Indeed, while God's Providence doesn't normally use miracles to provide the Sacrament to His elect, SOMETIMES He will do so in order to teach us something.

These incidents with Mary of Agreda confirm St. Thomas' teaching that if there are any living in invincible ignorance who have not placed obstalces in the way of God's grace, God will send then an angel if necessary to preach the faith.  St. Thomas did NOT state that bases on their "sincerity" or some vague "contrition", God would save them as is without explicit Christian faith.  For him, it was so necessary that God WOULD work a miracle if needed to do so.

Indeed, Mary of Agreda could also have been asked to baptize them, had the arrival of the missionaries not been otherwise arranged by the ordinary working of Divine Providence.

St. Peter Claver raised a woman back to life in order to baptize here, and evidently no one (including the woman hereself) knew that she hadn't been baptized.  She behaved as a devout Catholic, assisting at daily Mass and Holy Communion.  If anyone could be said to have BoD, it would be someone like her.  Recall the story of the "unbaptized preist" that Pope Innocent II wrongly declared went straight to Heaven (of course, contradicting St. Alphonsus there), since he had what Innocent called "baptism of faith" (rather than desire).

There are other stories where people are going to martyrdom, but one is unbaptized, and a spring of water miraculously comes from the water so that the individual could be baptized.  Why ... since BoB was a pretty sure ticket to Heaven?

Recall we are not defending any watered down version of bod which we do agree is a grave problem. We are defending the position that (1) implicit desire is sufficient for individuals who've not heard the Church ...

You never cease to amaze me.  This is about the third or fourth time you've contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next.

What you list in "(1)" IS a "watered down version of BoD" ... and you are defending it.

This notion that non-Catholics can be saved by some implicit desire destroys the Tridentine (and St. Robert Bellarmine's) ecclesiology of Church as visible society, and is nothing less that Prot and Conciliar ecclesiology (which you condemn as heretical despite holding it yourself).  St. Robert Bellarmine limited BoD to catechumens.  THAT is the "not watered down" version of BoD.

And, how many versions of BoD are there, eh?  I thought the Church has defined it.  See, we don't believe in "concepts" or "words", but in propositions.  Given that we have many versions of BoD, it's clear evidence that the Church has not defined anything for belief, since then every proponent of BoD would believe the same things about it.

In point of fact, the common factor in all "versions" of BoD reduces to "the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation", in other words, to a heresy.  Your "BoD" doctrine is nothing more than your (bad-willed) way to gut EENS dogma so that you don't have to accept the proposition that only those visibly in the Church Church can be saved.

In doing so, however, you have absolutely no reason to reject Vatican II, since all its errors are in fact related to these ecclesiological consequences of non-Catholics being saved.

MAJOR:  No Savlation Outside the Church [dogma]
MINOR:  Non-Catholics can be saved.
CONCLUSION:  Non-Catholics can be in the Church.

This very elementary syllogism exposes the contradiction of your nonsense and that of most (though not all) SVs who hold that V2 ecclesilogy is heretical or gravely erroneous.  So this ecclesiology where the Church consists not only of Catholics (at its subsistent core), but also of various non-Catholics who approximate Catholicism to varying degrees, our separated brethren, brethren because they're actually in the Church (they have to be in order to be saved), even if the are materially separated in terms of what they actually believe and profess, and even if they're unaware of it themselves ... is actually nothing more than the logical consequence and profound expression of the same ecclesiology that you hold.  V2 cited "Suprema Haec" as the source for this novel ecclesiology that SVs denounce as heretical ... while then claming that SH has quasi-dogmatic force when using it to attack Feeneyites.

These contradictions are the surest signs of bad will and ulterior motives, where you're not seeking (and finding) truth, but are motivated by these ulterior motivations to affirm contradictory propositions at the same time.

I'm not debating this with a schismatic bad willed moron like you who can't debate without resorting to insults. I can throw all your own insults back on your own face. The only one in schism, for rejecting Pope Pius XII, is you. You stubbornly refused to answer the question of what you'd do if a Pope St. Pius X or an Angelic Pastor future Pope condemned your heretical Feeneyite doctrine. If you'd refuse to submit, as you probably would, you would find yourself outside the Church. I clearly explained what the Church's doctrine is and what the Holy Office decided. Some modernists, like you, reject that definition and believe something else. The traditional teaching on bod is crystal. Literally every Pope between Pius IX and Pius XII reaffirmed it multiple times yet those who want to be schismatic like you seem to want to reject it.

For others: baptism of desire means perfect love of God or contrition with a desire, at least implicit, of entering the Church. This is the definition of St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, confirmed by Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII etc. The idea that natural good will can suffice for baptism of desire is condemned and wrong. Supernatural charity or contrition is required and that is difficult. Ladislaus rejects the Magisterium of multiple Popes. He wont answer whether he'd submit if he were in Fr. Feeney's place or whether he would affirm the doctrine if Pope St. Pius X himself personally assured it were true.

The only one in schism, for rejecting Pope Pius XII, is you.

I don't reject Pope Pius XII, you slanderous baboon.  Find one theologian who states that disagreeing with the Pope on a non-infallible teaching constitutes schism or retract your slander.  AT BEST, they might say it's sinful, except that Msgr. Fenton (among others) states that one MAY disagree with such a teaching if it's "found to be in error" or contradicts previous teaching.  But the MOST you can claim is that I'm committing some kind of sin by disagree with a non-infallible teaching of Pius XII.  Your accusation of schism is calumny and slander.