CathInfo.com

I already answered it. You are unable to comprehend an answer, and then insist I must answer you again and again. Go back and read.

Let me answer you again: To the first bolded, yes. Trent teaches that the Sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation, though all indeed are not necessary for each individual.

There is the sacramental requirement you know of, this requirement is that in order to receive any of the other sacraments, the sacrament of Baptism must be received first.

So if you say that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for salvation, you are saying none of them are necessary because without baptism, none of the other sacraments can be received - which reduces the first part of the canon to an altogether meaningless group of words.

OTOH, if you agree with that Trent says the sacraments are necessary unto salvation, then you *must* agree the sacrament of baptism is necessary unto salvation, because it is the one and only sacrament required before any and all of the other sacraments can be received.

Yes. And then in the second bolded, which is part of the same canon, it explains what it means by this necessity...,

It is not explaining what it means by this necessity. The first part talks about salvation, the second part is talking about justification. Both parts are self explanatory, by design.

...that "without them, or without the desire thereof, men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification.

"Without them" = without the sacraments. Here Trent condemns saying that without the sacraments men obtain justification.

Think about this for a moment... no sacrament = no justification. If no sacrament = no justification, then no sacrament = no salvation whether one has the desire for it or not.

"Or without the desire thereof" = or without the desire for the sacraments. Here Trent condemns saying that without the desire for the sacraments men obtain, through faith alone, justification.

Regardless of what the greatest theologians, particularly the greatest of them all imo, St. Thomas Aquinas said, the Church through Trent infallibly said IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS,

1) The sacraments are necessary unto salvation - you said you agreed this is what Trent said.
2) Without the sacrament there is no justification and
3) Without the desire for the sacraments there is no justification - here Trent is condemning justification through faith alone.

You do not accept Trent meant what they said as regards 2 and 3 and falsely accuse me of interpreting what is clearly taught "because nobody else interprets it that way" - well, we are bound to believe that it means exactly what it says, because *that*  is also an infallible truth, defined at V1, this decree reads:

"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding".

Thank you for answering my questions.

Xavier, what are your thoughts on this?

In the Angelus Press book, "Preparation for Confirmation ", Part II, Section II, question 10.

10. Is Confirmation necessary for salvation?

Answer: Confirmation is not, unlike Baptism, ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY  for salvation. But all Catholics ought to receive it if they have the opportunity,  as it confers a sacrament.

What does "Absolutely" mean?

Xavier, here's the citation from Catholic Encyclopedia about votum.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.