But this particular line of Trent admits of two meanings. It's ambiguous, in and of itself.  If someone says this teaches BOD, they're putting an interpretation on the text. Likewise, if someone claims this sentence excludes BOD, they're putting an interpretation on the text. You saying the "two variables" must be connected is an effect of such an imposition. You're requiring that any "analogy" have a form in which both of the "two variables" are required. You reject the "driving or walking" analogy because it doesn't fit what you appear to want this sentence to say. And yes, of course "driving or walking" do not relate to each other in precisely and exactly the same way that "laver or desire" relate to each other, but that wasn't the point of the analogy. (There's a saying that analogies limp except on the point of the comparison.)

So, OK, we could look at analogies that compare grammatically to
"Justification cannot be had without the laver or the desire".
Note that the subject is justification - a grace, not a sacrament, and not sacramental character.
What we would have is a sentence like
"The graces of a sacrament cannot be had without the sacrament or the desire"
and this sentence would supposedly mean that both the sacrament and the desire are required.

Penance: Can there be no forgiveness without the sacrament of penance in re? No perfect contrition?
.
Confirmation: Do the gifts of the holy ghost not exist in the soul without the sacrament of confirmation?
.
Communion: Are the fruits of communion possible through "spiritual communion" at least in some limited way?
.
Marriage: Since the couple are the ministers, one could view  a desire for the sacrament, with appropriate external conditions, as the sacrament itself. So the sacrament and the desire are arguably the same.
.
Last rites: not sure but should be similar to penance.
.
Holy orders. Obviously, desire does not confer the character or the power to offer mass, but I don't see why other graces could not flow based on a "desire" without reception of the sacrament.
.
Your interpretation for baptism wouldn't fit any other sacrament. I can see potential reasons baptism could be entirely different, but it still means analogies with other sacraments do not appear to support your view.

Yes, but this discussion is about baptism. If both the sacrament in re, AND the votum, are required for justification, then something should be said about infant baptisms. Do infants express a desire for the sacrament?

And if you say the votum can be in the sponsors, does that mean a third party impacts validity?

SOME graces of SOME of the Sacraments can be received before the reception of the Sacrament in re.  But the question here is whether all the graces necessary for salvation (vs. justification) can be received in voto.  So, for instance, even if justification can be arrived at with just the votum, does that state of justification suffice for salvation?  I concur with Father Feeney that it does not.

I'm on the fence about pre-Baptismal justification.  I'm inclined to believe that it can happen in some cases, but that the Sacramental character of Baptism is required for the beatific vision.  I take Father Feeney's position just a step further and contend that if someone, hypothetically only since I believe with St. Augustine that this can't happen in actual fact, WOULD die in a state of justification without the Sacramental character, he would enter into a state similar to the Limbo of the Fathers.  [Father Feeney answered "I don't know" to that question.]

This renders the interpretation of the Trent passage moot.  I still do hold, however, that Trent is saying that the votum is ALSO required, not that it suffices, for justification.  This interpretation is backed up by that passage from the Catechism of Trent cited above by Stubborn.  I'll have to find the Latin to see if the term votum appears there (or some verbal form of it).  If that exists there, then an "either ... or ..." reading of the passage doesn't work, because you'd be contradicting the Catechism in asserting that the laver can justify without the votum.  There's a Canon in Trent that says the same thing, that the Sacrament cannot justify without the (will and intention) to receive it.

I think we all, including Xavier, should agree that "desire" is a horrible translation that has done no service to the debate.  Even Catholic Encyclopedia rejects it as entirely inadequate.  votum is a VOW, and is linguistically related to the word "will", so it means more along the lines of will and intention, but it's even more concrete, like a wedding vow, where there's a huge difference between desiring to get married and making the vow.  So it's a "firm resolution" at the very least.  That kind of reading would preclude it being applicable to some Great Thumb worshipper in the jungle who's never even heard of Baptism.  Which is, IMO, PRECISELY why they watered this down with the "desire" translation.

This phrase "Baptism of Desire" needs to be completely stricken from our vocabulary, replaced with something more along the lines of "intention" or "resolution".  Of course the term "Baptism of" is also problematic, since these folks do not actually receive "Baptism" (of which there is only one, with the term "Three Baptisms" being an "offensive to pious ears" expression directly contradicting the Creed.

it is obvious the voto of Baptism, just like the voto of Penance, confers justification. Those who read it otherwise are wrong, and no one did so for about 500 years before recently.

No, it's not obvious.  Fr. Cekada only found 25 theologians who mentioned BoD, most of them in passing, who likely didn't even study the text on the matter but were just repeating the opinion of St. Thomas regarding BoD.

As I pointed out, only 9 of the 25 assigned a higher theological note to BoD than to BoB, from which we can infer that only 9 actually felt that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire"; otherwise, all 25 would have given BoD a higher theological note than BoB.

BTW, this reading of Trent eliminates the notion of Baptism of Blood as something distinct from Baptism of Desire, the quasi-ex opere operantis thing that St. Alphonsus held it.

Those who claim that Trent is teaching Baptism of Desire, please explain how this does not eliminate BoB as something distinct from BoD.  If Trent were teaching the "Three Baptisms" here, why does it only mention 2?

I just want to add -- that this is really a waste of time. If someone is inclined to become Catholic, they must be baptized, period. That is the only advice I've ever seen or READ ABOUT Traditional Catholics giving out. Infants should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

I fail to see the problem. Are Traditional Catholics -- those who actually care about the Faith -- really putting off, downplaying, or rejecting baptism, hoping for another form of salvation?

I didn't think that was a real issue today. Prove me wrong.

And no I'm not talking about heretics or modernists. They don't have the Faith to begin with. They're missing a LOT MORE than just the doctrine on how to be saved by Baptism and membership in the One True Church. Their virtue of Faith looks like New York after a Roland Emmerich disaster movie. I'm talking about Traditional Catholics -- which we all are. Those with the Faith. Those who call each other heretics over the BoD issue.

I just want to add -- that this is really a waste of time. If someone is inclined to become Catholic, they must be baptized, period. That is the only advice I've ever seen or READ ABOUT Traditional Catholics giving out. Infants should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

I fail to see the problem. Are Traditional Catholics -- those who actually care about the Faith -- really putting off, downplaying, or rejecting baptism, hoping for another form of salvation?

I didn't think that was a real issue today. Prove me wrong.

And no I'm not talking about heretics or modernists. They don't have the Faith to begin with. They're missing a LOT MORE than just the doctrine on how to be saved by Baptism and membership in the One True Church. Their virtue of Faith looks like New York after a Roland Emmerich disaster movie. I'm talking about Traditional Catholics -- which we all are. Those with the Faith. Those who call each other heretics over the BoD issue.

Traditional Catholics will definitely say that baptism is necessary, but when pressed, many follow their belief with, "But there's also baptism of desire." They do it all the time. Why they add that is strange because it automatically promotes laxity (in the listener) because it suggests an alternate way to salvation and at least subtly undermines the necessity of baptism.  A poll asking traditional Catholics on CI if they believe in bod will show most do believe in it and therefore willingly or unwillingly they promote an alternate way to salvation. To me this isn't a waste of time because one is necessarily true, the other is not.  It might be a waste of time because it's been hashed for years with little effect in this forum, but not because the differences don't matter.     

I just want to add -- that this is really a waste of time. If someone is inclined to become Catholic, they must be baptized, period. That is the only advice I've ever seen or READ ABOUT Traditional Catholics giving out. Infants should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

I fail to see the problem. Are Traditional Catholics -- those who actually care about the Faith -- really putting off, downplaying, or rejecting baptism, hoping for another form of salvation?

I didn't think that was a real issue today. Prove me wrong.

In the practical order, you're right for the most part ... except that the notion of Baptism of Desire could actually, ironically, undermine a person's desire for Baptism, so that they desire the desire for Baptism.

But, in any case, this all dovetails with a lot of key theological issues that are critical to the understanding of the Vatican II errors.  Modernists have used an extended concept of BoD to undermine EENS dogma.  Once you undermine EENS dogma that way, then it leads directly to the Vatican II ecclesiology.  So if such a thing as an extended implicit BoD does exist, then V2 ecclesiology is legitimate, and so are all the allegedly erroneous statements in V2.

So, apart from the Liturgical question, our entire raison d'etre for Traditional Catholicism, from the theological standpoint, evaporates ... given this ecclesiology.

I know I've skipped logical steps here.  I've drawn them out elsewhere.  But THIS is the reason why some of us feel that the theological principles tied in to Baptism of Desire and to EENS are absolutely critical.  I've said it before and I'll say it again here now.  If someone were to convince me that "Hindus in Tibet" can be saved without first converting, then I would immediately drop all resistance to the theology of Vatican II and would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, since I would have no theological justification for opposing it.  I've demonstrated how every single error Traditional Catholics cite in Vatican II derives from this ecclesiology.

In the practical order, you're right for the most part ... except that the notion of Baptism of Desire could actually, ironically, undermine a person's desire for Baptism, so that they desire the desire for Baptism.

But, in any case, this all dovetails with a lot of key theological issues that are critical to the understanding of the Vatican II errors.  Modernists have used an extended concept of BoD to undermine EENS dogma.  Once you undermine EENS dogma that way, then it leads directly to the Vatican II ecclesiology.  So if such a thing as an extended implicit BoD does exist, then V2 ecclesiology is legitimate, and so are all the allegedly erroneous statements in V2.

So, apart from the Liturgical question, our entire raison d'etre for Traditional Catholicism, from the theological standpoint, evaporates ... given this ecclesiology.

I know I've skipped logical steps here.  I've drawn them out elsewhere.  But THIS is the reason why some of us feel that the theological principles tied in to Baptism of Desire and to EENS are absolutely critical.  I've said it before and I'll say it again here now.  If someone were to convince me that "Hindus in Tibet" can be saved without first converting, then I would immєdιαtely drop all resistance to the theology of Vatican II and would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, since I would have no theological justification for opposing it.  I've demonstrated how every single error Traditional Catholics cite in Vatican II derives from this ecclesiology.

I still don't see how Lefebvre's EENS position would somehow lead to the Novus Ordo being licit or religious liberty being a thing.  Those  seem like separate issues to me.

I still don't see how Lefebvre's EENS position would somehow lead to the Novus Ordo being licit or religious liberty being a thing.  Those  seem like separate issues to me.

Yes, the NOM is separate, but Religious Liberty is very much related.  

If the criterion for salvation is subjectivized to following one's (even erroneous) conscience, then if someone follows his (even erroneous) conscience, he saves his soul.  Everyone has a right to save his soul.  Ergo, everyone has the right to follow an (even erroneous) conscience.  So a state or society or anyone else who tries to thwart people from acting according to their conscience is actually jeopardizing their salvation.