Council of Trent: "....should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." - Under the heading Baptism:pg 179.

How about you stop the silly games. Desire = Intention.  I desire to receive baptism. I intend to receive baptism.  One does not obtain grace and righteousness until baptism.

I also posted a link listing historically - from early Church History - all the saints and Doctors of the Church who taught 'Baptism of Desire'.

As for the Dimond Brothers - before we burrow down that rabbit hole - and I shall - let us take a look at their past history. How curious. They were accused of fraud and swindling. And for over 1 million dollars too. And their real names are Frederick and Robert Dimond? And they are not real Benedictine Brothers. Gosh, my interest has indeed peaked. I see Mathew posted some information about it in 2010:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/dimond-brothers-busted/

Your comments on the Dimonds are slander, even calumny if you know that it's false.

The 1 million dollars was over a donation, the courts ruled in favour of the Dimonds, you cannot take back a donation. The Novus ordo Benedictines also testified that the Dimonds are real Benedictines. 

This slander needs to be stopped, it is not Catholic to spread false information.

Also Trent doesn't say BoD. 

Hoping Kirk was saved WITHIN the Church does not affect the EENS. You are splitting hairs. And you do so because you will not accept Baptism of Desire; you will not accept that grace can operate outside of the sacraments in special cases. You reject the spirit of the law for the dead letter of the law.

Syllabus of Errors:
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. —Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

You seem to believe that there is reasonable hope that Kirk was saved, this is condemned in the above quote.

Now you might say that Charlie was saved "within" the Church. But making that claim just exposes you as a modernist.

So pick, either repent and accept AUTHORITATIVE CATHOLIC TEACHING or play the modernist terminology game.

Ah but the facts of the case speak for themselves. The 1 .3 million was from a wanna-be postulate - Eric Hoyle - who was told by Michael Diamond that he must give up ALL his worldly goods before they could let him enter. Foolishly Eric gave the money to Dimond with the stipulation that if he left, Mr. Dimond would return a certain figure for him to start afresh with. When Eric did actually leave - he testified that the Dimond brothers did not act or live like monks - the Dimonds gave him nothing. Not even a few thousand dollars in good will. Nothing.

As for their status - (the real) John Salza, the lawyer who investigated the Dimond brothers, states that "not a single Benedictine monastery in the world recognizes the Dimond's operation as legitimate (and we even have correspondence from a true Benedictine monastery that refers to their 'fraudulent racket'.)"
Ref: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peter-and-michael-dimonds-diabolical.html

If you have concrete proof otherwise, lets have it.

I knew you were somehow connected to Salza.  You dodged an earlier question on this statement.  You may even BE salza.  You've been kicked off too many times here already.

Nonsense. Again, that's your personal take and you have an agenda - you're a Sede. Tradition means TRADITIONAL -

  I just defined what "traditional" means.  It means a) rejecting V2, and b) rejecting the new mass.

The question of the pope is DEBATED.  Sede vs "classic" sspx.

The R&R position - recognize and resist - views the Holy Father is a legitimate Pope.

+ABL's "classic" sspx never recognized the V2 popes as 100% legitimate.  That's why the 2nd part of R&R exists -- the "resist" part.  That's why he ignored JP2 and consecrated bishops.  That's why he went rogue and did what he did.  Duh??  

If one "resists" a 100% legit pope, they are schismatic and going to hell.  But the classic-sspx realized that the V2 popes may be PARTIALLY legit.  That's why they are allowed to "resist".

How can you not grasp this concept?  It's not either-or.  It's not legit vs non-legit.

We do not class him as a formal heretic. That's for another Pope to decide.  So no, you and I are not united at all. There has to be a center point for unity and you are not attached to it.

But all of them are 100% material heretics.  And if you can't admit this, then you aren't a Trad.

The first step, as they say, is admitting there's a problem.  If you can't admit that V2/new mass are problems, then you aren't a Trad.    It's not hard.  Except for fence-sitters, like you.

St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church:

"But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics."

Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.h

Charlie Kirk held "false and perverse" doctrine as we know. But he was not passionately obstinate and was willing to be convinced otherwise. This is supported by his words "I am close" when asked by the bishop if the rumours about him converting were true.

Contrary to any circuмstantial evidence you may provide (the vast majority being conveniently "brought to light" only after Kirk's death, with him no longer being able to confirm or deny any of it), Kirk publicly stated his adherence to an anti-Christ sect, rejecting Christ and His Church, a couple minutes before death. Not to mention what he was allegedly "close to converting" to was the Conciliar church, which is not the True Church at all  I'm not humoring you or your EENS denial any longer on this subject.

Now provide evidence to support your accusation that the Dimond Brothers "spend their lives... attacking Doctors of the Church"

Source?

The matter has already been adjudicated, but you already disqualified the "secular" court as a source.
You are behaving like the damned Jews who reject any source except those submissive to their narratives and misanthropy.