Ok, so the formula needs to be adjusted to the following:

BOD = 1 effect
a.  removal of actual sins (i.e. justification)
b.  no removal of Original Sin
c.  no sacramental character / wedding garment


Baptism = 3 effects
a.  removal of actual sins (i.e. justification)
b.  removal of Original sin
c.  reception of the sacramental character/ wedding garment.


Even if one wants to argue that Trent allows BOD to remove all actual sins AND even Original Sin...BOD still doesn't provide the baptismal character/ wedding garment.  And no one gets into heaven without the wedding garment, i.e. the character imprint on the soul, which designates a person as a Child of God.

People misunderstand "justification" with also removing Original Sin.  No, it does not. 

Justification (alone) - removes actual sins.
Justification + baptism - removes actual + Original sin.

When Trent is discussing justification, is it IN RELATION TO BAPTISM. 

Ok, here is where I disagree with Fr. Feeney when he opined that nothing could prevent God from providing the sacrament to one who is justified, but not yet baptized........
 
Trent says that since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration i.e. the sacrament of baptism.
Pope Boniface VIII said that outside of the Church there is no remission of sins, i.e. no justification.
All those who are not baptized are outside of the Church.
Therefore, there is no justification at all without baptism.

Which is to say that if it were possible for one outside of the Church to actually make a perfect act of contrition, because they are not baptized their sins would remain, they would not be justified.

When the Church speaks of justification, it is speaking of SACRAMENTAL/SUPERNATURAL justification. 

It is not speaking of human contrition for sins, which is a NATURAL justification.  We all know this exists because all humans (of whatever religion) are capable of recognizing sin and repenting.  And God will forgive such sins, on a natural level.  And this NATURAL contrition leads one to being a "naturally good" person.  And as "grace builds on nature" then that naturally good person will be given ACTUAL graces by God, to come to the Church.

Actual sins can be overcome by actual contrition, leading to an "actually" good person, due to them cooperating with actual graces.

But SUPERNATURAL sins (i.e. original sin) cannot be overcome by actual grace.  It requires SUPERNATURAL graces, which can only be had by the Church/sacraments.


This whole BOD debate is also shows a total misunderstanding/corruption of the doctrine of actual vs supernatural graces.

Indeed, this is the conclusion I've come to.  I think that the reason so many push back against EENS is that they think some Jєωιѕн grandmother, who wasn't into any impurity, was kind and generous, and even perhaps gave her life to save her children, that she would end up standing right next to Joe Stalin in that same monolithic boiling cauldron of fire, jockeying for position there against some truly evil people, because she lacked Catholic faith.  And truly that would offend any concept of justice, so people push back against the idea of EENS ... because of this misinterpretation or misunderstanding.  Even one of the EENS definitions states within it that each one is punished according to his own sins.

But if we can continue and extend the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas whereby he justified and promoted / taught the notion of Limbo, distinguishing between the natural punishments due to sin (poenae) and the supernatural state of the Beatific Vision, this objection can easily be made to evaporate.

I personally hold that those who lived in invincible ignorance (say in the Americas before misisonaries), could in fact have arrived after death at something that does in fact approximate their notion of a "Happy Hunting Ground", to the extent that they lived in accordance with the natural law.  But this false dichotomy between ... either you behold the Face of God in the Beatific Vision ... or else you roast in Hell, this false dichotomy has caused the massive pushback against EENS dogma.

Now, these must be taken with a huge grain of salt, but in a lot of those NDEs (Near Death Experiences), people die and go to a place that seems happy, see their relatives, etc. ... but then often report that there's some kind of gate or barrier (like the old stories of the pearly gates) that they can't get past.  In the story of the one native girl who was raised back to life and baptized by St. Peter Claver, she reported that she went to a certain point but could go no further due to lacking the wedding gown.  So, by all acounts, she was a virtuous girl, went to Mass and Communion daily, etc ... but evidently her Baptism had been invalid.  Certainly someone like that would have been a candidate for the so-called BoD, no?

"....We know, then, that long ago the Faith was held and lost, in these lands where it had flourished so gloriously. Now, loss of Faith is always culpable. It is always man’s fault, that is, when he has lost his God-given gift of Faith.  That is the clear teaching of the Church. It is by man’s sins — whether of neglect, sloth, indifference, worldliness, selfishness, vice — that he no longer believes.
And — and this is the significant fact with regard to the native — the sins of the fathers are visited upon their sons...."  

Who's the modernist?