Because Stubborn seems to think that the term is scandalous and should be banned when used in reference to BOD. Bishop Hay along with many other theologians obviously don’t agree.

I believe in this BOD as exemplified in this 3.5 minute Hollywood depiction (which is not of an actual BOD), but does exemplify the only way possible that BOD could occur...

Let me repeat it once more: NO theologian, pope, canonist, or saint, post Trent, taught EENS the way you interpret it, not a single one. Remember, they are quoting the same sources that you are using. Who should I believe, them or you?

Bishop Hay, Saint Alphonsus, and Saint Robert Bellermine (all part of the Magisterium) all intrepret Session 6 Chapter 4 of Trent as proof of BOD. Who’s interpretation do you think I should side with, yours or theirs?

Homily by Pope St. Gregory the Great.
Bk. ii. Horn. 38, 9

Dearly beloved brethren, ye have already entered, at the Lord's bidding, into the house where the marriagefeast is being held, that is to say, into the Holy Church, and look ye well to it, that when the King cometh in to see the guests, he see nothing amiss in your soul's wedding-garment. For indeed it is with great searchings of heart that we are behoven to consider that which so soon cometh. " And when the King came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding-garment." Dearly beloved brethren, what are we to think is signified by this wedding garment Is it baptism or is it faith? But without baptism, or without faith, who could be seated at the marriage-feast? He that believeth not would still be without the house. What then, except love, must we understand by the wedding-garment He who hath faith and is in the Holy Church, but hath not charity, cometh in unto the wedding indeed, but hath not a wedding-garment. And charity is well called the wedding -garment, for it is the garment wherewithal our Maker decked Himself when He came to wed the Church unto Himself.

It was the work of God's love alone that His Only - begotten Son should wed Himself unto the souls of the elect. Whence indeed John saith " God so loved the world, that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." iii. 16. He therefore Whom love brought among men, showeth that the same love is His wedding-garment. Each one therefore of you who is in the Church and believeth in God, hath already come in unto the marriage-feast, but if he keep not the grace of charity, he is come in thither not having a weddinggarment. In sooth, my brethren, if one be asked to an earthly marriage, he changeth his attire, to show even by his garments that he rejoiceth in the joy of the Bride and Bridegroom, and he would be ashamed to appear in unseemly raiment among the guests that are feasting and making merry. We are come unto God's marriagefeast, and we make pretence to change the vesture of our hearts. There is joy among the angels when the elect are taken to heaven. With what face shall we look upon this spiritual feast if we come in thither not having charity, the only wedding-garment wherein we can appear comely

Come on Marulus, get your definitions correct before debating.

I am not interpreting anything, I am understanding the literal meaning of both Scripture and Trent. I mean Trent taught that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament as it is written in John 3:5. Those are essentially Trent's own words. Which is to say if I am wrong on this, it is because Trent was wrong on this.

How do you "interpret" that?

To this point you've interpreted it by saying saint x interpreted it contrary to what the infallible pope and council taught, and that this contrary interpretation is the right interpretation because of who interpreted it. And you say this just as if there is no contradiction whatsoever between the infallible teaching and saint x's interpretation.

It was not until V2 that the ambiguity in all it's docuмents required interpretation just to make them make any sense at all, but prior to then the teachings of the Church were just as clear as Trent.

 We do not know why some saints and theologians felt the need to interpret clear teaching, but we presume that they did so in the name of a more profound understanding, which is in and of itself contrary to the clear teaching of V1 even if the intention is good.

Nah, it can’t be that you’re wrong! Nope, you couldn’t have interpreted Trent incorrectly, no way.