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.

This sums it up for me too Carissima.  So I also vote 'No"

The following posts prove your point.  I thought Ladislaus called for a Yes or No vote and giving our reasons full stop.   No debate.

Justification is not the same as salvation. The former can be lost and the latter is eternal. Too often these are confused, resulting in the a notion perilously close to the Lutheran notion of once righteous, forever righteous. Justification could happen prior to baptism, but none will persevere in such state until death without the waters of baptism. And no one, under the New Law, will enter into beatitude after death without the ontological effects of water baptism.

Trent isn't the only source of dogma concerning justification.  You have Pope Leo the Great teaching this:

Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18).  Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith.  Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?  It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.  And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.  For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.  And the three are one.  (1 Jn. 5:4-8)  IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.  THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.  NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.

- Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD.

Here is Br Peter Dimond on the significance of this dogmatic teaching of Pope Leo:

Now, in the section of Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter quoted above, he is dealing with Sanctification by the Spirit.  “Sanctification by the Spirit” is the term for Justification from the state of sin.  Justification is the state of grace.  No one can get to heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit [Justification], as everyone professing to be Catholic admits.  Pope St. Leo affirms, on the authority of the great apostles Sts. Peter and John, that this Sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s Blood.  It is only by receiving the Blood of Redemption, he proves, that one can be changed from the state of Adam (original sin) to the state of grace (justification/sanctification).  It is only by this Blood that Sanctification by the Spirit works.   This dogma was also defined by the Council of Trent.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: “If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mєdιαtor, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema.”[cclxv]

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated.”[cclxvi]

     It is a divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin and sanctified without the application of the Blood of Redemption to him.  Of this no Catholic can doubt.

     Baptism of desire/blood advocates – and this would also include the St. Benedict Center, since they also believe in justification by desire – argue that the Blood of Redemption, which effects the Sanctification by the Spirit, is applied to the soul by the desire for baptism or by his martyrdom, without water baptism.  Remember that: baptism of desire/blood advocates argue that the Blood of Redemption, which effects Sanctification by the Spirit, is applied to the soul without water baptism.  But this is exactly the opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines dogmatically!

...
Pope St. Leo defines that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism!  Thus, there can be no Justification by the Spirit and the Blood without the Sacrament of Baptism.

     This infallibly excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and the Blood without water is possible.

      In light of this dogmatic letter, as well as the other facts already brought forward, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held; for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification.

     And lest someone tries to find fault with this infallible definition by arguing that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception to it, it should be recognized that Pope St. Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from the state of sin.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18).  Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7)…”    

     The Blessed Virgin Mary had no sin.  She was conceived already in a state of perfect sanctification.  Since Pope Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from sin, his definition does not apply in any way to her.

     Therefore, there can be no Justification of a sinner without water baptism (de fide).  There can be no application to a sinner of Christ’s Redemptive Blood without water baptism (de fide).  There can be no salvation without water baptism (de fide).

     To further prove the point that this dogmatic pronouncement specifically eliminates the entire theory of baptism of desire, notice how St. Thomas Aquinas (in teaching baptism of desire) says exactly the opposite of what Pope St. Leo the Great defined.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “…a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification…”

     St. Thomas says that baptism of desire gives one sanctification without the water of Baptism.  Pope St. Leo the Great says dogmatically and infallibly that one cannot have sanctification without the water of baptism!  A Catholic must accept Pope St. Leo the Great’s teaching.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.  THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.  NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[cclxviii]

      The significance of Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement is extraordinary.  It naturally crushes any idea of salvation for the supposedly “invincibly ignorant.”  These souls cannot be sanctified and cleansed by the Blood of Christ without receiving the saving waters of baptism, which God will bring to all of good will.

     The dogma that the Blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the Sacrament of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent; however, the definition is not as specific as Pope Leo’s.  The difference is that, whereas Trent’s definition on the Blood of Christ sets forth the principle that the Blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the Sacrament of Baptism, Pope Leo’s definition confirms that this means that the Blood of Christ can only be applied to a sinner by the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: “If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mєdιαtor, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema.”[cclxix]

     Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement also radically confirms the Church’s consistent understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 in their absolutely literal sense: Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”[cclxx]

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V:  “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”[cclxxi]

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”[cclxxii]

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[cclxxiii]

     One can see the harmony of Pope St. Leo the Great’s dogmatic pronouncement with all of these others: there is no salvation without water and the Spirit because the Blood of Christ – without which no one is justified – is itself inseparable from the water and the Spirit.

     Those who comprehend this pronouncement from Pope St. Leo must reject any belief in the theories of baptism of desire and blood.  They must admit that the theologians who believed in baptism of desire and blood were mistaken.  They must cease believing and teaching that Sanctification by the Spirit comes without the water of baptism.  Those who refuse to do this are obstinately contradicting the teaching of the Church.  To obstinately contradict the teaching of the Church is to fall into heresy.  To fall into heresy without repentance is to lose one’s salvation.

     Some may wonder why some saints and theologians taught baptism of desire and blood even after the time of Pope Leo’s pronouncement.  The answer is simple: They were unaware of Pope Leo’s definitive pronouncement in this regard; they were erring in good faith; they were fallible human beings; they were not aware that their position was contrary to this infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

     But once one recognizes that this position on baptism of desire and blood is contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church – as a careful consideration of Pope Leo’s pronouncement proves – one must change his position if he wants to remain Catholic and save his soul.  St. Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo and confirmed for us that the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of redemption cannot be separated from their link with water baptism, so we must align our position with this or else we don’t have the faith of Peter.

Yes, I agree that the OT saints died justified, but did not the rules change since the promulgation of the Gospel? Although the Church, far as I know, has never said explicitly if justification is possible without, or prior to receiving the sacraments, only that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Yes, the rules changed, so what I offer is merely speculative.  I believe that the ontology of salvation remains consistent, and that's the foundation for my speculation.

There was something that these OT saints were lacking ontologically that prevented them from the Beatific Vision.  I hold that what was lacking was the supernatural faculty to see God as He is, something which human beings cannot do by their own nature.  I hold that the character of Baptism is in fact that supernatural faculty, where we not only see God as He is, as Three Persons in One God, but we are also recognized by the Father as adopted son ... and so are in effect adopted into the Holy Trinity.  Just as the character of the priesthood makes a priest fully recognizable as the persona Christi, with the Baptismal character allowing God to recognize us as His sons.

So, with the OT just, some of the Church Fathers actually held that they were temporarily raised from the dead and baptized so they could enter the beatific vision and heaven.  That's what those incidents reported by Sacred Scripture of the dead coming out of their tombs was about.  This was not just to create a spectacle.

Sure, but the argument from BoD advocates is that there is a LINK to Baptism, through the desire for it.  As much as most modern BoDers fail to articulate this, there can be no votum for Baptism without .... Baptism.  This votum derives any efficacy that it might have from the Sacrament itself, and the Sacrament is and must be (to void heresy) considered the instrumental cause of the justification, simply operating through the votum.  Of course, there's this nonsense out there that people could have a votum to be baptized without every having heard or or known about Baptism.  How can you "will" (aka "desire") something that you don't know.

St. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked.  This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them.  Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire.  Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…

     “If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism.  But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter?  I cannot see it.  If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory.  You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory.  Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”

Or how about food?  Shouldn't you be satisfied with the desire of food rather than attaining the actual food?  If you desire it, you already have it.  Why pay for it?  Or money?  Desire the money, you will have it.  But everyone admits that BOD does NOT imprint the baptismal character.  So in reality, it is being admitted that the desire for baptism doesn't produce the effects of baptism and therefore one has through BOD not even a link to the sacrament of baptism.  Does anyone seriously believe that the desire of money is linked to the reception of money in such a way that one can enjoy the benefits of money without actually receiving it?

Here's a hypothetical for you all:

My mother tells me she would like to be baptized (and no one else will do it).  I live almost 6 hours away.  She dies before I get to her.  Saved?

Here's a hypothetical for you all:

My mother tells me she would like to be baptized (and no one else will do it).  I live almost 6 hours away.  She dies before I get to her.  Saved?

You don't need to baptize her.  Anyone, even a non-Catholic can pour water on the forehead and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)."  You could call her non-Catholic neighbor and have them do it.  You could even arrange to be on the phone when it is done so that you can be assured that the form was correct.

Here's a hypothetical for you all:

My mother tells me she would like to be baptized (and no one else will do it).  I live almost 6 hours away.  She dies before I get to her.  Saved?

Understood it's only Hypothetical, but she first needs to make a profession of faith 2V, either you or get someone else to walk her through the Apostles Creed.

It is only with faith that we know that there is no one about to die sincerely desiring baptism whom God cannot secure Baptism for. If one is going to do it, almighty God *will* give one the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it, and He will arrange this with the very same Providence with which He arranged for you to be baptized.