CathInfo.com

Pax, I quoted both the Canons and the "Commentary". Trent was a dogmatic infallible Council. Even the doctrinal explanations ("commentary") are infallible. But I quoted the canons also, to show that the voto of two Sacraments at least are mentioned in the context of Justification. Which two Sacraments can those be?

I quoted this from Trent comparing Baptism and Penance - both are necessary for salvation. "And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation ; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated." (Sess. XIV, Cap. II). So Trent itself compares Baptism and Penance in this context. Of course, there are some differences too.

Here's the Syllogism from this passage: "Penance is necessary for salvation in fact or in desire (Trent). But Penance is necessary as Baptism itself is necessary (also Trent). Therefore, Baptism is also necessary in fact or in desire." How will you refute that?

Now, let's look at the Council of Trent in further detail, to see what, according to the mind and texts of the Council, are the differences and similarities between Baptism and Penance, and what the phrase "aut eius voto" and "aut eorum voto" (in the canons) really mean.

So: "this sacrament [of Penance] is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects" was quoted by Ladislaus. Let's examine the fuller context. It's from Session XIV, Chapter II.

"For the rest, this sacrament is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects: for besides that it is very widely different indeed in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it is beyond doubt certain that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, seeing that the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered therein through the gate of baptism. For, what have I, saith the apostle, to do to judge them that are without?(m) It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own body; for such, if they should afterwards have defiled themselves by any crime, He would no longer have them cleansed by a repetition of baptism--that being nowise lawful in the Catholic Church-but be placed as criminals before this tribunal; that, by the sentence of the priests, they might be freed, not once, but as often as, being penitent, they should, from their sins committed, flee thereunto. Furthermore, one is the fruit of baptism, and another that of penance. For, by baptism putting on Christ, (n) we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins : unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. (o) And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation ; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated." http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm

So, the points are (1) Penance is very different from Baptism in matter and form. (2) the minister of Baptism is not a judge, but the minister of Penance must be i.e. Confession of sins is required in Penance but not required in Baptism. Finally, (3) Penance is a "laborious kind of Baptism" according to the holy Fathers because, in order to return to Baptismal innocence, beside confession "many tears and great labours on our part" are necessary. Lastly, (4) Penance is necessary for salvation as Baptism itself is necessary. 

Now, let me quote from Session VI, Chapter XIV establishing that the Desire of Penance obtains the remission of sin.

"As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance."

This again teaches some of the points above, but especially of note here is (1) Penance is a second plank after Baptism when the Grace of Justification is lost. And (2) The guilt or eternal punishment is always remitted either by Penance, or the desire of Penance.

I looked up the Latin for the passage on the desire of the Sacrament and it is: "non quidem pro pœna æterna, quæ vel sacramento vel sacramenti voto una cuм culpa remittitur, sed pro pœna temporali" Here again we see that the voto of the Sacrament can remit sins.

Now, the point from the Canons (which are infallible, as you concede) is as follows: Aut eorum voto (or the desire of them) is the plural of aut eius voto (or the desire of it). The Dimonds admit "aut eorum voto" was added to indicate that the effect of Penance can be received through the desire thereof, as independently proven. But, they neglect that the wording is in the PLURAL. Therefore, there are at least two Sacraments of which the desire can justify. Those two can only be Baptism and Penance. If you disagree, explain with which premise you disagree. Is aut eorum voto not in the plural? Does the Desire of Penance not justify? What reason, in the canon, for that precise wording "or the desire of them" otherwise"? Why "them"?

There is one more point from Trent itself, explaining contrition in the context of desire. I'll get back to that later on. For now, here is the Roman Catechism approved by Pope St. Pius V after the Council.

The Roman Catechism says, "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen 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."

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

The Catechism says: (1) the danger present for infants, i.e. of being eternally lost in limbo, is not present for adults, contrary to what was claimed. (2) second, it is not talking of a miraculous water baptism. It says they are not washed in the salutary waters. (3) Third, it clearly explains the determination and resolution to receive Baptism, joined to contrition or repentance over past sins, avails to grace and righteousness, i.e. justification (4) It implies they will be saved, for the danger is absent. This is Trent's teaching on BOD here.

Xavier, before you have ANY credibility in your position with Feeneyites, I expect you to start a thread rebuking +Fellay for his objectively heretical opinion that unconverted infidels can be saved.

I expect you to start a thread attacking the views of Cushing.

Until I see those threads, I expect you to shut up.

Until I see those threads, I consider you to be dishonest and of bad will.  With someone like Arvinger, I'd be willing to listen to any arguments he would make in support of BoD, but nobody wants to hear your crap, when you refused to condemn the REAL heresies that are prevalent and are being spread by people like +Fellay.