What is this "tag team" stuff, Nado?

This is a F-O-R-U-M.  That's how forums OPERATE.  People create threads and multiple other participants jump in and address the same topic.

Now, if it's that you're feeling lonely, feel free to PM the BoD cavalry (LoT, Ambrose, Don Paolo, SJB, et al.) to come to your aid and join the thread.

You simply won't stay on topic.  I articulated why the particular passage in the Council of Trent does NOT mean what you claim that it means.  You are obviously incapable of refuting my interpretation, so you change the subject.  "OK, let's talk about the Catechism of Trent" and the "Code of Canon Law".  This thread isn't about those.

Are you saying that the Catechism of the Council of Trent does not know how to interpret the Council of Trent properly?

No, I'm saying that the Catechism was much broader and there's no indication whatsoever that this particular passage in the Catechism has ANYthing to do with the passage in the Council under discussion here.  Just because the Catechism may have suggested BoD doesn't mean it was doing so based on any particular passage in Trent vs. independently.

Why are so many people logically challenged?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado

Yes, the adult who died as referenced in the Trent catechism quote I gave, died justified by an act of baptism of desire.....not water.

Wrong thread.  You just insist on polluting and trolling up every single thread instead of addressing the issue at hand.

It's a protestant tactic.  I've seen it again and again.  I know a 'Jєωιѕн' agnostic who just can't manage to stay on topic regarding epistemology.  He claims to like to talk about philosophy, but when I call his bluff, he runs for cover.  Every.  Single.  Time.

Protestants like to jump topic not because they are intellectually dishonest, but because they are demonically obsessed.  They do what comes natural, and that means putting up smokescreens when the going gets uncomfortable.  

When a wild animal is trapped, you can't blame him for acting out with violence, because that's the way his nervous system is wired.  

.

Where have you been, dear Neil Obstat?

I have missed you! Few here have your great wit!

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado

Yes, the adult who died as referenced in the Trent catechism quote I gave, died justified by an act of baptism of desire.....not water.

Wrong thread.  You just insist on polluting and trolling up every single thread instead of addressing the issue at hand.

It's a protestant tactic.  I've seen it again and again.  I know a 'Jєωιѕн' agnostic who just can't manage to stay on topic regarding epistemology.  He claims to like to talk about philosophy, but when I call his bluff, he runs for cover.  Every.  Single.  Time.

Protestants like to jump topic not because they are intellectually dishonest, but because they are demonically obsessed.  They do what comes natural, and that means putting up smokescreens when the going gets uncomfortable.  

When a wild animal is trapped, you can't blame him for acting out with violence, because that's the way his nervous system is wired.  

.

Where have you been, dear Neil Obstat?

I have missed you! Few here have your great wit!

Here here!

What's absolutely fatal to this interpretation of Trent is the quote from Our Lord that comes afterwards.

On its face, the phrase "X cannot happen without A or B" is ambiguous ... due to the double-negative construct.  It could mean "X cannot happen without both A & B" or "X cannot happen without EITHER A OR B".  But the phrase after it immediately disambiguates.

Why did Trent use the word "laver" instead of just saying "Baptism" or "the Sacrament of Baptism"?  It's because Trent wanted to invoke the notion of WATER.  Trent had also just spent paragraphs explaining how the Holy Spirit disposes the will to cooperate with the grace of justification.  It's about the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament bringing the grace of justification WITH COOPERATION OF THE WILL ... against the Protestant errors.  That's why there's a Canon later condemning the notion that the Sacrament can effect justification without the cooperation of the will.  St. Thomas devoted a question to whether the Sacrament confers the grace of justification if the will doesn't cooperate.

So, back to Trent, the Holy Spirit give graces to inspire the will to cooperate with the ex opere operato grace from the Sacrament of Baptism.

Trent taught that justification cannot happen without the laver (water) or the will (as moved by the Holy Spirit) and then immediately backs that statement up by quoting Our Lord as teaching that rebirth requires water AND the Holy Spirit, i.e. the laver AND the movement of the will by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the cooperation and proper dispositions.

In order for me to accept the typical reading of Trent, I would have to say that Trent said:

Justification cannot happen without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that it cannot happen without both Baptism and the desire for it.  That would be borderline blasphemous.  Our Lord said and, but we say or.

That is NOT what Trent is teaching.

In addition, if Trent were teaching BoD, the fact that there's not even a token mention of BoB is absolutely inexplicable, since most of the Church Fathers who advocated BoB explicitly rejected BoD and most BoB theorists claim that it works differently from BoB in being "quasi ex opere operato".  Trent then overturns the Patristic teaching of BoB but no BoD by saying that BoB essentially reduces to BoD and is therefore ex opere operantis in its effect.

There is absolutely no way that Trent intended to define or teach BoD here.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado

The Catechism ordered by that Council/St. Pius V, shows that you have the wrong interpretation, as I explained in my last message.

Address the above or just shut up already.  As I have explained, there's zero indication in said Catechism that the passage you refer to has anything to do with the passage in Trent itself.  That passage in the Catechism is NOT an interpretation of that passage in the Council of Trent.  Whether you believe in BoD or not has nothing to do with this issue.  Refute my reading of Trent or begone, Satan.

It sure is talking about the same subject of baptism of desire.

No.  I demonstrated that Trent was NOT talking about the Baptism of Desire.  Refute what I wrote.

Nado can't refute my interpretation of what the Council of Trent taught in the tract on justification, so he keeps talking about the Catechism.  I'll just start a new thread because the dingbat is obsessed with the "Baptism 101" thread title.  Basically he's using that to dodge an argument he simply cannot refute.