FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Another EENS, please be patient...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(06-07-2011, 07:34 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2011, 04:26 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]Baptism of desire is an exception, a substitute God provides under exceptional circumstances.  As an exception it is not always mentioned everywhere baptism of water is mentioned - e.g. in the Creed.

Question #1) Please describe what an "exceptional circumstance" is to God.

Question #2) Also I am asking for you to describe any event whatsoever that God has not foreseen from all eternity.

Folks who adhere to BOD seem to think that there can actually be such a thing as an unforeseen event, circumstance or accident with God - as though He either makes an "oops!" or He would unjustly snatch a sincere person from this earth before that person can get baptized. What is undeniable is that those in the BOD camp make human reason prevail over faith, and the human laws of probability / possibility over the Providence of God.

I agree with Fr. Feeney when he says that "there is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."

BOD, IMO, forgets, denies or perverts Divine Providence all together. The undeniable realty is, that it is no more difficult for God to supply water and a minister than it is for Him to change His law and allow one to slip into salvation via a "good intention". (Whatever happened to "the road to hell is paved with good intentions?) Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?


(06-06-2011, 04:26 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]Denying baptism of desire is denying one manifestation of God's mercy.  It is also denying God's justice - He does not condemn a man to eternal torment who has no original sin, and who dies in the state of sanctifying grace. It is by God's unfailing goodness and justice - not by a binding power over Him - that He does good to those who are good, and gives punishment only to those who are evil. 

Actually, by denying bod, one supports the dogma on baptism which has been defined infallibly numerous times. 
God is not bound by His own laws and I don't think that is in question whatsoever, it is we who are bound by His laws - when He said "water", we'd be foolish to think He would deny anyone water who was truly in need of it - regardless of circumstance that we perceive to be "exceptional".

IMO what absolutely and positively would prove to be an exceptional circumstance, would be for anyone who has never even had any of the Sacraments to actually make a perfect act of love or contrition. Should such an exceptional event occur, there is no way for anyone to know if the act was perfect..........yet BOD folks judge - not only that the act to be perfect, but also in their false usurpation of the presumption of Divine justice, they also grant salvation based on this act which they assume is certainly perfect, regardless of the fact that they could in no way know if it was perfect.

The fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.

Stubborn,

(Sorry for not addressing your points one by one)

God foresees all things.  Nothing is impossible for God.

But God ALLOWS things to be IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN.  He ALLOWS even human probabilities to take effect in most cases.  (Miracles are themselves exceptions) He allows there to be exceptional cases, not because He cannot do something but because He allows them to be exceptional FOR MAN. Because something is possible for God, doesn't mean that He will always do it.

God commands us to attend Mass on Sundays.  It is a mortal sin to not do so. That is a fact.  But if God sees it is impossible FOR US,  we do not commit a mortal sin.  It is an exception.  But following  your logic, God WILL make it possible for us, so that if it seems to be impossible we have just not prayed enough, or have most certainly have done something in our past life for which we are now being punished.  It will be a mortal sin because God allows no exceptions.  We will be pretty certain that others have sinned because they didn't go to church.  Or else we have to will charitably assume that probably God miraculously transported them to Mass, or Mass to them.

But this is not right. God ALLOWS circumstances that can prevent us from fulfilling His commands - the ones that involve physical things.  He does not ALWAYS work miracles in this case.  There is no "oops" for God here.  There is no"accident", or "unforeseen event".  Bot God chooses to permit these things for reasons that  He  knows. We can not say - I know the reason, the human impossiblity must be due to the man's sin, or there must be a miracle we are not seeing!

What God ALWAYS requires is our internal obedience and love.  This does not require physical miracles, but rather the internal workings of His grace (far greater than any physical miracle). (But there is no working of grace if a man neglects to follow commands that are POSSIBLE)
==============

All that God can do without baptism of desire, He can do with it.  Of course He can work miracles (physical miracles bringing water) if He chooses.  But baptism of desire allows Him to work by His grace, rather than by water and a physical miracle, in the case of a impossiblity for a man that God allows.  There is here no opposition to the truth that we are more value than than the birds of the air. There is here no denial of Divine Providence . Quite the contrary.

God doesn't allow anyone to slip into salvation via a good intention, when good intention means a vague irresolute wish.  We often use "intention" this way, the road to hell is paved with such "good intentions". But the intention that is "perfect charity" means rather "loving God with your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind and your whole strength".  There is no "slipping into salvation" this way.  God know what is truly in our heart, it's not just what we think is there.

It is absolutely true that no one can know for sure if an act of charity is perfect. No one knows that God has given him baptism of desire (sanctifying grace).  That is one reason why the Sacrament of Baptism is required for everyone; there is no "stopping" at (an unknown) baptism of desire. An act of perfect charity is a huge exception.  But to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE is to limit the power of God. God CAN bring water, but He CAN also bring a soul to perfect charity.  The fact that man can have a presumptuous usurpation of God's justice and mercy is man's fault, not a refutation  of God's use of Baptism of Desire.

"Stubborn" Wrote:The fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.

The Church has a suspicion of anyone presuming that they have made a perfect act of charity,  both because it is a major exception, and because it can't be known for certain. But the Church says of Penance that
"Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chap 4" Wrote:...it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it
====
There remains (at least)  the idea that God bound Himself to the Sacrament of Baptism.  By bind, I just mean promised that He would always bring water for anyone who He knew was worthy of baptism.  The issue is not whether He COULD bring water, but whether he PROMISED to do so because otherwise some men would be unable to perform His command to be baptized by water.

I will leave that for later post(s).
(06-08-2011, 07:48 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-07-2011, 07:34 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2011, 04:26 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]Baptism of desire is an exception, a substitute God provides under exceptional circumstances.  As an exception it is not always mentioned everywhere baptism of water is mentioned - e.g. in the Creed.

Question #1) Please describe what an "exceptional circumstance" is to God.

Question #2) Also I am asking for you to describe any event whatsoever that God has not foreseen from all eternity.

Folks who adhere to BOD seem to think that there can actually be such a thing as an unforeseen event, circumstance or accident with God - as though He either makes an "oops!" or He would unjustly snatch a sincere person from this earth before that person can get baptized. What is undeniable is that those in the BOD camp make human reason prevail over faith, and the human laws of probability / possibility over the Providence of God.

I agree with Fr. Feeney when he says that "there is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."

BOD, IMO, forgets, denies or perverts Divine Providence all together. The undeniable realty is, that it is no more difficult for God to supply water and a minister than it is for Him to change His law and allow one to slip into salvation via a "good intention". (Whatever happened to "the road to hell is paved with good intentions?) Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?


(06-06-2011, 04:26 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]Denying baptism of desire is denying one manifestation of God's mercy.  It is also denying God's justice - He does not condemn a man to eternal torment who has no original sin, and who dies in the state of sanctifying grace. It is by God's unfailing goodness and justice - not by a binding power over Him - that He does good to those who are good, and gives punishment only to those who are evil. 

Actually, by denying bod, one supports the dogma on baptism which has been defined infallibly numerous times. 
God is not bound by His own laws and I don't think that is in question whatsoever, it is we who are bound by His laws - when He said "water", we'd be foolish to think He would deny anyone water who was truly in need of it - regardless of circumstance that we perceive to be "exceptional".

IMO what absolutely and positively would prove to be an exceptional circumstance, would be for anyone who has never even had any of the Sacraments to actually make a perfect act of love or contrition. Should such an exceptional event occur, there is no way for anyone to know if the act was perfect..........yet BOD folks judge - not only that the act to be perfect, but also in their false usurpation of the presumption of Divine justice, they also grant salvation based on this act which they assume is certainly perfect, regardless of the fact that they could in no way know if it was perfect.

The fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.

Stubborn,

(Sorry for not addressing your points one by one)

God foresees all things.  Nothing is impossible for God.

But God ALLOWS things to be IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN.  He ALLOWS even human probabilities to take effect in most cases.  (Miracles are themselves exceptions) He allows there to be exceptional cases, not because He cannot do something but because He allows them to be exceptional FOR MAN. Because something is possible for God, doesn't mean that He will always do it.

God commands us to attend Mass on Sundays.  It is a mortal sin to not do so. That is a fact.  But if God sees it is impossible FOR US,  we do not commit a mortal sin.  It is an exception.  But following  your logic, God WILL make it possible for us, so that if it seems to be impossible we have just not prayed enough, or have most certainly have done something in our past life for which we are now being punished.  It will be a mortal sin because God allows no exceptions.  We will be pretty certain that others have sinned because they didn't go to church.  Or else we have to will charitably assume that probably God miraculously transported them to Mass, or Mass to them.

But this is not right. God ALLOWS circumstances that can prevent us from fulfilling His commands - the ones that involve physical things.  He does not ALWAYS work miracles in this case.  There is no "oops" for God here.  There is no"accident", or "unforeseen event".  Bot God chooses to permit these things for reasons that  He  knows. We can not say - I know the reason, the human impossiblity must be due to the man's sin, or there must be a miracle we are not seeing!

What God ALWAYS requires is our internal obedience and love.  This does not require physical miracles, but rather the internal workings of His grace (far greater than any physical miracle). (But there is no working of grace if a man neglects to follow commands that are POSSIBLE)
==============

All that God can do without baptism of desire, He can do with it.  Of course He can work miracles (physical miracles bringing water) if He chooses.  But baptism of desire allows Him to work by His grace, rather than by water and a physical miracle, in the case of a impossiblity for a man that God allows.  There is here no opposition to the truth that we are more value than than the birds of the air. There is here no denial of Divine Providence . Quite the contrary.

God doesn't allow anyone to slip into salvation via a good intention, when good intention means a vague irresolute wish.  We often use "intention" this way, the road to hell is paved with such "good intentions". But the intention that is "perfect charity" means rather "loving God with your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind and your whole strength".  There is no "slipping into salvation" this way.  God know what is truly in our heart, it's not just what we think is there.

It is absolutely true that no one can know for sure if an act of charity is perfect. No one knows that God has given him baptism of desire (sanctifying grace).  That is one reason why the Sacrament of Baptism is required for everyone; there is no "stopping" at (an unknown) baptism of desire. An act of perfect charity is a huge exception.  But to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE is to limit the power of God. God CAN bring water, but He CAN also bring a soul to perfect charity.  The fact that man can have a presumptuous usurpation of God's justice and mercy is man's fault, not a refutation  of God's use of Baptism of Desire.

"Stubborn" Wrote:The fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.

The Church has a suspicion of anyone presuming that they have made a perfect act of charity,  both because it is a major exception, and because it can't be known for certain. But the Church says of Penance that
"Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chap 4" Wrote:...it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it
====
There remains (at least)  the idea that God bound Himself to the Sacrament of Baptism.  By bind, I just mean promised that He would always bring water for anyone who He knew was worthy of baptism.  The issue is not whether He COULD bring water, but whether he PROMISED to do so because otherwise some men would be unable to perform His command to be baptized by water.

I will leave that for later post(s).

I wish those clerics would get up from their comfortable sofas, stop sipping their hot tea, stop watching television, stop eating popcorn and go out and preach and baptize pagans and heathens.  Instead of imitating Charlie Sheen in "Two and a Hal Men" they should go out and baptize people in imitation of  St. Francis Xavier.  That's why we pay them church dues, fees and tithes for anyway!
The scriptures indicate they could. St. Paul SPECIFICALLY says that the gospel is hidden from those who are reprobate: in other words, those who do not hear the word of God are kept from it because of their sinfulness.

2 Cor. 4: 1-5

[1] Therefore, seeing we have this ministration, according as we have obtained mercy, we faint not; [2] But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God. [3] And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, [4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. [5] For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus.

The gospel is hidden from those who are lost, i.e. the reprobate. THose whom God has chosen not to save do not hear the gospel. AS Christ himself said in

John 8:47  "47He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God."

Those do not hear the gospel wouldn't believe it anyway. Unless you are saying God is bound by our circumstances. Can he not furnish the one and only true faith for those who would truly believe? But you say some do not hear? I say they would never believe. And so does the scripture. They are condemned for their sinfulness, and as a PUNISHMENT they are left in ignorance- "Whom the god of this world hath blinded..."

Don't get too hung up on hypothetical circumstances. If there is a truly sincere person really seeking God, God will find a way to furnish them with the true faith. He will not allow those who love him to be separated from him. But he will also not revoke his word. He never has, and he never will.

"Unless you are born of water and of the spirit, you CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven."
(06-09-2011, 02:26 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]The scriptures indicate they could. St. Paul SPECIFICALLY says that the gospel is hidden from those who are reprobate: in other words, those who do not hear the word of God are kept from it because of their sinfulness.

2 Cor. 4: 1-5

[1] Therefore, seeing we have this ministration, according as we have obtained mercy, we faint not; [2] But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God. [3] And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, [4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. [5] For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus.

The gospel is hidden from those who are lost, i.e. the reprobate. THose whom God has chosen not to save do not hear the gospel. AS Christ himself said in

John 8:47  "47He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God."

Those do not hear the gospel wouldn't believe it anyway. Unless you are saying God is bound by our circumstances. Can he not furnish the one and only true faith for those who would truly believe? But you say some do not hear? I say they would never believe. And so does the scripture. They are condemned for their sinfulness, and as a PUNISHMENT they are left in ignorance- "Whom the god of this world hath blinded..."

Don't get too hung up on hypothetical circumstances. If there is a truly sincere person really seeking God, God will find a way to furnish them with the true faith. He will not allow those who love him to be separated from him. But he will also not revoke his word. He never has, and he never will.

"Unless you are born of water and of the spirit, you CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven."


You have a point.  What bothers me is that the Church has no missionaries going anywhere.  They just lie around, sipping coffee, going to judo or dancing classes, on co-ed field trips and picnics, visiting with fellow buddists for some yoga exercises... you know what I mean? 
(06-08-2011, 07:48 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]But God ALLOWS things to be IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN.  He ALLOWS even human probabilities to take effect in most cases.  (Miracles are themselves exceptions) He allows there to be exceptional cases, not because He cannot do something but because He allows them to be exceptional FOR MAN. Because something is possible for God, doesn't mean that He will always do it.

I do understand your point - and I must disagree lol - what else is new? :laughing: The Doctrine of Divine Providence becomes meaningless or mis-applied completely when it comes to BOD.

Q.) What is a miracle to God? A.) Nothing at all.

Luke 11:11 And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?

God could easily sustain birds without food, also sincere persons without bread or fish or egg, - but He simply does not do that..........same as any earthly father, out of love, He *ALWAYS* gives us what we sincerely seek provided in aids our salvation and we sincerely seek. He created food for us to eat - or we will surely die.

God could also submit Himself subject to circumstances which He Himself created, but then, He would have to create such circumstances  purposely -  for no other reason than so that we humans could say such situations are "exceptional" or "impossible" or "accidental"................If that is so, then where is this teaching found - or even implied anywhere in Scripture, tradition or the Doctrine of Divine Providence?

For me, the arguments regarding God's command of keeping Holy the Lord's day also falls under the same results that the Doctrine of Divine Providence dictate. Note that I prefaced the above sentence with "for me" because  without going into detail, I can personally testify that against all odds, God will effortlessly provide the Holy Sacrifice to anyone who sincerely seeks it.........it may take many years, but the sincere person will get what he seeks provided the person is sincere.

Same goes for baptism. God *could* reward salvation without it, but He simply does not and should not be expected to ever work that way - even in the case of certainly "innocent" newborns. The only ones in the NT who could have attained salvation without baptism were Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother - yet even they were baptized because they subjected themselves according to God's Law  - no one has proclaimed that we are not subject to the same law. No one has proclaimed any proviso to God's law, that God could not provide the very baptism He instituted .............whatever our circumstances.
(06-09-2011, 10:29 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-08-2011, 07:48 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]But God ALLOWS things to be IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN.  He ALLOWS even human probabilities to take effect in most cases.  (Miracles are themselves exceptions) He allows there to be exceptional cases, not because He cannot do something but because He allows them to be exceptional FOR MAN. Because something is possible for God, doesn't mean that He will always do it.

I do understand your point - and I must disagree lol - what else is new? :laughing: The Doctrine of Divine Providence becomes meaningless or mis-applied completely when it comes to BOD.

Q.) What is a miracle to God? A.) Nothing at all.

Luke 11:11 And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?

God could easily sustain birds without food, also sincere persons without bread or fish or egg, - but He simply does not do that..........same as any earthly father, out of love, He *ALWAYS* gives us what we sincerely seek provided in aids our salvation and we sincerely seek. He created food for us to eat - or we will surely die.

God could also submit Himself subject to circumstances which He Himself created, but then, He would have to create such circumstances  purposely -  for no other reason than so that we humans could say such situations are "exceptional" or "impossible" or "accidental"................If that is so, then where is this teaching found - or even implied anywhere in Scripture, tradition or the Doctrine of Divine Providence?

For me, the arguments regarding God's command of keeping Holy the Lord's day also falls under the same results that the Doctrine of Divine Providence dictate. Note that I prefaced the above sentence with "for me" because  without going into detail, I can personally testify that against all odds, God will effortlessly provide the Holy Sacrifice to anyone who sincerely seeks it.........it may take many years, but the sincere person will get what he seeks provided the person is sincere.

Same goes for baptism. God *could* reward salvation without it, but He simply does not and should not be expected to ever work that way - even in the case of certainly "innocent" newborns. The only ones in the NT who could have attained salvation without baptism were Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother - yet even they were baptized because they subjected themselves according to God's Law  - no one has proclaimed that we are not subject to the same law. No one has proclaimed any proviso to God's law, that God could not provide the very baptism He instituted .............whatever our circumstances.

I still want to know why those lazy clerics don't go on baptizing missions.  Look at the Protestants!  These b............ go everywhere, baptizing all over the world.  That's why Protestantism is growing faster.  Please, Stubborn, tell your lazy missionaries to get to work!  Thank you!
You know if you think of the fact that none of this occurs outside of God's view, then we should accept that this is simply the way it is. What did Christ himself say:

"When the son of Man comes, do you think he will find faith upon the earth?"

THe answer to that is an implied no...

Consider though, every missionary reaching a foreign people is the hand of God at work in those people's lives. It is a miracle in a sense that God would furnish anyone to come to America and bring the gospel to the Native Americans. I mean, look at it from their perspective. And it was because that they were ready, their hearts were softened. But if God is not allowing missionaries to get other places, for WHATEVER reason, he has allowed this too.

So we must simply conclude that those people are not ready for the gospel because they are hardened in their sinfulness. When God deals with these people as a PEOPLE, then the gospel will be proclaimed. That seems pretty scriptural to me anyway.
(06-09-2011, 11:16 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]You know if you think of the fact that none of this occurs outside of God's view, then we should accept that this is simply the way it is. What did Christ himself say:

"When the son of Man comes, do you think he will find faith upon the earth?"

THe answer to that is an implied no...

Not to derail the thread, but really?

Mark 13:19-20: "For in those days shall be such tribulations, as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, neither shall be. And unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect which he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days."

Looks like there will still be some of the elect alive and kicking who could have been decieved...which necessitates them having some faith to lose in the first place.
(06-09-2011, 11:16 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]You know if you think of the fact that none of this occurs outside of God's view, then we should accept that this is simply the way it is. What did Christ himself say:

"When the son of Man comes, do you think he will find faith upon the earth?"

THe answer to that is an implied no...

Consider though, every missionary reaching a foreign people is the hand of God at work in those people's lives. It is a miracle in a sense that God would furnish anyone to come to America and bring the gospel to the Native Americans. I mean, look at it from their perspective. And it was because that they were ready, their hearts were softened. But if God is not allowing missionaries to get other places, for WHATEVER reason, he has allowed this too.

So we must simply conclude that those people are not ready for the gospel because they are hardened in their sinfulness. When God deals with these people as a PEOPLE, then the gospel will be proclaimed. That seems pretty scriptural to me anyway.



Heretical Protestants are distributing the Bible in Africa and the Middle East at the price of their lives.  Clerics today are raping children.  Who do you think has a better chance to go to Heaven?
Gregory (and Stubborn) I wrote this over some time and it does not address specific posts.

You want statements from infallible Catholic teaching.  I think that the Council of Trent clearly supports Baptism of Desire. Your arguments (Gregory) don't convince me, because of the very meaning of the phrase the Council uses.. 

"Council of Trent, Session VI Degree on Justification, Ch4" Wrote:In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given 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’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5)

You are interpretting this as though OR really means AND.  The plain and obvious interpretation is that OR means OR - one thing is present, the other is present, or both are present.  If the word AND were intended, it would have been used.

I heard the argument that compared these words to the statement "You cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball".  Now if someone who knows about baseball hears this he may automatically assume that of course both are needed.  But the grammatically correct and clear statement would be "you cannot play baseball without a bat and a ball".  This statement would produce better results when speaking to a child who doesn't know baseball.  He would know to bring both a bat and a ball, not just one.

So the grammatically correct Council  WOULD HAVE USED "AND" IF THAT IS WHAT IT MEANT.  It said and meant "OR".

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that EXPLICITLY interprets Trent in this way::

THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (the Roman Catechism)

The Council of Trent is certainly an important part of the Church's magisterium.  But it is INTERPRETED by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Some people say that even the Catechism is infallible.  If you don't agree with this, you at least must agree that it extremely authoritative.

The Catechism teaches baptism of desire,very clearly (even if not by name),  when it speaks of the baptism of children and adults:

"Catechism of the Council of Trent" Wrote:On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; [b}should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.[/b]


ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)

Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of win” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon “Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato” and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
====

The fact that text of the Council immediately quotes John 3:5 means that the Council (and the Catechism and St. Alphonsus!) believe that these are Christ's words of truth, not that they imply that the necessity means God has promised water.  Clearly this is not what St. Alphonsus thinks!  I trust  his INTERPRETATION of infallible Church teaching, and the INTERPRETATION made by so many saints and Popes (and Canon Law).  Even when they are not personally infallible I can trust their INTERPRETATION better than YOURS or MINE They do not consist just of a group of modern theologians, or a group of heretical bishops, but a great number of holy and wise men over a long history..

Man uses the word "unless" and "necessary"  allowing for an deliberately unspoken exception.  We say "water is necessary for tomatoes to grow", and it IS truly necessary, yet God may provide a miraculous exception.  A mother may say "Unless you get in the car in 1 minute no dessert for you", and she is not lying or forgetful,  yet if the child twists his ankle, she makes an exception.  God allows men to "twist their ankle" on the way to obey a command, and does not count this a sin.  It doesn't matter that God has absolute power and can foresee everything, He still allows such impossibility, and can make an exception.  God is more merciful than a mother.