I already stated in the hypothetical that no one will baptize her.  Take that to include I can't get ahold of anyone or those closest to her refuse to do it.  I want to address a hypothetical that is certainly possible in my situation.  
She explicitly states her wish to be baptized but dies before receiving it.  Is she saved?  Anyone?

It is dogma that the sacrament is necessary for salvation, which means answering according to the Church, the answer would be no.

It is as Fr. Wathen puts it - "There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children". If she sincerely desires it, she will receive it - period. "Ask and you shall receive" is God's promise to us.

"For every one that asketh, receiveth" - the Haydock says of this verse:
Whatever we ask necessary to salvation with humility, fervour, perseverance, and other due circuмstances, we may be assured God will grant when it is best for us. If we do not obtain what we pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment.

I already stated in the hypothetical that no one will baptize her.  Take that to include I can't get ahold of anyone or those closest to her refuse to do it.  I want to address a hypothetical that is certainly possible in my situation.  
She explicitly states her wish to be baptized but dies before receiving it.  Is she saved?  Anyone?

Call the local police department and ask to speak to a Catholic officer.  Have that officer do a welfare check and then baptize her.  She will not be saved unless she is baptized with water.

Isn't the whole motivation behind BOD the horror of realizing that most people (assuming even that the Novus Ordo sect is on the path to salvation, which it is not) are damned? 

Yes, indeed this seems to be the case--BOD is a theology drawn from fallen human sentiment, not reason applied to public revelation.

our poor use of the same word for similar but distinct conditions is to blame for confusion and argument.

You can say that a 1000x!  Great point.  How many quarrels happen because of miscommunications and poor/lazy/incorrect theological terms???  Or just bad grammar.  That’s about 80% of this site. 

I do not believe a Pre-Baptismal Justification can be anything other than a Baptism of Desire, i.e. Baptism in voto. Since Baptism, at least in the desire thereof, is necessary for Justification, it is impossible to obtain Justification without a Desire (Voto) for the Sacrament.

I agree with Stanley. And, as some others also said, let's not keep accusing others of "bad will" unnecessarily. Unless any of us are divinely appointed Holy Inquisitors, and I don't think we are, it's not for us to unduly cast aspersions on the internal state of other professing Catholics. Let's debate and discuss in a proper manner, and explain and express our own conscientious Catholic convictions, so that we can all arrive at the Truth, and always with Charity for one other. Truth means nothing without Charity, just as Faith without Works is dead. Truth is important of course, but Truth in Charity always.

Quote from: Joe Z If I may, and please be patient. I'm only trying to help.

Joe, the example you give, "Confirmation cannot be effected without the signing of chrism and the will to be confirmed."

But firstly, (1) it doesn't say "AND" in Trent, but "OR". I gave three examples of this on another thread "I cannot quench my thirst without water or juice". The implication is, as I can quench my thirst through water, so can I do also through juice. Would you disagree?

(2) Secondly, Trent uses the specific term voto, in reference only to Three Sacraments, Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist. Do you agree that in reference to both Penance and the Eucharist, it is talking of Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion respectively? If you do, then why do you deny that with reference to Baptism alone, it refers to BOD? Trent is not talking about a natural disposition, but a supernatural desire when it uses the term voto. Trent later says "the eternal punishment is always taken away, either by the Sacrament, OR by the desire of the Sacrament" with reference to Penance. Here we see "OR" and not "AND" to indicate both remit sins.

(3) Thirdly, why don't we find anywhere in Trent such a statement with reference to Confirmation/Priesthood/Marriage/Unction? Why don't we find "without the Priesthood, or without the desire thereof, Mass cannot be offered" for e.g. Every Sacrament after all requires the will to receive it, even the Priesthood. Since there is no voto for the Priesthood, Trent simply says things like "Without the Priesthood, Mass cannot be offered". If it had meant to exclude Baptism of Desire, it would have said "Without the laver of regeneration, justification cannot be effected". But rather it said, in effect, "Without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", no justification.

Quote If you still disagree with me, please pray with the intention for faith, for yourself or for me.

I agree, as LT also said in one of the prayer threads, we should pray for another in spite of our differences. We are all Catholics here. If we cannot even get along with other Catholics who all agree at least 99% with each other, who will we get along with? Let's put our point across and debate and discuss vigorously, but let's do so with charity, and always making allowance as far as we can for the good faith of others.

God Bless.

Quote

This is not interpretation, it is merely a translation into American from English. Trent is stating unequivocally, form, matter, and intent are necessary for Justification.

Ding, ding, ding!  We have a winner.
.
Xavier, Stanley and others look at this sentence with a microscope and analyze the "or" phrase to death, meanwhile their new interpretation is uncatholic and doesn't jive with all the rest of Trent's teachings.  They miss the forest for the trees.

Usually, when talking about "matter form and intent", the "intent" is in the minister. On the other hand, when talking of "votum", the "votum" is usually viewed in the recipient. Where do you think it is?

What I said was quite limited, that the phrase "without A or B" could be interpreted two ways, grammatically.  Ladislaus recognizes that, and he has some expertise on Latin grammar. If you resolve those options to one, then you're using something outside the grammar.

And that's it, just a statement about grammar. It's not complicated. It's not a challenge to anyone's faith. If you have 5 arguments for some assertion, it shouldn't challenge anyone's faith to say one of those arguments doesn't prove the assertion.

There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

In the context of history, in the 1500s, Trent's use of "intent" was two-fold.  The intent of the minister is always necessary.  But when talking of justification, the use of intent is obviously related to the recipient of the sacrament.

So you really think this phrase from Trent meant both the intent of un unstated minister and the intent of the subject were required for justification, and that no exception or substitution is possible?