Every Catholic theologian, bishop, etc. who has commented on that "or" - even Father Feeney by necessary implication, since he acknowledged a BOD could justify - has held that "or' to be disjunctive: Every. Single. One.
Which means, unless you separate yourself from the faith of every single Catholic saint, theologian, bishop, etc. since Trent, that the Church above has interpreted John 3:5 to mean a man could be justified by, in the highlight in red from the following quote from Orestes Brownson (who commonsensically and and correctly acknowledged that to die in a state of justification meant one would be saved): "most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione."
How "Protestant" of you to read John 3:5 the way you and your cohorts do, though you won't see that elephant crossing your path.
And there goes an Oct. 08, 2022 Saturday morning elephant crossing.
However the theologians etc., and Fr Feeney commented on "or" to be disjunctive, the teaching from Trent on the matter of Justification clearly states that no sacrament means no justification. The teaching is clear on this and cannot possibly be mistaken. Trent (Session 6) clearly states that Justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, nor can it be effected with a desire thereof. That is the plain meaning of
"cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof." The other canon (Session 7) is in regards to all of the sacraments, not the sacrament of baptism exclusively. The canon starts out with anathematizing who ever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation. Trent then continues on to anathematize whoever says without them, or without a desire thereof that justification is obtained through faith alone. BODers do not make the distinction that Trent here can only be talking about the sacrament of penance for those already baptized.
So while you are saying
""most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione." which is a confused statement that leads to salvation without the sacrament via a BOD, it cannot be denied that Trent says no sacrament (no "laver of regeneration") = no justification.
Nor can it be said that Trent teaches that salvation is certainly obtained via a desire for baptism because Trent is teaching that without a desire for the sacrament (of penance via perfect contrition) for one already baptized, justification cannot be obtained. Trent give us no degree of certainty that even then, for those already baptized, justification will certainly occur, rather, Trent anathematizes the idea that without either, justification is certainly obtained. This in and of itself admits that salvation via a BOD is contrary to the teaching of Trent.
Trent on Justification Session 6 (Chapter 4): No sacrament of baptism = no justification.
Trent on the sacraments in general Session 7 (Canon 6): Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
Trent on the sacraments in general Session 7 (Canon 6): No sacrament or no desire = no justification.
Nowhere does Trent teach without the sacraments or the desire thereof that justification or salvation is obtained - Trent in fact condemns that idea with anathema in Canon 6, which, oddly enough, is the same canon that a BODers insist teaches a BOD.
Now whomever wants to continue to quote some of the Fathers, catechisms and theologians etc, they should at least do so knowing that those quotes are contrary to the clear teachings of Trent and John 3:5 as it is written.
Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 42223 times)