SSPX French District Reconciling with Rome?

Catholic World News AND Envoy Magazine Website ^ | 13 September 2004 | CWNews

[gbcdoj]

At any rate, take an honest look at the above as far as translation and see if that makes any sense.

I don't think it does. The use of "or" implies an alternative. "Or" simply doesn't mean the same thing as "and", and I think that your example is incorrect.

aut, conj. [cf. Gk au], or, introduces a real or important alternative or one that excludes the other; whereas vel introduces an alternative that is merely a matter of choice or that is unimportant. I. Of equal things absolutely opposed. a. a single aut, or : verum et falsum, Cic. ; ut iranret aut obsides daret, Caes. ... II. To introduce a new alternative, supposing the first to fail : or else otherwise (cf. alioquin) ... III. In a limiting sense, to subjoin a less important alternative: or at least. ... IV. In an augmenting sense, to subjoin a more important or correcting alternative, or even, or indeed, or rather. (Sir William Smith and Sir John Lockwood, Chambers Murray Latin-English Dictionary, p. 75)

"After birth, no one can live without bread or water" means that one could live either with bread or with water. "Bread and water" would be correct. For instance: "Stranded in the desert, no one can survive without provisions or rescue". Clearly here either will work. And this argument is based on only one of the senses of aut. If it was to be translated as one of the following, the argument would become even stronger:

And this translation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be made without the bath of regeneration, or else otherwise the desire of it, as it is written...

And this translation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be made without the bath of regeneration, or at least the desire of it, as it is written...

And this translation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be made without the bath of regeneration, or rather the desire of it, as it is written...

At least though, you admit that baptism of desire is not Sacramental. But this admission alone runs into confict with the above canon.

No, it doesn't. If it did, the canon would conflict with the Council's doctrine on Penance (see Session XIV), in which it is stated clearly that the grace of justification can be obtained without the actual reception of the sacrament. (The Decree also states that Penance is necessary for salvation, just like Trent says about baptism)

The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.