CathInfo.com

Hypothetical decree with the Scripture verse that would have more likely been used to teach baptism of desire (as if the God the Holy Ghost could contradict Himself in these decrees!) "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can be effected, with the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; ...'

This part I find most interesting, especially in the nature that you have worded it.  What you have provided follows the rules of a double negative exactly.

A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same clause.  In the English grammar, a clause is a pair or group of words that consist of a subject and a predicate.  The subject here would obviously be the translation to the state of grace, and the predicate consists of both 'the laver of regeneration', and 'or the desire thereof'.  (It's been an awfully, awfully long time since I was in school, and my children are not taking this English yet, so correct me if I am wrong.)

This could validly be considered a double negative as there is only one subject.  Cannot and without are both referring to what is required for the 'translation'.  The translation (the subject) cannot be effected (applies to the subject I believe)  without (again applies to the subject I believe, as the subject, without what follows, can not happen.)

In the case of a double negative, it would be valid and correct grammar to understand what you provided as accurate, minus the altered scripture verse of course.

Correct my understanding of English if I am wrong please!  I just found out today the accurate usage of cannot and can not, so apparently I am in need of a refresher course.

Sorry for the delay C.M.M.M.

First off, the words "cannot" and "can not" mean the same thing.  Cannot is just more academically acceptable.

Second, you're right about what double negatives are, but this statement is not one.

"this translation to the state of justification" is the subject
"cannot be effected" is the predicate and together they form the clause.  For this to be a double negative, the clause itself would have to contain double negation, but it does not.  It would have to look like this to be a double negative: this translation to the state of justification cannot not be effected without this or that...)

De Morgan's Law is the principle to apply in the negation of this compound statement.

According to De Morgan's Law:
NOT (A OR B) is logically equivalent to (NOT A) AND (NOT B)

This means that the statement is logically equivalent to this:

"...this translation, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration," AND "...this translation, cannot be effected, without the the desire thereof"

Simply put, only one of these needs to be missing for justification to be impossible.

By saying CM went too far in Feeneyism, what is your definition of Feeneyism? Feeney taught the truth of Outside of the Church there is No Salvation to ears that were stopped up with Americanism.

By Feeneyism, I mean the denial of BOD/BOB. I actually don't mind Fr. Feeney, he was right to point out the secularism that was coming into Catholic schools, the liberalism in the hierarchy, Americanism, etc. Many of the theologians at the time were reducing EENS to a useless formula and their opinions as such were not based on scholastic theology.