CathInfo.com

Read Canon 30 again carefully.

I see you've read it for the first time without the ellipses.  Canon 29 is transitioning over into being about Confession.  Trent never refers to un-baptized as "sinners" but reserves that term for those who have lost justification after Baptism.  Nor has anyone said that "every sinner" has all temporal punishment remitted due to being restored to a state of justification ... that part you conveniently dishonestly omitted when accusing me of heresy.  You deliberately omitted it because you knew it undermined your bogus argument.

Certainly not EVERY sinner has temporal punishment remitted.

But those who experience their initial justification most certainly do.

Trent is quite clear.  Initial justification = rebirth or regeneration, stating that no one can transition from the fallen state to the state of justification without a rebirth.  Rebirth Trent then defines as meaning that all temporal punishment is removed.  Very straightforward.

I was about to ask regarding the need for the sacrament of confession, where does that leave the lerfect act of contrition, or circuмstances where no priest is available to hear the confession, but it looks like the above post addresses the confusion about the subject of the canons.

That's actually a part that's very often left out in explaining perfect contrition to the faithful.  It's often said that you can be restored to a state of justification MERELY by perfect contrition.  This is untrue.  There must also be an intention to receive the Sacrament "in due time".  It basically means that the next opportunity you have, you'll go to Confession.  You are not required to run out and wake up a priest at 3AM to immediately confess as soon as you've made a perfect act of contrition.  You can just think, "I'm going to Confession on Sunday before Mass."  And of course if there's no priest available, this does not impact the INTENTION to go to Confession.  You intend to go as soon as you can (reasonably) have access to a priest.

Imagine someone who makes some act of contrition, where they're truly sorry for their sins, but then think, but I don't really want or intend to go to Confession anytime soon (perhaps because they're embarrassed of the sin).  That would impede their justification.  It's a pretty serious omission in most Trad "teaching" on the subject about "perfect contrition".

In fact, the original preparatory text of Trent actually had it that perfect contrition alone restored to justification, but the Pope intervened and ordered it, undoubtedly inspired by the Holy Ghost, to add the requirement to intend to go to Confession.  Pope argued that there can be no forgiveness of sin and restoration to justification without reference to the power of the Church to forgive sins.  This is actually another big problem for those who claim that Prots and other non-Catholics can be justified by "perfect contrition" ... even when they don't believe in and even despise the Sacrament of Confession and don't believe that the Church has the authority to forgive sins.

Here is a quote from the section discussing BoD in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

"Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishment for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments."

That's all fine and dandy but Trent doesn't explain any of this.  So Ott's explanation is purely speculative.