These may be useful:
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909chap.asp
Since the OP is about a canon, these are also important:
BOOK I
GENERAL NORMS
Can. 1 The canons of this Code concern only the latin Church.
…
Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context.
If the meaning remains doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if there be any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.
Can. 18 Laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law,
are to be interpreted strictly.
…
Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.
…
Which means that regarding the actual prohibitions written into the canons, one must not make assumptions about the meaning of words – but must adhere to explicit definitions and to examine custom.
The teaching of Trent, I just re-read, is not actually a canon – but a declaration. So, De. Maria’s attempt to interpret the passage isn’t as restricted as I originally thought: I re-read the context to clarify my own understanding and:.
The entire passage, in a typical translation, reads:
CHAPTER VIII.
In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously. And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
The “perpetual consent of the Catholic Church” refer’s to other statements; so one must be able to synthesize Trent’s statement from constant church teaching – otherwise, the interpretation of the passage is novel.
The declaration interprets the writing of Paul, who is explicitly defining faith to be the beginning of salvation; “Cause=faith”. It is the “root” of all justification;
Hence, I re-assert that I do not think it possible to be justified before and without faith; although one may increase in justification after faith; but at no time, before during or after a justification – can the actions of the person be said to MERIT or EARN the initial justification itself;
Faith – believing in christ – is the introduction to Jesus of the non-believer; I say this from studying the words of Pope John Paul II; and not in reference to study of the earlier church; – however, in my eyes; no one can be introduced to Jesus unless he himself is available to the person; This, in my eyes, is the root reason that faith can not be earned – for no one has the right to demand the presence of Jesus without him first condescending to an agreement to be introduced. He owes no one an audience; but gives that audience freely.
There are many ways one can be introduced to Christ, the normal way being baptism – which itself is called the sacrament of “Faith”; for in it even a child, who performing no work of their own – receives the work of the Parents, their family the church, in being introduced passively and experientially to Christ through the sacrament itself. They come to know Christ, albeit immaturely, in baptism and especially they receive the Holy Spirit who communicates for them and with them to God in groanings that they themselves would not otherwise know how to utter.
But I do not see how, given that Grace itself is not a unilateral gift – but rather a gift and response, which already implies a relationship in two directions – that it is possible to separate faith entirely from justification. For Justification is friendship – and all friendships begin with an introduction of persons.
It is for this reason, that no matter how imperfect – or how “small” – or immature the relationship – that the moment the grace of Faith is imparted, so is the relationship – and the justification. If I have overlooked some possibility that is evident in church history – I humbly ask someone to point it out.
I find in John 6:28 the simultaneous affirmation that faith itself is a “work” – a work of God, since God must be present in order to be a friend to the sinner – and a work of the sinner for they must
DO the act of faith in befriending their Lord; whether it be by simple passivity in the case of an infant – or in active conformance of their life and their ways to Jesus Christ in the case of an adult; none the less – they must not thwart the work which is theirs to do in this relationship.
There are multiple perspectives, permitted within the Catholic Tradition, as to the nature of the interaction which is faith; grace; and persistance; Whether one is Molinist or Thomist was not to be settled by Trent; and any reading of Trent which excludes one or the other view can’t be said to follow the custom of the church which is to condemn neither of these viewpoints.
I hope this last commentary will be useful to your discussion, De Maria. For it will perhaps extract the conversation from a mere technical regurgitation of definitions – and bring about a fruitful discussion of their internal logic.
Peace to you,
Your brother in Christ, Jesus,
–Andrew.
