So ... this piece of trash needs to be dissected.  I generally respect Bishop Sanborn, but this once again demonstrates that they have some dead spot in their brains regarding this matter.  Denial of EENS is in fact the core and fundamental error behind all the errors of Vatican II.  +Sanborn, and others, when asked about the chief heresy of Vatican II, always respond wth "the ecclesiology" ... but then are too blinded by this compartmentalization in their brain to see their own contraditions.  So I'm going to dedicate a thread to taking this thing apart, and I can do it little by little as I have time.

https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf

So, the Cushingites promote various sources like the Catechism "of St. Pius X" as practically being infallible rules of faith for doctrine, and so we have here Bishop Sanborn directly and verbatim contradicting one of these sources.  Now, the notion of this "Catechsim of St. Pius X" is rather slippery, since, while St. Pius X did publish a smaller catechism before he became Pope, the one issued under his name later, and then modified / edited dozens of times over the years, while continuing to bear his name ... the Cushingites enjoy calling it that because they implicitly add to their positon a subtle "argument from authority", where, ah, if it has the name of St. Pius X associated with it, then it might as well be the saint himself speaking, and solemnly defining it as dogma.

In an article written for The Angelus, Father Duverger says the following about that Catechism.

[St. Pius X] published the Compendium of Christian Doctrine and ordered it to be used in the diocese and province of Rome. It is a remake of a compendium published in 1756 for the diocese of Piedmont. Pius X hoped that this catechism would at least be spread throughout Italy. It is also commonly called the Catechism of St. Pius X, though this is something of a misnomer.

https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Pope%20St.%20Pius%20X%20&%E2%81%84or%20SSPX/The%20Angelus/PDFs/425_Angelus%20May-June%202014%20LR.pdf

Very early in this Catechism, Bishop Sanborn gets very sloppy and quickly slides into heresy ... as most Cushingites inevitably do (I've run into only one or two that articulated BoD in a way that does not entail heresy by contradicting dogmatic teaching).

While in his opening paragraph he speaks of "baptism of water" ... by which he undoubtedly means Baptism in re, i.e. received by means of water in the actual reception of the Sacrament, the Sacrament of Baptism is by definition "of water", in the entirety of this so-called "Catechism", he simply uses the term "Baptism"  So, to say that Baptism and the Sacrament of Baptism are not necessary for salvation ... is in fact a heretical rejection of the dogmatic teaching of Trent.  I'll come back to that momentarily, but you can see in the first question of his Catechism that he even capitalizes "Baptism" (by which we presume that he's referring to the Sacrament proper, which is generally capitalized), but then almost immediately switches to using lowercase, "baptism", where he subtly transmogrifies the discussion into a looser sense of the word, a broader "baptism" beyond the Sacrament itself.

Now, it's heretical to claim that one can be saved without the Sacrament or that the Sacrament is not necessary for salvation ... since it's a direct denial of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  EVEN IF you hold that there are alternative modes for receiving the Sacrament, you cannot say that salvation can be achieved WITHOUT the Sacrament or that the Sacrament is not NECESSARY.  Even if you believe in BoD, you must hold that the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification (and, some believe, of salvation), as Trent teaches.

This is precisely what St. Robert Bellarmine, writing after Trent, avoided saying that anyone could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism ... but instead insisted upon the formula that one could receive the Sarament in voto, so it's not that you didn't receive the Sacrament, or were saved without it, but that you received it in an alternate manner, in voto, vs. in re.

But as time went on the anti-EENS forces, and the Cushingites, adopted this language that the Sacrament of Baptism was NOT necessary for salvation and that people could be saved WITHOUT it.  That's where they slide from an acceptable Catholic articulation of BoD into heresy.

So, if the effects of the Sacrament can be supplied by "perfect love of God and martyrdom", as +Sanborn and others claim, then HOW DOES IT REMAIN NECESSARY FOR SALVATION AS TRENT TEACHES?  Does it magically / mystically / invisibly operate in these cases?  Do such people receve "Anonymous Baptism"?

No, in their model, there's no real way in which the Sacrament remains necessary for salvation, not absolutely or even relatively ... not as a necessity of means, but only as a necessity of precept, rendering it optional if you don't even know about it.

But the Cushingites realize they must pay lip service to the fact that Baptism is necessary by necessity of means, since that's constant Catholic teaching ... even though in reality they deny it.

I challenge Cushingites to explain in what sense the Sacrament of Baptism actually, in real terms, ontologically ... remains necessary by necessity of means for salvation if anyone can be saved without it and without even knowing about it?

SHIFT FROM NECESSITY OF MEANS TO NECESSITY OF PRECEPT

+Sanborn:

4. What is meant by saying that for adults baptism is necessary both as a means and as being of precept?

By this is meant not only that adults are not saved if they die without baptism, but that they are damned if they refuse to receive this sacrament when they know its necessity.

So, +Sanborn says earlier, correectly, that Baptism is necessary by necessity of means for salvation for infants, but not of precept, where he then says that infants are not saved without it (means) but do not commit a sin for not receiving it (precept).  Since they cannot sin without having the use of reason, this is correct.

But then he says that for adults Baptism is necessary both by means and by precept.  That's also correct.

EXCEPT ... that he's clearly shuffling over to making Baptism necessary by necessity of precept ONLY, where you're only damned (aka not saved) if you know the necessity of Baptism and refuse to receive it.  Well, if it's also necessity of means where you can't be saved without it, period, like infants ... then are you damned LESS somehow if you don't receive it in ignorance?  If, however, you're SAVED if you don't receive it only because you're in invincible ignorance ... then HOW IS IT STILL NECESSARY BY NECESSITY OF MEANS?  Answer:  it's not.

So despite paying lip service to the formula, since it's what the Church has always taught, here he actually shifts over to making it so that ...

for infants, baptism is necessary by necessity of means
for adults, baptism if necessary by necessity of precept

There's no getting around this.  Just because he SAYS it's both, paying lip service to the formula, doesn't mean he actually thinks it's both or believes it to be both.  If it WERE both, it doesn't matter WHY an adult didn't receive the Sarament. He would in fact not be punished for the actual sin of refusing Baptism, but he still can't be saved without the Sacrament if it's necessary by necessity of means.

Trent also condemns the idea that an unbaptized person can have 'perfect love of God' because this act of love requires the supernatural virtue of charity, which you ONLY get AFTER baptism.  

Same idea with the necessity of supernatural Faith, being required for salvation.  You only get this AFTER baptism.  An unbaptized person does not, and cannot, have supernatural Faith.  You cannot WISH for supernatural Faith.  You cannot WILL to have it.  It only comes from God, through the Church, through Baptism.

Both of these examples are just protestantism repackaged into a catholic version of 'sola fide'.

Baptism of desire is basically 'baptism by faith' or 'baptism by love'.  It's heresy either way.

Trent also condemns the idea that an unbaptized person can have 'perfect love of God' because this act of love requires the supernatural virtue of charity, which you ONLY get AFTER baptism. 

Same idea with the necessity of supernatural Faith, being required for salvation.  You only get this AFTER baptism.  An unbaptized person does not, and cannot, have supernatural Faith.  You cannot WISH for supernatural Faith.  You cannot WILL to have it.  It only comes from God, through the Church, through Baptism.

Both of these examples are just protestantism repackaged into a catholic version of 'sola fide'.

Baptism of desire is basically 'baptism by faith' or 'baptism by love'.  It's heresy either way.

Yep, there are myriad contradictions in the land of "BoD Theory" to Catholic doctrine ... but these folks have blinders on, for various reasons.  God will judge their internal forum.

I know that the SVs are the most militant because, in their batttles against R&R, they have so badly exaggerated papal infallibility that a docuмent like Suprema Fake might as well be a solemn dogmatic definition similar to that regarding the Assumption.

for infants, baptism is necessary by necessity of means
for adults, baptism if necessary by necessity of precept

Yeah, the contradiction is appalling.  He has to say that infants/means are connected because of Pelagianism and the direct words of the Church saying thus.

But he can say adults/precept (in his mind) because the Church has said similar things and hasn't directly condemned it, same as Pelagianism.