Someone posted a while back that the translation from latin to English was wrong and that Trent said "and" and not "or". In other words, to receive baptism one must receive the sacrament AND have the desire to. This totally changes the meaning and destroys BOD. Can anyone confirm?
Yes, this is certainly true. "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball." On the face of it, it's ambiguous. But it does not necessarily mean that I can play baseball if I have either a bat or a ball. It could have been disambiguated inline with an "or else". "I cannot play baseball without a bat or else a ball." In fact, Trent does EXACTLY that when referring to justification through the desire to receive the Sacrament of Confession. But not here. And yet Trent disambiguates immediately afterwards in the case of Baptism.
"one cannot be justified without the laver or the desire for it, since one cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless he is reborn of water AND the Holy Ghost."
laver:water::desire:Holy Ghost ... since Trent spent a couple paragraphs explaining how the Holy Ghost inspires this desire and intention to receive Baptism.
So it would be like saying: "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since you need both a bat and a ball to play baseball." actually means "I can play baseball with either a bat or a ball, since you need both a bat or a ball to play baseball." That would be utter nonsense.
BoDers would have Trent teaching: "one can be justified with either the water or the desire, since Our Lord taught that one cannot be justified unless he receive both water and the desire."