On page 430 of the TAN Books edition, under the discussion of “Imperfect Contrition and the Sacrament of Penance”, Ott states:

If perfect contrition were necessary for valid reception the Sacrament of Penance would cease to be a Sacrament of the dead, as justification would always take place before the actual reception of the Sacrament; the power to forgive sins would lose its proper purpose, since grievous sins would never be remitted in the Sacrament of Penance; absolution would have a mere declarative significance ... the way to the attaining of justification would not be facilitated by the institution of the Sacrament of Penance; on the contrary it would be made more difficult.


The same argument applies to the Sacrament of Baptism: if desire were sufficient to gains the effects of this sacrament, since desire is absolutely necessary to effect it in re, the washing of regeneration and translation into justification would always take place before the actual reception of the Sacrament, and it would be made effectively redundant except in its significance as a declaratory sign, since it would not even be strictly necessary as the gateway to the other sacraments!

If the SSPX were logically consistent, they would only ask: “Do you seek to live according to your conscience? Are you sorry for your sins? You are absolved: here, have a cracker!” That would be the sum of the duties of the Church to preach the a Gospel and administer the Sacraments. Have you heard of Jesus? No? Good! Be sorry for your sins. Try to be a good person! Here, this will help you! St. Paul? Never heard of him.




So much for those in the SSPX who claim that there can be pagans walking about in a state of grace through implicit desire and implicit faith!

The Douay Catechism (1649):
 
Question: Can a man be saved without baptism?
 

Answer: He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.

Theologically fault.  Holy Innocents died before the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted and therefore could not have received Baptism either in voto or in re.

Pius XII: “In the case of other, more necessary sacraments, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forego even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water on his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession.”

That was his opinion, and it is wrong ... just like his opinion on NFP, evolution, ecuмenical gatherings, and liturgical experimentation.

"Ladislaus locuta est causa finita est."

Can you name any theologian from the 19th or 20th century who rejects BOD?  

Can you name a theologian in the 19th and 20th century that rejects the theory of salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that is, salvation without desire to be baptized, without a desire to be a Catholic, without belief in Christ or the Holy Trinity?

As  a matter of fact, 99% of those that defend baptism of desire, reject the very idea of desire being necessary for salvation, nor belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. 

Baptism has two effects: 1) it washes away original sin (and infuses faith, hope and charity into the soul), and 2) it imprints upon the soul an indelible character. The character is necessary to receive the other sacraments - which means the character (not sanctifying grace) is "strictly necessary as the gateway to the other sacraments".

Nothing in the citation you quote from Ott implicitly refutes the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire.  Dr. Ott himself explicitly teaches this doctrine on pages 356-358 of the book you quoted.  As you will see in the following quotation, Ott, like every other theologian prior to Vatican II, interprets the Council of Trent as teaching baptism of desire.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p-356-357:  "2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism: In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)

"a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).

     

"The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible " without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."

"According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

"The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St.  Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: "I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. !  Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.

                               

"Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin.  Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments."

He continues by explaining the Church's teaching concerning the baptism of blood:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p. 357: b) Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis) Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an unbaptised person, that is, the patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature leads to death, by reason of one's confession of the Christian faith, or one's practice of Christian virtue.

"Jesus Himself attests the justifying power of martyrdom. Mt. to, 32: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven." Mt. 10 39 (16, 25): " He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me shall find it." John 11 12, 25: " He that hateth his life in this world keepeth it unto life eternal."

                 

"From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for Baptism. Tertullian calls it "blood Baptism" (lavacrum sanguinis) and ascribes to it the effect of "taking the place of the baptismal bath if it was not received, and restoring that which was lost" (De bapt. I6). According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive "

the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism" (Ep. 73, 22). Cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei XIII 7.

                 

"As, according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism, blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments. St.  Augustine says: " It is an affront to a martyr to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers "(Sermo 159 I.) Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character. Cf. S. th. III 66, 11 and 12."

This is the Church's teaching concerning baptism of desire and blood.  It can be found expressed in similar terms in any pre-Vatican II theological manual and in the old catechisms.  Those who depart from Tradition by rejecting BOD are no better than Modernists.

The Church's teaching on baptism is not dependent on fallible theologians or saints, but on the infallible magisterium, the popes, and without doubt, the Council of Trent.
 "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."

.

Quote from: RomanTheo on Today at 01:33:37 PM

Quote

"Ladislaus locuta est causa finita est."

Can you name any theologian from the 19th or 20th century who rejects BOD?  

Father Leonard Feeney.

Name a theologian today who rejects the errors of Vatican II.

.
To be fair, Fr. Feeney did not wage a crusade rejecting BoD or BoB. Those were not his concern.
His concern was defending extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Period.

As for BoD and BoB, his position was that since we cannot know the state of a soul of a dying person because we cannot know his interior disposition (only God can discern the thought of our hearts), what becomes of such souls who have not been baptized is left to the providence of God. It's not OUR DECISION what happens. It's God's decision.
.
BoB and BoD advocates like "RomanTheo" above are wont to rip that prerogative of God away from Him and make it their own.
.
BoB and/or BoD never have been prominent issues for the St. Benedict Center, and they never will be.
.
Those who would make it seem so are succuмbing to a deception of the enemy who wants to deceive you.
.
As for your question, "Name a theologian today who rejects the errors of Vatican II" -- excellent!
.
They had to GET RID of Fr. Feeney in order to HOLD Vat.II. If he had not been squelched long in advance (11 years, actually) they would have been utterly UNABLE to hold that evil council, for his one voice would have been like Athanasius against the Arians. And the Modernists were terrified of that prospect.
.