baptism, God will not allow them to pass away without the Sacrament.  It harkens back to a simlar passage from St. Fulgentius.

The Church purposely defers the sacrament for adults for a very good reason - and it is not because should they suffer an accidental death their intentions will reward them salvation - which is taught exactly nowhere in the RC or Trent.

Please read the rest of the chapter to see the reason for the delay in the baptism for adults...

But the (non-Pelagian, non-heretical) BoDers do continue to maintain that the Sacrament is absolutely necessary for salvation.  What they say though is that the Sacrament is necessary in desire.  They say it's necessary to receve in voto even if not necessarily in re.  That's a faulty argument made by many of the Dimondite anti-BoDers  You can still say the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation even if you allow for the modality of receiving it in voto.  Trent itself teaches that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary to be restored to a state of grace after a post-Baptismal fall, but clearly holds that it can be received in voto.  About Confession Trent says, saltem in voto, "at least in desire".  Since the Church has tolerated this opinion and even made Doctors of the Church a couple of me who held that position, it would be rather presumptuous to hold that the opinion is not at least tenable.  I think it's wrong and mistaken, for reasons I have articulated elsewhere, but I don't hold that it's inherently harmful to the faith if understood as St. Thomas, St. Robert, and St. Alphonsus held it.

There's a lot of cracking up going on here.

Why would you baptize someone "at once" if they were in danger of death? That's easy. Why would one take any chances? If a thief broke into your house and you could confront him and win with a knife, why would you forego grabbing the gun that will give you the victory if you have at hand? That would be irresponsible and stupid. 

Come on, Stubborn.

Or I guess we could keep laughing.