The Reformers had not been slow in taking advantage of the situation; their popular tracts and catechisms were flooding every country and leading thousands of souls away from the Church. The Fathers of Trent, therefore, "wishing to apply a salutary remedy to this great and pernicious evil, and thinking that the definition of the principal Catholic doctrines was not enough for the purpose, resolved also to publish a formulary and method for teaching the rudiments of the faith, to be used by all legitimate pastors and teachers" (Cat. praef., vii). This resolution was taken in the eighteenth session (26 February, 1562) on the suggestion of St. Charles Borromeo; who was then giving full scope to his zeal for the reformation of the clergy. Pius IV entrusted the composition of the Catechism to four distinguished theologians: Archbishops Leonardo Marino of Lanciano and Muzio Calini of Zara, Egidio Foscarini, Bishop of Modena, and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican. Three cardinals were appointed to supervise the work. St. Charles Borromeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. Cardinal William Sirletus then gave it the final touches, and the famous Humanists, Julius Pogianus and Paulus Manutius, translated it into classical Latin. It was then published in Latin and Italian as "Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566" (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, "De Ref.", c. vii).

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm

5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.

Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.

But let me comment: if one understands predestination - God's willing and providing - being the infallible cause of - the salvation of His chosen elect, and understands the truism that God determines the means and the ends of everything He "simply" wills (St. Thomas, above), then the difficulties or problems of the "fairness" of God saving only those who are joined to the Catholic Church disappears: if He wills infallibly the salvation of all who are saved (and He does), it is obvious that He would also at the same time determine the how or the way He does it (i.e., do it in the manner He selected or wishes) - via faith in Christ, the Church, or baptism, etc.

One could no more object to His choice of how He saves than one can object to His choice of who is saved. The truth of one being established (God's choice of who is to be saved), their are no logical or legitimate grounds to justify an objection to the how, since both come down to His free determination and choice. 

There is simply no distinction between the who and the how of election that legitimatizes an objection to the one rather than the other. 

The election of the saved being a gratuitous act of God's predestination being a truth of Scripture and the Church's teaching, there is no ground for valid objection to God's conjoined free and gratuitous determination of the how or manner He does it. 



https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/msg784430/#msg784430


And it has also been my position, and my argument in this thread, that the classical and ancient position of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, reflected also in the Haydock Bible annotations posted in this thread, on Predestination presents a seamless garment that flows without rent and explains the seeming "harshness" of the dogmas of No Salvation Outside the Church, no salvation without possession of the Catholic faith or the sacrament of baptism (or at least the explicit desire for it, and the actual receipt of the sacrament as to infants). 

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/msg791027/#msg791027

The Satanic expansion of salvation to non-Catholics and non-Christians (the infernal campaign inaugurated in Genesis 3 transformed into an attack on God's plan of correction and redemption after the Fall, so that now the false counter Church that Bishop Sheen said would "ape" the true religion proclaims the false gospel that "all men" could possess immortal life and beatific bliss, becoming "as God") necessitated an attack on the Catholic dogma of the predestination of the saints in the Church and while holding the Catholic faith, lest one actually stumble upon the dogma (despite the silence that it is generally wrapped in to hide it) and realize its significance and implication regarding those twin necessities of being Catholic and possessing the Catholic faith, which then make absolute sense as the unique and only means of salvation employed by a God who sovereignly determines who and how men are saved.

. . . 

And thus, so now the thinking goes in the Conciliar Church, members of various false Christian Sects, Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists (and on and on), can be saved even "in their false religions" by way of a "development" manifested by the Conciliar Church in its dropping of the "but not by their false religions" expression to which the expression "in their false religions" was previously joined by otherwise true and faithful pastors of the Church like Archbishop Lefebvre, a comforting or palliating tag that likely reflected an attempt to suppress the necessarily concomitant association of a derogation of those joint necessities previously held to by the Church, EENS and the necessity of the Catholic faith, an attempt that utterly failed to stem the rushing waters of their erosion unleashed by V2 and the Conciliar establishment.

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/msg794272/#msg794272

Catechism of Trent does not teach BoD.  Nor did Trent.  Period.

1) BoD was rejected by a majority of the Church Fathers (it would be unprecedented for the majority of Church Fathers to actually reject an actual "dogma")
2) BoD has never been proven by any theological argument.

Ergo, QED, BoD is nothing but pure speculation.

It's theological garbage, and it's the genesis of the modern crisis in the Church.

There you go again, "morons." Didn't buy that mirror yet? Need a few bucks?

Are you aware (anyone) of any theologians of any stature - well, I'm not aware of any theologians for that matter - holding that Trent didn't pronounce in Session VI, Chapter 4 that a desire for the sacrament can justify? Of course, many can be cited who did read Trent to say as much.

Since this thread was prompted by the thought of Brownson, I'll again quote from his definitive (for me) comments on the necessity of the Church for salvation, and by necessary implication on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism, by which one enters the Church:



Quote

It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.




Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.

That right there is what I have described as the "core concept" of BOD: a recognition of the possibility of salvation by receipt of the sacrament "in voto et proxima dispositione." The Church has not elaborated on the how, and when, that possibility may become real, beyond saying it would if a catechumen was prevented from receiving the sacrament while having faith, repentance and preparing to receive it.

The failure or lack of elaboration on the concept no more betrays the concept as false than a vast amount of mystery regarding the Trinity, for example, renders the truth of God being triune false.

DR

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/orestes-brownson-on-theological-questions/msg846051/#msg846051

an efficient cause is twofold, principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of its form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own heat makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause grace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature, according to 2 Peter 1:4: "He hath given us most great and precious promises; that we may be [Vulgate: 'you may be made'] partakers of the Divine Nature." But the instrumental cause works not by the power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is not like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman's mind. And it is thus that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "All these things," viz. pertaining to the sacraments, "are done and pass away, but the power," viz. of God, "which works by them, remains ever." Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone works: wherefore it is written (Titus 3:5): "He saved us by the laver of regeneration."

.
Although I don't fully agree with the full implications you draw from your explanation of "as it is written," I agree with your understanding of what "as it is written" means. It is a reference, a citation, used to support the previous claim (that without water baptism or the desire for it, no man is justified). 

We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.