“And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written”

This puts another nail in the coffin of your theory that supposedly Trent’s Session 6 chapter 4 was misinterpreted by everyone (saints, Doctors of the Church, popes, theologians) until you or the Dimonds found it a few years ago. Sorry, but it doesn’t mean what you try to make it mean.

This has to be your dumbest post yet.  Someone's translation (that entails an interpretation) is somehow definitive when the Latin clearly says ...

"without A or B".

which, I have taken great pains to explain, but either it's inaccessible to your dull wits or you filter out from confirmation bias, can in fact have two senses.

And the debate is over which sense is being used in Trent.  I have laid out extensive arguments about which is the correct sense, which you simply ignore, and are unable to rebut.

Your every post is some variation on "but muh St. Alphonsus" and "muh 450 years".  You come across like you have some disorder on the autistic spectrum.

You’re assuming a lot there, Lad. Saint Peter citing those passages is circuмstantial at best. This is the definition of confirmation bias!

Again, it’s very interesting how the Dimond’s used the Latin text of Saint Peter’s catechism. Why didn’t they use the readily available Old English version? Could it be that the Old English translation uses nearly the identical wording as the “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent” and Saint Alphonsus’? Maybe this would raise a red flag in their specious translation of Session 6 Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent:

“And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written”

This puts another nail in the coffin of your theory that supposedly Trent’s Session 6 chapter 4 was misinterpreted by everyone (saints, Doctors of the Church, popes, theologians) until you or the Dimonds found it a few years ago. Sorry, but it doesn’t mean what you try to make it mean.

Note the bold part. John 3:5 does not say anything about desire. And it has 'always' been interpreted as a literal statement. Why would Trent refer to this to teach BoD? It's not logical.

See, this is why the Dimond Brothers characterize certain individuals as being of bad will.  Quo exemplifies precisely this.  He makes up his mind beforehand and refuses to engage in any rational discussion of the subject at hand, wasting everyone's time.

If you'll actually address a single item of substance, I'd be happy to debate it with you, but this is an absurd waste of everyone's time for you to just keep repeating the same stuff over and over again.

Just pick a topic:

1) We've provided reasons in the text of Trent for why "without A or B" should not be interpreted as "without either A or else B".  IGNORED.

2) We've posted citations from Msgr. Fenton about the role of theologians, contrary to your position.  IGNORED.

3) We've cited St. Peter Canisius' understanding of the Catechism and why the implications are clear.  GRATUITOUSLY DISMISSED without providing an alternative explanation for why he would juxtapose a passage that purportedly teaches BoD with two citations from the Fathers that are anti-BoD.

4) We've argued from the text of Trent regarding justification and rebirth, and why this contradicts St. Alphonsus' position that temporal punishment can remain after justification by BoD.  GRATUITOUSLY DISMISSED.

Nice try, but I've called out about a dozen logical fallacies in your posts.  First one is not an ad hominem ... since you appear to be unable to properly identify that.  It's a reference to the post itself being bereft of all logic and reason, which it was, and I explain why it was.  Second one was, because I grow weary of your intellectual dishonesty.  You have posted absolutely nothing of substance during this entire thread.  Your posts have been a torrent of logical fallacies.  And the description of you being on the spectrum is also more a reference to your posts, where you simply repeat the same nonsense over and over again, in obsessive-compulsive fashion, ignoring all arguments against your posts, never rebutting a thing, but simply re-posting the same thing over and over again.  "450 years"  "450 years" "450 years" "St. Alphonsus" "St. Alphonsus" "St. Alphonsus".  That's all you have contributed here.  Not once have you engaged in actually arguing about why St. Alphonsus was right.  You're really wasting everyone's time on this thread, and you've shown the exact same pattern on some other topics.  If calling out stupidity is pride, then so be it.  You should read letter written by St. Jerome.  But you've been hurling accusations of pride from the outset, ad hominem attacks simply for rejecting your stupidity.

You just don’t get it, do you?

You’re a very prideful man and I won’t stoop to your level. You ignore any argument that you can’t answer by saying the person didn’t answer the question you asked, or by saying you didn’t see the question.

Case in point: I pointed out to you how you didn’t understand how moon phases worked, several times. Your only answer was that you didn’t see it. When I brought it to your attention, multiple times, you still wouldn’t address it. Heaven forbid you ever admit you were wrong.

Another case: You refuse to explain the contradiction between FE and distances of and between continents  and oceans.

Another case: You quote Father Fenton to support your arrogance in ignoring theologians. When I pointed out to you, multiple times, that Bishop Hay, Saint Alphonsus, and Saint Robert were all part of the Ecclesia docens , as usual, you ignore it.

Your modus operandi is exactly the same as the Dimond brothers. You and they refuse to admit being wrong about anything. This is a huge sign of pride.

Frankly, the closest thing to admitting that you’ve been wrong, as far as I can tell, is when several years pass and you admit that you ‘used to hold that view’.

The difference between my line of arguing and yours, is the fact that I almost solely quote the Church’s theologians, saints, popes, Doctors, canonists as I realize I’m unqualified to speak for the Church. You, on the other hand, are under the mistaken impression that your opinion carries an enormous amount of weight or value. It doesn’t.

Remember, I’m saying these things to actually help you because sadly, you are a Luther in the making.

I harbor no ill feelings.

that Bishop Hay, Saint Alphonsus, and Saint Robert were all part of the Ecclesia docens

Sorry, they are not part of the Ecclesia docens, which only pertains to "apostolic teachings" with "divine authority".  In all areas where these 3 speak of BOD, they are not speaking "in union with the pope", nor are they declaring a doctrine in an official manner.


ECCLESIA DOCENS
The teaching Church. A term applied to the hierarchy, that is, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, speaking in their divinely authorized capacity of teaching the faithful in matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Sorry, they are not part of the Ecclesia docens, which only pertains to "apostolic teachings" with "divine authority".  In all areas where these 3 speak of BOD, they are not speaking "in union with the pope", nor are they declaring a doctrine in an official manner.


ECCLESIA DOCENS
The teaching Church. A term applied to the hierarchy, that is, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, speaking in their divinely authorized capacity of teaching the faithful in matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Pax, another faux pas…..


https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n178_Discens.htm


Priests Belong to the Learning Church





"Ecclesia discens" (Learning Church) (Latin discere = to learn) – That part of the members of the Church which consists of subjects. The Church is a society of unequals, in which by divine right some are superiors (the Pope and the Bishops) and have the authority of teaching, while the others are subjects (all the other faithful) and have the obligation of accepting the teaching of Faith and Morals imparted by the legitimate pastors. Hence the theological distinction of Ecclesia docens (teaching Church – Pope and Bishops) and Ecclesia discens (learning Church – the other faithful). 

Even the priests, while they indeed have care of the souls, like parish priests, belong to the Ecclesia discens, although the Bishops ordinarily use their priests in the service of teaching the divine word; the Bishops are teachers by virtue of their function, while the priests are such only by participation and delegation. 

Moreover, the Bishops, united with the Pope in their teaching, enjoy active infallibility (infallibility in teaching). The faithful, insofar as they are recipients of this teaching and assimilate the doctrine without error, enjoy a sort of reflex infallibility, called by the theologians passive infallibility (infallibility in believing). 

I'm not sure I understand the debate.  Bishops (at least those with jurisdiction) are considered part of the Ecclesia Docens but are not themselves THE Ecclesia Docens.  No individual Bishop has any immunity from error, but only the entire body of Bishops teaching something "as divinely revealed" in union with the Holy Father.  That phrase is the one most often overlooked by those who speak of the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  In addition, Quo, were not all the Fathers who brought us the glories of Vatican II also part of the Ecclesia Docens, and with the exception of probably few than broke off from the Church after Vatican I, universally endorsed and taught Vatican II.  What happened there?

The bolded is straight out of Lumen Gentium 25.2, the only "official" papal docuмent that teaches such a thing.