The answer to the title of this blog entry is blindingly obvious to any objective historian.  To the Roman Catholic, however, who must interpret the Council of Trent in light of the two Vatican Councils, simple history is insufficient to answer this question.  This is why Dave Armstrong, in the comments on this blog post says:

 

Trent condemned the absolute separation of faith and works. I don’t see that even John Calvin did that. He thought (and so do most Calvinists) that one is saved by “faith alone” but not a faith that IS alone and that any saving faith will necessarily show forth the works that will inevitably flow from it if indeed it is true saving faith.

So there is your cooperation with God; hence that aspect of Calvinism was not, I believe, condemned by Trent. i think what is condemned there is mopre like the extreme faith alone position that John MacArthur opposed in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus (the opposite of Lordship salvation). But that is not classic “Reformation” teaching: it is Anabaptistic or Baptist thinking (even then, one must look at the particular strain of Baptist theology).

 

But who would know better what Trent meant then the people who wrote it?  The historical question is, did those who penned the Canons of Trent consider Calvinists anathema?  Given the persecution between Catholics and Calvinists, the answer certainly seems to be “yes.”  After all, if Calvinists really weren’t anathematized by Trent, there would have been ample time for the authors to say, “Hey, wait a minute!  We didn’t mean those guys!”  But they didn’t do that.

On to the pertinent canons.  I will look only at those that are clearly against my position (as there are others that could be, depending on how they are defined; yet we are looking for certain condemnations, not possible ones).  These will be taken from The American Catholic Truth Society website:

Canon 9

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

This is indeed the very canon I quoted to Armstrong.  Armstrong insists that this canon does not anathematize me, yet I agree with everything that is declared anathema in the above statement!  That’s right.  I affirm that man is saved by faith alone.  Likewise, I affirm that there is nothing but faith required for justification.  Furthermore, I acknowledge that this has nothing to do with the will of the man (it is instead the regeneration of the Spirit through the Election of the Father).  Therefore, by the above canon, I must be anathema to the Catholic Church.

Armstrong disagrees.  In so doing, he must either acknowledge that Trent is not speaking clearly enough in the above (which is another way of saying that they erred in an “infallible” council), or Armstrong must claim that I do not believe what I do, in fact, believe.

There are other canons though!  Let us continue:

Canon 24.

If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

This canon is especially pertinent since it opposes the exact excuse that Armstrong gave for why Calvinists were not anathema!  Once again, I agree with the very thing that is anathematized.  Good works are indeed “the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase.”  Justification, after all, is a once-for-all-time event.  Good works are “merely” the sign that someone has been justified.

Thus, when Armstrong says, “He thought (and so do most Calvinists) that one is saved by “faith alone” but not a faith that IS alone and that any saving faith will necessarily show forth the works that will inevitably flow from it if indeed it is true saving faith” he fails to realize that Trent still anathematizes the Calvinist position!

Continuing:

Canon 26.

If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.

Again, I agree with the position being anathematized here.  The “just” are only just because of the grace of God, not because they do any good works.  Indeed, the good works done by a justified person have no merit unto eternal life in the least.  After all, the justified man is already saved.

Furthermore, because one is saved by the grace of God only, one ought not hope in his own works as if they merited anything.  One must instead hope in Christ.  Again, Trent anthematizes the position I, and Calvinists like me, hold.

One more example shall do:

Canon 32

If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

Again, I agree with the position that is anathematized here.  Good works done by man are not meritorious at all.  The only merit a sinner has is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  The works that a man does are in now way adding to his measure of grace.

It should be clear now to anyone who is not forced by a faulty view of infalliblity to re-interpret Trent in light of the Vatican Councils, that Trent most certainly did anathematize the Calvinist position.  Thus, the Catholic must either demonstrate why Trent infallibly spoke so sloppily, or why Vatican must have spoken sloppily.  The two views cannot both be right.