http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul28str.htm

 The Council of Trent itself has always been one of the biggest punches in the stomach for those who would deny BOB and BOD, for it states in no uncertain terms:

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: "In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

    That is clearly meant to be an explicit reference to the laver of regeneration (water baptism, which as such must always use actual and literal water) or its desire (that inner love of God, contrition for sins, and seeking to join the Church Militant by water baptism and to be in subjection thereto on the basis of which a soul would obtain a Baptism of Blood if martyred, or a Baptism of Desire if otherwise prematurely dead for other reasons). In short, the Council Fathers were quite aware of these doctrines and concerned that they should be represented in the very text of the Council. One would think that such a statement, alone, would be enough to make anyone who denies BOB or BOD realize that in so doing they place themselves outside the Church. So the question is, what in the world did the author of the Treatise do to try to explain this definitive text away?

    His first move, no doubt to try to cozy up, however briefly, to Catholics, is to use a little guilt by association, namely by pointing out the obvious that this passage of Trent provides no basis for claiming that all sorts of "Jєωs, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don't desire water baptism." Factually true, but immaterial to the question of BOB and BOD. But there really is no way to link the Catholic doctrines of BOB and BOD with the heresy that everyone who thinks they are doing fine, by whatever religion or none at all, are therefore to be saved, or that Hell is empty, etc.

    Needless to say, I am buying none of this. A valid BOD or BOB would require at least an earnest seeking after God, to do His will whatever that may be (to what extent the person knows and understands), and while there would be room for this love and seeking to be ignorant of the requirement for water baptism, this saving love and seeking absolutely cannot be the leastways opposed to one's getting baptized under any circuмstances. One might as well say that because we say that the Church has permitted husbands and wives to come together physically so as to make children we are thereby saying that the Church condones fornication, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, masturbation, and every other unnatural perversion imaginable, or unimaginable. So don't give me any of this "99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching." I don't care what "99%" do, only what Catholics do who are following the Magisterium.

    His next move is to replace the phrase "except through" with "without." ("This translation however cannot … be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire…"). Like that makes the slightest bit of difference (it makes none). One needs "the laver of regeneration or its desire" in order to be justified. Without that they cannot be justified, so they cannot be justified except through that. I must confess I don't know what the author of the Treatise was intending to do with this supposed difference, since instead of explaining what relevance it could have he instead launches directly into his next move.

    Much is made of the point that John 3:5 is to be read "as it is written." He has turned what is obviously nothing more than a Scriptural reference into some way he is claiming the Scripture is supposed to be read. But this passage of the Council of Trent is making no such demand. However other Papal declarations do make it clear that the passage is to be taken "as written," which is to say that the Sacrament of Baptism can only be performed using actual water. But in point of fact, all Scripture is to be taken "as written," for Scripture is inerrant (infallible). The Church therefore is mandating no special "way" of reading John 3:5 that does not equally apply to all other Scriptures, only pointing out that this reading applies to this Scripture as well (this being placed in the Council of Trent to address certain heresies present then that denied it).

    So go ahead and read John 3:5 exactly "as written," and then having done that, read John 6:53 the same way (actually receiving the Eucharist is fully and exactly as required as actually being baptized in water), Matthew 10:32 (whoever professes Christ before Man, Christ shall profess before the Father, with no requirement that he be baptized in water), and Matthew 16:25 (whoever loses his life for Christ's sake shall find it, with no requirement that he be baptized in water). All of these Scriptures are equally meant to be read exactly "as written," and they are neither in conflict with each other nor with any particle of Catholic doctrine. Every heresy is born of someone taking some isolated Scripture out of context, lifting it up to the status of some "absolute" against which nothing, even other Scriptures with other things to say about the topic, can even be taken into account. Recall how the Watchtower Society similarly attempts to give Ecclesiastes 9:5 a similar status as against numerous Scriptures that indicate an afterlife for all (including an unpleasant one for the wicked).

    The next move is to attempt to redefine the "or" to an "and." ("This translation however cannot … be except through the laver of regeneration or its desire…"). His first illustration is not at all helpful to his cause: "This shower cannot take place without water or the desire for one." A shower can perfectly well take place without a person's desire for one, as anyone who has ever been caught out in the rain can readily attest. And for that matter, in a complete absence of water, the desire for a shower can easily be met by using other cleansing agents (such as those "handy-wipes"). Therefore, one does not need both water and the desire for a shower to get clean. His second illustration seems closer to his purposes since indeed, "There cannot be a wedding without a bride or a groom." But in this case the proper wording would be "There cannot be a wedding without a bride and a groom," or "There cannot be a wedding without a bride or without a groom." The illustrations featured in the Treatise from Papal declarations similarly do nothing to advance his cause:

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life…

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: "… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree."

    Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: "Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church."

    The author of the Treatise would actually seem to be recommending replacing the "or" within each of the above three quotes (as well as in the one he objects to) with an "and." Let's see what would happen if this substitution were to be made. In the first quote it would now be saying that a person would have to be (simultaneously) a pagan, a Jєω, a heretic, and a schismatic in order to be someone who "cannot share in eternal life." I'd like to see how anyone but a theological contortionist would be able to manage that! With the second quote, it would evidently be OK to do any one or two of "believe, preach or teach" otherwise, so long as you didn't do all three ("believe, preach and teach" otherwise). With the case of the third quote it would have to be OK to either change or repudiate the law as long as you didn't do both. Can there be any real question as to why the standard translations of these papal declarations have always used the word "or"? Any single one of the alternatives listed with the "or" alone is enough to be what is being spoken of, and similarly the laver of regeneration or its desire is enough to achieve justification.

    In pages 281-282, the Treatise mentions that Fr. Feeney (in obvious agreement with the Council of Trent) had to accept that those with a desire to be baptized (and presumably all that that would imply) could also be justified. (Fr.'s only "out" had been the patently absurd claim that just because a person is justified, and even dies such, persevering faithfully to the end, he still would not be necessarily saved, since he wouldn't be saved if he hadn't been baptized in water.) Why would Fr. Feeney have held to such an interpretation of the Council of Trent, unless, being trained in Latin as a priest he knew how to read (and had read) in the original Latin, and with the understanding of one acquainted with the language, what it really says and means. Can the writer of the Treatise claim to be a superior Latinist to Fr. Feeney (or any other priest for that matter)? We need not wait long for the answer. The Treatise continues with "an interesting email regarding this passage of Trent."

    Uncertain of what the true meaning of the Latin word "aut" means, he emailed a Latin Scholar to ask how this word should be translated, and whether it could be translated as "and" or must be translated as "or" (the nature of his question as framed made it clear to the Latin Scholar that he favored "and" over "or"). The bare fact of his having to do such a thing shows him to be no expert Latinist himself, and his attempts to pontificate upon the details of a language with which he is this unfamiliar (since he clearly does not trust any of the existing translations) can only be described as being embarrassing at best. The Latin Scholar responds:

    This is not easy! It is possible to make sense of it in both ways, with aut as 'or' and as 'and'. "Aut as 'or' is more common, but here the interpretation depends on whether you think that the desire for baptism is enough on its own or whether the phrase signifies that you need the desire as well as the sacrament itself. I'll leave it to you to decide!

    I wonder how many Latin Scholars he had to write to in order to get a response even this accommodating! The Scholar says that it "depends on whether you think…" and "I'll leave it to you to decide!" That hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement of his unique translation of the passage in Trent. The very tone of this response seems to say "since you really don't care what it says I am not about to be the one to attempt to undeceive you; go ahead and believe whatever you want since nothing I say can change your mind." Even so, the "hint" is still given, "Aut as 'or' is more common." In other words, "aut" is "or," unless you really want it to be something else, and then it can be whatever you want.

 This is shown again later in this quote in that it is "faith" and not the "sacrament of baptism," without which no man was ever justified. For if no man could be justified without receiving the sacrament of baptism himself personally, then this passage should have mentioned it so, saying something like "the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without either of which no man was ever justified. It is faith that most counts here, and the previous section regarding preparation for baptism shows that even the new catechumen is believed by the Church to have faith. He also has hope and love, which shows in those cases of the infusion of the gift of the Holy Ghost operative in a soul even before water baptism. And yet even here the Council of Trent is not through speaking of this subject:

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Canon 9: "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Canon 4 (Canons on the Sacraments in General): If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."

    In the first of these two quotes, though the Protestant notion of salvation by "faith alone" is explicitly condemned, but notice that it does not recommend faith plus water baptism to be saved, but rather faith plus a disposition to cooperate with grace (which disposition would bring one to water baptism in the ordinary course of things).

    The second quote mentions again the "desire for" the sacraments (including baptism) as did the other quote, and once again all translators have used the word "or" where (no doubt) the Treatise would have us read "and." It is quite obviously building on the theme of the earlier statement that "This translation however cannot … be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire…," and again reiterating the Trent Father's teaching that the Sacraments, or desire for same (where legitimately not possible or available) are each necessary and sufficient.

    This link is conspicuously ignored in some five pages full of various sorts of legerdemain to try to explain it away and reduce its meaning to a nullity. Indeed, the Treatise separates the discussion of this passage by removing it to the next section, as though it were to be treated as something different and separate, thus showing an attempt to diminish the cuмulative effect of the two passages from Trent. Interestingly the Treatise in this case does not even attempt to push the unique translation of the Latin on the reader, but instead takes the tack of pretending that the Council of Trent sought only to condemn error instead of also teaching truth.

    The question is put forth as to why the Council would stress repeatedly that such desire for Penance would substitute for the Sacrament where it isn't available, the same isn't done for Baptism? But the answer is perfectly trivial and unremarkable for all that. The Council was specifically addressed to the various Protestant heresies being circulated at that time. The Council Fathers could only address the things actually heard, or reasonably predicted by them, which latter category leaves much room for Protestants to cook up many absurd and heretical claims in the long years after Trent closed, and which Trent itself would therefore have failed to address to such a degree.

    Even so, justification by the desire for baptism is mentioned in the above quoted passages. These mentionings may have been rather glancing, but there is no room to doubt that the Trent Fathers believed and taught Baptism of Blood and Desire. All the "spin" in the world is not going to completely eliminate the plain sense of the text, which is precisely why these objections from the Council of Trent are raised again and again against the denials of BOB and BOD. The attempts to explain away these passages from the Council of Trent, as contained in the Treatise, are frankly creative, but have no sound basis in any valid textual hermeneutic. They are exactly on the level of the Watchtower's attempt to explain away the Rich Man suffering in Hades as a mere parable. If such a reading were actually meant to be what was being said at Trent, where are the theological commentators regarding the Council of Trent who favor such interpretations? Surely, there would have to have been at least a few, or at least one, prior to the rise of this anti-BOB and anti-BOD error/heresy of the mid-twentieth Century! But no such commentators can be found, clear up until the Treatise itself, since even Fr. Feeney himself never subscribed to them.

From my thread "BODers Think in a Vacuum":

Bowler, not all dogmas are definitions. You require a definition, and thus you feel free to deny any truth not defined. That's precisely the error condemned by Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter.

Furthermore, NOBODY has ever noticed what you claim to have discovered.

Show us a source.