CathInfo.com

But that's literally what you and Pax are doing. And then you appeal to the opinions of these theologians who were themselves reading into the definition of Trent. They were not bound by V1 yet, but we are, so therefore, the point is moot. Trent defines baptism and affirms it with John 3:5, plain as day; but then you keep circling back to a "deeper meaning" regarding justification vs sanctification.

Exactly.


Stubborn's purpose in all this is to make a personal decision "This is what it means and I'm moving on to other things."  Nothing wrong with that.

No.  This is speaking of justification in the context of the Sacrament of Baptism, where indeed if the person has the requisite dispositions and receives the Sacrament, he would enter a state of grace.  Post-Tridentine theologians used it in the broader sense.

These passages have to be understood in context.  So, for instance, another context here is that it's speaking here of justification for adults, and so much of it doesn't apply to infants.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Catchism of Trent:

The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; 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.