So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.
So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent. Got it.
Who said anything about anyone's understanding of Trent. I was speaking very clearly about the relevance of the baseball analogy regarding the two translations. Since translating is my profession, I thought I would point that out.
You should try to grasp what someone is saying before willy-nillyly throwing wild accusations of heresy at them.
Does Trent teach BOD or not?
I'm not your professor. You can read what the Church says for yourself. That's why the ol' Feenyite heresy has never gotten off US soil and is a non-issue in the rest of the world. No one else, in fact, on the planet excludes the Church's teaching on baptism of desire. It is very clear by the language of Trent, it does not speak ambiguously. If it had said "et" instead of "or" then Trent would have answered in favor of the American Feenyites, however, it did not.
Topic: Does "baptism of desire" grant the grace of baptismspiritual rebirth? (Read 13063 times)