Lad is going to have to explain how his view is  compatible with Trent. That’s the bottom line. He must explain through Trent that his position is consistent or he are in error.

I've spent several pages on this subject during the thread.  Go back and read it instead of hopping on 25+ pages in and then demanding that I repost stuff that I've already explained.  There's zero way that your BoD interpretation of Trent can hold water.  No one refuted my reasoning.

I used to believe in BoD because I thought, "Trent taught it." But then I sat down one day to read all of Trent in Latin (vs. a sentence taken out of context and in misleading English translation) and I thought, "Wait a minute.  There's no BoD here anywhere.  What are they talking about?"  And I re-read it looking for "BoD" but no signs of it were to be found.

But people just beg the question, read BoD into Trent, and then keep repasting it assuming that your interpretation is true.  It's not.  But let's say for a moment that your reading of it is correct.  An honest BoDer here on CI, ByzCat, recognized that Trent is not teaching BoD as required for belief but rather, permitted for belief, effectively saying, "You can't say that Baptism isn't necessary at least in desire without being a heretic."  There's no positive teaching anywhere that positively states that the votum would suffice for justification, no Canon that states, "If anyone says that votum alone without the Sacrament suffices for justification, let him be anathema."  If Trent were teaching the alleged "Three Baptisms," where's the mention of BoB?  In fact, if you read Trent the BoDer way, there's no such thing as BoB.  And, if you read Trent the BoDer way, as an either / or for justification, the logical corollary is that there can be justification WITHOUT Baptism, but that's condemned as heretical by Trent.  So you would have Trent be teaching the same heresy it condemns.  Finally, the proof text that Trent gives for justification would be absurd, making Trent teach, "You can be justified by the laver or the desire, because Christ taught that both water AND the Holy Ghost are necessary for justification."  It's preposterous and these arguments have never been refuted.  You just keep re-pasting Trent while assuming that the BoDer understanding of it is the correct one.  It's not.

I wasn't referring to BoD here, I was asking for an explanation on how your view of non saving Justification is in line with Trent's decree.

What are you babbling about again?  You're reading that justification always saves into Trent.  You read your nonsense into Trent and then claim your distortion of Trent is what Trent taught.

You know exactly what I am "babbling about".

No, I really don't.  If you're talking about initial justification not placing positive obstacles to salvation, that's all it says, not that it suffices for entry into the Kingdom.  St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist also had no obstacles positive obstacles in terms of guilt of sin, but they couldn't enter Heaven regardless.  Not having positive obstacles is not the same thing as having been elevated to the state in which one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  That's my theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of Trent that we're arguing about, but was thrown out there as a distraction from your being unable to refute my arguments..

Are you prepared to denounce St. Alphonsus' theory that temporal punishment can remain after initil justification by BoD?  Because if you don't, then you have nothing to stand on in denouncing my theory either.

No, I really don't.  If you're talking about initial justification not placing positive obstacles to salvation, that's all it says, not that it suffices for entry into the Kingdom.  St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist also had no obstacles positive obstacles in terms of guilt of sin, but they couldn't enter Heaven regardless.  Not having positive obstacles is not the same thing as having been elevated to the state in which one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  That's my theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of Trent that we're arguing about, but was thrown out there as a distraction from your being unable to refute my arguments..

Are you prepared to denounce St. Alphonsus' theory that temporal punishment can remain after initil justification by BoD?  Because if you don't, then you have nothing to stand on in denouncing my theory either.

Yes. I will say now: the way that we are reading it, the quote is erroneous. However ST Alphonsus is not a heretic, so is there a chance we are reading it wrong? Maybe a temporary lapse? All I know is that he is in heaven. 

“That's my theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of Trent that we're arguing about, but was thrown out there as a distraction from your being unable to refute my arguments..” 
- no distraction whatsoever. I cite Trent because Trent spoke infallibly about justification. So now please, USING TRENT, refute the passages that I sent. Trent says that Justification is the infusion of grace whereby a man goes from being an enemy to a friend of God, THE SANCTIFYING GRACE IS INFUSED. 

Here's the sum total of all "evidence" in favor of BoD:

1) youthful speculation of St. Augustine (later retracted)
2) unclear statement from St. Ambrose (where he still says that neither BoD/BoB result in crowning)
3) Innocent II/III opining in its favor (one docuмent is of disputed authenticity, another a letter written to a bishop, not a teaching of his office ... and in a similar letter he promoted a seriously erroneous opinion ... relying on "authority" of Augustine / Ambrose, which is tentative at best -- see above, and ignores the 5-6 Church Fathers who rejected the idea)
4) after a 600-year complete silence about BoD, debate among pre-scholastics (Abelard vs. Hugh of St. Victor), where St. Bernard tentatively sides with Hugh in saying "I'd rather err with Augustine than be right on my own.").  Peter Lombard then goes with that.
5) from there, St. Thomas opines in its favor
6) alleged interpretation of Trent, which IMO was clearly NOT trying to teach BoD and at best left the issue open
7) Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus opine in its favor (without any theological proof, but, for Bellarmine, going with it because the contrary "seems too harsh")
8) theologians who are at the same time undermining/denying EENS jumping on the BoD bandwagon
9) no theological (syllogistic) proof ever offered for BoD, just gratuitous statements along the lines of "yep, BoD"
10) misinterpreted 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is saying nothing more than that Catechumens may received Christian burial (contrary to earlier Church practice)

In order for something to be definable, it has to either ...
1) be known to have been revealed through unanimous dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers (more Fathers reject BoD than tentatively and temporarily accepted it)
2) derive logically and necessarily from other revealed dogma (no theological proof for BoD has ever been produced)

BoD is nothing but pure speculation.

Pope St. Siricius dogmatically condemned it when he wrote that each and every one of those desiring Baptism would lose the Kingdom if they did not receive the Sacrament before they died (here he was urging emergency Baptism for those in danger of death).  Nothing could be more clear.  But somehow this one is ignored by the BoDers, who rely instead on some confusing and dubious nonsense by one or another of the Innocent popes, who also were known to have opined erroneous in various letters about other subjects as well as their reading of BoD into Trent, and there's no evidence that it's there, and certainly no positive statement that it's required belief, but merely leaving it open as a speculative possibility (even if you believe that it had BoD in mind with the votum passage).

Bump. This is good info. Edited the name of Siricius since it was wrong.

Can I get a source on St Augustine's later position on BoD? Will be very helpful.

This is a great article, filled with such quotes.
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

Even Rahner (disappointed) admits that St. Augustine abandoned BoD toward the later part of his life.