Posted on 03/27/2004 10:12:09 PM PST by Land of the Irish
"Please give me the names of "church fathers" who "spoke authoritatively" of the practice of "making people pay to get their relatives out of purgatory." Put up or shut up."
That's what I provided.
And I think the Council of Trent, from my reading of the decrees, were a knee-jerk reaction to Luther and Calvin contrary to principles which had been established. I don't think it holds water.
BTW-I don't condemn (or bash) Popes. I try to look at this as objectively as possible. That is why I referred you to a Catholic website.
It may appear so but remember, appearances are just that. The fact of the matter is this, all the disobedience in the world will not change the true nature of His Church and as much as I wish that the pope and bishops would enforce orthodoxy instantly and at all times, they don't but since my faith is in Him and His Church, which goes beyond the here and now, I am comforted by the knowledge that the gates of hell will not prevail. I look at it as a cross I must bear, an infinitely small aspect of my cooperation with His grace.
AS far as the rest of your post, I'll just say this: we are called to be one flock with one Shepherd. The plurality of denominations/churches denies this truth. It is a symptom of our continuing disobedience to Him.
Okay, so then you believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (St. Matthew xxvi.26-28, St. Mark xiv.22-24, St. Luke xxii.19-20) and that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life in you (St. John vi.54). Or are these obvious truths from the mouth of Our Lord that you are not blessed to believe?
Can you state in one or two sentences what the authority of the Catholic Church is based on?
Christ built his Church upon St. Peter (St. Matthew xvi.18) and then gave His Apostles the Divine Commission to baptize and teach all nations (St. Matthew xxviii.19) with the power that His Father had given Him (St. John xx.21). If you do not believe that Christ actually built a Church, then you betray Scripture and will probably not be swayed by me quoting them ad nauseum.
Actually it was St John and he was commanded by Jesus.
I misspoke. I would hope you have no problems with me calling Jesus "God," however.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"
See Post #89.
The Bible is not inspired because some authority "declares" them to be so.
It most certainly is. What authority do you refer to when you say Scripture is inspired? Itself? See Posts #65 and 89. You seem to have a problem separating Christ and the Bible - this is a common Protestant malady known as "bibliolatry." Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, made Incarnate by the Virgin Mary for the Redemption of the world. The Bible, or more specifically the New Testament, is an assemblage of the early writings of the Apostles that the Church compiled and declared the Inspired Word of God (Post #78, last paragraph). If it wasn't for the Church, you wouldn't have Scripture, nor would you have a logical reason to view it as Inspired.
However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them. Rather, we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine. Daniel [Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. The fact that his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that his reign was not to be such as to wipe out either the name of Christ or of the church. From this it therefore is evident that we by no means deny that the churches under his tyranny remain churches. But these he has profaned by his sacrilegious impiety, afflicted by his inhuman domination, corrupted and well-nigh killed by his evil and deadly doctrines, which are like poisoned drinks. In them Christ lies hidden, half buried, the gospel overthrown, piety scattered, the worship of God nearly wiped out. In them, briefly, everything is so confused that there we see the face of Babylon rather than that of the Holy City of God. To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of the church remain--especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devil’s wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church.
- Calvin’s Institutes, IV:2.12; Emphasis Mine
During the first session, from December 1545 until March 1547, the Council of Trent discussed such matters as the relationship of scripture and tradition, the canon of scriptural books and the doctrines of original sin and justification. Among other things it radically altered the theological position of justification of the Council of Orange (circa 529 AD). It included the controversial Apocrypha books into the Catholic Bible which were considered suspect by the early church fathers and only included as an Appendix in early writings. And the Council of Trent forbid the reading of the scriptures by lay people saying this was to be left to the priests.
But to me the most radical, and shameful act of the Council of Trent was to essentially scraped Augustine’s position of original sin and justification and replace it with the more humanistic “free will” belief that became prevalent during the Renaissances. It takes careful and objective study to view these various positions. As I found in my research, Calvins favors Augustine and the Council of Orange interpretation which is why we would say we base our beliefs on the early church fathers-not on the Council of Trent which appeared on the scene 1000 years later. (Much like some Catholics don't recognize Vatican II.) Below is just one small sample of the theological change that took place from the Council of Orange to the Council of Trent.
BTW-If you go out to New Advent and look up original sin you will get quite a tap dance on this matter since it was radically altered.
Council of Orange
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
Council of Trent
SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).
I thought it was pretty clear I was saying that. The authority of the Catholic Church rests upon its direct descent from the Apostles, and its retention of the promises of Christ to them to "be with you always" (St. Matthew 28.20), that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church]" (St. Matthew 16.17), and that the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles to "dwell with you forver" (St. John 14.16) and "teach you all things" (St. John 14.26) and "teach you all truth" (St. John 16.13). Christ promised these things solemnly, not indiscriminately to all His followers, but only to the 12 Apostles, who were to lead His Church and be succeeded by the Bishops (Acts 20.28).
I believe the words of Christ are literally true, and that therefore, the Catholic Church has not and cannot err or lead the faithful astray with false teachings. Therefore, the heirarchy is invested with the fullness of the authority granted to the Apostles to "rule the Church of God" (Acts 20.28).
This is the ground of authority in the Church - the promises of Christ communicated only to the Bishops of the Catholic Church.
*Sigh* You know, what is recorded in Scripture actually happened. It was historical: Christ was made Incarnate of the Blessed Virgin, submitted Himself to her for thirty years, began His ministry, chose the Apostles, taught doctrines, built a Church to guard those doctrines and teach them to others, was crucified, died, buried, and rose again in His glorious Resurrection. These things are all recorded in Scripture and constitute historical fact (unless you believe as the Modernists do, but that's another story). The Church derives its authority from Christ, who built it and gave it His Divine Commission, as I've mentioned. This is explicitly contained in Scripture, which shows that the Church is an object of history. See post #65 for the development of this line of reason. Given that the Church has Divine Authority, as an institution to teach, govern, and sanctify the faithful, when she compiles a specific number of books and declares them inspired, we should assent. Any other argument for the inspiration of Scripture lacks sound reasoning.
Did John have the divine authority to decide Jesus was to be the Christ?
St. John obviously decided that Jesus was the True Messiah, as he became His beloved apostle who in turn wrote an eyewitness account of His ministry. He was most likely given Divine Grace to aid in this decision, not "authority". That Jesus Christ is the Son of God is an immutable truth, the basis for Christianity, which God revealed to us for our salvation. The Scriptures in and of themselves are not "revealed truths" - they were not brought down from Heaven by an angel as the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been - they are man-made books that contain revealed truths as declared by the Catholic Church. For instance, certain apocrypha may contain actual history of the time directly after Christ walked the earth - but they do not necessarily contain true doctrine and therefore they were rejected by the Church, the keepers of the doctrine of Christ, when they settled the Canon of Scripture. Without a Divine Authority continuing Christ's ministry here on earth, how would you ever discern what books to reject and what to accept?
A priest saying "I'm gay" (there's only 450,000 priests running around) is hardly the Church changing its teaching.
Birth Control… Catholic charities and birth control
Has the Catholic Church ever taught that Birth Control is okay? No. Does some group providing birth control to employees in disobedience to Church teaching count? No.
You are going to have to come up with better examples than this. Do you think we've dropped these teachings because a priest said he is a faggot, or because some quasi-Church organization is slyly providing birth control on the side?
This is like saying we approve of the sale of indulgences, since Friar Tetzel indulged in that practice, when we had condemned the very thing for over 1300 years prior to Tetzel's wanderings in Germany.
A Catholic disobeying the teachings of the Church does not change the teachings of the Church. That is pretty basic. Can you grasp it?
There is no doctrine of "Papal supremacy". We believe the Pope holds the primacy, and is infallible in certain circumstances. The Sedevacantist groups accept all of this, and the Polish Nationals have come much closer to reintegrating themselves with us after their fling with nationalism and their getting burnt by the Old Catholics and Anglicans ordaining women.
But really, I think the analogy fails. I agree the ELCA and ECUSA and PCUSA and UMC and the like are not really Christian. But the faithful conservative bodies broke away from them, not vice-versa. Whereas with the Catholic Church, it is the dissenters who break away, not the faithful. Its really quite a contrast. Liberals aren't fleeing the conservative Protestant Churches because they were never part of them, rather, the conservatives fled from the liberals.
There you go being scurrilous, or at least misinformed, again. The Canon of Sacred Scripture as found in Catholic Bibles today was set down by the Council of Rome in 382 and more definitively by the Council of Carthage in 397. Both Councils were confirmed by the Roman Pontiff at the time. From the Council of Carthage:
"Can. 36. [It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Machabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John. Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated."
Anyone who tells you that the Council of Trent "added the Apocrypha to the Canon" is a liar. The Council of Florence even reiterated the Church's Canon on Sacred Scripture a hundred years prior to Trent and before the Reformers began their hack job.
As regarding the Canons you quoted, I see no contradiction. The first from the Council of Orange II states that God's mercy is given to us without grace but is guided to its proper end with grace and that we are humble and obedient by a gift of grace. The second from the Council of Trent states that justifying grace is not merely confidence in God's mercy and that confidence in His mercy is not sufficient for justification. What change are you asserting?
Also, in response to your claim that Trent "forbid the reading of the scriptures by lay people," here is a selection from the New Catholic Dictionary:
"This multiplication of versions by men who lacked qualifications essential for the work, and who acknowledged no proper supervision, made for the corruption of the Sacred Text, so that the Council of Trent (1546-1563) was compelled to take action. The Council strictly prohibited the reading of all heretical Latin versions, unless grave reasons necessitated their use. The Council itself did not forbid the reading of the new Catholic translations, although even these later fell under the ban of the Index Commission which Trent set up for the supervision of future legislation regarding the Bible. In 1559 the Commission forbade the use of certain Latin editions, as well as German, French, Spanish, Italian, and English vernacular vereions. Two centuries later, however, it modified the severity of this legislation by granting permission for the use of all versions translated by learned Catholic men, provided they contained annotations derived from the Fathers, and had the approval of the Holy See."
By the teaching given us by the Bishops which they learned from their predecessors in an unbroken chain back to Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.