Really, the problem with the Canons is that they're not explicit about wihich (benefits of the) Sacraments are available  or accessible through votum.  We know that it taught this about the Sacrament of Confession.  But the Canons lump all the Sacraments together.

What's at issue is with "without A or B" construct.  It's ambiguous on its own and could be read the BoD way or could be read the non-BoD way.

But my chief arguments for the non-BoD way are:

1) the citation from Sacred Scripture from Our Lord used as proof text, where He teaches that water AND the Holy Ghost are necessary
2) the logical corollary of the BoD reading would be that justification can be received WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, and that expression would promote the exact same heresy that Trent is condemning

These two considerations render the BoD understanding of the passage impossible.

"No X without A or B" ... this can mean "No X without (A or B)." or it can mean "No X without A or without B."  We've seen examples of both.

I can't write a letter without a pen or a pencil.  Means that either one suffices.  (equivalent of the BoDer reading of Trent)
No wedding without a bride or a groom.  Means that both are necessary and that there can be no wedding if either one is missing.  (equivalent of the non-BoDer reading of Trent)

Context would be required to determine the meaning.  Dimond Brothers sent this passage to a Latin scholar at Oxford, who concurred that either meaning is possible, and that the correct meaning can be known only from context or an individual's prior knowledge.

I know that "I can't write a letter without a pen or a pencil." means that I need only one or the other (not both) because of my prior knowledge of letter writing and how pens and pencils relate to that.  Same with the bride and groom reading.  I know that both are required for the wedding because I have prior knowledge of what a wedding is.

There's also context.  So take this example.  Assume that I know absolutely nothing about baseball.  Never heard of it before.

"We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball."  Hmmm.  Does this mean that I can play if I have EITHER a bat OR a ball or does it mean that I can't play unless I have both of them?  I don't know, because I don't have knowledge or context.

Now let's add some context.  "We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball, since Jim told me that we need a bat and a ball to play baseball."

But this is precisely what Trent is doing.  Trent immediately disambiguates the passage by citing the text from the Gospel as "proof text" (that's what the phrase, "as it is written" means).

[paraphrase] "Justification can't happen without the laver (water) or the votum (Holy Ghost), because Jesus taught that both water and the Holy Ghost are required."

We could no more read this as meaning "Justification can't happen without EITHER laver/water OR the votum." than we could read "We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball, since Jim told me that we need a bat and a ball to play baseball." as meaning that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.

So this is reason 1 why the BoDer reading doesn't work, the disambiguating proof text provided by Trent.

For reason number 2, if you say that ...
Justification cannot happen without EITHER the laver (the Sacrament) OR ELSE the desire for it, the logical corollay is:  "Justification can happen WITHOUT the laver, without the Sacrament of Baptism."  If I say, "I can't write a letter without a pen or a pencil." ... can I write a letter without a pen?  Yes, yes I can ... if I have a pencil.  This expression means that I CAN write a letter without a pen.  And I CAN write a letter without a pencil.

That's just plain heretical, to assert that I CAN be justified WITHOUT the Sacrament, and this is in fact the same heresy that Trent is condemning by teaching dogmatically that the Sacrament is necessary for salvation.  Even with BoD, if you believe in it, justification does not and cannot happen WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism.  Even in BoD, the Sacrament remains the instrumentcal cause of justification.  Otherwise, you're a Pelagian who holds that the votum itself, without the Sacrament, can justify, effectively ex opere operantis, i.e. that you can will your own justification and salvation.

So for both of these very compelling reasons, the BoDer reading of Trent is absolutely untenable.

I agree with this.  Basically, my position is that Trent is neither teaching nor condemning the notion of BoD.  So, the Doctors who believed in BoD held that people cannot be saved "WITHOUT" the Sacrament, but rather that they can receive it in voto.  This is why after Trent, St. Robert was very careful to avoid saying that they can be saved without it, but instead say that they (catechumens only) could in theory have a different mode of receiving the Sacrament.

Now, examining BoD in principle, it's CLEAR that it's nothing but speculation, and there's no evidence that it was revealed.  Majority of the Church Fathers rejected it, and no one has ever demonstrated how / why it logically and necessarily follows from other revealed dogma.  Without one of these two criteria, unanimous consensus or necessary implicit logical derivation, there's no evidence of it having been revealed, and so it remains squarely in the realm of speculation.

Theologian after theologin after theologian merely GRATUITOUSLY CLAIM that such a thing exists, but it's never been proven.  Contrary to the opinion held by the Dimonds, however, it's also never been condemned, and has been clearly permitted by the Church.  I think that was a mistake, but a mistake allowed by God because without BoD there could never have been a Vatican II, the entire foundation of which is the new ecclesiology.

1.  BOD is not in every catechism.  It started being inserted in the 1700/1800s.  Examples:  Some posters here in the past showed pictures of the original Baltimore Catechism which has no mention of it.  But subsequent editions mentioned it.  It was added. 

Also, catechisms aren't infallible, so any errors contained aren't a problem for indefectibility.

2.  BOD speculation is not "universal" therefore there is no "universal error". 
a.  St Thomas (and others of the Middle Ages) source St Augustine as the basis; but not Scripture/Revelation/Tradition.  Not sure why they didn't realize he recanted his opinion??  Probably because they were just debating the issue and didn't consider it a doctrine worth much research time.
b.  St Bellarmine is clear that it's his opinion and based on St Thomas (which is based on St Augustine).
c.  I've never heard of any Doctor/Saint make an argument from Scripture or anyone besides St Augustine.
d.  St Augustine isn't infallible nor can he be viewed as "Tradition".
e.  Trent itself quotes Christ in Scripture (repeatedly) which mentions 2 necessary things - faith and water.  Trent never says, explicitly, that only faith suffices.
f.  Any saint/doctor or holy person who comments on Christ's teaching ALWAYS says that faith/water are necessary for Baptism.  This cannot be questioned.
g.  Ergo, BOD is speculative, just due to the lack of explanation, lack of details, lack of scripture/tradition proofs and the problem of varied/differing explanations of it.

BOD is not in every catechism.  It started being inserted in the 1700/1800s.  Examples:  Some posters here in the past showed pictures of the original Baltimore Catechism which has no mention of it.  But subsequent editions mentioned it.  It was added.

Wrong. It's in The Catechism of Trent (1566). I know, I know: you dispute that. And there's the Catechism of St. Peter Canisius (late 1550s or so), St. Robert Bellarmine's Catechism (1598), and the Douay Catechism (1649).

Do you reject Vatican I and the plenary jurisdiction and power of the pope because some believe it means a pope has the authority to promulgate the changes of the New Mass? I trust not.

Hello everyone, just to let everyone know Friarminor isn't associated or support any group out there.



 https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1623510195476340736?s=20 

Because Trent reiterates "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." And also because the majority of the early fathers held to water baptism, and St. Gregory nαzιanzus denies it.

Finally, corrupt fruits only come from a corrupt tree. The fruits of BoD is seen in V2 and salvation outside the church.....