So let me begin by saying that I found his last two proofs more convincing than the first.

I have repeatedly cited the dogmatic definition that there can be no salvation outside the Church of the faithful.  Msgr. Fenton, in treating of this passage, admits that the term "faithful" positively excludes catechumens.  But here's how Fenton solves the "problem".  He says that one can be inside the "Church of the faithful" without actually being one OF the faithful.  I call this undigested hamburger ecclesiology, that there can be those inside the body that are not OF the body.  Because they lack the Sacramental character ... to extend the analogy with the body ... they lack the DNA of the body, and yet are inside the body.  Just like an undigested piece of food, it's inside the body but not (yet) part of the body.  Or a parasite perhaps?  I find this preposterous.  But this is their way of avoiding directly contradicting dogma.  This is how people keep weaseling out of dogmatic definitions, and why the Church has to keep re-defining the same dogmas in different words.  I don't believe that Msgr. Fenton was a heretic, as I'm certain that had the Church ruled that his interpretation was unacceptable, he would certainly retract it and submit to the Magisterium.

Also, the argument is incredibly strong from the teaching of Trent that catechumens are not subject to the Pope until they actually receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and that there can be no salvation without subjection to the Roman Pontiff.

But for the necessity of water for salvation, St. Robert knew Trent very well, and I believe this is his thinking.  For the record, most proponents of BoD simply ignore Trent, but St. Robert was very careful about how he expressed his theory that catechumens could be saved.

So, here's where there's some wiggle room.

MAJOR:  (dogma) the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
MINOR:  (dogma) real and natural (as opposed to metaphorical) water is necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism.
CONCLUSION:  (the application of) real and natural water is necessary for salvation.

So one way out of this is to distinguish "necessary" in the MAJOR, the MINOR or both.  One could argue that this necessity refers to a necessity of precept rather than a necessity of means.  Now, theologians are largely unanimous in concluding that this refers to a necessity of means, and that it is an absolute necessity of means.  So, while it would be wrong to hold that this refers to a necessity of precept or some kind of "relative" necessity of means, attempting to apply that distinction here would not be strictly heretical.

But, as I said, no theologian believes that Baptism is necessary by anything other than an absolute necessity of means.

St. Robert upholds the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism (while allowing ... tentatively ... for catechumens to possibly be saved) by saying that they receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto.  He would certainly condemn as heretical the idea that someone can be saved "without" the Sacrament.  So he would say that it is necessary to receive the Sacrament of Baptism saltem in voto "at least" in intention/resolution, so that the Sacrament of Baptism remains necessary for salvation.  He would (as St. Alphonsus does) make an analogy with the Sacrament of Confession, that it could be received in voto.

So, the argument against this type of distinction comes from the dogma that real and natural water is necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism.

But to combine these two involves a bit of a logical compression.

Water is necessary for the Sacrament.  Sacrament is necessary for salvation.  Therefore, (the application of) water (to an individual) is necessary for (that individual's) salvation.

There's just a HAIR of wiggle room here, but it's enough to let someone who argues this way off the hook from heresy in the strict sense.

Yet, if you interpret it this way, Trent is teaching something that is merely a semantic difference from the Protestant view that Baptism saves ex opere operatis without the strict necessity that the individual be washed in physical water, thus a spiritual difference.  It would reduce Trent's dogmatic condemnation of the Prot view of Baptism to a mere Jesuitical and sophistic difference in semantics.  We could then say with Bergoglio that Trent's condemnation of Protestantism was really just a misunderstanding and that both the Church and the Prots were really just saying the same thing.

DL, After making a wonderful point... why did you ruin it, with this slimy snake GIF? 

Because it's funny.

Trent was clear: baptism requires water.

At least we all now know that milk, soda, etc., will not suffice.  That is a relief.

Water is necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism.  No one doubts or denies that, so who cares?

No one? Literally every traditionalist priest and bishop alive today believes that you can be saved without water baptism. Baptism of desire? Baptism of blood? Both are nonsense, yet everyone believes it. Hence why MHFM makes so many videos on that point.

Does anyone following this thread believe ALL of the OT just were raised from the dead and Baptized?  I have heard some claim this and wonder what you think. Thank you

Yes, why else would they rise from the dead?

And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. [Matt. 27:52-53]

And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. [Matt. 27:52-53]

This passage is meant to show that the saints arose to proclaim the miracle of Christ's resurrection.  I don't think it had anything to do with baptism because, technically speaking, the Church didn't yet exist until 50 days later, so baptism still wasn't a requirement.

However, a sacrament and the Grace thereof are two different things.  Homey said, "Re-read that last sentence."

They are two distinct things, indeed, but they are not separable in all the Sacraments.  So, for instance, the grace of Holy Orders is in fact synonymous with and cannot be received apart from actual reception of the Sacrament.  Nor can there be a Confirmation of desire.  What do those two Sacraments have in common with Baptism? Those three are the Sacraments that include a character as part of the grace.  You are begging the question that the graces of the Sacrament of Baptism can be separated (albeit formally distinct) form the Sacrament itself.

In fact, the Sacrament of Baptism confers TWO graces, has TWO effects, 1) the remission of sin and 2) the character of the Sacrament.  What's being debated here is whether the character (which is in fact required for membership in the Church and cannot be received apart from actual reception of the Sacrament) suffices for salvation, i.e. whether membership in the Church is required for salvation.