Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter VII: "The causes of justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask the faith that gives eternal life ..."

First of all, it says quite clearly that THE INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE is the SACRAMENT, yet some heretics have said that this decree actually refers to faith as the thing that no one is ever justified without, not baptism.  First of all, I agree that nobody with the use of reason is ever justified without faith.  This is true.  But I also assert that nobody is ever justified without baptism, since the decree clearly says THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM is the instrumental cause, and IT is what bestows the FAITH that gives eternal life.

Now, the heretics also like to argue that, according to the following decree, we can be justified by faith (the desire of the sacrament, the faith of the sacrament, etc.) without actually receiving the sacrament.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter IV: "This translation to the state of justification however cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or its desire"

If they are to hold this position, that the decree is teaching that you can be justified WITH ONLY ONE BUT NOT THE OTHER, then they also have to say that justification can occur by receiving the sacrament, yet not having the desire for it.  And before people start making the silly argument that "Babies can't desire the sacrament, etc."  They need to realize the context of the decree:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter IV, A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace."

Impiety is a willful state of being, so this decree is speaking of those with the use of reason, who are able to desire the sacrament.

Instrumental does not mean impossible without.

This is precisely the crux of their fallacious inference.  They can't seem to distinguish an affirmative proposition from an exclusive proposition.  

It would appear possible, in the situation of a child, or the handicapped, but will require more investigation.

It is impossible for the above to have desire themselves, yet the sacrament is still efficacious.

I'm making no assertions here, as I do not know for certain.

The decree on justification explicitly mentions adults, guy.

I'm sorry, C.M.M.M.  I looked at the thread quickly before work, and all I read was this:

Impiety does not necessarily entail a willful state of being.

I assumed you were going to make the typical 'infants can't desire baptism' argument.

My point is that the decree is speaking of people with the use of reason.  Who can be impious or pious, other than those with the use of reason?  There are no pious or impious 2 month olds and there are no pious lunatics.  Neither can merit or demerit, since the have not the use of reason.

And even though, he taught baptism of desire (years before the Solemn Magisterium rendered it heretical), I believe that St. Thomas has some useful points to make on this issue.  Please read article 7 and article 12 on this page.

Instrumental does not mean impossible without.

An instrumental cause is the means by which something is effected.  The decree specified no alternatives to baptism as the instrumental cause.

 Also, you still did not fully address the following.  If this can be shown to be false, your logic could possibly be accepted.

Quote from: SSPX

The Latin for the text below has: "sine qua nulli unquam contigit iustificatio." In the Latin original, therefore, the phrase "without which" (or, in the Latin original, "sine qua", is a feminine pronoun meant to agree with a feminine noun) refers to the "faith" (a feminine noun in Latin) and not to "sacrament" (a neuter noun in Latin meant to agree with a neuter pronoun). If it was "sacrament" the Council Fathers wanted to highlight "without which no one is ever justified," they would have written "sine quo."

Looking forward to your response.

I'm afraid to disappoint you, but after looking into it, it turns out, they are right on the money, about this particular passage, anyway.

The Latin of this passage from Trent is literally saying that the instrumental cause of justification IS BAPTISM, but then go on to say no one is ever justified without FAITH.

First of all, this only means that Trent did not clearly assert the absolute necessity of the sacrament baptism IN THIS PASSAGE.  They did in the Canons on Baptism, however, which is folly to deny, and they also stated as the instrumental the actual sacrament of baptism.  They posited no other instrumental cause.

Chapter III on Justification: "But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated."

And baptism is constantly expounded as the cause of justification in the decrees of Trent.  Again, nowhere is there ever offered any other positive affirmation that it can occur by any other means.  In fact, Trent also indicates that Faith is inextricably bound up with baptism:

Trent, Justification, Chapter VII: "In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision, availeth anything, nor uncircuмcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, catechumens beg of the Church - agreeably to a tradition of the apostles - previously to the sacrament of Baptism"

So before Baptism, they do not have this faith.

Furthermore, as you were so kind to point out:

Pope St. Zosimus, Epistle Tractatoria ad Orientalis Ecclesias, AD 418: "By His death that bond of death introduced into all of us by Adam and transmitted to every soul, that bond contracted by propagation is broken, in which no one of our children is held not guilty until he is freed through baptism."

If they die without baptism, they die guilty of the bond of death transmitted to every soul.  No Solemn Magisterial teaching has ever contradicted this fallible teaching of Pope St. Zosimus.  Many saints have actually said words to this effect as well, but you reject them because the same saints also at other times taught that an unbaptized person could be saved by perfect contrition (which is impossible without charity, which is impossible without supernatural faith, the faith which gives eternal life, the faith which the catechumens beg prior to baptism).

Well now you have a pope saying it.  And he was never contradicted by any dogmatic decree.  Do you believe him?

Of course, as you mentioned the Blessed and Glorious Virgin Mary is excepted from this (it was not transmitted to her soul), even though the good pope St. Zosimus didn't seem to have her in mind, and fortunately for him he was not denying any dogmas with this teaching of the Ordinary (fallible) Magisterium, since the Immaculate Conception was not defined until around 1400 years later.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

My point is that the decree is speaking of people with the use of reason.  Who can be impious or pious, other than those with the use of reason?  There are no pious or impious 2 month olds and there are no pious lunatics.  Neither can merit or demerit, since the have not the use of reason.

Impious can simply mean godlessness.

Can an individual be godless (in the sense that they do not believe in God) without the use of reason?

Now you're being silly.  You would no more call a dog, a fish, a lunatic or an infant pious than you would call it impious.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

An instrumental cause is the means by which something is effected.  The decree specified no alternatives to baptism as the instrumental cause.

I think that's bad theology right there.

?!?!?!?!?!

Quote from: [url=http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34251

Fr. John Hardon[/url]]Instrumental Cause:
Anything serving as a subordinate cause. It is a cause that does not begin an action but is applied and directed as a help to its efforts and purpose by the principal agent. An instrumental cause exercises its influence chiefly according to the form and intention of the principal efficient cause. In Catholic theology the role of the priest at Mass and in the administration of the sacraments is that of instrumental cause, used by the principal agent, who is Jesus Christ.

He said the same thing I said.  It's the means which effects the outcome.  Baptism is a subordinate cause by which is applied the while the efficient cause (God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise) and the meritorious cause  (Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion).  Sheesh!

This instrumental cause is all fine and dandy, but no one has stated that the instrumental cause is only by baptism in water.  

Perhaps we should move our discussion to whether baptism in water is the only valid from of baptism.  Would you be interested in beginning a thread in which you provide your definitive proof that baptism must be in water to be valid?

~sigh~

Around and around we go!  Where we stop, nobody knows!

But a lunatic and an infant does have the use of reason, just not in the same faculties as you or I.  A lunatic understands he/she must eat if he/she is hungry.  A child will cry when in discomfort, even if it is not upset, because it understands that crying lets people know it needs something.

~sigh~

So does a cat, a dog, a guinea pig, a horse... why didn't you argue that they also have the use of reason?