No, the reason they are forgotten is because Rome believes a lie, in which, besides the forgeries and falsely claiming unanimous consent of the fathers, and other things, she fosters a false hope of salvation, no matter how nominal, because of infant baptism on proxy faith and confidence in the power of the church by her self-promotion, so that few see their desperate need for conversion by faith as damned sinners who are destitute of any merit whereby they may escape their just eternal punishment and gain eternal life, who can only be saved on Christ's expense and merit, by a faith which will follows Him.
Jaroslav Pelikan stated that before Trent, between extremes “were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification.” In reaction to the Reformation,”the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
What, you do not hold to Sola Fide any more?
Rather, i provide the documentation that it refers to the kind of faith which effects works, In that sense , "Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
Or is it that when it is time to deflect criticism you all of a sudden get interested in things literal and historical?
It is you whom i see deflecting criticism, while you seem to have a short memory. On your very own home page you will find links to your posts on a very extensive thread (part here) in which i explain sola fide and also provide historical aspects. Of which thread you courteously wrote,
"This is another marathon thread, where Daniel and I exchanged many lengthy posts. We mostly argued the role of good works in salvation, where Daniel took a detailed classical-Protestant position. His thoughtful and well-argumented posts can be seen from my responses to them:"
Little more should need to be added.
Sorry. What lie? Long-winded sentences of your opinions to not make your opinions proof of anything. Unlike the "by faith alone" which was an intentional mistranslation on which Protestantism is built.
”the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers.
Pelikan is a good historian of Lutheran persuasion,who ended up in the Orthodox Church. With all respect to him, on points separating us from him and you, I'd rather hear a Catholic source opining about Trent. This is what Trent was: it answered the theological claims of the early reformers and clarified the Catholic faith. Yes, there was a need to clarify or else there would be no Luther.
the kind of faith which effects works
The idea that faith "effects" works is an intentionally unclear statement designed to hide the controversy when Protestants are in defensive posture. Yes, mature well-formed faith incorporates the works of faith. No, no kind of faith produces works like liver produces bile: one has to do the works of faith on his free will.
It is you whom i see deflecting criticism ... you courteously wrote
Do my responses to you then contradict anything I wrote now? and if they do, why would that be "deflecting criticism"? People running from criticism do mot post links to the arguments they had made. I indeed salute your classic-Protestant position as it is less corrupt than modern Evangelical Protestantism as a whole. It is still corrupt because it is not Catholic and not scriptural. The one correct authentic soteriology is in the canons of Trent. The rest are at best approximations.