1) Of course it is, it’s infallible. 2) Yes it has the final say, but not *your* interpretation. There is not a single theologian, pope, saint, or canonist who interpreted Trent’s session 6 chapter 4 the way you would have it to mean.

And there was only a single theologian that I know of who didn't accept Vatican II and the NOM as Catholic.

You just keep blabbering about this, but of the 25 total theologians that Father Cekada could find who even mentioned the subject of BoD, most of them mention it in passing and therefore clearly did not put any time into studying the subject.  You'll find only 2-3 in-depth explanations of BoD, one way or another.

But you're wrong, having dismissed the clear evidence from St. Peter Canisius that he read Trent as excluding BoD even for catechumens.

You've demonstrated this intellectual dishonesty on a number of issues.  You start with the conclusion you want to be true, apply confirmation bias in support of your position, and then simply ignore or filter out any evidence to the contrary.  As such, most of us are just wasting our time debating with you on some of these issues.

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


This way of thinking is usually how every heresy starts. Protestants say exactly the same thing with Holy Scripture. They claim to just be “understanding the literal meaning”.


You wrote: “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.”

Do you want to know why they felt the need to interpret? Because they knew that people like you, Pax, and Ladislaus would come around. People who have too much self trust, too much confidence in themselves, and too much pride to accept someone else’s opinion over their own.

So how do you interpret it? 

You interpret the saints' interpretation just fine, you seem to have no problem whatsoever interpreting their interpretations, but you did not answer my question - what is YOUR interpretation of Trent saying justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament as it is written in John 3:5?

And no QVD, it is nothing like the prots because in Scripture, there certainly are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." These things the Church interprets for us

If we say the same thing about Council teachings and docuмents, then THAT is akin to be like prots because then we are all free to interpret things according to our own ideas no matter how contrary.....which is what YOU are doing.

Yes it has the final say, but not *your* interpretation.

Council docuмents aren't written as simply as catechisms, which are designed for children, but neither are they written in "code" which requires some elaborate de-cyphering.  You paint Trent as some kind of genius-level docuмent which only "special" people can pick up, read and understand.  Quite the contrary.  It was written by normal adults and can be understood by normal adults.  Because, overall, the Faith and doctrine is simple, because God is simple.


So I reject your assertion that we *need* theologians to interpret Trent.  The docuмents are written in plain english (or translated in plain english) so that the Faithful/clerics can read for themselves.

👆Proof that pride is a terrible and dangerous thing.

One of your weakest ad hominem posts to date.  So my saying that you should actually argue the point instead of just posting the same nonsense on every post is somehow "pride".  That's rather arrogant on your part.

You dismiss the fact that St. Peter Canisius, who, unlike St. Alphonsus, was there and spoke at the Council, did not read Trent as teaching BoD, and also the fact that there are only one or two attempts to even interpret the passage in Trent made by the 25 theologians in the last "450 years" who even mentioned the topic of BoD.

I've also refuted your core guiding principle, that were need to rely on the opinions of theologians to tell us what the Magisterium means.  I cited a real theologian, Msgr. Fenton, who explicitly rejected your core principle.

But you cannot or don't even bother to try refuting it.  Explain to us why Msgr. Fenton was wrong when he wrote:

Thus, when we review or attempt to evaluate the works of a private theologian, we are perfectly within our rights in attempting to show that a certain portion of his doctrine is authentic Catholic teaching or at least based upon such teaching, and to assert that some other portions of that work simply express ideas current at the time the books were written. The pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, acting as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church, are definitely not subject to that sort of evaluation.

Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the leat valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.

This citation here completely rejects your entire operating principle.  And this comes from one of those actual theologians, not the musings of Father Cekada, who I'm told by classmates, barely passed his theology courses at seminary.  Father Cekada articulates exactly what Msgr. Fenton denounces as a "bizarre thesis".

But, as per your usual modus operandi, you'll simply ignore it, like you did the last time I posted it, and just keep reiterating how theologians are definitive regarding the "final determination" of what a Magisterial pronouncement ACTUALLY means.

To expand on this point, those who say that (fallible) theologians need to explain (infallible) council docuмents, have it completely backwards.

Theologians aren't protected from error; conciliar docuмents (generally speaking) are...and are written for the purpose of people reading them...their purpose isn't to be interpreted later by theologians...because then, what's the point of writing them in the first place?  Theologians help prepare council docuмents for the pope; there doesn't need to be ANOTHER group of theologians AFTER the council to re-do what the first group of theologians already did.

And when theologians go liberal, Modernist, etc., they have a tendency to "interpret away" the actual Magisterial teaching.  That was precisely the gameplan after the very unpopular definition of infallibility at Vatican II.  There was a very large contingent that intended to explain it away under the guise of "development of doctrine" and "deeper understanding".  In the 20th century, you can see that many or most theologians gradually became Modernist, until these same theologians brought us Vatican II and then all endorsed V2 and the NOM as perfectly Catholic.  I know of only one exception, the theologian +Guerard des Lauriers.  So why doesn't Quo here accept their universal verdict in approving V2?  Did these theologians become apostate one day in 1962?  We've had the Jesuits pushing liberalization on EENS dogma since about the discovery of the New World, based on emotional considerations regarding a people who had not been evangelized for one and a half millennia (as far as they knew).  So they invented Rewarder God theory.  Until then, it was the unanimous teaching and consensus of all Church Fathers, Popes, Doctors, theologians, and even faithful that explicit knowledge of Christ was necessary for salvation.  So that 1,500 years makes Quo's "450 years" into nothing.  Then we had this fact that for about "700 years" theologians all agreed regarding St. Augustine's position on the fate of infants who die without the Sacrament.  But then when theological opinion shifted, the Church condemned the condemnation of that trend.  There are some things, as Msgr. Fenton articulately stated, that are more prevailing opinions based on the mentalities and attitudes of the times.  Consensus or unanimity does NOT mean that it's a "dogmatic unanimity".  That's even true of the Church Fathers.  It's possible that they were 100% in agreement on something, but in some cases it's possibly due to some other factor, such as a single Church Father being highly respected and everyone being persuaded of his opinion, or because everybody just thought a certain way.  What needs to happen for a dogmatic consensus is not only an agreement, which could happen per accidens, but an agreement that's rooted in Apostolic authority and because something was revealed by Our Lord in the Deposit of Revelation.  Those aren't necessarily the same thing.  But to put 450 years of theological agreement on the level of establishing some kind of "dogmatic consensus" is not only absurd on the face of it, but it's been falsified by the examples cited above here.  Since St. Robert Bellarmine, there was an opposite shift where now nearly 100% of theologians believed in a Limbo of Infants, whereas for 700 years before then all theologians believed that there was no such thing.  How is that possible, since those 700 years should have constituted a dogmatic consensus.  No, at the end of the day, it's only the Magisterium that can teach.  Theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens.  But Father Cekada has revived this "bizarre thesis" that theologians are definitive of what the Magisterium ACTUALLY meant to teach (even if it's opposite to what the words actually say), and most SVs have bought into it ... while ignoring its rejection by a REAL pre-Vatican II theologian (with all the advanced degrees), in favor of a man who struggled with theology classes at seminary.  These theologians have gone so far as to explain the REAL meaning of EENS as being the opposite of what it actually says, and many hold as heretics those who actually just verbatim hold to the dogmatic EENS definitions.  They said as much when they persecuted Father Feeney, referring to EENS as "your doctrine".  When in the history of the Church have people been accused of heresy for upholding the literal face-value meaning of a dogmatic definition?

One of your weakest ad hominem posts to date.  So my saying that you should actually argue the point instead of just posting the same nonsense on every post is somehow "pride".  That's rather arrogant on your part.

You dismiss the fact that St. Peter Canisius, who, unlike St. Alphonsus, was there and spoke at the Council, did not read Trent as teaching BoD, and also the fact that there are only one or two attempts to even interpret the passage in Trent made by the 25 theologians in the last "450 years" who even mentioned the topic of BoD.

I've also refuted your core guiding principle, that were need to rely on the opinions of theologians to tell us what the Magisterium means.  I cited a real theologian, Msgr. Fenton, who explicitly rejected your core principle.

But you cannot or don't even bother to try refuting it.  Explain to us why Msgr. Fenton was wrong when he wrote:
This citation here completely rejects your entire operating principle.  And this comes from one of those actual theologians, not the musings of Father Cekada, who I'm told by classmates, barely passed his theology courses at seminary.  Father Cekada articulates exactly what Msgr. Fenton denounces as a "bizarre thesis".

But, as per your usual modus operandi, you'll simply ignore it, like you did the last time I posted it, and just keep reiterating how theologians are definitive regarding the "final determination" of what a Magisterial pronouncement ACTUALLY means.

I seem to be in line with Father Fenton’s citation since Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, and Bishop Hay were all members of the Ecclesia Docens. 

You dismiss the fact that St. Peter Canisius, who, unlike St. Alphonsus, was there and spoke at the Council, did not read Trent as teaching BoD, and also the fact that there are only one or two attempts to even interpret the passage in Trent made by the 25 theologians in the last "450 years" who even mentioned the topic of BoD.

I found it very interesting how the Dimond brothers used the Latin text of Saint Peter instead of the readily available Old English translation. I wonder why…….

Here’s a great refutation of the neofeeneyite *misinterpretation* of Saint Peter Canisius by Steven Speray:

Link:

https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/06/17/proof-that-st-peter-canisius-s-j-denied-baptism-of-desire/


Feeneyites have recently argued that St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church, understood the Council of Trent as not teaching Baptism of Desire.
In 1555, St. Peter Canisius wrote his “Summa doctrinæ christianæ . . . in usum Christianæ pueritiæ” for his advance students. The work consisted of two hundred and eleven questions in five chapters. The following is a 1622 English translation of his teaching on Baptism:
“What is Baptism, and is it necessary to all? This is the first and most necessary sacrament of the New Law, consisting in the outward washing of the body and the due pronunciation of the words in according unto the institution of with Christ.
A necessary sacrament, I say, not only for those(a) that are years of discretion, but(b) infants also and withall effectual for them to life everlasting. All are born the sons of(c) wrath; therefore even infants also have need to be purged from sin, neither can they be cleansed and regenerated into the children of God without this(d)sacrament. For generally hath the Lawmaker proclaimed, that(e), “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” And in an other place: It is(f) not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one perish of the little ones.” But infants(g) also not baptized should perish, as of old in the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jews, children(h) uncircuмcised. [1]
Feeneyites take this teaching with his reference to the Council of Trent’s teaching from Session 6, ch. 4 [2] and his references to Augustine and Ambrose on the necessity of baptism. Combining these teachings, Feeneyites argue that Canisius’s interpretation of Session 6, ch. 4 doesn’t mean Baptism of Desire, nor does Augustine and Ambrose’s.



For instance, a reference by Augustine: “No matter how much a catechumen advances, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he has come to baptism.” (St. Augustine, Tractate 13 on the Gospel of John)
Feeneyites think this proves that Augustine and Canisius believed that Catechumens can’t possibly obtain Baptism of Desire if they die without baptism.
St. Augustine’s statement is true or else the catechumen would never need to be baptized. This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire, which is something that happens if the catechumen dies and couldn’t be baptized because of some unforeseen circuмstances. St. Augustine wrote his Tractate around the same time as he wrote his most famous work, the City of God where he taught:
“Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He who said, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: ‘Everyone… that shall confess me before men, I will confess before my Father who is in Heaven.’ (Matthew 10:32).”
Obviously, St. Augustine didn’t believe that all catechumens go to hell if they don’t get baptized as he tells us about Baptism of Blood. If Canisius knew about Tractate 13, he most certainly would know about the City of God. Feeneyites are grasping for straws, but they grasp more straws with Ambrose when Canisius references him teaching:
“The catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed: but unless he is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.” (St. Ambrose, De mysteriis)
This teaching from Ambrose is true as long as the catechumen lives. What happens if he should die without getting Baptism because of some accident? Baptism is absolutely necessary ordinarily. The issue is about extraordinary circuмstances. It should be noted that St. Ambrose converted St. Augustine and was his teacher.
Ambrose and Augustine don’t support the Feeneyite’s ridiculous interpretation of Trent.
Lastly, Feeneyites make another false and futile argument.
Caninius taught, “For generally hath the Lawmaker proclaimed, that(e), “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
The Feeneyites argue that “generally” or ‘generatim’ is a reference to two classes of people: adults and infants. It doesn’t mean a general rule, which is a precept. It means an absolute universal law.

The problem with this Feeneyite argument is two-fold. First, Canisius could have used the word “absolutissime” or “absolute” instead of generatim and then explain what Session 6, chapter 4 meant, since he references it twice in his catechism. He doesn’t do so. Instead, we are left with a word that proves nothing. Even if Canisius meant universal law, it wouldn’t necessarily mean what the Feeneyites want. However, the word generatim, which is translated in all the English translations as “generally or general” appears to mean that baptism is the general rule and not an absolute rule. It works against Feeneyism.
In 1606, the Jesuits published Canisius’ work with testimonies of Divine Scripture and the solid evidence of the holy Fathers. [3] On page 218 concerning Session 6, chapter 4, the marginal note says “justification does not occur without baptism or its desire” — that is, either the sacrament itself, or the desire for it. The same passage from Trent is quoted again later in St. Peter Canisius’s catechism. [4]
The obvious reading from Trent means Baptism of Desire. Therefore, an explanation should follow why Baptism of Desire is a false belief especially in light of the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine implies that it was universally believed in the Church during his time precisely because of Trent’s teaching and that of Ambrose, Augustine, and even Pope Innocent III. [5]
The second problem with the Feeneyite argument is that Protestants like to use the original language game to see if they can get a translation with an interpretation that fits their theology. If we want to know what Scripture really means, we turn to the Church and read it with an analogy of Faith.
If we want to know what St. Peter Canisius really believed, then we look to all of his contemporaries on this point. They would not be diametrically opposed on such a crucial point of doctrinal teaching from a council. It would be ludicrous to think otherwise.
I demonstrate in footnote 5 how St. Robert Bellarmine understood Ambrose, Augustine, and Session 6, ch. 4 of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire. St. Peter Canisius would not hold the exact opposite view. That would imply that Bellarmine or Canisius is teaching heresy based on the same sources.
We also have the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent published 9 years after Canisius’ catechism. St. Charles Borreomeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. It was then published in Latin and Italian as “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566” (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, “De Ref.“, c. vii).
The Roman Catechism taught that adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (p 179) [6]

In 1582, 27 years after Canisius’ catechism was written, the English College of Rheims published the Rheims New Testament. It was the official English translation approved by Rome. In the commentary of John 3:5, the Rheims Bible reads, “…this sacrament [Baptism] consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit…Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it.” [7]
Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) cites St. Robert Bellarmine S.J. on Baptism of Desire in his 1602 work Opus de triplici virtute theologic, a Tractus de fide, Disp.XII, sect.4, n.22 : [As to] what is further added, that outside the Church there is no salvation, some say, as Cano, that this proposition is to be understood of the Church in general, as it always was, and not only of the Church, as it was specially instituted by Christ. But this response is unsatisfactory, both because the Church is always one, and also because the Councils really speak of this Church of Christ, and one must hold as true in some sense concerning it, that outside of it nobody is saved. Thus it is better to reply according to the distinction given between necessity in fact, or in desire [in re, vel in voto]; for thus nobody can be saved, unless he should enter this Church of Christ either in fact, or at least in will and desire. Bellarmine responds thus to a similar question. And it is manifest, that nobody is actually inside this Church, unless he is baptized, and yet one can be saved because the will to be baptized is sufficient, and likewise the will to enter the Church; thus we say the same of any faithful person who is truly penitent and is not baptized, whether he shall have come to explicit faith in Christ, or only to implicit faith : for by that faith he can have at least an implicit desire, which is sufficient with regard to baptism, as St. Thomas teaches in the aforesaid places. [8]
Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J. (1567- 1637) a Flemish Jesuit and renowned exegete wrote in his great biblical commentary on John 3:5 around 1615:
Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4). [9]
Conclusion
Every Church authority, which includes official biblical interpretations, understood Session 6, chapter 4 and Session 7, Canon 4 as teaching Baptism of Desire. The Feeneyites are absolutely delusional to think that St. Peter Canisius was the only one to think exactly the opposite to every other authority who taught and wrote on the subject.

Their argument would necessarily be a condemnation of heresy for either St. Peter Canisius or every other authority, not to mention, an argument for complete stupidity for one of the two sides, all of which is a total absurdity.

Footnotes
[1] A Sum of Christian Doctrine : St. Peter Canisius : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
[2] “In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through [or without] the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis out eius voto) as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
[3] https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dGsGlgHmLgUC/page/218/mode/2up?
On page 218, top of 2nd column under TESTIMONIA: 1. B is the passage from Trent session 6, chapter 4. The marginal note says “Iustificatio non fit sine baptismo aut eius voto”
[4] https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dGsGlgHmLgUC/page/n951/mode/2up
[5] St. Robert Bellarmine on Baptism of Desire and the Council of Trent | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com)
St. Robert Bellarmine in De Controversiis: De Sacramento Baptismi. Lib. I, cap. 6., 1596 A.D. :
But without doubt it is to be believed, that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water, when not through contempt but through necessity someone dies without Baptism of water. For this is expressly held by Ezech. 18: If the impious shall do penance for his sins, I will no more remember his iniquity. Ambrose openly teaches the same in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: “He whom I was to regenerate, I lost; but that grace, for which he hoped, he did not lose.” Likewise Augustine book 4 on Baptism, chap. 22. and Bernard epist. 77. and after them Innocent III. chap. Apostolicam, of an unbaptized priest. Thus also the Council of Trent, sess. 6. chap. 4. says that Baptism is necessary in reality or in desire.
[6] http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml
[7] 1582 Douai Rheims Douay Rheims First Edition 3 Of 3 1582 New Testament : Douay (Douai) Rheims College – scanned by www.fatimamovement.com : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
[8] Suarez, Francisco, S.J. Opus De Triplici Virtu, Te Theologica, Fide, Spe, Et Charitate. cuм superiorum permissu & Privilegio Caesareo. Sumptibus Hermanni Mylij Birckmanni, Excudebat Balthasar Lippius, 1922.
#229 – R. P. Francisci Suarez, Granatensis, e Societate Iesu doctoris … – Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library

For instance, a reference by Augustine: “No matter how much a catechumen advances, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he has come to baptism.” (St. Augustine, Tractate 13 on the Gospel of John)
Feeneyites think this proves that Augustine and Canisius believed that Catechumens can’t possibly obtain Baptism of Desire if they die without baptism.
St. Augustine’s statement is true or else the catechumen would never need to be baptized. This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire, which is something that happens if the catechumen dies and couldn’t be baptized because of some unforeseen circuмstances. St. Augustine wrote his Tractate around the same time as he wrote his most famous work, the City of God where he taught:
“Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He who said, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: ‘Everyone… that shall confess me before men, I will confess before my Father who is in Heaven.’ (Matthew 10:32).”
Obviously, St. Augustine didn’t believe that all catechumens go to hell if they don’t get baptized as he tells us about Baptism of Blood.

Speray and his ilk who have been shown proof upon proof upon proof against BoD and who insist on spreading the manifest lie that Augustine didn't reject BoD aren't worthy of being debated.

I'll leave this here for those who are being influenced by their lies but didn't have the benefit of being shown the Truth.

Not only did St. Augustine believe the sacrament of baptism was necessary for all, he believed that every single person, including infants (!) must receive the Eucharist.





What do we want more? What answer to this can be adduced, unless it be by that obstinacy which ever resists the constancy of manifest truth?