CMRI Have a Very Thorough Treatment of the Subject, God Bless them:

Sorry, I missed your comment about infant baptism. I thought that the desire was supplied by those that bring the infant to be baptised? However, let me rephrase my question.

An adult cannot be justified with the laver of regeneration while lacking the desire for it. Do you agree?

That you for the response, I understand your point about sacrilegious baptism. But wouldn't an unconscious catechumen have implicit desire, considering the fact that he is a catechumen? I don't exactly have a dog in the fight, I was just looking for clarification about the interpretation of Trent that says the desire of the laver alone can justify.

Yes, I may have been muddling my words in my original comments so bear with me haha

These are the scenarios I was envisioning

Quote

Trent teaches that the laver of regeneration and the desire for the laver are necessary for justification 

Laver and Desire = Justification (In the case of infants is the desire supplied? Is desire implied with unconscious catechumens?)
Laver but No Desire = No Justification (Such as your examples of sacrilegious baptisms)
No Laver but Desire = No Justification

or

Quote

Trent teaches that the laver of regeneration or at least the desire for the laver are necessary for justification

Laver and Desire = Justification
Laver but no Desire = No Justification
No laver but Desire = Justification

So with the first interpretation, Trent is explicitly stating that with the laver, the desire for the laver is also necessary for justification. That makes sense to me, that no one can be justified without desiring it.  If I run up to a Muslim and quickly baptize him, he isn't justified because he did not desire baptism.

With the second interpretation, the line from Trent is no longer explicitly saying that you need the laver with the desire for the laver to be justified. Is it implied that if you receive the laver, you must also have the desire to receive it in order to be justified?

Well yes, for adults the desire is necessary for justification, but Trent does not teach your second example, so not sure what to make of it.

See, the specific teachings are specifically worded in a negative tenor. Your examples are in the positive - which is the way BODers read the same teachings which only adds to their confusion. 

When Trent says justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or a desire for the sacrament, they are ruling out any possibility of justification without the sacrament of baptism. Whatever anyone else says to the contrary, Trent is clear. Again, if one thinks it is confusing, then what they need to do is realize that Trent concluded with "as it is written, unless a man....." so as to to cement the teaching and remove all doubt.

St Robert Bellarmine was born a few years before the start of the Council of Trent. In his work De Ecclesia, Book III: On The Church Militant, Chapter III On the Unbaptised, he teaches this:

"... it is said outside the Church no man is saved, and this ought to be understood on those who are neither in fact nor in desire within the Church, just as all the Theologians commonly teach on Baptism. Moreover, if the Catechumens are not in the Church de facto, at least they are in the Church in desire, therefore they can be saved. This is not opposed to the similitude of the Ark of Noah (outside of which no man was saved), even if he were in it by desire since similitudes do not agree in all things. For that reason, 1 Peter 3 compares Baptism to the ark of Noah and still it is certain that some are saved without Baptism in fact.

"But one might say, Augustine says that Catechumens are in the Church; it is true, but in the same place he separates them from the faithful. Therefore, he meant that they are in the Church not by act, but by potency, which he explains in the beginning of the 2nd book on the Creed, where he compares Catechumens to men who are conceived but not yet born."

It is certain that some are saved without Baptism in fact. It is certain. Immediately following the Council of Trent. Saint, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, St Robert Bellarmine.

But it must be believed without doubt that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when, not of contempt, but of necessity some die without Baptism of water.  It is expressly stated, Ezech. 18, if the wicked do penance for all his sins, I will not remember all his iniquities.  Thus also Ambrose clearly teaches in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger:  Whom I was, he says, about to regenerate, I have lost; but he did not lose the grace which he had hoped for.  Thus also Augustine lib.4. de baptism, cap.22. & Bernard epist.77 & after them Innocent III. cap. Apostolicam, de presbytero non baptizato, whence also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire.

St Robert "believed" that catechumens might have BOD.  Ok, fine.  St Thomas talks about the same thing.

The heresy begins when you start to apply the word "catechumen" incorrectly.  When you say that Jєωs, muslims, pagans, unbaptized protestants, etc can have BOD.  They cannot and that is grave error and a denial of Trent.  Why?  Because these groups of people cannot be catechumens, in the proper sense.

If one is a formal catechumen, this means they have 1) rejected their former false religion, 2) are formally learning the Faith at a Catholic Church, 3) have an express desire to become a Catholic.

If someone does not fulfill the above general requirements, then they aren't a catechumen and the St Thomas/St Robert's writings don't apply.