CathInfo.com

If Trent truly taught Baptism of desire, it would have listed it as an instrumental cause of justification later on in Session 6. It didn't do this, because the Holy Ghost protects an ecuмenical council from teaching error, not theologians. When all of Session 6 is read in context, without cherry-picking and twisting chap. 4, it's obvious that Trent taught a man cannot be justified without the laver of regeneration.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…”

Why do catechumens beg for Faith in the sacramental rite, if they already have it through "BOD"? Its illogical.

According to Trent’s decree, catechumens, i.e. people who desire baptism, do not have the faith that bestows life eternal until they are baptized.  Only then do they become members of the faithful, as the Church has always taught.

This video covers the issue comprehensively:

 

Stubborn, the distinction you are not making is this:  justification/cleansing of actual sins vs original sin.  These are 2 different things. 

The Old Testament saints could justify themselves before God, if they were truly contrite for sin.  But no amount of justification could remove Original Sin, which is why they went to Limbo. 

Same thing applies to current day non-Catholics.  An unbaptized Protestant or a pious Muslim could have justification for actual sins if they are contrite.  But they would still have Original Sin.

The reason I am not making that distinction is because we are discussing justification as it is applied to the idea of a BOD, not the remission of sins in those already baptized, therefore not the remission of sins in OT saints which has nothing to do with this discussion. This is a thread about a BOD, not the sacrament of penance or the achievement of perfect contrition, nor is it about the justification of the OT saints. We already know through Trent that the necessity of the sacrament arrived in the New Testament with the promulgation of the Gospel.

So, as Trent explains that the proper disposition for baptism REQUIRES sorrow for sin and desire to amend one’s life, it is logical that a true disposition for baptism (ie a holy desire for it) would suffice for justification (of actual sins).  But not original sin.  That’s why, a “BOD’er” can’t gain heaven but can be justified.  Similar to Trent’s teaching that a perfect act of contrition can justify and supply for confession, provided one “vows” to go at the next opportunity. 

But all this is an exception, not the norm.  The norm is to use the sacraments.

The criteria you mention is incomplete, what you are missing, is Trent's teaching that faith is necessary for the proper disposition. Baptism without the faith is useless, which is why even one who is dying must make an act of faith or have done so previously, or we may not baptize that person. Which is to say perfect contrition and all the desire in the world is useless without faith and cannot justify anyone from any sin, without faith.

When Trent teaches justification, it is assuming that we are talking about the ACTUAL sacrament, as your many quotes point out.  And when it speaks of “remission of sins” it’s talking about Original Sin, because that is the primary/important sin that Baptism washes away.

Trent does not assume anything when teaching justification, I don't know where you get this idea from. Trent is explicit that without the sacrament itself, without this instrument, justification cannot be effected.

Why you want to add the remission of sins is beyond me Pax, all you are doing is confusing the subject. Remission of sins in those already justified through the sacrament of baptism is one thing. Remission of Original sin in those not yet justified through the sacrament of baptism is what we are discussing and is something altogether different.

What it all amounts to Pax, is that the only possible way to believe that justification of the unbaptized can be effected without the sacrament, is to either disbelieve or completely ignore Trent's words immediately preceding the words, "or the desire thereof" as if the preceding words are not even there.