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.
“Rome believes a lie”
Some here believe things that just ain’t so, like:
“All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.”
“God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.”
Pearls. Swine.
I am sorry if you cannot comprehend that for RCs, "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.
And if you object to long sentences and or paragraphs, let me show you some encyclicals!
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.
I doubt that, as i have found it is not whether the source is Catholic or not that determine approval, but whether they agree with the poster. You can search The Historical Roots Of The Reformation And Evangelicalism , but in any case, Scripture, Tradition, history, etc. can only mean what Rome says they mean. Thus the classic response by Manning:
. It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. ...I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. (Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.)
The idea that faith "effects" works is an intentionally unclear statement designed to hide the controversy when Protestants are in defensive posture.
A defensive posture results in reaction to the false concept of sola fide which the RC straw man promotes. and i have provided abundant testimony as to the critical importance of works to Reformers (and despite all their talk about works, Catholics come in close to last in evidences of commitment.) .
As for being intentionally unclear, that is what happens when an RC cannot comprehend how faith can works in justification, and reconciling apparently opposing texts. But which the Catholic has no need to do, as all he needs to do if defend Rome, no matter what lack of warrant from Scripture.
No, no kind of faith produces works like liver produces bile: one has to do the works of faith on his free will.
This a very superficial analysis, as what moves the will is what one really believes. Thus, "..according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; " (2 Corinthians 4:13) And as James teaches, one cannot have a living faith if it is not the kind that produces works.
Do my responses to you then contradict anything I wrote now? and if they do, why would that be "deflecting criticism"?
You are misunderstanding or misconstruing the exchange. You imaginatively stated, "Or is it that when it is time to deflect criticism you all of a sudden get interested in things literal and historical?" To which i responded, "It is you whom i see deflecting criticism, while you seem to have a short memory." Note that the word "while." Faced with evidence that Luther was not alone in adding "alone" to Rm. 3:28 and corresponding sense of the text, you adopt an offensive strategy of charging me with suddenly going historical, and which did not avoid the issue but confronted it, and rather than being something new, which those who follow my posts (and site) can attest is not the case, i pointed you to previous exchanges which attest to that. Of course, i see not even an acknowledgment of your error, while i see you avoiding the part of my post that dealt with the implications of support for Rome's coercive jurisdiction."
. I indeed salute your classic-Protestant position as it is less corrupt than modern Evangelical Protestantism as a whole.
Modern Evangelical Protestantism, even in its present state, outshines Roman Catholicism overall in evidences of faith , though overall both are in respective declining outside relative remnants .
It is still corrupt because it is not Catholic and not scriptural.
In reality, the censure is based upon the former and not the latter, as Scripture is not the supreme authority for her and determinative of doctrine, but she is, having infallibly declared herself infallible. Thus Scripture or whatever need only rubber stamp what she decrees, as it means whatever she needs it to mean, regardless of claims that she goes by it. Like as Manning said.