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.  

Actually, Catholic Martyr, can not and cannot are completely different.  They do mean the same thing, but correct usage is altogether different.

Cannot is used when it is impossible for something to happen without.  For example..

Mankind cannot grow wings.

However, can not is used when something is possible, just not in the situation.

I can not go to the school

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

"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.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, isn't a clause a complete sentence?

A clause can be a complete sentence, but some sentences are made up of more than one clause.

"without the laver of regeneration," is a dependent clause, and "or the desire thereof" creates a compound statement using a dependent or subordinate clause and an independent clause, (which is the clause mentioned in my previous post).

Again, you are correct that a double negative uses negation twice in the same clause, but this is not the case for the decree in the Council of Trent.

And forgive me in the case of cannot and can not.  You are right.  It's always nice to swap English lessons.   :smile:

In any case, with your understanding of grammar it should be evidently clear to you now that baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be true.

They can!

"Cannot"

You did miss something, I'm afraid.

You treat "without the laver of regeneration" as something that can be either true or false in and of itself, as if true means it's there and false means it's not.  No, you have to operate on the value (T/F) of the proposition in the statement.  You have to say: "If it is true/false that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration/desire thereof, then..."  You have to do this for both propositions to produce a correct result of true or false.

Also, you somehow ended up with the wrong table, the logical NOR, which produces illogical results when properly used.

The truth table you want is the one for the logical disjunction.  As we continue, you will see that this is the only table that can be correct.

To demonstrate that the table you chose was not the correct one, I will operate on the values of both propositions in this sentence, which follows all the same rules as the decree we've been discussing.

I cannot walk without moving my limbs or stepping.

Now to operate on the value of the propositions in this statement, using the logical NOR table:

F    F    T

IF it is TRUE that I cannot walk without moving my limbs, and
IF it is TRUE that I cannot walk without stepping,
THEN it is FALSE that I cannot walk without moving my limbs or stepping.

Doesn't quite work does it?

Using the truth table for the logical disjunction, we get the correct results across the board, as you can plainly see:

T    T    T
T    F    T
F    T    T
F    F    F

So, back to justification, using line two in the table for example:

IF it is TRUE that it cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration (as the decree saith), and even IF it is FALSE that it cannot be effected without the desire thereof (as the decree does not say), THEN it is still TRUE that it cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof.  That is to say, it is still impossible for it to be effected with one or the other missing (in this case the one that has to be missing is the laver of regeneration).

SO, according to line one in the Table (what the Catholic dogma has been all along since the promulgation of this decree):

SINCE it is TRUE that it cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration (as the decree says), and SINCE it is TRUE that it cannot be effected without the desire thereof (again, as the decree says), THEN it is TRUE that it cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof.

And we are now right back to De Morgan's Law.

And that is why you read twice before posting...