CathInfo.com

So, here's your quote ...
No mention whatsoever of contrition, love of God, etc.  That's the first problem, where you LITERALLY just repeated the Prot heresy that Trent was condemning ... "justification by faith".  At the very least an affirmation of "justification by faith" is offensive to pious ears and scandalous.

Secondly, then, you classify Sacrametal Baptism as a work.  That's completely false.  You could say that a person going to recieve the Sacrament might be a work, but the Sacrament is a mysterious combination of both free grace, justification "ex opere operato" but combined with cooperation fo the will.

You lay it out where the justification happens first, via faith (and above you throw in charity and contrition ... not in your original sentence above), but where if you don't follow it up with works, then it's lost.

So, the quote that you claim supports your prior heretical formulation ... it includes the intention / desire / votum for Baptism as one (or several) requirements for justification.  "in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament" (from your citation)

At no point do you affirm this in yoru formulation.  Batpism MUST be involved in the act of justification itself, and it not merely a case of "I'm justified first, but then I LOSE justification if I don't follow it up later with some cooperation of the will, aka work).

Completely false.  Both a work (cooperation of the will with the grace) AND the (at least implicit) votum for the Sacrament (and therefore having the Sacrament be a cause of justification ... per BoD theory) must BOTH be involved before you have justification in the first place.

Non-Heretical BoD Theory (though I personally hold this implicit nonsense is at least objectively heretical, depending on what you mean by it):

Faith + Charity + Contrition + Work (cooperation of the will) + (at least implicit) Votum for Baptism --> Justification

As you expressed it heretically:

Faith --> Justification [no reference to charity, contrtion, implicit votum for Baptism, or cooperation of the will even, aka the "work" that Prots heretically rejected)

You literally just articulated 1) Justification by Faith (alone ... since you mention nothing else) and 2) without any reference to the Sacrament of Baptism as a cause up front (effectively stating that initial justification can happen without the Sacrament)

Now ... if you don't see how that's heretical, then you are very far gone.

This is yet another example of how BoD inexorably leads to heretsy, Pelagianism, ex opere operantis justificaiton + salvation, denial of the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, etc.

On top of that ... did you ever actually read the Decree on Justificaton in Trent?  It starts out discribing faith, hope, charity, contrition, and the votum for Baptism, referring to all these dispositions are PREPARATION for justification ... and then says ...
Just before this, it describes this manner of PREPARATION for justification
You stated that faith caused justification, but that contradicts Trent, which says that it's one of numerous necessary preparations for justification, which is FOLLOWED BY justification itself.

So, in Catholic Encyclopedia, we find this description of this preliminary pre-justification faith, which theologians often term "fides initialist":
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
This is what we have referred to, and which you pooh-poohed, as "natural faith", and combined with other natural dispositions that are analogues to the ultimate supernatural ones, they can lead to a state of NATURAL JUSTIFICATION, i.e. a natural cessation of enmity with God.

Besides who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and that the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.

There is such a thing as justification by faith, such as the catechumen receives through BoD, but afterwards that justification will be lost if works (e.g, sacramental baptism) do not follow. That's just a reality of being human, and having a body that retains its concupiscence and sinful proclivities. That one may be justified by faith would be exemplified by a death bed conversion,  though even then I would argue that the repentance/contrition involved is a "work" of the will, a response to God's  commend to "repent, and believe the Gospel." Mark 1:15. Of course, for a catechumen to be justified by BoD one needs this "work," contrition and repentance. We do not in any case know if such examples - a catechumen with sufficient contrition, desire and love of God, or a death bed convert who dies with the same - actually happen.

We have, therefore, from the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, that faith alone sometimes justifies, but never in the sense in which our adversaries take it.