CathInfo.com

After re-thinking about the argument we had over baptism of desire and what Trent's council says, I decided to check the latin from Trent's council.

The argument used by feyneites is that Trent's council says that the sentence from Trent's council means we need both baptism and the desire of baptism to be baptised. They argue that after all, an adult cannot be baptised against their consent, since it'd make baptism invalid.

The usual interpretation of Trent's council is that to be saved we need baptism OR we need the desire of baptism. That's the interpretation that people who push for BOD think is correct.

To verify which interpretation is correct, here's the latin :

Trent council says :

"C. iv. Quibus verbis justificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut si translatio… Quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto, fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est : Nisi quis renatus fuerit exaqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei."

Trent council says "aut" which means OR it does not mean and. That means, we need either baptism OR the desire of baptism, we do not need baptism AND the desire of baptism.

If Trent's council wanted to say that we needed both, it would use the word "et" not "aut".

So, just the desire is sufficient for the Sacrament?

This reminds me of the Jєωιѕн mockery of a Catholic Baptism.

They've historically postured and mocked us saying that even a drowning jew could access the Sacrament by merely wishing it. 



Father Feeney's discernment of the weakness of Catholic's and their Sacramental identity influenced him to confront these false ecuмenical claims and mockeries.

If you can’t at least admit he said one thing and then a contrary thing, you’re just not honest.