So, what I'm getting from all of this is (and I don't really follow the BOD argument), that in voto is an extremely narrow frame referring to those who may have died immediately before the Sacrament was conferred? And that those in support of BOD are stretching it to encompass everyone who has a passing whim of getting baptized? Is that right?

Yes, if there's such a thing, it's basically a firm resolution and intention, as if I'm on the way to go to Confession, made an appointment, and get run over by a car.  It's not some vague longing.  And its prerequisite is in fact ALL of the dispositions Trent teaches as necessary for justificaition, including having Catholic faith (at least a fides initialis since supernatural faith itself is received at Baptism).  Even the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject declares that "desire" or even "resolution" are a poor translation of the term.  I'll see if I can dig it up here.

In fact, if one were to actually read St. Robert Bellarmine, he phrases the question  "Whether a catechumen ... [can be saved iin this manner]?"  He argues that a catechumen might be saved in this way because he's already in a way part of the visible Church, being visibly united to the Church.  If ANYONE hammered home (and some theologians argue, to a fault) the fact that the Church is a VISIBLE society, it was St. Robert.  He would have condemned as heretics those who would apply BoD to anyone who could not be visibly identified as belonging to the Society of the Church.

EDIT:  (Catholic Encyclopedia)  We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so.

It only becomes heretical when you persist in the error after being corrected. 

Yes, I agree overall, except it refers *not* to the 'concept', rather it refers to the *effect*; Justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration."

Note also what the description says, particularly the words "it's manner", which is to say Trent is teaching us "the manner in which justification is to be accomplished" which Trent, after saying how it cannot be accomplished without the laver or desire, quotes John 3:5 "as it is written" - this is how justification is to be effected, i.e. by the sacrament.


Here is where the BODers consistently misquote Trent. Trent never even says the sacrament of baptism itself will certainly justify let alone save anyone, presumably because the sacrament(s) may be received sacrilegiously, Trent only says that:
1) without it no one is justified
2) without it no one is saved (John 3:5)
3) the desire thereof will not justify. Trent says this in Session 6.....Justification "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

Trent says "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof", why so many people read this as saying "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or [without] the desire thereof" is a mystery. This is where you believe I am reading it incorrectly, but I'm not the one reading it incorrectly, although I would be if the word "without" was in there.

In session 7, Trent condemns with anathema whoever says 1) the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, which agrees with session 6, and 2) without *them* or the desire thereof men obtain justification. 

The BODers simply read and understand sessions 6 and 7 to mean what Trent clearly does not say. Whereas Trent in session 7 condemns the idea that justification is obtained without them or desire thereof, BODers claim Trent says that justification/salvation is certain to anyone at all who has the desire thereof - others do not even believe the desire thereof needs to be explicit. Boders say this is so certain, that a BOD is a doctrine, even a dogma defined at Trent, which is altogether wrong.

Yes, I agree overall, except it refers *not* to the 'concept', rather it refers to the *effect*; Justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration."

Note also what the description says, particularly the words "it's manner", which is to say Trent is teaching us "the manner in which justification is to be accomplished" which Trent, after saying how it cannot be accomplished without the laver or desire, quotes John 3:5 "as it is written" - this is how justification is to be effected, i.e. by the sacrament.


Here is where the BODers consistently misquote Trent. Trent never even says the sacrament of baptism itself will certainly justify let alone save anyone, presumably because the sacrament(s) may be received sacrilegiously, Trent only says that:
1) without it no one is justified
2) without it no one is saved (John 3:5)
3) the desire thereof will not justify. Trent says this in Session 6.....Justification "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

Trent says "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof", why so many people read this as saying "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or [without] the desire thereof" is a mystery. This is where you believe I am reading it incorrectly, but I'm not the one reading it incorrectly, although I would be if the word "without" was in there.

In session 7, Trent condemns with anathema whoever says 1) the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, which agrees with session 6, and 2) without *them* or the desire thereof men obtain justification. 

The BODers simply read and understand sessions 6 and 7 to mean what Trent clearly does not say. Whereas Trent in session 7 condemns the idea that justification is obtained without them or desire thereof, BODers claim Trent says that justification/salvation is certain to anyone at all who has the desire thereof - others do not even believe the desire thereof needs to be explicit. Boders say this is so certain, that a BOD is a doctrine, even a dogma defined at Trent, which is altogether wrong.

All of this ^ 

"Without" is key and must be applied to both subjects (laver and desire) in that sentence because both follow the word without.  Justification cannot be had... without laver, or without desire.  It isn't even ambiguous as some suggest.  It cannot be read as either one or the other to favor BOD.  It must be read both/and as it is written. And you're right, you'd be reading it incorrectly if the word "without" wasn't there.  But it is there. 

Are you two suggesting that one who dies justified is not thereby saved (ie., Some who die in the state of grace are damned)???

Yes, that is what he is saying. He is saying Trent teaches one can be justified without the laver of regeneration, which is contrary to Trent.