Quote from: Lover of Truth

Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

You can paste this all you want, but it doesn't say what you claim it does.  Would you like me to lay this out for you again, for the hundreth time here on CI?  This teaches that BOTH the Sacrament and the votum (not just desire, but all the proper dispositions required for Baptism) are required to enter into a state of justification.  This is clear not only from the immediate context but several of the Tridentine Canons.

This teaches that BOTH the laver AND the desire are necessary.

In and of itself to say that one cannot be justified without the Sacrament OR the the votum can be ambiguous.  It can mean that one or the other suffices or else that both are required.

"You cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball."  This can mean either that one can play with EITHER or that one cannot play if either is missing ... if you didn't now anything about baseball.  Now what if you say, "You cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, because John told me that you need a ball and a bat to play."

Now look at the passage in Trent.  Trent used the descriptive term "laver" to describe the Sacrament because it gives you the image of water.  Then it uses the Scripture that follows to back this statement, where Our Lord referred to water.  So laver is to water what votum is to Holy Ghost.  Trent had just spent several paragraphs describing how the Holy Ghost inspired all the proper predispositions for justification in the subject.

So let's look at it again, "One cannot enter into justification without water or desire, because Jesus taught that water and desire are necessary for salvation."  But you claim this means that either suffice when Jesus taught that both are necessary.

If you can convince me that the expression  "You cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, because John told me that you need a ball and a bat to play." means that I can still play baseball if I have one or the other, then you can convince me that Trent taught BoD.

You will find Canons in Trent, furthermore, that explicitly condemn the notion that one can be "magically" justified by reception of the Sacrament without also the cooperation of the will (a word linguistically derived from the same root as votum).

This was meant to teach the cooperation of the free will with the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament ... against the Protestant heresies and NOT to define or promote BoD, to elevate this speculative idea to the level of dogma.

Case closed.

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Yes Trent did teach BOD.  Clearly.  This goes against what Ladislaus wants to believe and he knows he cannot contradict Trent so he simply says "Trent did not teach it."  Brilliant.  :heretic:

Whoa!  Where does Trent teach Baptism of Desire?

Nowhere.

I disagree with those who say that Trent taught Baptism of Desire. But to me it seems that the Catechism of the Council of Trent does kind of teach it. The Catechism says that sometimes Catechumens who believe in the mysteries of faith can be justified without the sacrament if they die without having the chance to be baptized. It does not use the phrase baptism of desire though. I have read it in the Catechism myself. And I have heard from some people that it was only in the latter editions of the Catechism and that in the first edition it is not there. But in a video by Father Jenkins (you can go to the youtube user WCBohio and watch the Catechism video on the Sacrament of Baptism) he says that he read a first edition of the Catechism in Latin and he says it is there and he reads it in Latin and then in English. So I believe Father Jenkins that the first edition of the Catechism does say Catechumens could be justified without the sacrament.

I don't understand how this can be reconciled with the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. That is a mystery to me.

Both teach it:

Quote

Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

What is the kind of about it.  Do you disagree with Saint Alphonsus Liguori who based upon the Council of Trent teaches that BOD is de fide and prefer the likes of Ladislaus and the Dimonds instead?

Excellent!  Sources instead of ipse dixits.  :applause:

I trust how catechisms, theologians, Saints, Doctors including Bellarmine and Alphonsus, and the Popes interpret it.  That should be sufficient for any good willed Catholic.  How dare you pretend they are all wrong and you are correct.  At least, for the sake of your soul, don't make it worse on yourself by publicizing your preferred heretical beliefs.  I mean this most sincerely.  You will have to answer.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Excellent!  Sources instead of ipse dixits.  :applause:

On a scale of 1 to 10 --

Cut-and-Paste Ability - 10
Ability to Argue from Reason - 0
Basic Reading Comprehension - 2
Contempt for EENS - 8
Sincerity in Seeking the Truth - 1