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.
sourceSome 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.