CathInfo.com

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's merely an opinion, and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, and even Father Feeney felt otherwise.  You can't confuse your interpretation of the text with dogma itself ... which is something you have a tendency to do.

I am not interpreting what it says because to do so changes it's meaning - as you keep demonstrating.

Even if you read it that way, it's simply untrue that the meaning doesn't change by adding the words "or the desire thereof".  Fathers of Trent didn't add that for no reason. 

The Fathers of Trent added those words to teach that the desire thereof (BOD) does not justify - if you believe what the words say, then you cannot make them mean anything else. The Fathers of Trent likely foresaw there might be those like yourself who did not accept this, which is likely why they concluded with John 3:5, which squashes the idea of any type of a BOD, and does so in no uncertain terms.

 You can't confuse your interpretation of the text with dogma itself ... which is something you have a tendency to do.

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. 

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.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.  I've never ruled out this interpretation of Trent as impossible, and certainly would never claim that MY reading of the passage is in fact the dogma.  Stubborn routinely misapplies the notion of "dogma as it is written" to extrapolate from this that his interpretation or reading of the text is = to the dogma itself.  I've never done that.

He's effectively saying that his interpretation of the text = the dogma itself, and that would render St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus heretics for denying that dogma.  Unfortunately, the Dimonds do the exact same thing.

I never said that the readings of Bellarmine, Alphonsus, et al. were dogma, just that they must at least be considered viable interpretations of Trent and possible.  Nor have I said that I necessarily agree with their reading of it.  I'm merely stating that it's a possible interpretation and cannot be summarily dismissed as "contrary to the dogma as it is written", but rather "contrary to the dogma as [Stubborn thinks] it is written".  I've seen him repeatedly butcher and misread one doctrine or dogma after another than then claim that his misinterpretation was the dogma itself.

To have some disagreement about what a particular dogmatic text means is not the same thing as interpreting a dogma in a sense other than what was intended by the Council.  What's being debated here is ... what was intended with these words by the Council?