 | vaticancatholic.com - English Channel |
Faith & Doctrine | The Seven Sacraments | Traditional Catholic Issues Bro. Peter Dimond Something interesting came up that's relevant to the baptism issue and we wanted to briefly discuss it in this video. A supporter of “baptism of desire” (or “BOD”) tried to respond to our argument about Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent and in the process he wound up just further proving our point and refuting himself. Those who follow this topic will find this interesting. As we explain in our videos called The Most Misunderstood Catholic Decree and The Council of Trent Did Not Teach Baptism of Desire, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent definitely does not teach baptism of desire, contrary to how many people have misunderstood the passage.
Rather, it teaches that justification cannot take place “without” (sine) the laver of regeneration or without a desire for it, “as it is written” John 3:5. That does not mean that one suffices without the other. It actually means that if either water baptism or the desire for it is missing, justification does not happen. That means both are required. In the Latin, the word sine (meaning “without”) applies grammatically to both the words lavacro and voto. Hence, to properly understand the passage you must distribute the “without” to both lavacro and voto. To absolutely confirm the point that it’s not teaching that anyone can be saved without baptism, the very same sentence of Trent ends with an assertion of John 3:5 “as it is written”. That is not at all compatible with the idea of baptism of desire, for “BOD” posits that some people can be saved who are not born again of water and the Spirit. It’s really absurd to say the Council would be teaching that some men can be saved without being born of water, “as is it written, unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot be saved”. No, that’s not what Trent was teaching. In fact, it’s correct to say that that sentence declares that everyone must be born of water AND the Spirit to be saved (using the word ‘et’). Hence, a supposed rebirth of Spirit without water does not suffice; it must be of “water and the Spirit”. So, the language and logic of the passage, as well as the statement about John 3:5, demonstrate that it’s not teaching “baptism of desire”. There are many other points and arguments covered in our videos, but now to the new point. A supporter of “BOD” tried to respond to our argument on this matter by giving an example from a council, but the example he provided just further proved our point and refuted his position. AN EXAMPLE FROM THE FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL He cited the Fifth Lateran council, which says:
That prepositional phrase, “without exception or delay”, is similar to what we find in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent. They both contain the preposition sine (meaning “without”), followed by a noun the ablative case, followed by the word “or” in Latin, and then followed by another noun in the ablative case. The difference is that in this passage the word is vel (which can mean “or”), while in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent the word is aut (which also means “or”). But as we’ve shown in our videos, the uses of vel and aut are not rigid in Latin. Contrary to the myth, the words aut and vel can be used inclusively or exclusively depending upon the context. John 3:8 in the Vulgate is just one example out of many to demonstrate that the Latin word aut can be used inclusively. In this passage of the Fifth Lateran Council, the sine (meaning “without”) applies to both the words (exceptione, meaning “exception”) and mora (meaning “delay”), because they are both in the ablative case and sine takes the ablative. The “BOD” supporter who cited this passage even admits that fact by acknowledging that the word mora is also governed by sine. Note that here sine is understood to govern or apply to both words even though the word sine is not repeated. That’s because both nouns are in the ablative. The same applies to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent. Now, what does this passage of the Fifth Lateran Council mean? Let’s quote the key part again: It’s about how restoration must be made.
Does that mean that restoration is permitted where only one of the two is present? No, it doesn’t. It clearly means that the restoration must be both 1) without exception and 2) without delay. The obvious meaning and undeniable logic of this passage is that since restoration must be without exception or without delay, if either one is missing there’s no true restoration. Hence, both are required. It would be absurd to argue that the council is permitting restoration that is partial or if it is without delay. No, it must be both without exception (i.e. complete) and without delay; and that was taught by using sine, followed by a noun in the ablative, followed by the word “or”, and then another noun in the ablative (without repeating the word sine). The exact same thing applies to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent. There sine is followed by a noun in the ablative case (lavacro), the word “or”, and then another noun in the ablative case. It likewise means that if either the laver or the desire for it is lacking, justification does not happen. Hence, both are required; and the word sine didn’t have to be repeated because grammatically it applies to both lavacro and voto, just like the word sine in the passage from the Fifth Lateran Council applied grammatically to both exceptione and mora. So, this passage from the Fifth Lateran Council not only does refute our position, it provides a striking example from a council that we are correct, and that the sine didn’t have to be repeated in order for it to apply individually to both nouns, if they are in the ablative case. Hence, the “BOD” supporter refuted his own position with this example and further proved our position. He is quite confused and doesn’t even understand the logic of the argument. A POWERFUL EXAMPLE FROM A DOMINICAN PROVINCIAL COUNCIL IN DUBLIN, IRELAND Let’s now consider another example that proves our point. This example contains the Latin word ‘aut’ used with sine. This is a canon from an official Dominican Provincial Council that took place in Dublin, Ireland, on June 9, 1724.
Here we have, once again, the preposition sine, followed by a noun in the ablative case (mora), followed by the word aut (meaning “or” – the very same word used in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent,) and then followed by another noun in the ablative case (tergiversatione), meaning “evasion”. Just like in the other passages from Lateran V and Trent, the sine applies grammatically to both nouns in the ablative case. The canon states that the person elected must proceed to the convent “without delay or any evasion”. Does that mean that one is sufficient without the other? No, of course not. It obviously does not mean that one is permitted to proceed to the convent with a delay as long as there’s no evasion or vice versa. Rather, it means that the person must proceed both 1) without delay and 2) without any evasion. Both are required, because if there’s either a delay or any evasion the command is violated. That was taught by the provincial council by using the word sine, followed by a noun in the ablative, followed by the word aut (“or”), and then another noun in the ablative. The exact same thing applies to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, which teaches that if either one is missing justification does not happen. Thus, both are required (“as it is written” – John 3:5). And the word sine didn’t have to be repeated because grammatically it applies to both nouns. So this is another striking example that further proves our point about the true meaning and understanding of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent. The example also contains the Latin word aut. The fact is that many dogmatic arguments prove that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. See our playlist on salvation and baptism for much more. Copyright © 2026 Most Holy Family Monastery |
These Latin Passages Illuminate The Truth About A Controversial Issue
May 22, 2026
SHOW MORE
