Lad,

So, if I understand you, what you are saying is that the translation is not possible ("fieri non potest") without . . .  Correct?

Got it. Thanks.


That makes sense  - what the hell would all the fuss have been about all this time if it were that simple?    

I mean, there is still the question of whether the "without X or Y" means in the sense of ...

"There can be no marriage without the bride or the groom" (this means you need both)

OR

"I cannot draw without a pen or a pencil" (this means I only need one).

I believe the quotation from Our Lord right after immєdιαtely disambiguates it to the first one above (water AND the Holy Spirit).

Now, Father Feeney read it as without the laver or (at least) the will/intention for it, but he distinguishes between "justification" and "salvation."

That is also quite possible.

If you look at the paragraphs after, Trent lists the intention/proposal to receive Baptism among the "dispositions" or "preparations" for justification, and states that the justification which "follows" these preparations has for its instrumental cause the Sacrament of Baptism.  This sounds as if the intention to receive Baptism does not result in justification but is merely a "preparation" for it through the Sacrament.

Fr. Feeney did indeed. That's why I said that you were alone to my knowledge.

Well, I'm certainly not alone ... in the sense that all Dimondites (vs. Feeneyites) hold this interpretation as well.

Honestly, taken on the surface you COULD read it either way.  I recall that the Dimonds submitted the question to a Latin scholar Oxford, who replied that indeed it could be read either way unless there were some context to clarify the meaning.

See, if you believed in BoD to begin with, then you would be naturally inclined to read this the BoD way, but there's nothing in the text itself that forces that understanding of it.