The Church teaches BOB/D. This is accepted by all Catholics aware of this teaching. Obviously, to the good willed, this is not the same as saying baptism is not necessary. It is necessary with a necessity of precept and a relative necessity of means. It is not intrinsically necessary. So a person not aware of its necessity, through no fault of his own, who dies with perfect faith and supernatural charity will be saved without the actual sacrament.
LoT's idiotic necessity distinctions have been debunked a hundred times. Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic is irrelevant. It simply means that God COULD have conferred the grace of Baptism without water, not that He ever does so. What's at issue is not what God CAN do, but, rather, what God DOES do.
Notice how Lover of Heresy also lists necessity of precept FIRST to minimize "necessity of means" and then throws the qualifier "relative" in front of it.
Anything to diminish the ACTUAL teaching of the Church and all theologians, that Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means for salvation. Catechism of St. Pius X, for instance, states that the Sacrament is "ABSOLUTELY" necessary for salvation (not relatively, LoL).
That's why all the post Tridentine Fathers who believed in BoD taught that people would were saved via BoD did in fact receive the Sacrament, only in voto
But instead of reformulating his BoD proposition into a different mode of receiving the Sacrament, the pertinaciously heretical LoL persists in stating that people can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. That's clear-cut heresy, a denial of Trent. And LoT remains pertinacious in it.