Even so, the baptism is mere facility. The church saves no one.
Were St. Peter an Evangelical Protestant, his response would have been “accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior”... right?
*shrugs* It was good enough for the criminal on the cross. It is the acceptance of Christ that is paramount, after all. One may be saved without any sacrament, without any catechism, with nothing but the bare words of acceptance. All is covered by the Blood.
It is not that I deny the sacraments, or any normal purpose of the church, but neither does it's role ascend to a position to credit for itself those things that certainly belong to Christ, one of those being the sole power of salvation.
Not so: Peter in Acts 2:38 sure did not sound as checking off mere facilities, and indeed, according to his Catholic opinion, "baptism ... now saveth you also" (1 Peter 3:21).
It was good enough for the criminal on the cross
Why, the Good Thief did everything the Catohlic Church requires for salvation: he repented of his sin, did good works defending an innocent from abuse and God from blasphemy, and asked Christ for mercy. Could he get off the cross into a baptismal font he surely would have. Of course, the Church was not visibly in existence till the Pentecost, but in essence the Good Thief's salvation would have been the same under the graces given the Church: he wouldn't have been asked a thing different, had there been a priest ministering to him at that time.
You realize, do you not, that by providing means of salvation the Church takes nothing away from Christ and everything from Christ?