CathInfo.com

I've spent several pages on this subject during the thread.  Go back and read it instead of hopping on 25+ pages in and then demanding that I repost stuff that I've already explained.  There's zero way that your BoD interpretation of Trent can hold water.  No one refuted my reasoning.

I used to believe in BoD because I thought, "Trent taught it." But then I sat down one day to read all of Trent in Latin (vs. a sentence taken out of context and in misleading English translation) and I thought, "Wait a minute.  There's no BoD here anywhere.  What are they talking about?"  And I re-read it looking for "BoD" but no signs of it were to be found.

But people just beg the question, read BoD into Trent, and then keep repasting it assuming that your interpretation is true.  It's not.  But let's say for a moment that your reading of it is correct.  An honest BoDer here on CI, ByzCat, recognized that Trent is not teaching BoD as required for belief but rather, permitted for belief, effectively saying, "You can't say that Baptism isn't necessary at least in desire without being a heretic."  There's no positive teaching anywhere that positively states that the votum would suffice for justification, no Canon that states, "If anyone says that votum alone without the Sacrament suffices for justification, let him be anathema."  If Trent were teaching the alleged "Three Baptisms," where's the mention of BoB?  In fact, if you read Trent the BoDer way, there's no such thing as BoB.  And, if you read Trent the BoDer way, as an either / or for justification, the logical corollary is that there can be justification WITHOUT Baptism, but that's condemned as heretical by Trent.  So you would have Trent be teaching the same heresy it condemns.  Finally, the proof text that Trent gives for justification would be absurd, making Trent teach, "You can be justified by the laver or the desire, because Christ taught that both water AND the Holy Ghost are necessary for justification."  It's preposterous and these arguments have never been refuted.  You just keep re-pasting Trent while assuming that the BoDer understanding of it is the correct one.  It's not.

What are you babbling about again?  You're reading that justification always saves into Trent.  You read your nonsense into Trent and then claim your distortion of Trent is what Trent taught.