Trent actually spent a significant amount of time discussing the relationship between the votum and the Sacrament with regard to Confession.  There's no such explanation with regard to the mention of votum for Baptism.

Based on Trent's own statement Penance is different from Baptism in many respects, arguments about Baptism made from the section on Confession are simply not cogent.

There is once piece that is key, though.

Some people claim that BoD is heretical because Trent taught that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

But Trent also teaches that Confession is "necessary" for justification, and  yet clearly states that the votum or intention/resolve/commitment to receive the Sacrament suffices for justification.  This is why I hold that syllogisms that rest on the term "necessary" for the Sacrament are not valid.  That necessity can still be maintained even if it can be attained through the votum.

Now, this doesn't prove that the votum alone suffices for justification in Baptism, but I think we need to take that "necessary" argument off the table.

I do not think Trent puts it that way, do they? IOW, Trent does *not* say the votum to confess certainly suffices for justification, they only say that without the votum, justification cannot be obtained. Trent never says definitively that with the votum, justification is certain - they left that conclusion wide open, likely because it is impossible to know without the sacrament, no one, not even the person with the votum knows if/when God accepts or rejects it.
    
Is this not why the Church has always taught even if one achieves perfect contrition for a mortal sin they are still bound to confess that same sin at their next confession? - because without the sacrament, it is impossible for anyone to know for certain if that sin was forgiven via an act of perfect contrition.  

Trent teaches that perfect contrition + the votum for Confession suffices for justification.  It's interesting, though, that Trent's description of this votum is very concrete, that there has to be the intention to go to Confession "in due time."  Which means basically something along the lines of ("I intend to go to Confession when it's scheduled next Sunday."  In other words, you don't have to intend to call a priest immєdιαtely at 3AM to go to Confession.  So this notion of translating votum as "desire" is garbage.  It's more like intention and resolution.  Our word "vow" derives from it.  

There's a huge difference between a simple desire and an intention or resolution.  "I'd like to go to Confession some day." vs. "I'm going to go next Saturday when they're hearing Confession."  One is some kind of vague longing or yearning, and it can even be had by someone who has not concrete intention to Confess.  "I'd really like to go to Confession, but I'm too embarrassed to go."  That can be called a desire.  Contrast that with "I will go to Confession next Saturday."

Enemies of EENS deliberately translate it this way so that any kind of vague yearning, even by those who haven't heard of the Sacrament, can count as "desire".  According to them, even Protestants who openly despise and reject the Sacrament can somehow have a "desire" to receive the Sacrament.  Absolutely ridiculous.  They have no intention of ever Confessing, so no Protestant who rejects the Sacrament can EVER be justified by "perfect contrition".  People like Xavier pretend that "perfect contrition and charity" = "desire" for Baptism.  That is ABSOLUTE HERETICAL GARBAGE.  Trent explicitly taught about Confession that the "perfect contrition" does NOT justify without the intention to Confess.

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.

I don't need to explain or justify myself to you, Ladislaus. You always do this when you run out of arguments, and can't stick to the topic.

I've not attacked Fr. Feeney. You're just misinformed on that point. I specifically said I have no objection to St. Benedict's Centre's doctrinal position.

I specifically attacked the Dimonds, who I consider to hold manifestly heretical opinions both in the open Ecclesia-Vacantism they promote, and in heretically claiming that BOD is "heresy". They are neo-Jansenists and the Doctors fought the Jansenist heresy, when it arose, with untiring efforts.

You're the one doing the devil's work in claiming Dimondite things like "BOD may be objectively heretical" (which St. Benedict's Centre) does not claim, whether you know it or not. I consider St. Benedict's Centre an ally in evangelizing and building up the Church. Neither you nor the Dimonds are real allies of the Church. You also claimed the "Dimonds have done a great service to the Faith". Actually, they've done terrible harm to the Faith.

They've led souls outside the Church, where there is no salvation, and they will answer for it, and for their "Ecclesia-Vacantism" heresy.

I am firmly a Thomist on explicit faith and have defended explicit faith over implicit faith many times. If the debate was on explicit faith, I would be firmly against implicit faith. Just like I am a Thomist on the Molinist issue and have argued against both implicit faith and Molinism many times, whether you've seen it or not. But in obedience to the Church, I don't consider Molinists or implicit faithers to be heretics as the Popes directed.

I suppose some of you would consider me guilty of "ecuмenism" because of this article I wrote: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/ It took hours and lots of struggle to research and write it. But I was happy to do so, because I knew God would be pleased, and souls would be benefited. And accordingly, by the Grace of God, many non-Catholic Christians returned home to the Church. What I wrote was in full obedience to the decrees of Florence and that of Pope Pius XII on conducting "ecuмenism of return". If I'd just condemned every Orthodox Christian as a "formal schismatic", I doubt even one single Orthodox Christian would have come back. The principles based on which I write, as I've amply proven from many sources, are that taught by Popes, Saints and Doctors.

Also, as was quoted in one of St. Benedict's Centre's article, Fr. Laisney, of the SSPX maintained explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity. SBC said they agreed with that, but claimed the Holy Office Letter didn't agree with it. Well, I agree with the Holy Office Letter, in the sense it was understood by Msgr. Fenton. Both supernatural faith and supernatural contrition are necessary for an efficacious desire, and I hold with Msgr. Fenton, St. Alphonsus etc that explicit Catholic Faith in Holy Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for supernatural and salvific faith. If the debate was on explicit faith vs implicit faith, you'd see me arguing firmly for explicit faith.

As it is, the debate is with the Dimondite denial of BOD and especially of the claim that it is heretical. I've seen the very terrible fruits of Dimondism and the horrible lack of charity it leads to, and the presumptions of its followers in declaring everyone but their "Church of 10" to be heretics, and I'm not at all impressed with it and believe it to be heretical. So I will continue to oppose Dimondism, just as I would Jansenism. I will argue in favor of explicit faith and against implicit faith when that is the topic of debate.

Edit: I also agreed with Arvinger back when I was posting with my old acccount. I'm going to bump one of my old threads on the subject.

Saying "BOD is objectively heretical" would be like saying "the Immaculate Conception is objectively heretical" before it was formally defined. The Church had clearly shown it favor for many centuries before explicitly and formally defining it and closing the question. A similar thing happened here. BOD has already been taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and is irreformable doctrine.

I notice no one answered this point: "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.

I specifically attacked the Dimonds, who I consider to hold manifestly heretical opinions both in the open Ecclesia-Vacantism they promote, and in heretically claiming that BOD is "heresy". They are neo-Jansenists and the Doctors fought the Jansenist heresy, when it arose, with untiring efforts.

How are they Jansenists (or neo-Jansenists) in your opinion?  Isn't it your opinion which is closer to Jansenism?  The first proposition of Jansenius which was condemned by the pope was:

1. Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men [CM: baptism anyone?] who wish and strive to keep them, considering the powers they actually have: the grace by which these commandments may become possible is also wanting.  source: A Handbook of Heresies, M L Cozens, 1928

You, Nishant, say that it can be impossible for a JUST man to receive the Sacrament of Baptism which Our Lord commanded (John 3:5).  But MHFM says that all who are UNJUST but who assent to the Church's doctrines, and are sorry for their sins, and desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, Our Lord will indubitably grant them the grace of receiving the Laver of Regeneration which is the cause of their justification.

In Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year for the Friday of the First Week of Lent (today), we see that the Gospel is from John Chapter 5.  It is the story of the man who had been waiting at the Waters of Probatica for 38 years.  He said to Jesus, "Sir I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond;"  Dom Gueranger says that Jesus is that man.  And he makes the connection between the Waters of Probatica and the Sacrament of Baptism.

No one can validly baptize himself.  We need someone to represent Jesus Christ in order to baptize us into His Church, the Ark of Salvation.  And everyone admits that BOD does not cause one to receive the baptismal character, nor become a member of the Church,  nor remit the temporal punishment due to sins.  So there is absolutely nothing Jansenist about this.  It is another calumny on your part.

This is the "Feeneyism Ghetto" so I will not address the Ecclesia-Vacantist nonsense which has been dealt with at length in other threads in the Crisis forum.