Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: CM on August 10, 2009, 08:53:34 AM
-
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.
-
in·stru·men·tal (nstr-mntl)
adj.
1. Serving as a means or agency; implemental: was instrumental in solving the crime.
2. Of, relating to, or accomplished with an instrument or tool.
3. Music Performed on or written for an instrument.
4. Grammar Of, relating to, or being the case used typically to express means, agency, or accompaniment.
Instrumental does not mean impossible without. Also, you still did not fully address the following. If this can be shown to be false, your logic could possibly be accepted.
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.
-
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.
-
C.M.M.M., you don't get it do you?
You are asserting that the decree states that justification can take place without one, or without the other. That is can take place with only one, or with only the other.
According to your position (unless I missed something, and if so please explain what it is), you have to assert that a person can be justified without baptism.
According to your position, you have to assert that a person can be justified without the desire for baptism.
Does a person, who does not desire baptism, or who desires NOT to receive it have faith? Please explain.
-
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.
-
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.
Impiety does not necessarily entail a willful state of being.
Impius (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impius), the Latin for impious, has several alternate definitions which could be the result not of a willful state of being, but of ignorance or inability.
-
The decree on justification explicitly mentions adults, guy.
-
The decree on justification explicitly mentions adults, guy.
Guy, since when are there no handicapped adults or adults who would be ignorant of the truth.
-
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 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm).
-
Also, I was in a hurry, and guy seemed quicker to type than C.M.M.M. It was a rude way to address you, and I apologize.
-
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.
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 circuŠ¼cision, availeth anything, nor uncircuŠ¼cision, 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.
-
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?
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
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.
?!?!?!?!?!
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! (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8313)
-
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.
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.
Because these can not comprehend fully, they can not desire the sacrament. I don't think the issue is one of reason, it's one of ability.
I assume you'll argue back though
And I see a difference between John Hardon and yourself. You said...
An instrumental cause is the means by which something is effected. The decree specified no alternatives to baptism as the instrumental cause.
He said...
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.
Your stating an instrumental cause is essential and irreplaceable. He is saying an instrumental cause is a help towards the action, not a necessity.
Significantly different.
-
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?
-
John Hardon is your new pope?
-
John Hardon is your new pope?
No.
But you certainly aren't.
So does a cat, a dog, a guinea pig, a horse... why didn't you argue that they also have the use of reason?
I feel there is a difference between instinct and reason. If you can prove everything a child who has not reached the age of reason, and a lunatic does are based solely on instinct, perhaps I could agree with you.
-
Pope Pius X approved the teaching that children have not arrived at the use of reason (at least not sufficiently to be bound by the Divine Law, to distinguish between good and evil) until they reach the age of discretion, which is about 7 years old.
-
Quam Singulari
-
I'm still certain the term impious could be applied to any without a proper respect of God, whether it be from ignorance or choice.
For the record, I would call a dog impious, simply because it cannot be pious. :laugh1:
Additionally, from Quam Singulari
A full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary either for First Confession or for First Communion. Afterwards, however, the child will be obliged to learn gradually the entire Catechism according to his ability.
I think, if a full understanding is not necessary for first confession or communion, but we are obliged afterward to learn the entire catechism, it would contain that which is necessary for a full and perfect knowledge.
I assume you'll show how this is not binding, but the 7 year age is.
-
The point here is that the Decree on Justification is talking about people with the use of reason, people with understanding and rationality. It is so blatantly obvious from the very context of the decree itself, that I wonder why we are having this debate.
...whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath...
...under the power of the devil and of death...
...not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them...
...By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated...
...And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God...
...The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God...
...neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight...
...and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope...
...For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God...
...Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification...
...But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments...
-
A full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary either for First Confession or for First Communion. Afterwards, however, the child will be obliged to learn gradually the entire Catechism according to his ability.
I assume you'll show how this is not binding, but the 7 year age is.
Being bound by the Divine Law is dogmatic. Being bound to learn the Catechism is disciplinary. Failure to submit to either one is sinful.
The knowledge of religion which is required in a child in order to be properly prepared to receive First Communion is such that he will understand according to his capacity those Mysteries of faith which are necessary as a means of salvation...
This is dogmatic, since all must have firm knowledge and belief in the necessary dogmas: the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, Judgement, etc.
In other words, except a child who has attained the use of reason, profess the Catholic Faith and to preserve it whole and undefiled, he cannot be saved.