As I said, "What Trent actually says, and this is infallible, is that justification cannot take place without it".

Catechism of the Council of Trent (16^th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...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."

If we can get BOD'ers to accept the more-strict St Thomas/Alphonsus view, then the whole controversy would go away.

Catechisms are by no means infallible, but when it's a question of how to interpret a Tridentine canon, the Tridentine catechism is absolutely the best place to look. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus also read that same canon in this same way, and neither were ever corrected for it. Nor were a multitude of catechisms that taught the same as the Tridentine one ever corrected or revised regarding this.
I agree re: using Trent's Catechism.

We have Trent saying no justification without the desire for the sacrament.

And we have the catechism saying their desire for the sacrament and repentance for past sins will avail them to justification, that is, will be advantageous or useful, or will be beneficial for them to obtain justification.

Neither say a desire for the sacrament is salvific, will certainly save them, or will certainly justify them. The catechism can't say that because Trent does not say that. Trent's catechism and the Council of Trent are both *not* saying that a desire for the sacrament certainly justifies, and they are both certainly *not* saying a desire saves - only that without the desire (and repentance) there is no justification.

I disagree.  I've read the original Latin (don't have it anymore) and it's not clear.  There's a tendency in Latin subjunctive clauses to have the sense of a hypothetical, so instead of "if some mishap prevents them", more along the lines of "lest some mishap prevent them".  I read this passage as teaching that God will not allow some mishap to prevent the justification of His elect, while leaving any inferences about BoD unspoken and unresolved.  This was no attempt to teach BoD, just explaining why it's OK to delay the Baptism of adults but not that of infants.  You read too much into it to take this as a teaching of BoD.

Not sure I understand. So you're saying the passage actually means something more along the lines of "lest any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be [baptised], their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to [Baptism]"? As in, God will never let anyone who truly intends to be baptised die before receiving it, and the catechumens who did lacked proper intention(or were unrepentant)?

Lad, Stubborn and Pax, I would like to thank all 3 of you for your explanations of all this. You all have put my mind at ease in regards to this teaching. It has helped me avoid being a Donatist in dealing with most of the trad clergy.



It seems to me that if a R&R defender were to point to their "loose" BOD teaching because of a perceived interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus, would it stand to reason that that same line of thinking of authoritative doctors and theologians defending their perception of what Trent teaches would also apply to doctors and theologians in regards to heretical popes, especially post Vatican I and pre Vatican II? In other words, what's the real difference if you end up pitting doctors versus doctors for the respective issues? No trying to derail.