Angelus,

You’re arguing before a “Manhattan jury.” May angels attend you.

DR

What does "manhatten jury" mean?

That’s one of the loudest echos to ever come from your echo chamber.

Just the truth.

Angelus starts by grossly misdefining salvation as having to do with going straight to Heaven without Purgatory.

Angelus deceptively used ellipses on a Canon in Trent to accuse others of heresy.

Angelus attempted to arrogantly mansplain the notion that Father Feeney distinguished between justification and salvation, as if everyone here isn't aware of that.

Angelus continues to go in circles, citing his begging-the-question reading of one source as proof for his begging-the-question reading of another source.

He is either unable to or refuse to offer any rebuttal of the arguments made, but simply re-spams the same nonsense over and over again.

All these are signs of desperation and of gross intellectual dishonesty.  He's not looking for the truth.

And the same holds for you, as you've demonstrated repeatedly in the past by promoting Old Catholic heresy.

Because those of bad will here have attempted to distract from the argument by constantly throwing chaff at it, I'll restate it here.

Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum.

Taken entirely by itself, it can be read two ways, that either one suffices or that both are necessary.

But Trent's citation of Our Lord's teaching immediately disambiguates the passage.

Responses from the BoDers are to throw chaff out there.  But, muh Roman Catechism.  But, muh Pius XII.  There's no evidence that either one of these is referring to this passage from Trent.  But, personal insults from Decem, with colorful talk of "echo chambers" and "Manhattan juries" ... i.e. ad hominen distractions.

Justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum.

"I cannot write a letter without a pen or a pencil."  Either one suffices.  BoDer reading.
"Wedding cannot take place without the bride or the groom."  Both are necessary.  Non-BoDer reading.

Let's say I don't know anything about baseball, and someone says:
"We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball."

I would not know by itself which is meant, but then if someone said:
"We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball, since Bob told us we need a bat and a ball to play baseball."

Immediately disambiguated, and only a fool or a dishonest individual would claim that the part, "We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball." means that we can play if we have one or the other (and not both) ... completely ignoring Bob's statement, by virtual "ellipses" as it were.  Just like Angelus used actual ellipses, the BoDers apply the intellectual ellipses of filtering out the disambiguation using confirmation bias.

Returning to Trent:

Justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum, since Our Lord taught that water AND the Holy Spirit are necessary.

From this passage, Trent immediately goes on to spend several paragraphs explaining how the Holy Spirit inspires the dispositions necessary for justification.  As even Catholic Encyclopedia admits, the translation of votum as "desire" is woefully inadequate (and it's dishonest), since it refers to all the dispositions necessary to receive the Sacrament.

This is the very next paragraph after the passage that's always taken out of context by the BoDers:

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.

Not only does this refer to the Holy Ghost illuminating the soul toward the process of justification, it explains the intent of what Trent was attempting to teach here, that this process of justification begins with the cooperation of grace with free will (the term votum is linguistically related to the word "to will") moved by the Holy Ghost.

Trent is clearly not teaching here about the alleged "Three Baptisms".  Otherwise you'd expect mention of good old BoB.  No, Trent is teaching about how both the ex opere operato grace of the Sacrament AND the cooperation of the will (votum) are required in the process of justification, with the BEGINNING of the process starting with cooperation of the will with the illumination of the Holy Ghost, and then later saying that justification ITSELF happens, with the Sacrament of Baptism serving as the instrumental cause.

That is ANOTHER argument against the BoDer interpretation.  Also ignored here and being countered by irrelevant chaff.  Logical corollary of the BoDer reading is that justification CAN happen WITHOUT the Sacrament, but as Trent teaches later, this would be heretical, as Trent says that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of "justification itself", distinguished here from the "beginning of ... justification".  So to say that justficiation can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament would be to claim that Trent is contradicting ITS OWN TEACHING.

Finally, if this should be read the BoDer way, then the are no "Three Baptisms".  That would be heretical.  Trent clearly says that justification can't happen without the laver or the votum.  So, to claim, then, as many have tried, that there's a separate BoB that's distinct from and does not reduce to these two, or as St. Alphonsus said, acting "quasi- ex opere operato" would be heretical.  So this whole idea that infants could be saved by BoB (just like that awful example from BoDers of the Holy Innocents), or that there's such a thing as BoB per say ... that would be heretical according to this teaching by Trent.  But then Trent isn't really teaching about the alleged "Three Baptisms", but as we saw when we look at the FULL CONTEXT (something BoDers never do), Trent is teaching, against the Prot errors, that justification begins with the Holy Ghost inspiring the dispositions for Baptism (the beginning of justification) through cooperation of the free will (related to votum), and culminating in justification itself, the instrumental cause of which is the Sacrament of Baptism.  That's it.  Trent is not teaching anything here about so-called BoD.

Even if you believe in BoD, Trent condemns the notion that justification can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism.  Even with BoD, the Sacrament would have to be held as the instrumental cause of said justification.  But the BoDer reading would have Trent saying that justification can happen "WITHOUT" the Sacrament of Baptism.

BoDer reading is completely destroyed, and there's no refutation for this.  Instead we get chaff from the dishonest BoDers, about the Catechism or Pius XII, and personal insults about "echo chambers" and "Manhattan juries".

I guess at least where it comes to the BoDer, I am an echo chamber, because you consistently ignore these very compelling arguments, and don't even attempt an actual refutation of them.  Instead you distract with irrelevant nonsense.  But I'm glad that there may be others of good will paying attention to this threat, as it's irrefutable that Trent is NOT teaching any "Baptism of Desire" ... for the reasons re-explained above.

Another interesting point is that this here is the very end of the "dispositions" or "beginnings" of justification section, before the "justification itself follows", with the Sacrament being the instrumental cause.

finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.

This is a part of the preparation, and "justification itself" comes AFTER this, via Baptism.  According to BoDer theory, justification itself should happen right here with the resolve to receive Baptism.

Why would St. Peter juxtapose this passage from Trent with 2 citations from Church Fathers denying BoD for Catechumens if he interpreted this passage as teaching BoD?  Eh?

St Athansius was “against the world” when he stood up against the Arian heresy.  Is St Peter one of the only post-Trent saints to stand against the BOD folly?  It appears so.  


The fact that St Peter quoted the Church Farhers shows he did his research.  Most people who look at this subject (including St Thomas) simply quote St Augustine (superficially, since he recanted) and move on.  But having a large majority of the Church Fathers being anti-BOD is much, much stronger than a quote from any catechism or the pre-Modernsist, Pope Pius XII.

Church Fathers for the win.