Honestly if I were a Sede I'd probably think they were a plant to made my position look bad.

Yes, my friend. Yes, yes, and again yes.
.

But as it is, I tend to think they're just quasi laypeople who jumped on muh plain meaning of Florence and decided to anathematize everyone over it.

.
Please join sedevacantism! We need more people like you.

Trent does not say the above, you have misquoted Trent.

Session 6, Chapter 4 speaks of justification, not salvation. Nowhere does Trent ever say that a desire of any kind saves.

                                                                           CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

Only for the warped Feeneyite mind is the destiny of one who dies justified possibly different than the destiny of one who has achieved salvation.

The Feeneyite heretics reason that one who dies justified, but not water baptized, is either in hell (damned despite being in the state of grace), or in a fictitious place called the “limbo of the unbaptized justified.”

It doesn’t get any dumber than that!

Only for the warped Feeneyite mind is the destiny of one who dies justified possibly different than the destiny of one who has achieved salvation.

The Feeneyite heretics reason that one who dies justified, but not water baptized, is either in hell (damned despite being in the state of grace), or in a fictitious place called the “limbo of the unbaptized justified.”

It doesn’t get any dumber than that!

Sean, in order to understand what Trent is saying there, you need to read what Trent actually says there. 

"And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, [Justification] cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

Can we read how it is explained by a canonized Doctor of the Church too?

Is it not plain to see that the great St. Alphonsus' explanation, my favorite patron saint btw, does not agree with Trent's teaching? You can site him all day long and we can site Trent all day long and the two will disagree all day long. Only one teaching is the correct teaching.

FWIW, St. Alphonsus was a moral theologian, not a dogmatic theologian - who also was quoted as saying that no one gets to heaven who does not know Our Blessed Mother, which I agree with. Do you agree with him on this?

Sean, in order to understand what Trent is saying there, you need to read what Trent actually says there.  

"And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, [Justification] cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

"[Justification] cannot be effected, without the layer of regeneration, or the desire thereof" = "Justification can only be effected by the layer of regeneration, or the desire [for the layer of regeneration: baptism]."

From the same chapter of Trent: "Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace."

The "state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam" clearly refers to Original Sin. Therefore, the text clearly says that justification removes the stain of Original Sin and puts someone in a state of grace. No one who perishes in a state of grace can be damned, that is de fide. So one who is justified is saved, by definition(note that the state of justification can be temporarily lost by way of mortal sin).

If one who is justified is saved, and justification can be effected by the desire for baptism, as is taught by Trent, then one may be saved by desire for baptism. 

I don't know how St. Alphonsus justifies implicit baptism of desire, but explicit BOD is strongly defended by Trent.

Agreed.

But how about answering the question?

I already did. They died(and weren't even saved as such, they went to Hell first of all) under the Old Covenant. Entirely different ruleset to what we have now. There was no baptism back then, so how could BOD have saved them? And again, they weren't even saved - they were sent to Hell before Christ freed them. Unless you're implying that implicit BOD can bring souls that are already in Hell to Heaven, the scenarios aren't even remotely comparable. Obviously the OT Fathers weren't condemned to eternal damnation for being "outside "of a Church that didn't yet exist or not professing faith in dogma that had not yet been revealed. None of that has anything to do with BOD which, as the first word of the acronym suggests, is a New Covenant concept.

It is so funny how this topic degenerated into an EENS/BOD argument. 

I’ll bet the Dimonds stole EENS from Father Wathen cause it added credibility to their sede schtick.

It is so funny how this topic degenerated into an EENS/BOD argument.  

I’ll bet the Dimonds stole EENS from Father Wathen cause it added credibility to their sede schtick.

Sorry, fellas, that's my fault. Someone cited the Dimonds as some sort of example of sedevacantists. I just wanted to set the record straight with those guys, but that wasn't really a relevant contribution in a thread devoted to paying last respects to Fr. Cekada.