Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
The canon doesn't prove what you want it to prove. I don't know many BODers - can't think of one, actually - who hold that the sacraments are "superfluous," which is the gloss on what "necessary" means in the text. That this is so is clear from the Canon V on baptism itself from the same session:
Again, I don't know of any BODers who say that baptism is "optional." The "optional, that is" is similar to the gloss of "but superfluous," and explains the use of "necessity" in context.
But Trent condemns with anathema whoever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but superfluous - no matter how you say it.
This means that if you say that a BOD is salvific, you are saying exactly that the sacrament is superfluous because you are saying that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, which is the whole idea behind a BOD.
Additionally, you have the same appearance of "or" in Session 7, Canon 4, so that doesn't support you, as the same argument of the universal reading of Catholic saints and theologians of the "or" being disjunctive in Session VI, Chapter IV would apply equally well here.
No, you are wrong here DR.
There is no sense to focus on the word "or" when you should be focused on the 2 words "without." Do that and it becomes quite clear that Trent says without the sacrament or without the desire = no justification. Trent clearly condemns both as obtaining justification through faith alone.
As I posted earlier....This Canon says "No sacrament or no desire = condemned, as the obtaining of justification through faith alone.
EXACTLY what do you think that Trent is condemning with anathema in this canon? Please explain.
Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 41869 times)