Ok, so you conclude there are other ways to hope to attain salvation and the sacrament of baptism is only one way.

Do you see the contradiction between your interpretation, and the Council of Trent's famous canon on "The Sacraments In General": "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous....let him be anathema."

To me, there is an obvious contradiction. As I see it, either your above quote is wrong, or Trent's quote is wrong.

It is funny because obviously we both see the same teaching, yet we understand it with a completely opposite understanding. Can we at least agree on this?

Article 1. Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?

Objection 1. It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 4:8): "Bodily exercise is profitable to little." But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above (Question 60, Article 6). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.

Objection 2. Further, the Apostle was told (2 Corinthians 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee." But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.

Objection 3. Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Romans 5:10): "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.

I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.

The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.

The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.

It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.

Reply to Objection 1. Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.

Reply to Objection 2. God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Romans 6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death."

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.

No, we don't agree . . . not if Trent agrees with St. Thomas, and I see no reason to think not.

Where in the above is a sine qua non necessity, as in it is impossible for justification and, at least hypothetically, salvation if one died in a state of justification without the sacrament? This necessity is compatible with the possibility of justification and salvation by BOD without contradiction - and so St. Thomas held both the necessity of the sacraments (as he explained above) and the possibility of BOD.

I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy."  Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds.  St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it.  People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will.  From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.  I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.

Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled.  I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for.  But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD.  As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society.  Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD.  But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds.  At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.

Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted.  There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.

Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well.  This is their chief mistake.  They don't understand the theological notes.  And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely.  There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians.  Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave.  Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense.  That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.

Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology.  So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD.  But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so.  I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith.  Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today.  I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds.  And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude.  I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.

But then there's the larger problem (for Marion as well) is that the same implication is present in the Council of Florence:

I think you've imbibed too much from the Dimonds regarding "bad will and obstinacy."  Most people who adhere to BoD do believe that the Council of Trent taught it and accept it on those grounds.  St. Alphonsus thought that Trent taught it.  People who believe they'er adhering to Trent and to the teachings of 3 canonized Doctors of the Church are not necessarily of bad will.  From where they stand, it's Ladislaus (or the Dimonds or Father Feeney) vs. Trent, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus.  I'm not going to call anyone "bad-willed and obstinate" for preferring those teachers over my opinion.

Those Doctors too were aware of the dogmatic sources, yet they made distinctions they believe allowed them to be reconciled.  I strongly disagree and have disgreed for a long time, and I make my case for why I disagree whenever it's called for.  But I'm not going to spend my time huffing and puffing against someone who believes it's possible that a Catechumen could be saved by BoD.  As Rahner pointed out, the extension of a BoD to catechumens was only made based on the notion that Catechumens were already joined in a way (albeit partially) to the Visible Church.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with someone who holds a theory of BoD that does not damage the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Church being a Visible Society.  Admittedly, very few BoDers hold such a position about BoD.  But the few I run across, I am in no position to denounce as bad-willed and obstinate simply because they don't buy my arguments nor those of the Dimonds.  At the end of the day, I'm a nobody and so are the Dimonds.

Now, there are some who primarily adhere to BoD because, quite frankly, they don't like EENS doctrine, based on various emotional reasons, and these types are easily spotted.  There's certainnly an element of bad will in those cases.

Basically, the Dimonds believe that if they can make a syllogism from a dogmatic source to their conclusion, that means that their conclusion is binding under pain of heresy as well.  This is their chief mistake.  They don't understand the theological notes.  And you yourself use the term "error regarding the faith" very loosely.  There's a huge difference between an error/mistake regarding a matter of faith, and a theological error in the sense defined by theologians.  Strict theological error is a grave sin, but a loose "error" or "mistake" is not necessarily grave.  Nor would the Church have canonized as Doctors of the Church men who taught a theological error in the strict sense.  That would have eliminated them from consideration if not from canonization then certainly from being given the title of Doctor.

Now, the core error of our day is ecclesiology and soteriology, and indeed it's the notion of BoD that was gradually extended to use as a weapon to attack and undermine ecclesiology and soteriology.  So the temptation is to attack BoD per se rather than the illegitimate extension of BoD.  But I refuse to oversimplify it that way and then be in the business of declaring people "obstinate and bad-willed" heretics where the Church has not done so.  I will not usurp the authority of the Church in that regard.

With that said, this crisis is the will of God, and He allowed the youthful mistake (later retracted) of a St. Augustine to then be picked up by St. Bernard, then St. Thomas, and then St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, to be amplified over time into the root cause of this testing of faith.  Without BoD, there would be no crisis of faith today.  I strongly disagree with these Doctors, and I have taken many pains (and considerable amounts of time) to explain why, but I have no authority to bind consciences and neither do the Dimonds.  And that is their major mistake, and sadly it leads to a schismatic attitude.  I pray for them because they have done much good, but they could do even more good if they were to realize their serious mistake regarding this attitude.

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.

To suggests that the Council intends to communicate "with regard to adults, if the danger of death is present, don't worry, there are other remedies available" seems daring to me.