Stubborn,

I've made the argument that the "since the promulgation of the Gospel" means - to distinguish justification under the New Covenant from the Old - that at least an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism was necessary now, which would differentiate justification under the New Covenant, since the sacrament of baptism wasn't available under the Old.

I know the argument. I was a "Feeneyite" for years.

But, wait.....the catechisms state one can even desire it implicitly.  Are we to believe that the OUM teaches explicit desire or at least implicit desire? Which is the true teaching?

Just another ambiguity....

But, wait.....the catechisms state one can even desire it implicitly.  Are we to believe that the OUM teaches explicit desire or at least implicit desire? Which is the true teaching?

Just another ambiguity....

This is another thing - the catechisms are not the OUM. If they are the UOM, then why not use the NO Catechism? 

I hear what you/the Dimonds are saying, but for the sake or argument, let's say there are those who "desire" baptism but for whatever reason it never happens before they die.  Or the catechumen who is explicit about his/her desire, but doesn't quite make it to baptism.

I'd say that's a possibility, and I think it's similar to what Ss. Thomas and Alphonsus believed about BOD (albeit, they said Purgatory and then onward to Heaven, rather than Limbo). But it remains in the gray area of theological speculation.

It seems to me that those folks are in at least the same position of the "just" of the OT.  It seems right that they should at least avoid Hell and go to a place where there is no suffering, like a Limbo.  No Beatific Vision, but at least no suffering.

PS, Good to see you DL!

And you're honestly not alone in that belief. If we can take Dante Alighieri for an example of the Medieval/Renaissance Catholic mindset, he himself set up a Limbo of the just for these types of people. The idea of it is completely appealing, but, I can't put my faith into it since there's so much speculation on what happens to these kinds of souls. And there's also the question of the efficacy of the OT rites and their merit towards the Redemptive Sacrifice of Christ versus the lack of such things among infidels. Again, the sin offerings made to God in the Old Covenant only had efficacy and merit because they were to be fulfilled in Christ later. Once the New Testament is established, the Sacraments are the only means to reach justification. If an infidel doesn't have the Sacraments, then no amount of good will and desire can justify them or remit their sins. Confusion and/or denial of this is precisely why an Arch-heretic like Pelagius came about, and why this error still persists to this day.

Again, it's a theological possibility, but hasn't been revealed or defined like the Limbo of the Infants. As for the catechumen argument, why they didn't make it to baptism is a mystery of God. He has His just reason as to why they didn't "make the cut," so to speak. As I said earlier:

And even for the extremely limited case of the catechumen, there's nothing to say such speculation is at all the reality. As God clearly permitted that catechumen's death prior to baptism, preventing them from receiving the Kingdom, for reasons known only to Him (lack of faith? Abuse of graces? Mercy due to future sins?). As the Church has also clearly defined that catechumens are not members of the Body until they are baptized.

But, wait.....the catechisms state one can even desire it implicitly.  Are we to believe that the OUM teaches explicit desire or at least implicit desire? Which is the true teaching?

Just another ambiguity....

Trent Catechism does not teach implicit BoD while some later catechisms do teach it. I would say implicit salvation is the one "ambiguity" that needs resolution more than anything, because with "implicit faith" I can accept Unitatis Redintegratio and simply become a conservative NO instead of sedeprivationist. I think the only conclusively heretical things in VII is the ecclesiology promulgated in this one docuмent.

Never mind, I get it now - but it is still clearly, Trent's teaching.

Since, per Trent, it is infallible that:
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration), 
2) or the desire for the sacrament of baptism, and
3) since we are bound to accept this and Trent's inclusion of John 3:5 as it is written,
4) there is no other means for those unbaptized to obtain justification because Trent infallibly teaches that
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)

Why is it not clear that #2 condemns the idea of a BOD?

It's crystal-clear. I don't get how people are dividing the sacrament of baptism from a desire for it just because the word "or" is used in an inclusive sense. We know that a forced baptism, against the desire of an individual, is invalid. So why would the desire in itself suffice without the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)?

It's illogical.

It's crystal-clear. I don't get how people are dividing the sacrament of baptism from a desire for it just because the word "or" is used in an inclusive sense. We know that a forced baptism, against the desire of an individual, is invalid. So why would the desire in itself suffice without the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)?

It's illogical.

On the surface, "cannot without the laver or the desire" is ambiguous.

I cannot write a letter without paper or a pen.  We cannot have the wedding without the bride or the groom.  In both these expressions, BOTH are in fact required.  And the Latin there is no different in this regard.

I cannot write a note without a pen or a pencil.  I can't buy anything at the store without cash or a debit card.  In both these expressions, either one would suffice.

That's because the expression WITHOUT A OR B can either be understood as

CANNOT WITHOUT (A OR B) -- BoD meaning
or
CANNOT WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B -- non-BoD meaning

Unlike in math or computer programming there aren't any parentheses to guide us.

Now, in the two sets of samples above, the meaning was obvious to us.  Why?  Because we understood from the context which one was meant.

Now, Trent could have disambiguated the expression inline by using an expression like "or else" or "or at least" ... as it did for the Sacrament of Confession.

For Confession, Trent taught that the Confession was necessary for remission of grave sin (after a post-Baptismal fall) saltem in voto ("at least in desire") and later that sin can be remitted vel sacramento vel sacramenti voto ("either by the sacrament or by the intention [to receive the] sacrament").  Note that the use of vel in Latin means that the two are not mutually exclusive (vs. if they had used aut ... aut) ... since it's actually necessary to have the intention to receive the Sacrament also when actually receiving the Sacrament.  This is absolutely clear.  Trent could have used this same expression for Baptism if that's what it intended ... vel lavacro vel ejusdem voto or lavacro aut saltem ejusdem voto.  This would have made it absolutely clear.

Trent simply used [sine] lavacro aut ejusdem voto.  Now, normally, in a positively-worded epression, aut would tend to imply an exclusive or, "one OR the other (but not both)" but, as we have seen, that would be incorrect, since as with Confession, the votum is ALSO required with the Sacrament AND because when flipped around into the double-negative form of "cannot without A or B", it would simply be an emphatic way of saying that EITHER without A OR without B (if EITHER one is absent), i.e. that both do not have to be missing.  So it goes back again to whether Trent means WITHOUT (A OR B) -- in which sense an exclusive OR would be theologically incorrect -- or WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B -- in which an exclusive OR would not be incorrect, since the OR isn't between A OR B, but rather between WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B.

So one piece of evidence in favor of the WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B (non-BoD sense) is that the exclusive or aut when used in the expression (A OR B) as in WITHOUT (A OR B) would be theologically incorrect.  Now, exclusivity is not ALWAYS indicated by the aut, so this is not conclusive.

So why would Trent use an ambiguous expression rather than an obviously clear expression as it did with Confession?  Well as we saw, it's context or meaning that disambiguates otherwise-ambiguous grammar.

But what to me completely disambiguates the expression is the Scriptural "proof text" that follows this teaching.

... justification cannot happen without the Laver or the votum as it is written, "Unless one be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit, it is not possible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Trent had just finished explaining that the Holy Spirit inspires all the dispositions for Baptism up to and including the votum to receveive the Sacrament.  So there is an analogy being made, similar to the kind you'd see on an SAT test.

laver:votum::water:Holy Spirit -- So the laver corresponds to the "water" in the citation from Our Lord.  That's precisely why the Fathers at Trent used this very descriptive word (which connotes water) rather than just, say, "the Sacrament," as they did for Confession.  Then the votum would likewise correspond to the Holy Spirit, since the action of the Holy Spirit inspires the votum in the soul.

So to claim that this means the laver or else the votum would be to claim that the Fathers taught the absurdity that "Justification can happen with EITHER the water OR the votum, as the Lord taught that BOTH the water AND the Holy Spirit are necessary."  So that Scriptural proof text that the Fathers offer for this teaching immediately disambiguates the expression into meaning that BOTH are required for justification.

Finally, the Fathers could simply have taught this in the positive form, that justification CAN happen with the Sacrament OR at least the votum for it.  But they did not.  Instead they taught that it CANNOT happen without these.  This strongly implies that these are both necessary causes of justification, but not by themselves sufficient.

We find one final clue in the Canons.  At one point the Fathers anathematize the proposition that the Sacrament can justify even when the recipient does not "will" to receive it, and this demonstrates that it is not possible to say that aut has the exclusive sense, where EITHER the Sacrament OR the DESIRE would suffice.  To read "Laver or votum" that way would imply an anathematized proposition. 

Now, votum is linguistically related to the word for "to will", so it means to will or to intend.  So translating votum as "desire" is very misleading ... and IMO deliberately so.  It waters down the meaning so that any kind of "emotional desire" would suffice.  Even Catholic Encyclopedia states that "desire" is a totally inadequate term, and that votum encompasses all the necessary predispositions for Baptism.

votum is also the root word of our word "vow" and is also used to mean "vow" in Latin.  That is much stronger than desire.  When someone gets engaged, that person might "desire" to marry his prospective spouse, and has every intention to do so, but if he walks out seconds before pronouncing the marriage vows, the couple were never married.  So the word "vow" is practically inseparable with actually carrying out the act itself.  So, for Confession, if you just think, "I want to go to Confession." that's not quite the will or intention to go.  It has to be more resolute, along the lines of "I'm going to Confession when the priest comes into town on Sunday." or the penitent calls the priest to schedule a Confession.  That's why Trent adds the expression "in due time" to the "intention" to confess, since the votum does not require that the penitent run to the rectory and knock on the door at 3AM to wake the priest immediately.

But this votum has been deliberately watered down in translation to "desire".  Latin does have a word for "desire", by the way.  But if you translate votum as "firm resolution to receive the Sacrament of Baptism", it's much harder to ascribe salvation by votum to various infidels (Jєωs, pagans, etc.).  What Jєω or infidel ever had a firm resolution or intention to receive the Sacrament of Baptism?  So this very term "Baptism of Desire" is anathema and needs to be discarded.  It also does imply the "three Baptisms" nonsense, which verbatim denies the Creed's reference to belief in "ONE Baptism".  St. Robert Bellarmine very carefully stated that one received Baptism in voto, holding that this was simply a different MODE of receiving the one Baptism, so his in re vs. in voto.  Not quite sure which of these would apply to "Baptism of Blood"?  Oh, that's another problem with holding that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.  Where's Baptism of Blood?  If justification cannot happen without either the actual Sacrament of water or the Baptism of Desire, then what is Baptism of Blood?  This teaching would positively rule out a Baptism of Blood as a distinct thing.  It would have to reduce to one of the other two.  So to hold "Three Baptisms" would be heretical based on this teaching from Trent ... if interpreted the BoD way.  Baptism of Blood would likely just reduce to Baptism of Desire.  So then St. Alphonsus' contention that BoB is distinct in that it has a "quasi ex opere operato" effect would have to be completely discarded.  And, returning to St Robert Bellarmine, he limited Baptism in voto ... so BIV would be a more suitable expression than the noxious and heterodox BOD ... to catechumens.  Catechumens belonged to the visible Church through their profession of Christian faith and would have the votum for Baptism in the concrete sense of "I'm signed up and scheduled to be baptized next Easter."

Yet another curious problem with BIV (among many) is the following.  Some hold that BoD is only "in play" if the catechumen is cut off by death from the Sacrament.  But why?  Well, otherwise, the Sacrament becomes a mere formality for those catechumens who are already justified before the Sacrament.  When approaching the Sacrament, the catechumen asks for the gift of faith.  And the Sacrament remits Original Sin.  But does it really if the Original Sin is already wiped out by prior justification in voto?  Now, let's say the catechumen has entered a state of justification prior to actual reception of the Sacrament, so Original Sin is wiped out.  But then the catechumen subsequently commits a mortal sin.  Does the eventual Baptism work more like Confession then?  Initial justification is defined by Trent as the spiritual "rebirth" and then "spiritual rebirth" is defined as completely wiping out all sin and all punishment due to sin.  That creates some major problems for St. Alphonsus' [unproven] contention [aka speculation] that BoD (BiV) does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin.  But then this catechumen would have experienced his rebirth prior to Baptism.  Would he then experience a second "rebirth" with a subsequent initial justification?

BoD is so deeply fraught with difficulties that I don't see how it's even tenable as a workable theory, much less has it been defined by the Church.

But even with all this, IF that's what Trent intended (but expressed so sloppily when it could have made it extremely clear by following the exact same grammatical expression as with Confession), Trent would be saying that the votum suffices for justification but does not declare that it would suffice for entering the Kingdom of Heaven.  We saw earlier how Pope St. Siricius taught that each and every one of those who desired to receive the Sacrament would forfeit Life in the Kingdom if they departed life without the actual Sacrament.  St. Ambrose, cited as a proponent of "BoD" taught that these (along with the unbaptized martyrs) would be "washed" but now "crowned" (aka would not enter the Kingdom).