CathInfo.com

Hopefully this venn diagram shows up, I've also attached it.

Regarding cannon 30,  if the statement “to every repentant sinner” includes both those who receive the grace of justification, whether it be in Baptism or Penance, then both are repentant sinners.

One cannot say all repentant sinners are without the debt of temporal punishment, as that would only apply to the newly baptized.

Yep.  I already called him out for this.  Why do you think that his initial citation of Canon 30 removed the phrase "to every repentant sinner"?  He knew full well that this was fatal to his case, and that's why he deliberate excluded it from his citation.

Besides that, Canon 30 is already in the section of Canons that are dealing with the Sacrament of Confession, and Trent does not use the term "sinner" for the unbaptized, but, rather, the expression "impii".

CHAPTER VI.

The manner of Preparation.
-------------

I thought my previous answer would be obvious enough. The quote above from the Council of Trent does not mention belief (explicit or implicit) in "the Holy Trinty" or in "the Incarnation." So, according the the Fathers of the Council of Trent, belief in those two things would not be necessary for "justification." On that question, I would not dare to contradict Trent.

More dishonesty.  Still refusing to the answer the question.  Theologians since Trent have held both opinions, explicit and implicit, and both claim not to be contradicting Trent.  I agree with your assertion that Trent does not say one way or the other.  Thus, you have not answered the question by your own admission, in merely citing Trent, and neither opinion would be "contradicting" Trent.

So what's YOUR answer?  Is explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation necessary for justification?  Yes or no suffices.

Did you find any other post-Trent statements by theologians, authorized by imprimatur, that state that BoD is heretical, as you claim.

Or was Canisius's catechism for little boys your best effort?

Ah, so now you're resorting to gross disrespect by your denigration of St. Peter's Catechism?  You're utterly disgracing yourself.  St. Peter's Catechism was one of the most widely praised by the Popes and the most widely published.

On top of it, you're lying.  This was called the "Small Catechism" or "Little Catechism" because it was an abridgement of his multi-volume work, the Summa Doctrinae Christianiae.  At the end, he did have an APPENDIX in which he had a series of questions without commentary that were intended to be memorized by children, and was thus the inspiration for the future Catechism formats that we later find in places like the Baltimore Catechism.  But this was not a "catechism for little boys".  And even if it had been, so what?  St. Peter was a theologian, effectively a peritus who spoke twice at the Council and was declared a Doctor of the Church, not a Doctor of Little Boys.

Nor is it lost on anyone that you refuse the title "Saint" to this Doctor of the Church, thus attempting to deride him even more, because he doesn't agree with YOUR reading of Trent.  Of course, I'm sure we'll be hearing soon about St. Alphonsus Liguori the Great, Greatest Doctor of the Church in History ... etc. etc.  In other words, your measure of whether someone was a reputable authority depends on whether they agree with you.

This gets worse with every post.

Regardless, none of these authorities was infallible.  And you refuse to argue the question on its own terms.

Here's another question then.  Would you say that, in the new dispensation, justification can happen without the Sacrament of Baptism?