PART 3 - TRENT Trent - 7th Session, canon 4 - If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the DESIRE OF THEM men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
========================
Section I:
Simply quoting this canon does not support Matt.16's position that Baptism in water is not necessary for salvation for some. This document, as in ALL infallible Magisterial statements, cannot contradict what the Church has infallibly defined concerning the necessity of water Baptism and church membership for salvation. In fact, this canon condemns exactly what Mat.16 is attempting to prove: that, for some, the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation.
However, a number of points must be made here.
1. DESIRE OR VOW The word translated above as "desire" is the Latin word "votum" (n.voto). This is a misleading translation because the word "desire" has been used by many to mean that it could be implicit, and thus not a conscious explicit act. But this cannot be the case with the Latin word "votum." This word means a vow or resolve to obtain or receive something. By definition this is a conscious act of the will. To translate "votum" as desire is to provide a very poor, if not misleading translation. Why? Latin already has two other words which stand for desire: "cupio" (cupido) and "desiderium" (desidero). But the Fathers at Trent, protected by the Holy Spirit from error, infallibly chose the word "votum." This alone demonstrates that a conscious and thus stronger act of the will is what is being defined here.
2 THE CHURCH DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION AND SALVATION
A. In quoting this infallible canon, Mat.1618 is working on the erroneous presumption that there is no distinction between justification and salvation. But there is, and the Church works upon just such a distinction. Read the canon again. According to both the logic and grammer of this statement the clause, "desire of them," refers ONLY to the condition of justification, not to salvation. By the demnads of both logic and grammer (and Catholic theology!), this clause of desire modifies ONLY the condition for attaining justification. It does not modify what is necessary for salvation. To pretend it does is to work directly against the very logic and grammer used by the Church in this statement. Hence, this clause concerning desire is concerned ONLY with, and is in reference to, justification alone, not salvation.
B. How can it be demonstrated that the Church works on the idea that justification and salvation are separate and distinct? I will quote three infallible Magisterial documents which work on the fact that there is a distinction between these two different realities. Let's read the quote of Canon 4 "On the Sacraments" again.
"If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for SALVATION, but are superfluous, and that, without them or without the desire for them, men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of JUSTIFICATION ... Let him be anathema."
Here, the Church works on the understanding that there is a distinction between justification and salvation. The point above from 2a demonstrates that this is the fact of the matter. Besides, there would be no need to make a separation in this single canon between the two if there was no distinction between justification and salvation. This is why the particular condition for salvation mentioned here (i.e. the necessity of the sacraments), is separate and distinct from the particular conditions (the sacraments themselves or the desire to receive them) mentioned in reference to justification.
Though a man, while needing to hold the Catholic Faith, can achieve the state of justification with the resolve (i.e., a conscious desire) to receive the sacraments (viz. Baptism or Penance), nevertheless, the above canon from Trent makes it clear that no one can be saved (i.e. enter Heaven) without their reception. This is one reson why the two distinct terms are used separately while each is assigned separate conditions.
There are actually two important distinctions here:
1) that justification (what we receive here and now) and salvation
(the actual entrance into heaven after we die) are not one and the same
reality, but are distinct and,
2) that the desire (or resolve) to receive the Sacrament of Baptism
may suffice ONLY for justification. It does not suffice for salvation.
C: In the "Decree on Justification" (ch.4; DNZ. 796) the Church at Trent declared that, after specific conditions are met, the "voto" (vow or conscious desire) for Baptism can suffice for justification, and only justification is mentioned. No where has the Church ever decreed that this vow, or desire for Baptism can suffice for salvation -NOWHERE. Whereas elsewhere, in regards to salvation, the Church at Trent has decreed the necessity of water Baptism by condemning those who would deny its necessity in language which allows for no exceptions (Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism," DNZ 858, 861).
D: Vatican Council I infallibly declared:
"Since without faith it is impossible to please God, no one is JUSTIFIED without it, NOR will anyone attain ETERNAL LIFE (i.e. salvation) unless he perseveres to the end in it." (On Faith, chap.3: DNZ 1792)
These three infallible documents demonstrate that the Church has all along understood that justification and salvation are distinct and that the former is simply one of the pre-requisites for the attainment of the latter. Matt.16 fails to recognize the distinction which Mother Church herself makes between justification and salvation. As a result of this failure, his entire point for quoting Trent backfires and works against him. He has utterly failed and exposed himself as either ignorant or dishonest.
===============
[Matt.1618]
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 - In which words is given a brief description of the JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER, AS BEING A TRANSLATION FROM THAT STATE IN WHICH MAN IS BORN A CHILD OF THE FIRST ADAM, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except THROUGH THE LAVER OF REGENERATION OR ITS DESIRE, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
===========================
Section II:
Again, the Church is defining the state of justification and how it can be attained. However, she is not defining HERE (i.e. the above quote) what is SUFFICIENT for the attainment of salvation.
In regards to salvation, the Church at Trent has decreed the necessity of water Baptism by condemning those who would deny its necessity (leaving either water or Baptism as "optional") in language which allows for no exceptions (again, see Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism," DNZ 858, 861).
So, along with what is necessary (and sufficient) for justification, the Church has ALSO defined what is necessary for salvation. And this goes beyond what she has decreed as sufficient for justification. The following is a list of these necessary conditions:
*actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism (DNZ 858[Trent]), which
is in water only (DNZ 482 [Vienne], 861[Trent).
*membership in the Catholic Church (DNZ 430[Lateran IV], 468-69[Unam
Sanctum], 714Trent]), *reception of the sacraments (DNZ 847[Trent]),
*doing good works and obeying the commandments (DNZ 800, 804, 829-31[Trent]),
and
*final perseverance (DNZ 183[Orange], 832[Trent]).
The Church would never have given SEPARATE dogmatic definitions on what is necessary to attain BOTH Justification and salvation if these were not distinct and separate realities. We must submit to what the Church has infallibly defined. And what She has defined as necessary for salvation goes beyond what she has defined as necessary (and sufficient) for justification.
Due to Matt.16's failure to take these important, nay critical, facts in mind, his entire goal and effect in quoting these documents falls. His interpretation of what HE thinks these documents teach has no actual Magisterial basis.
==========
[Matt.1618]
The Church is never in a hurry to baptize adults; she takes her time. This delay does not carry with it the same danger that we saw in the case of infants, for if any unforeseen accident should deprive adults of baptism, their intention to receive it and their repentance for past sins will avail them to grace and righteousness. ( , #36).
=======================
Section III:
This quote is not from the Council of Trent, but from the Catechism of Trent, sometimes called the Roman Catechism. This catechism, as all catechisms, is not a magisterial document. Hence it is not an infallible document. The work for a catechism was commissioned at Trent, but it was actually the work of a commission of theologians. And a commission of theologians is NOT the Magisterium of the Church.
Besides, this quote does not say that these persons will be SAVED as such. It only states that, due to their faith and intention of receiving Baptism, it will "avail them to grace and righteousness." Are grace and righteousness to be equated with salvation, with the entrance into Heaven for the Beatific Vision? No!
The Church has defined for us the concepts and realities of both grace and righteousness -which is the same as justification (DNZ 799,800), and she has NEVER equated either with salvation. Here is one conclusive reason why "availing them to grace and righteousness" canNOT be the same as saying "they are saved:" The Church has infallibly defined AS DOGMA that both grace and righteousness can be lost before death (DNZ 808,833,837, 862), but salvation, BY DEFINITION, can never be lost, for it is eternal (DNZ 429, 530). Hence, they are not to be equated.
Interestingly, elsewhere this same Catechism explains: "Sins can be forgiven ONLY through the Sacraments when DULY ADMINISTERED." So it appears to contain a contradiction. Mat.16 once again uses a sources which contradicts itself.
=============
[Matt.1618]
TRENT TEXTS THAT SHOW ONE WHO IS JUSTIFIED IS IN A POSITION OF SALVATION
Trent, Session 7, Chapter 7 This disposition or preparation is followed by JUSTIFICATION itself, WHICH IS NOT ONLY A REMISSION OF SINS BUT ALSO THE SANCTIFICATION AND RENEWAL OF THE INWARD MAN through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an UNJUST MAN BECOMES JUST and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be AN HEIR ACCORDING TO HOPE OF LIFE EVERLASTING.
====================
Section IV:
This statement teaches no such thing as Matt.1618 wants to make his readers think it does. A justified man is, as the Church declared, "an heir according to the HOPE of life everlasting." Now, IF the state of justification is equivelent to salvation (life everlasting), or at least guarantees it, as Mat.1618 seems to think it says, THEN hope is NOT needed.
HOWEVER, one can only hope for:
A) that which one does not yet posses, and /or B) that which is NOT
guaranteed.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that justification aquired by the "desire" for Baptism is NOT to be equated with the position of salvation.
The Church has decreed that the state of justification makes one an "heir according to the hope of life everlasting," and this can ONLY mean that the state of justification is not the same as the state of salvation. Otherwise, there would be absolutely NO need for hope and justification would NOT be "according to hope." Do you see?
2. Again, the argument above (erroneously) presumes that justification (righteousness) and equivelant to salvation. The Church has defined for us the concepts and realities of both grace and righteousness -which is the same as justification (DNZ 799,800), and she has NEVER equated either with salvation. The "Decree on Justification" is just THAT - a decree on justification, NOT salvation.
Again, Mat.16 COMPLETELY ignores Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism" from Trent which condemn anyone who holds that Baptism in water may be optional and is not necessary for salvation for all.
=========
[Matt.1618]
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8...When the apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely that we are said to be JUSTIFIED by faith, because faith is THE BEGINNING OF ALL SALVATION, the foundation and root of all JUSTIFICATION, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of his sons; and we are therefore said to BE JUSTIFIED gratuitously, because none of those things that precede JUSTIFICATION, whether faith or works, merit the GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION.
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5- It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through his quickening and helping grace to CONVERT THEMSELVES TO THEIR OWN JUSTIFICATION by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace;
======================
Section V:
Where does this teach that justification is equivalent to salvation? This quote is not even teaching that justification is the beginning of salvation. It says FAITH is the beginning of salvation, not justification. Please read these documents closely.
Again, Matt.16 simply presumes -without any demonstrative substantiation- that justification and salvation are INdistinguishable. Matt.16 is only reading HIS presupposed and fallible opinion INTO what the statement actually teaches in these statements. He simply quotes them but utterly fails in demonstrating HIS position. The reason he does not nor cannot, is because these statements do not teach what he thinks they teach.
===========
[Matt.1618]
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5- Causes of Justification.... The cause of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and LIFE EVERLASTING; ... meritorious cause is... our Lord Jesus Christ... merited for us JUSTIFICATION by his most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father... INSTRUMENTAL is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever JUSTIFIED FINALLY.
=================
Section VI:
Matt.16 has attributed the wrong chapter to this quote. This quote is taken from chapter 7, On Justification, not chapter 5.
This chapter teaches that, along with the glory of God and of Christ, the final cause of justification is eternal life (or life everlasting). Of course: one cannot attain life everlasting if he did not first attain justification. However, simply because one is justified does not mean that they will be saved. AND, the Church has infallibly defined that without Baptism in water, no one CAN be saved. This statement from chapter 7 does not teach that justification is equivalent to salvation (life everlasting) -only this: that part of justification's final cause is eternal life. And it is a philosophical principle that an effect cannot be equal to its cause. Eternal Life (i.e. salvation) is a final CAUSE of justification. END OF ARGUMENT! - But I will add more.
Notice Matt.16 doesn't name the actual document from Trent. He just keeps identifying the quotes from "Session 6." Why? Well, for one thing the name of the document is the "Decree On JUSTIFICATION." Thus, the Church makes it clear that she is teaching on justification, not salvation Elsewhere, when the Church decrees on salvation, she makes it clear that she is doing so, and those conditions in order to attain salvation (see Section II above) go beyond those needed to simply attain justification.
Poor Matt.1618, because of his failure (refusal?) to make the very distinction the Church works upon, he has nothing to offer by way of infallible Magisterial support for his position. He only exposes himself for what he is: a heretic.
==========
[Matt.1618]
Trent, Session 6, Chapter 14 Those who through sin have forfeited the received GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION, can again be JUSTIFIED when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the GRACE lost. For THIS MANNER OF JUSTIFICATION IS RESTORATION FOR THOSE FALLEN, which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. Continuing in Session 6, Chapter 14 is: For on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance when He said: _Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained_. Hence, it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a determination to avoid sins and a hatred of them, or _a contrite and humble heart_, but also the sacramental confession of those sins, AT LEAST IN DESIRE, to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted either by the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment, which as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Ghost and have not feared to _violate the temple of God_. Of which repentance it is written: Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works_; and again, _The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation_; and again, _Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance_ [Jn 20:22f.; Ps 50:19; Eph 4:30; 1 Cor 3:17; Rev 2:5, 2 Cor 7:10; Mt 3:2, 4:17; Lk 3:8]
=================
Section VII:
Mat.16 is being disingenuous in using this quote. Trent makes it explicitly clear here that this statement applies to a person who is already baptized!
"On behalf of THOSE WHO AFTER BAPTISM fall into sin..." So the desire to make confession applies only to one who is baptized.
This is very misleading to his readers in using this chapter in support of his position.
Shame on Matt.1618
===========
[Matt.1618]
Vatican II comments specifically on this area in Trent (Session 6, Chapter 14): "Now just look at the wonder of that statement, a conviction consistent with the preceding 1,500 years of lived Tradition and with the subsequent 400 years of the same. There is good news in there for one and all. For example, not only may the Catholic find solace in the sacrament of Penance, but also in its desire. But the Protestant is covered as well, and the holy Jew, and even the holy pagan. You see, the catch phrase in all of this is "in desire" or "by the desire of the sacrament," both technical statements of hope for the invincibly ignorant, i.e., those who "desire" to be in the Catholic Church but are unaware that this want is the hope in Christ their soul is seeking after. Such was the lot of the holy pagan of the OT who would have entered into her communion if only she would have been in existence visible when he was alive. Such too is the lot of converts to the Catholic faith who were fortunate enough prior to their death to encounter the light of truth in its fullness (_Unitatis redintegratio_, n. 3).
======================
Section VIII:
Where on earth is this statement? It is NOT in any of the documents of Vatican II. My copy of Unitatis Redintegratio, no.3 says nothing of the kind.
But if it did, so what? Pope Paul VI stated:
"In view of of the Pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extra- ordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility..." (General Audience, January 12, 1966)
So none of Vat. II's documents are protect from teaching error, nor are they infallible in and of themselves -except where they repeat what has been infallibly taught from the past. Therefore, each and every document of Vatican II MUST be interpreted in light of and in subjection to what the Church has previously and infallibly defined. To fail to do so, is to turn upside down the nature of the Church's authority.
This is what Mat.1618, and those who argue as he does, is in fact doing -turning the Church's authority upside down. in other words, he is UNDERmining it.
End of Part 3.
Part 4 deals with Papal statements quoted by Mat.1618.