CathInfo.com

  Papal Magisterium outweighs any opinion of a Doctor of the Church.  He's only a Doctor because some Pope designated him a Doctor.  And you're trying to lecture us condescendingly about needing to understand the Magisterium?  So a single Pope's opinion is not infallible but that of a Doctor is?  But you have a conundrum, because this Doctor of the Church declared that a similar letter by Pope Innocent II was infallible.  Or maybe the Pope was not infallible in making St. Alphonsus a Doctor of the Church.  What a hot mess.

But even you would have to recognize that the Council of Trent trumps a Doctor of the Church, and the teaching is clear.

There's no initial justification without rebirth/regeneration.

Rebirth/regeneration puts the soul into a state that it would enter heaven immediately and without delay, without any stain or punishment due to sin remaining.

Apart from that, St. Alphonsus has zero proof for his assertion that BoD does not remit temporal punishment do to sin.  That's merely his speculation ... and it's clearly wrong when compared against the teaching of the Council of Trent.  But perhaps you'll claim now that St. Alphonsus trumps the Council of Trent too.

I never said the St. Alphonsus (or any other Doctor of the Church) was infallible. In fact, I stated that only two types of Catholic Magisterium are considered as infallible: 1) Extraordinary and 2) Ordinary and Universal. 

I stated above that the decrees found in the Council of Trent are sufficiently trustworthy and support the concept of BoD (Session 6, Chapter 4) as putting the soul in a "state of grace," which, that same "state of grace" is later (Session 6, Chapter 14) referenced as coming also from the "second plank," namely the Sacrament of Penance.

State of Grace = friendship with God

A friend of God, if he perseveres in that state until death, will eventually go to Heaven. Both BoD and the Sacrament of Penance effect a "state of grace" but do not remit all temporal debt. Only the Sacrament of Baptism (water baptism) confers the "state of grace" AND remits all temporal debt incurred to that point.

So if one dies the moment after receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, he will immediately go to Heaven. If one dies the moment after "receiving" BoD, he will go to Purgatory, if he still has any temporal debt from previous sins. If one dies the moment after receiving absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, he will go to Purgatory, if he still has any temporal debt from previous sins.

To restate the same. Justification puts one in a "state of grace." A state of grace has two possible options: 1) no temporal debt remaining or 2) temporal debt still remaining. If he person dies in number 1, he goes straight to Heaven. If a person dies in number 2, he goes to Purgatory.

The word "Salvation" is discussed by many Catholic writers in an ambiguous way. Some use it generically to mean "going to Heaven eventually." While some use it more precisely to mean avoiding Purgatory and going to Heaven directly. It is this ambiguity that causes most of the confusion among the people on this website. 

Angelus, you are proving that what you believe about BOD is different from the other BOD posters (just on this thread).  Some follow St Thomas, or St Augustine, or St Bellarmine, or Rheims, etc.  There is no consistent view on how BOD works.  That's the ultimate issue. 

Okay. Agreed, "there is no consistent view on how BOD works" among the posters on the website. But whatever the actual Catholic teaching is MUST NOT CONTRADICT Trent. If the statement contradicts Trent, it would be heretical.

Many of statements of other authoritative commentators quoted on this website (including Popes and Doctors) are in the realm of "theological speculation." They are not part of the infallible Magisterium as Trent is. But it is possible (and I think certain) that Trent intentionally left some specifics unanswered. This kind of thing happens when all the participants at a Council cannot agree on the precise language on a topic. So, there is still wiggle room for theological speculation after Trent, but the wiggle room is smaller than it was before Trent. 

Trent clearly states that "the desire for [baptism]" confers "Justification." Trent did not say "the desire for Baptism" confers "'Salvation." This is an important distinction. Also, the exact definition of "the desire for baptism" is not provided in Trent. Does that refer to "explicit" or "implicit" desire. That question was left in the realm of theological discussion after Trent.

Okay. Agreed, "there is no consistent view on how BOD works" among the posters on the website. But whatever the actual Catholic teaching is MUST NOT CONTRADICT Trent. If the statement contradicts Trent, it would be heretical.

Many of statements of other authoritative commentators quoted on this website (including Popes and Doctors) are in the realm of "theological speculation." They are not part of the infallible Magisterium as Trent is. But it is possible (and I think certain) that Trent intentionally left some specifics unanswered. This kind of thing happens when all the participants at a Council cannot agree on the precise language on a topic. So, there is still wiggle room for theological speculation after Trent, but the wiggle room is smaller than it was before Trent. 

Trent clearly states that "the desire for [baptism]" confers "Justification." Trent did not say "the desire for Baptism" confers "'Salvation." This is an important distinction. Also, the exact definition of "the desire for baptism" is not provided in Trent. Does that refer to "explicit" or "implicit" desire. That question was left in the realm of theological discussion after Trent.

Thank you for being open and honest.  Most pro-BOD'ers would not agree with the above.  In fact, (in my opinion) Fr Feeney would even agree with the above.  Because all we can say, with doctrinal certainty, is that BOD = justification (but not salvation).  This was Fr Feeney's entire point ... that justification is not salvation.  !!!!