Saying that on can recieve Baptism in voto, denies this Canon of Trent below. Baptism in voto, is Baptism without true and natural water, according to your definition.

>> I don't think that's what he's saying man, not exactly.

I think you missed this from earlier in the thread. Also, are you of the opinion that an error or heresy must be specifically addressed to the letter, in order for it to be heresy or error?

>> If so, which seems all but metaphysically certain, then that seems by far to be the vast majority postion, at least "here"; they'll say "no" in one line, then proceed to contradict themselves the next, then shuck and jive by saying you've failed to make a distinction, or invoke "context" or some like rubbish.

>> Sound familiar? It should, for it is the standard weasel word maneuverings of heretics. Save yourself further headaches, and knock the dust off; you're wasting your time. We aren't required to engage in Chinese gymnastics in avoiding rashness; that's the one of the signs that you're dealing with the bad willed again.

I get what you're saying but Lad explains it a bit differently. He says that in order for BOD to not be heretical, one has to say the actual Sacrament is received in voto. This is the idea that not only are the effects received, but also the actual Sacrament itself in voto. He says this is how the necessity of the Sacrament is NOT denied.  The problem is that in order to receive the effects and the Sacrament itself, water is necessary as per the Canon of Trent. Therefore, even though the Sacrament is not denied, it is saying that water is not necessary for Baptism. This is explicitly contrary to the Canon. This is why I'm asking him this question. Am I missing something? Is not saying that the Sacrament can be received in voto, i.e. without water, twisting the words of the Lord in Scripture and contrary to the Canon?