BOD was taught at Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4, and so infallible in that regard as "agree[ing] with past dogmatic statement." So much for the Catechism not being infallible on that point. BOD was not being taught at Trent unless of course you believe a Catholic General Council can contradict itself...Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death… so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].’”Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…”
Also it is against common sense, since desire (alone) cannot justify. In fact desire (alone) cannot even per-dispose a person for justification. In fact all of the pre-dispositions together cannot justify. That is why they are called pre-dispositions. Also, the passage in question says very clearly that it should be understood in accordance with John 3:5 "AS IT IS WRITTEN"
...Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or (aut) a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
The Latin word "aut" is used in an inclusive sense here. It must be to conform with the other dogmatic teachings regarding baptism within the Council of Trent and in general. Here is a dogmatic example of the Latin word "aut" being used in an inclusive
Latin – PASSAGE FROM POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT, DOGMATIC LETTER TO FLAVIAN
“… tu es, inquit, Christus filius dei vivi [Mt. 16:16], nec inmerito beatus est pronuntiatus a domino et a principali petra soliditatem et virtutis traxit et nominis qui per revelationem patris eundem et dei filium est confessus et Christum, quia unum horum sine alio receptum non proderat ad salutem et aequalis erat periculi dominum Iesum Christum aut deum tantummodo sine homine aut sine deo solum hominem credidisse.”
“You are, he said, the Christ, the Son of the Living God [Mt. 16:16], and not undeservedly was he pronounced blessed by the Lord and did he derive from the original Rock [i.e. God] the solid character of both [its] virtue and [its] name, [he] who through the revelation of the Father confessed that the same [i.e. Jesus] was both the Son of God and the Christ, because one of these [truths] received [i.e. admitted] without the other was unprofitable to salvation, and it was of equal danger to have believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was either God only without [being] man or man only without [being] God.”
Obviously you would have to reject both
errors here, or you would fall into heresy.
BOD could be part of the UOM even if some Fathers rejected the idea - if it was taught universally by the pope and the bishops in union with him at some point in time. To be part of the UOM, BOD must have been taught by all, always and everywhere. "At some point in time" doesn't cut it, unless it was taught ex Cathedra (which it was not). Also, all means "all" the Popes and Church Fathers. As I said many Church Fathers rejected the idea. Pope St. Siricius also rejected the idea. It also should be noted that "tolerated" does not mean "taught".
The universality requirement is synchronic, not diachronic. This is just common sense. Otherwise, the Church could never authoritatively and definitively resolve and teach on any issue where the Church Fathers, or its theologians, differed and disputed. I would say, at a minimum, BOD was taught by the UOM via the Roman Catechism.
You don't not know what you are talking about AT ALL
. Because something was taught in the Roman Catechism does not therefore make it part of the UOM. If that was the case the UOM would be fallible (since the Roman Catechism taught heresy) as I showed in my last post. As I said, BOD would have had to have been believed by all, always and everywhere
. BOD most definitely does not fall into this category.
So BOD is part of the UOM, and the "big guns" (St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus) support the view that it was taught infallibly at Trent.
Doctors are fallible. In general their doctrine was considered to be a great benefit to the Church. They were considered to be holy men. This is why they were made saints and doctors. A doctor is not immune from making a heretical proposition (provided he was not in full knowledge of the doctrine in question). There is no Church teaching that says this. Obviously this was a popular opinion during their lives. Certain Fathers at the Council were most likely pushing the idea (which is why this false opinion ended up in post-Trent Catechisms. This one of the reasons why quite a few theologians were inclined to believe the false idea. The fact remains that the Holy Ghost prevented the false theory from being taught at Trent.
You will disagree with me. Fine.
Anyone who knows what UOM actually is, will also disagree with you.
You will go beyond disagreeing with me and say my view is heretical, because "Trent condemns" BOD. Too bad only a few Dimondite Feeneyites know about it. The Church actually made those who taught your "heresy" doctors of its doctrine.
You have a faulty understanding of the UOM and a misguided notion that saints and doctors cannot make a heretical proposition (materially speaking). The basis of your argument is founded on sand (2 errors in particular).
If you're right, so much for the City on the Hill, and the lamp on the lampstand.
The "City on the hill" and "Lamp on the lampstand" proclaim the dogmas and traditions of the Church. Not the false ideas of theologians (even if they are made doctors).