It says that "they are disposed to that justice". You need to be disposed to receive justification by the sacrament of baptism. Hearing does not transmit the faith, hearing disposes to be prepared to receive the faith.

Hey Mith-

Ask him how, if this is true, could Fr Feeney have admitted that men could be justified without water baptism?

Look at the Feeneyites, all frothy and foaming.

This IS good fun!

I see that this is all you have left, Johnson, after your initial argument was demonstrated to be utterly moronic.

It says that "they are disposed to that justice". You need to be disposed to receive justification by the sacrament of baptism. Hearing does not transmit the faith, hearing disposes to be prepared to receive the faith.

.
But what it says is that the disposition to justice consists in faith (a grace "received by hearing" whereby man believes all which God has revealed), hope, and charity (which culminates in a resolve for baptism and a commitment to abandon the old man and follow Christ's commandments).
.
It says nothing about the reception of water baptism as a required element in the disposition for justification.  Baptism is the instrumental cause, as one reads in the next paragraph.  The disposition to justice itself requires supernatural faith.  I am not sure how one can read Trent any other way.  Here, let's look at the full paragraph (this more or less immediately follows Trent's teaching that justification cannot be effected without baptism or a desire for it, and it immediately precedes Trent's teachings on the cause of justification):
.

Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith "by hearing" [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised [can. 12 and 14], and this especially, that the sinner is justified by God through his grace, "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" [Rom. 3:24], and when knowing that they are sinners, turning themselves away from the fear of divine justice, by which they are profitably aroused [can. 8], to a consideration of the mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that God will be merciful to them for the sake of Christ, and they begin to love him as the source of all justice and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation [can. 9], that is, by that repentance, which must be performed before baptism [Acts 2:38]; and finally when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written: "He that cometh to God must believe, that he is and is a rewarder to them that seek him" [Heb. 11:6], and, "Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee" [Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5], and, "The fear of the Lord driveth out sin" [Sirach. 1:27], and, "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the Holy Spirit" [Acts 2:38], and, "Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" [Matt. 28:19], and finally, "Prepare your hearts unto the Lord" [1 Samuel 7:3]. (Denz. 798 )

.
I emphasized a few things for convenience.  Mainly, that Trent is describing the acquisition of supernatural faith on the part of the catechumen.  As one continues reading, it's very clear that this paragraph is saying much more than "catechumens need to learn what's in the faith."  As you just pointed out, this paragraph concerns the preparation of the sinner for restoration to justice.  That is correct, and that preparation consists in the acquisition of all three virtues, the first of which is supernatural faith, the greatest of which is supernatural charity.
.
Your contention was that supernatural faith is only first ever received through baptism.  If that were true, Trent would not describe its reception in the Catechumen altogether prior to baptism.  But it does.  If you have a new argument that's fine.  But right now I'm only concerned with your claim that faith is only first received at baptism.  Trent clearly teaches otherwise, as we see here.

Lad,

I am concerned with Struthio's claim that faith only first comes from baptism.  That's what I said from the outset.  I've said-- multiple times-- faith is a grace.  I know it can't naturally be acquired.  And you can only get an impression otherwise by ignoring everything I've said except the word "acquire."
.
As to the rest, I've not actually made any claims about justification.  You're jumping way ahead and I think you're mistaking me with people you've argued with before, something you do pretty much every time you respond to me.  I've asked you before and I'd really appreciate if you not impose all of your negative experiences with other posters on your interactions with me.  Nor to assume that I speak for them or they for me.

Lad,

I am concerned with Struthio's claim that faith only first comes from baptism.  That's what I said from the outset.  I've said-- multiple times-- faith is a grace.  I know it can't naturally be acquired.  And you can only get an impression otherwise by ignoring everything I've said except the word "acquire."
.
As to the rest, I've not actually made any claims about justification.  You're jumping way ahead and I think you're mistaking me with people you've argued with before, something you do pretty much every time you respond to me.  I've asked you before and I'd really appreciate if you not impose all of your negative experiences with other posters on your interactions with me.  Nor to assume that I speak for them or they for me.

No.  You speak clearly about the "acquisition" of the supernatural virtues ... which is Pelagian.  In fact, all BoD theory is at least semi-Pelagian along these same lines.

I see that this is all you have left, Johnson, after your initial argument was demonstrated to be utterly moronic.

I guess saying that is easier than making an argument.

Fr. Leonard Feeney is as irrelevant as you and I are. The Faith of the holy Roman Church is defined and declared by the Magisterium of the Church and not by some Jesuit priest. The professio fidei of the Vatican Council includes all of what the Council of Trent teaches about justification. Trent teaches that the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently noone can be justified without the sacrament of baptism.

The Decree on Justification (cuм hoc tempore) of the holy and sacred Council of Trent is truth fallen from heaven. It strictly forbids to believe, preach, or teach anything on justification deviating from the same decree. Also, it does not mention any exceptions for priests in countries which didn't even exist.


Neither the Vatican Council nor the Council of Trent speak of "a participation in the Divine economy", "a friendship with God", or "a right to salvation". Rather, justification is called an "adoption". The unbaptized are "children of wrath", the baptized are "adopted sons of God", justification is a "translation to the state of grace".


The phrase "a right to salvation" sounds like part of some freemason ritual. To speak of a right to grace is a contradiction in terms.

In other words, God damns the just.

Got it.

But what it says is that the disposition to justice consists in faith (a grace "received by hearing" whereby man believes all which God has revealed

You are misunderstanding what St Paul is saying.  You need to read the ENTIRE chapter of Romans 10.  When St Paul says that "faith cometh by hearing", he's talking about the truths of the faith, not the virtue of faith.  No one can receive a virtue simply by hearing about it.  The truths of our faith are received by hearing of them, then we receive actual graces to accept the truth.  When we accept the truth, then we are given MORE actual graces to not only accept the truth but ACT on the truth, which requires one to JOIN the Church/Faith.  When one decides to accept and join the Church, THEN one is said to have an IMPLICIT desire for baptism, even if one has not EXPLICITLY asked for baptism.

In my opinion, this is the only IMPLICIT desire that St Alphonsus would approve of.  The IMPLICIT desire by someone who is UNAWARE of baptism/Church is a contradiction.