That's your refutation?

Also, in similar fashion, from the Vulgate

And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him.
respondens autem Iesus dixit ei sine modo sic enim decet nos implere omnem iustitiam  tunc dimisit eum

Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?
aut quomodo dicis fratri tuo sine eiciam festucam de oculo tuo et ecce trabis est in oculo tuo

And he that received the seed among thorns, is he that heareth the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word, and he becometh fruitless.
qui autem est seminatus in spinis hic est qui verbum audit et sollicitudo saeculi istius et fallacia divitiarum suffocat verbum et sine fructu efficitur

That's your refutation?

A) It certainly suffices as it is most certain that he understood the language much better than you.
B) I've already refuted your erroneous application of logic, as well as the erroneous presentation of form, so I'm not sure why you persist.
C) No Doctor of the Church ever exposited heresy, much less claimed heresy was a de fide truth, ergo, you are way out of line.  You are so far out of line that you're simply casting yourself out of communion the more you obstinately persist in this foolish misunderstanding.  

I could produce more, but I won't waste my energy.

I never said it wasn't the same thing (fruitless-without fruit).  You had just said the only way to translate sine was to without.

After all...

...any Latin scholar will tell you that sine means without.

In each circuмstance, the word was altered because it would have altered the meaning of the text, or made it, for lack of a better term, wrong.

Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote without of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

It makes perfectly good etymological sense, if you will, to translate sine to 'except through', especially if we are defending baptism by blood or desire. (As all the great Church doctors did.)

Applying a law that would not have been used by Trent, thereby altering the original meaning of the decree, puts us at odds with what has always been taught by the Church, and at odds with another decree itself, that we are to maintain the dogma's in the sense they were proclaimed.

No one is disputing the instrumental cause, nor is anyone asserting people are not justified without baptism, just without water baptism, no?

Additionally, reading the article got me interested in their point about original sin and Mary.

"By [Christ's] death that bond of death introduced into all of us by Adam and transmitted to every soul, that bond contracted by propagation is broken, in which no one of our children is held not guilty until he is freed through baptism."

This is the quote they speak of, stating absolutely no one is exempt from original sin.  

Would not all decrees stating Mary's freedom from original sin, after this, constitute denial of dogma? (Mayhaps this is why Thomas was so nervous to write such.)