I believe that there is in fact a BoD, one that washes the guilt of sin,...

So, what I reject is the notion of Baptism of Desire as being sufficient for salvation and the Beatific Vision.

Good. Your first statement, that "there is in fact a BoD, one that washes the guilt of sin" is settled Catholic doctrine (of the third highest level), according to Ott's Fundamentals and the Council of Trent. We agree, and I hope all on Cathinfo agree also.

I believe that your second statement is plausible but completely in the realm of "theological opinion." And that opinion doesn't need to present a challenge to the "settled doctrine" in order to be true. In other words, one can accept BoD (as doctrinally-defined by the Church) and still believe something like your "salvation" thesis. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Good. Your first statement, that "there is in fact a BoD, one that washes the guilt of sin" is settled Catholic doctrine (of the third highest level), according to Ott's Fundamentals and the Council of Trent. We agree, and I hope all on Cathinfo agree also.

I believe that your second statement is plausible but completely in the realm of "theological opinion." And that opinion doesn't need to present a challenge to the "settled doctrine" in order to be true. In other words, one can accept BoD (as doctrinally-defined by the Church) and still believe something like your "salvation" thesis. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Even the part about BoD as washing from sin as "settled doctrine" is a stretch.  It was speculation from a couple of Church Fathers.  I happen to agree with it, that martyrdom brings about a complete washing, whereas "desire" brings about at least a partial washing.

The Council of Trent doesn't even mention BoD.

The Council of Trent mentions the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof both as necessary conditions for justification. Only some retarded heretics misread the passage as stating the laver or the desire each as a sufficient condition.

Not even the laver of regeneration plus the desire thereof are a sufficient condition for justification. More things are required, as you can find out, actually reading cuм hoc tempore.

Learn to read, before again and again misinforming CI readers about the Council of Trent.

"The laver of regeneration" = baptism
"the desire thereof" = the desire of baptism
the desire of baptism = baptism of desire
Therefore the Council of Trent most certainly does mention BoD, aka baptism of desire.
Please see my post where I summarize Ott's discussion of baptism of desire in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. 

Even the part about BoD as washing from sin as "settled doctrine" is a stretch.  It was speculation from a couple of Church Fathers.  I happen to agree with it, that martyrdom brings about a complete washing, whereas "desire" brings about at least a partial washing.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Did you read my post where I summarized the perennial Catholic teaching that can be found Ott's Fundamentals? Do you have a copy of Ott's textbook? I don't understand why you continue to refer to sources like "a couple of Church Fathers" and the "Catholic Encyclopedia." Do you actually think those are best sources to use when a respected textbook on dogmatic theology is available? Ott's book makes very precise distinctions and provides all of the Magisterial sources that the doctrine derives from.

No BOD/BOB debate is complete without mutual anathemas and excommunications.

No BOD/BOB debate is complete without mutual anathemas and excommunications.

What's your problem? It's an act of charity to inform each other about teachings, dogmas, and condemnations.

"The laver of regeneration" = baptism
"the desire thereof" = the desire of baptism
the desire of baptism = baptism of desire
Therefore the Council of Trent most certainly does mention BoD, aka baptism of desire.
Please see my post where I summarize Ott's discussion of baptism of desire in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

No Angelus, what you are doing is reading into Trent the exact opposite of what Trent actually says. It is really so simple that it is amazing that so many people do this.....

Trent says that without the sacrament or the desire thereof that justification *cannot* be effected.  If Trent did teach, or even mention a BOD, then Trent would have *had* to say, without the sacrament or the desire thereof that justification *can* be effected.

"...since the promulgation of the Gospel, [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".

Make sense now?

No chance. I won't convert to heresy.

You're now aware that you've got to read cuм hoc tempore, to find out that even preparation is necessary for baptism, that desire doesn't suffice.

I have read cuм hoc tempore. In fact, I quoted from it here in another post in this thread. I will quote it again in Ott's words (the words in red below are directly from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4):
Quote

The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto)". DH 1524. Cf 1604, 741.

Since you seem to imply that the discussion of "Preparation" (I assume you mean cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 6) contradicts what I quoted above from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4, could you provide a quote or some form of rational argument to make your point?