CathInfo.com

No, I really don't.  If you're talking about initial justification not placing positive obstacles to salvation, that's all it says, not that it suffices for entry into the Kingdom.  St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist also had no obstacles positive obstacles in terms of guilt of sin, but they couldn't enter Heaven regardless.  Not having positive obstacles is not the same thing as having been elevated to the state in which one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  That's my theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of Trent that we're arguing about, but was thrown out there as a distraction from your being unable to refute my arguments..

Are you prepared to denounce St. Alphonsus' theory that temporal punishment can remain after initil justification by BoD?  Because if you don't, then you have nothing to stand on in denouncing my theory either.

Here's the sum total of all "evidence" in favor of BoD:

1) youthful speculation of St. Augustine (later retracted)
2) unclear statement from St. Ambrose (where he still says that neither BoD/BoB result in crowning)
3) Innocent II/III opining in its favor (one docuмent is of disputed authenticity, another a letter written to a bishop, not a teaching of his office ... and in a similar letter he promoted a seriously erroneous opinion ... relying on "authority" of Augustine / Ambrose, which is tentative at best -- see above, and ignores the 5-6 Church Fathers who rejected the idea)
4) after a 600-year complete silence about BoD, debate among pre-scholastics (Abelard vs. Hugh of St. Victor), where St. Bernard tentatively sides with Hugh in saying "I'd rather err with Augustine than be right on my own.").  Peter Lombard then goes with that.
5) from there, St. Thomas opines in its favor
6) alleged interpretation of Trent, which IMO was clearly NOT trying to teach BoD and at best left the issue open
7) Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus opine in its favor (without any theological proof, but, for Bellarmine, going with it because the contrary "seems too harsh")
8) theologians who are at the same time undermining/denying EENS jumping on the BoD bandwagon
9) no theological (syllogistic) proof ever offered for BoD, just gratuitous statements along the lines of "yep, BoD"
10) misinterpreted 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is saying nothing more than that Catechumens may received Christian burial (contrary to earlier Church practice)

In order for something to be definable, it has to either ...
1) be known to have been revealed through unanimous dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers (more Fathers reject BoD than tentatively and temporarily accepted it)
2) derive logically and necessarily from other revealed dogma (no theological proof for BoD has ever been produced)

BoD is nothing but pure speculation.

Pope St. Siricius dogmatically condemned it when he wrote that each and every one of those desiring Baptism would lose the Kingdom if they did not receive the Sacrament before they died (here he was urging emergency Baptism for those in danger of death).  Nothing could be more clear.  But somehow this one is ignored by the BoDers, who rely instead on some confusing and dubious nonsense by one or another of the Innocent popes, who also were known to have opined erroneous in various letters about other subjects as well as their reading of BoD into Trent, and there's no evidence that it's there, and certainly no positive statement that it's required belief, but merely leaving it open as a speculative possibility (even if you believe that it had BoD in mind with the votum passage).