CathInfo.com

The reason I am not making that distinction is because we are discussing justification as it is applied to the idea of a BOD, not the remission of sins in those already baptized, therefore not the remission of sins in OT saints which has nothing to do with this discussion.

??  The OT "saints" were not baptized.  ??  Thus the comparison of them with present-day unbaptized is a valid one.

This is a thread about a BOD, not the sacrament of penance or the achievement of perfect contrition, nor is it about the justification of the OT saints. We already know through Trent that the necessity of the sacrament arrived in the New Testament with the promulgation of the Gospel.

I am a 100% against BOD.  It should be called "justification by desire". 


So, since we are talking about justification, then this concept must be understood using both the Old and New Testaments, because OT justification prefigures the New Testament.

The criteria you mention is incomplete, what you are missing, is Trent's teaching that faith is necessary for the proper disposition.

Ok, but a catechumen, who has rejected his previous pagan/false religions and has decided to take classes on learning Catholicism...such a one MAY have the required faith necessary.  That's the whole point to limiting "justification by desire" to formal catechumens.  They have made the decision to know, study and love the Church.  Ergo, they would not have taken such a step had God not already given them *some* faith to desire Truth.

Baptism without the faith is useless, which is why even one who is dying must make an act of faith or have done so previously, or we may not baptize that person.

Yep.  And it is safe to conclude that *most* catechumens are sincere in their love of the Church, their desire to learn and become a catholic.  And if they know the most basic tenants of the Faith (i.e. Incarnation, Trinity, Redemption) then that Faith is enough.

Which is to say perfect contrition and all the desire in the world is useless without faith and cannot justify anyone from any sin, without faith.

Again, there are different types of justification.  A pagan or a muslim can ask God for forgiveness of sins and be *naturally/imperfectly* justified.  Similar to the OT.  Natural/imperfect justification does not remove Original Sin, does not provide sanctifying grace, does not provide supernatural Faith, Hope or Charity.  It does not save.  But it can get one into Limbo, instead of Hell.


But Trent is talking about SACRAMENTAL justification, which can ONLY be had by water baptism, because only water baptism removes Original Sin and gives sanctifying grace.

Stubborn has some strange reading of Trent where he simply truncates the "or the desire thereof".  Unfortunately for him, it is there.

Problem is that the expression is grammatically ambiguous.  If read in the one sense, then Father Feeney's interpretation is the correct one.  If read in the other sense, then the Dimondite interpretation is the correct one.  So it sounds as if Stubborn has gotten onto the Dimond interpretation.  But didn't Father Wathen (whom Stubborn uses as a rule of faith) have the Feeneyite view?

One could make the case either way, but there's nothing "novel" about it ... unless you simply ignore the "or the desire thereof" part, which Stubborn did when he cited Trent initially in objecting to it.  This is in fact how the various Doctors (and Father Feeney) interpreted it, that it mean that the desire by itself could suffice for justification.  Of course, from there it was extrapolated that this state of justification could suffice for salvation ... and that's Father Feeney's point of contention.

Stubborn has some strange reading of Trent where he simply truncates the "or the desire thereof".  Unfortunately for him, it is there.

Another question unanswered, same o same o.

Lad, you are the one with a strange reading of Trent where you entirely ignore the justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration."

Unfortunately for you, it is there.