anyone can be saved who is a "good" person.

THIS really is the essence of BoDism for most who hold it, and especially those who vigorously promote it.  Rarely is it about the rare case of a pious catechumen who zealously desired Baptism but was cut off before he could receive it.  [Of course, even in that scenario, BoDers would make Our Lord into a liar when He said, "Ask and you shall receive."  If someone desires and asks for the Sacrament of Baptism, would God refuse it?]  It's always been about the revival of Pelagianism where natural "goodness" can in some way merit salvation.

Caput IV

Insinuatur descriptio justifications impit et modus ejus in statu gratiae

Quibus verbis justificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Jesum Christum, Salvatorem nostrum. Quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.

source

Some want to have the phrase "translatio sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest" mean that the translation can happen with either the bath or the desire thereof. But that is not what the latin text says.

In latin, after a negation (like sine), or in a rhetorical question which is used in place of a negation, a second negated expression can only be appended using "aut" (and never using "et"). Examples:

Nihil tam vile aut tam vulgare est.

Nothing is so cheap and vulgar.

Quid est levius aut turpius?

What is more airy and ignominious?

It is illegal to write "Nihil tam vile et tam vulgare est." or "Quid est levius et turpius?" Thus, resolving double negation (sine+non), "sine lavacro aut voto fieri non potest" means: can happen only with both bath and desire thereof.

There is another argument against the false idea that the latin text signifies that the vote alone is sufficient. If the vote alone was sufficient, consequently the bath alone was sufficient, too. But it is clear that no adult receives a valid sacrament of baptism without desiring and asking for it.

Finally, reading the whole text of "cuм hoc tempore" impartially, one finds that it teaches no form of baptism other than the sacrament of baptism. It is disingenuous to use the single word "desire", expressing that bath as well as desire thereof are necessary, to boldly claim that the Council of Trent teaches "Baptism of Desire".



Latin examples from: Rubenbauer, Hofmann: "Lateinische Grammatik", 12. koor. Auflage, ISBN 978-3-7661-5627-3, §220 Doppelte Verneinung, page 253.

There is another argument against the false idea that the latin text signifies that the vote alone is sufficient. If the vote alone was sufficient, consequently the bath alone was sufficient, too. But it is clear that no adult receives a valid sacrament of baptism without desiring and asking for it.

I had made that exact point using satire (in red) in my posting below:


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/

Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires

Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
 Decree on Justification,
 Chapter IV.
 
 A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
 By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
 
 

"translatio sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest"

So you're saying that the phrase "aut ejus voto" means "AND the desire" not "or the desire"?  This is due to the the use of the word "sine" earlier in the sentence?  Interesting.

So you're saying that the phrase "aut ejus voto" means "AND the desire" not "or the desire"?  This is due to the the use of the word "sine" earlier in the sentence?  Interesting.

Correct.  Even in English.

I cannot play (a game of) baseball without a bat or a ball.

This means that I cannot play baseball unless I have BOTH a bat and a ball and that if EITHER ONE IS MISSING, I cannot play baseball.  In the positive, if I say, I CAN play baseball with a bat or a ball, then this means that I can play the game if I have one OR the other (not necessarily both).  See the difference.  If Trent had wanted to say that EITHER the laver OR the desire sufficed, Trent would have used an EITHER...OR construct (like AUT...AUT or VEL...VEL).  In the case of Confession, Trent uses "VEL...VEL" to mean that either the desire or actual Confession sufficed for restoration to justification.  Trent did NOT do that here with Baptism.

Yes, I understand your explanation and it is VERY telling that they used the double "vel" in reference to confession but not with baptism.
It still makes it more clear (in my opinion) by saying "I cannot play a baseball game without a bat AND ball."  Using "or", at least in english, seems like you give an option.

But by using and, the BoDers will say that we're mistranslating the word ... which technically we are, based on our reading of it.

You're right, though, the "or" in the baseball example is inherently AMBIGUOUS.  It could go either way.  But it's immediately disambiguated by the phrases which follows.

Trent says "justification cannot happen without the laver or the desire, as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit."  Trent is using Our Lord's words as a citation proof-text for the "laver or the desire", since Our Lord's water corresponds with the laver and the Holy Ghost with the desire (since earlier Trent taught that the Holy Ghost inspires this desire in the soul).  So to take this passage the BoDer way would be to say that Trent taught.  "you can be justified with either water or the desire because Jesus taught that we must be born again of water AND the desire".

But by using and, the BoDers will say that we're mistranslating the word ... which technically we are, based on our reading of it.

You're right, though, the "or" in the baseball example is inherently AMBIGUOUS.  It could go either way.  But it's immediately disambiguated by the phrases which follows.

Trent says "justification cannot happen without the laver or the desire, as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit."  Trent is using Our Lord's words as a citation proof-text for the "laver or the desire", since Our Lord's water corresponds with the laver and the Holy Ghost with the desire (since earlier Trent taught that the Holy Ghost inspires this desire in the soul).  So to take this passage the BoDer way would be to say that Trent taught.  "you can be justified with either water or the desire because Jesus taught that we must be born again of water AND the desire".

And this word "voto" is found in the Justification section; not even in the Sacraments section nor the Baptism canons. If Trent would actually have taught "Baptism of Desire" as many are prone to carelessly affirm; then it would have made more sense for the statement to be included in the specific section dealing with Baptism.

Salvation by "justification" alone (for non-Catholics!), is basically what these people really believe in. They just throw the terms out there without knowing what they really mean nor the proper relations between them.