Author Topic: Another pickle the heretics have got themselves into (Read 2588 times)

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.

CMMM · « **Reply #1 on:** August 10, 2009, 11:38:11 AM »

Quote from: TheFreeDictionary.com

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.

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.

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2009, 12:31:26 PM »

Quote

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.

CM · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2009, 01:43:37 AM »

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.

CMMM · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2009, 09:43:03 AM »

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.