CathInfo.com

Very few authorities even deal with this passage ... I acknowledge that others have interpreted it differently.  I acknowledge that I'm in the minority.

We've seen St. Alphonsus and St. Robert cite it before, and these were members of the ecclesia docens. But beside them every single authority since Trent who cites this passage teaches it the way I defended, and not one the way you do.Theologians in general are intermediaries between the teaching Church and the Church taught, as Pius IX said, when they unanimously teach with universal and constant consent that a certain doctrine is a taught by the Church, in this case in Trent, the faithful or Church taught are bound to follow. This is a habitual rule of Faith all are obliged by, a manifestation of our subjection to the teaching Church, the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

Given that we don't agree on this, there might not be much point in going on, but I will reply for the sake of completion.

You didn't address the issue of Catechisms, even that of  Trent, going against you, as well as the other statements such as that of Pope St. Pius V.

If you make the "or" in Trent disjunctive, "either ... or" , then you're saying that the Sacrament can justify without the will ... Notice the use of the "vel ... vel" (vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto), which is an explicit "either ... or"

First, you're ignoring the common use of voto to denote sacramental effect, and not a mere disposition. Secondly, applying your linguistic argument to the second case, that of penance, where you admit the "either ... or", is Trent then saying that "the sacrament can justify without the will"? According to your argument, it must be, because it says is effected by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament, that is, by each individually.

But of course it is not. For it suffices to say the sacrament remits the guilt, because that is the effect caused by the sacrament, the proper disposition in receiving it being presumed and not needing to be expressly mentioned.

Again, I deny that the construction is different, it says, ""sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto" similar to how it says, "quæ vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto", in each case adding a clause to show that desire can cause the sacramental effect. Desire as voto never refers to a disposition.

If Trent meant to teach as you do, there was no reason then to add "aut ejus voto", just as if Trent meant to teach the sacramental effect could not be realized by the desire for penance, there was no reason to add "vel sacramenti voto".

Trent interprets what Scripture means, Scripture doesn't interpret what Trent means. The passage in John 3:5, when taken together with other words of the Apostle and of the Lord in the Gospel, doesn't preclude the triune baptism but rather includes it. Jesus came not in Water only but in Water and Blood, says the Apostle. The Spirit, the water, and the blood are one, continues St. John, just as God is Three and One. Jesus explained this to St. Catherine of Sienna, but you don't recognize that.

Your analogy presumes what it needs to prove. I could say the correct analogy would be, "One cannot play baseball without a bat, or a substitute for a bat" which is more like the construction of the original statement, where what follows the or refers back to what precedes it, whereas a ball is something having nothing to do with a bat as such. Aut ejus voto means or the desire of the same, the same to which it refers back, just as vel sacramenti voto means or the desire of the sacrament.

Those who interpreted it differently misunderstood it by drawing a bad analogy with Penance

A gratuitous assertion that isn't true for most. St. Robert for example wasn't speaking of penance at all, but of baptism and catechumens, and he asserts Trent teaches baptism is necessary in fact or in desire.

.

Threads like this belong in their own sub-forum.  


.