If you believe in Baptism of Desire, please don't vote, since that'll skew the results.  Your "Yes" answer here is taken for granted.

I want to see the range of opinion among those who reject Baptism of Desire.

Then perhaps we can have a debate.

I believe in pre-Baptismal justification.  If you do not, please explain why.

If justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, and also cannot be effected without the desire for the sacrament, then all we can do is repeat Trent and say without the sacrament there can be no justification.

First, whatever grace may happen through "desire of the sacrament" is obviously in reference to the sacrament. It would not be  "without the sacrament" as if something completely unrelated to the sacrament.

Second, the "or" clause does not necessarily make both parts of the clause required. Grammatically, one can say "Going to the store cannot be effected without driving or walking" without saying you need to both drive AND walk to get to the store.

Either way, justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. Which is to say that even if you have met every other requirement including the desire thereof, without the sacrament, justification cannot be effected. That is what Trent said...
[justification] since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or..."

"Going to the store cannot be effected without driving or walking". Does that mean you must BOTH drive AND walk to get to the store?

If Trent would have said: "This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the desire for the sacrament, or the actual sacrament..."  then without question the desire alone would then be what is absolutely necessary to obtain justification whether or not one ever received the sacrament. Apparently, this is what BODers see when they read Trent, which is probably why they claim Trent teaches a BOD.

I am more than willing to be corrected.

The majority of the Church is made of simple laity. We weren’t meant to be theologians so I think that Fr Feeney’s arguments about Justification only complicates the BOD issue further, when all we really need to believe is the absolute necessity of the Sacrament itself. So I voted No. 

Being a hotly contested issue here on Cathinfo for so long, I’ve read threads and threads of arguments from all sides, and walked away no more enlightened on the subject. I only see confusion.

I simply rest in the words of Christ from Scripture, and in One Baptism from the Creed, and not much further.

Yes, of course, the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means for salvation.

But theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine held that the Sacrament was necessary at least in voto.

Now, modern BoDers mostly hold that the Sacrament is not absolutely necessary by a necessity of means for salvation, but effectively reduce it to necessary by necessity of precept.  And I have excoriated them for that.  It is in fact heretical.  Others basically have a Pelagian view where they somehow ... in muddled thoughts ... imply that people can merit salvation or somehow deserve salvation.

To make it scholastic, one of these theologians might argue according to this distinction:

Yes, the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.
1) that it is absolutely necessary for salvation saltem in voto, concedo
2) that it is absolutely necessary for salvation in re, nego

Now, I do not agree with this distinction and hold that it is necessary for salvation in re, but I cannot condemn it as a heretical rejection of Trent, not when it was held by someone like St. Robert Bellarmine.

See, you've built YOUR interpretation into the statement. Try to look at it objectively, from the grammar alone.

"X cannot be effected without A or B".

Does that necessarily mean that BOTH A and B are required?

As has been demonstrated, grammatically, the answer is NO, not necessarily.

I do believe that the far MORE likely translation is in fact the meaning of BOTH, rather than EITHER.  Now, St. Robert Bellarmine seems to have read it as an EITHER.  I have reasons for disagreeing with that.

But even APART from that issue, the question here is the WITHOUT part.  If someone were justified by Baptism through the desire for it, are they being justified "WITHOUT" Baptism?  Does "WITHOUT" Baptism necessarily translate to "WITHOUT THE ACTUAL RECEPTION OF" Baptism?

With regard to Confession, the Pope insisted that sinners cannot be restored to justification WITHOUT the Sacrament of Confession, but by that he still allowed for the Sacrament to operate THROUGH the desire to bring justification.

In other words, a justification that took place through the votum still would be happening because of the Sacrament, and therefore in no way without it or somehow independent of it.

I do believe that the far MORE likely translation is in fact the meaning of BOTH, rather than EITHER.  Now, St. Robert Bellarmine seems to have read it as an EITHER.  I have reasons for disagreeing with that.

And that's fine. That's debating interpretation.

In other words, a justification that took place through the votum still would be happening because of the Sacrament, and therefore in no way without it or somehow independent of it.

Exactly.