Right.  But “grace and justification” are not the sacrament nor are they salvation.  You must distinguish. 

They apparently are not saying that “grace and justification” are a sacrament, rather, they are saying that “grace and justification” is a BOD.

They are not saying a desire to receive the sacrament avails them to “grace and justification,”  rather, they are saying a desire to receive the sacrament guarantees with dogmatic certainty “grace and justification” i.e. a BOD, hence salvation should they die without receiving the sacrament.

[John McEnroe video] in lieu of actual substance.

This represents your confirmation bias.  You read into this what you want to read into it.  I found and showed the Latin here.  This expression "casus si impediat" does not refer to some kind of "accident" but is actually quite vivid.  "Casus" literally connotes something falling in front of you, like dropping in your path, and the verb "impedire" has the Latin word for "foot" as a root, so taken together "casus si impediat" has the image of you walking along to your destination and then something suddenly falls down at your feet to trip you up and you stumble on your way.  It's very clear imagery.  And this merely says that your proper disposition will allow you to get past this impediment, i.e. that it might cause you to stumble, but God will reach down His Hand to help you regain your balance and keep going, on your path to grace and righteousness.

There's nothing here about actually being stopped short of your destination, but just encountering a stumbling block that might [otherwise] prevent you from reaching your destination.  You're walking along to your destination.  Something drops down at your feet.  You trip and start to stumble, at risk of faceplanting, and not making it.  But God rewards your effort by reaching down and helping you get your balance so that you could continue on to your destination, that of grace and righteousness.

There's nothing here anywhere about death, and nothing that comes close to saying, "If you die before having a chance to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, you can be saved by your desire."  Trent COULD have just come out and clearly said it.  These weren't stupid men.  If they wanted to teach BoD, they could have done so here.  There was no need for some metaphorical pictureseque circuмlocution and use of the term "grace and righteousness".  These men knew the word for salvation and could have used it here.  They knew the word for death and could have used it here.  They could have just said, "If you die before having received the Sacrament of Baptism, you can be saved by your intention to receive it."  They didn't.  Because they were leaving it open and leaving it a mystery.  The ONLY thing they were saying in this passage is that, unlike in the case of infants, it's OK and even preferable to delay Baptism in adults, because for adults, God will take are of them on account of their proper dispositions to receive the Sacrament.  How?  One answer is that of St. Fulgentius, that God would keep them alive until they receive the Sacrament.  I also pointed out the subjunctive voice here, where this obstacle/event MIGHT prevent them from getting to their destination.

Let's take this scenario.  Someone had an actual serious accident and is dying.  God keeps him alive until a priest shows up,  with seconds to spare, and gives him emergency Baptism.  And then he dies.  Does this not also qualify for the scenario described by the Catechism?  Of course it does.  This too is a case of God bringing the soul to grace and righteousness despite some mishap that got in the way of his (planned) reception of Baptism.  This type of scenario also fulfills what the authors of the Catechism had in mind.  So as to HOW God would ensure this, the Catechism is silent, when, as I said above, they could very easily have said, "If a properly-disposed adult dies before receiving the Sacrament, he can be saved by his intention to receive it."  You try to make these into stupid men who wrote this Catechism.

For those of you who doesn't read/understand Latin fluently, you're relying on some third-rate crappy translation.  And third-rate crappy translators abound.  I worked as Staff Editor at The Catholic University of America for their Fathers of the Church translation series for a few years, where I had to edit translations of the Fathers.  There was one translation that I basically wrote myself because it was so bad that it wasn't even salvageable.  If you saw the edits on each page, it was a sea of red.

The collected works of St Robert Bellarmine is 19 volumes - at least the Roma edition which I have researched here in my hometown (this work is contained at the Baptist Theological Seminary *Thanks a lot to the  Novus Ordo heretics who surrendered these volumes to their brother heretics!)  The point is, to quote Bellarmine's opinion on unbaptized catechumens, and to create an entire false theology around this opinion, is patently ridiculous.  Bellarmine was fighting more heretics than even Augustine, and to conclude that Bellarmine could not be wrong in some of his theological opinions is equally as ridiculous.  There is no Church pronouncement which we have seen that confirms unbaptized catechumens as being in paradise; in fact it is mere speculation that such a person exists, aside from the case of the person smacked by the car on his way to the baptismal fount.  In fact we have Trent's proclamation that the "sacraments are necessary for salvation."  And most would agree that BOD is a non-sacrament. 

The catechumen, unbaptized, might very well recite the Athanasian Creed, and firmly assent to all the truths contained therein with his intellect.  But he still does not "have" the Faith.  He believes the Faith, but he does not have it, because he is not yet sacramentally baptized.  Noah believed all that God had revealed to him, in fact, he built the vessel and had the intention of entering it; but he was not safe until he was "inside the ark."  And all those outside the ark, who may or may not have had the intention of entering it, were probably damned.  
      

... to conclude that Bellarmine could not be wrong in some of his theological opinions is equally as ridiculous.      

 
Moreso, one would necessarily have to conclude that Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, and other theologians and authorized Catholic writers after Trent were not just wrong, but were incompetent dimwits who completely misunderstood what the council meant in it’s decree on justification, misleading the whole Church for centuries into thinking the council taught BOD, without their interpretation of Trent’s decree ever being corrected or disputed, and without any alternate understanding being proposed by anyone authorized to write on it.

one would necessarily have to conclude that Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, and other theologians and authorized Catholic writers after Trent were not just wrong, but were incompetent dimwits who completely misunderstood what the council meant in it’s decree on justification

Church Fathers > Renaissance theologians

Either +Bellarmine et all were right, or the many Church Fathers were, who distinguished between justification (i.e. state of grace) and salvation by baptism.  If you choose +Bellarmine then you're saying +Ambrose etc is a dimwit.  Their views are not consistent.

The same error is peddled around today by millions of Protestants...they go around saying "I'm saved!"  No, you're not.  You're baptized/justified.  You're not "saved" until you die.

Same thing with BOD.  You can "desire" to be baptized and God (so the argument goes) can give you justification.  But you're not baptized and you can't be saved until you ACTUALLY receive the sacrament.

Moreso, one would necessarily have to conclude that Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, and other theologians and authorized Catholic writers after Trent were not just wrong, but were incompetent dimwits who completely misunderstood what the council meant in it’s decree on justification, misleading the whole Church for centuries into thinking the council taught BOD, without their interpretation of Trent’s decree ever being corrected or disputed, and without any alternate understanding being proposed by anyone authorized to write on it.

Dishonest and idiotic strawman.  Theologians can be wrong about something without having been "incompetent dimwits".

St. Peter Canisius, a theologian who attended and spoke at the Council of Trent, published a Catechism afterwards that received broad approbation interpreted Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.

The actual incompetent dimwits are the ones who insist that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the clear words of Our Lord Himself which have also been infallibly defined (which we are bound to believe), and the opinions of anyone/everyone else.

I don’t believe you would actually say that the great saints and theologians that taught BOD were incompetent, but consider that the criteria you gave for those who are the actual incompetent dimwits necessarily includes them. 

Though, again, it’s not just teaching BOD that would make Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, Cornelius a Lapide, et al., incompetent if they were wrong; it’s that they understood Trent’s decree on justification to be teaching BOD.  If this decree clearly does not teach BOD, as some modern lay people assert, then Bellarmine, Liguori, et al. grossly misunderstood something that should be clearly understood.  That means they were either incompetent or malicious

Or, it means Trent's decree on justification does not clearly teach something other than BOD, and that conciliar decrees can be misunderstood, even by the most competent and holiest theologians.