Posted on 06/23/2014 6:44:09 AM PDT by Gamecock
In the 1540’s and beyond, when the Protestant Reformation had spread and taken hold in various places in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church met for a series of meetings called Council of Trent. At these meetings they wrote many canons and decrees that specifically addressed the theology of the Reformation (among other things). In these canons and decrees are very clear rejections of Protestant theology. Very often Rome used the term anathema (not maranatha!), a Greek word which means “accursed” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22). Here are a few canons that clearly anathematize the theology of the Reformation. Note: I’ve emphasized the theological words under discussion in each canon.
- If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost or destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name…let him be anathema.
- 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…let him be anathema.
- 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.
- If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven [listed here], or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.
- If anyone…denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood…which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.
And the list goes on. This isn’t semantics or politics. Rome understood the Reformation and she anathematized many of its major emphases: bondage of the will, justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the sacraments, and so forth. Though I am a Protestant who strongly disagrees with Trent and many of the doctrines of Rome (and therefore am under their anathemas), I do recommend reading these documents for a better understanding of the Reformation – and for proof that the Reformation still matters today.
From the way I read this official teaching of the church, catholics have to do what is taught in both Scripture and sacred Tradition. Is this incorrect?
Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.
Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. Source: Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Second Vatican Council 11-18-1965
So, we Catholics believe what Scripture says and Protestants believe what they can twist Scripture into saying. It’s that simple.
Actually, you have this backwards.
As a Christian I believe the Bible, and only the Bible, is God breathed. Not catholic tradition. It is the Holy Spirit which has given us the Word....not the catholic church. It is the Word we are to look to, as the apostles did, for guidance....not tradition.
It is the catholic church which has elevated Mary to her position of almost equaling Christ in the role of salvation. "Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother." (Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914)
The catholic church teaches its members to pray to mary.
It is the catholic church that teaches that Mary was sinless in contradiction of Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
It is the catholic church that teaches its members that Mary was remained virgin in spite of the clear teaching of the Bible that Jesus had step-brothers and sisters.
It is the catholic church that has established the papacy and the title of pope...neither is supported by the Bible.
I could go on about indulgences, penance, working for your salvation, etc, but I think you get the idea.
ealgeone:
No your reading is basically correct. So yes Catholics understand revelation to be linked to the Person of Christ, who chose Apostles and sent them [Apostle means to be sent] and those the Faith is rooted in Apostolic Tradition [Tradition meaning to pass on what was received] and thus Apostolic Tradition has its source in Christ, thru the Apostles and comes to us via Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition [by which is affirmed in Creeds, Councils and Liturgy of the Church].
So all Doctrines/Dogmas have their ultimate source in The Trinity and Christ and come to us via Apostolic Tradition [Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition].
Abortion for example is not explicitly condemned in the Bible, however, in the Church Fathers and other Patristic Writings such as the Didache, we see a clear teaching against Abortion, so a Catholic dissident stating that the Bible never explicitly condemns abortion would be accurate. However, abortion is rejected explicitly via Sacred Tradition as can be seen in the direct condemnation of it in the Didache, which some scholars date was being written in the late 1st century AD.
Where is your essay (in your own words) which would show that you do indeed have some ability which others (sadly, it's so sad) lack?
Copy/paste from who knows where -- lifted from someone else's collection of abbreviated-name labeled, pre-"cherry picked", out of context, alleged quotes prove ---nothing much.
Particularly if one is needing to show that they themselves have some superior abilities for understanding high concepts which others cannot grasp.
Besides, Augustine can be seen in other context to argue against "carnal" understanding of what is being partaken of in communion, as can some other ECF's also.
There is also -- much room for considerations towards some of the ECF's, when they used the words "flesh & blood" to have been speaking not of a carnal view, as if each and every person was participating in a form of cannibalism, but the view they were not, even as the words themselves used do suggest that very thing.
Going back to the very earliest times (of the church), Christians were accused of engaging in cannibalism -- which they denied doing, but does indicate fairly well that the wordings which incorporate "fleshly" sounding terminology were indeed used, right from the beginning.
Quoting others (adding nothing else of one's own) does not prove that any in actuality understand "higher concepts" -- in fact it can be some evidence that one perhaps does not -- much, in actuality understand the concepts Christ was speaking of.
Note too, that when an ECF is speaking against some particular heresies, they were speaking against notions which included such ideas that when Christ was Resurrected -- that wasn't his body, but that He when appearing to the disciples was as a ghost or spectre, appearing to be real, but not then at that time be walking in the form of a man in the very same body which He was born into, suffered and died on the cross as, etc., etc.
The plain and simple faith is, that was indeed the very same body He was born in, which [He] walked among them for some forty days after His resurrection, but before His eventual Ascension (which event was witnessed by three of the disciples directly with their own eyes)
Yet before He was born did He have a flesh & blood body?
Answer that, genius #3.
What I have is both the entire Bible rather than only the Luther Subset and the fullness of the Faith.
The One True Faith as protected by the Holy Spirit and passed down to us directly from Jesus Christ through the Apostles in both written and oral form. I'll take the words of Christ as they have been understood for two thousand years, you take you own understanding if you like. But without a doubt, I don't have anything "backwards" just because someone under a strong delusion has a personal opinion that contradicts the One True Church.
I understand the knee jerk reaction of pretending that anyone who doesn't rely on Self and Self Alone rather than on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded is in error. That's normal for those who prefer Self to what Christ made sure was passed down to us through His Church. A reaction that proves such folks are under a strong delusion; the contradiction of Core and the attendant Tower of Babel substitute for Truth. Not only do they not accept the entire Bible, they have no life in them as they do not partake of the Eucharist.
Such folks need some fear and trembling rather than the glibness and rote feel good Self and Self Alone comforting cliches that soothe their itching ears. Fear and trembling that leads them to be open to the Holy Spirit rather accepting their own understanding and shoving the Holy Spirit aside.
Now, yes, there's a chance some folks outside of the One True Church will be saved. It's a rare person outside of the Catholic Church, though, that doesn't swallow the same lie Satan told Eve and substitute their own preferences for what God commands every time doing so is convenient for them.
Protestants aren't alone in this, of course. In the US a majority of Catholics seem to have accepted the same lie and become Cafeteria Catholics, if that. Going along to get along is the norm in this country and there's no better way to go along and get along than to embrace the heresy of Core that anoints the Self and elevates the Self above the Holy Spirit.
I'll pray for you.
Have a nice day
“I could go on about indulgences, penance, working for your salvation, etc, but I think you get the idea.”
One could literally go on and on in the Labyrinth of Rome. Wasn’t built in a day, you know. As someone said elsewhere in the thread, it takes a “strong person” to be Catholic. Religion always favors the strong. The Gospel favors the weak!
ALL?
Wowsa-jowsa that is one HUGE assumption, in face of the so very many highly problematic conditions of history which indicate something of the opposite -- enough to blow that word "all" to kingdom-come.
Are you aware that stories of the Ascension of Mary (either bodily or not precisely bodily) did not begin to arise until very late in the 4th and/or in the 5th century?
Previously -- was it on this thread or another? -- but yesterday say, you spoke of the dormition of Mary and the Ascension of Mary as to having been one and the same thing?
Those two are not the same concept. It does no good to link the two if trying to push the ascension of Mary stories back further than there is any record for --at all, (though I am not saying here that is in fact what you yourself were attempting) while other documentary evidence prior to that era fails to include mentions or even much allusion towards the latter concept.
One can even come across ECF mentions which would indicate that they themselves ever heard of such a thing as the Ascension of Mary.
What then? Should it be contemplated that she did not herself Ascend until some long centuries (like about twice as long as the United States of America has been in existence) after her own natural life had ended?
For there are the Dormition stories, which do fairly well establish that she did indeed, as to her earthly flesh --die, though the term dormition was gentle way to put it, as a 'falling asleep' which sort of terminology was used commonly enough for others also with this likely for reason of the expectation of eventual resurrection (the dead in Christ shall rise, as it is written).
Show us the earliest Dormition of Mary accounts, perhaps a small collection of them -- but minus later fiddlings or adjustments made by later scribblers.
Show your work.
Assertions --- are near to being worthless. Millions of Muslims assert Muhammad was God's prophet -- and last one without those assertions making that be actual fact.
I would think "thou shall not murder" would have covered abortion just fine.
This does not warrant a reply.
The Words of Christ as being recorded in the Gospels and the rest of the Bible I agree with.
I do not reply upon self. I rely upon the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
You will not find, however, a lot of catholic teaching in the Bible. Mary being sinless, indulgences, etc.
This I disagree with due to the teachings on Mary which have been declared dogma and are at odds with the Bible.
The oral and written teachings of the original apostles do not contradict the Old Testament or any of the teachings in the New Testament.
It is the man-made traditions, of which there is not universal agreement by the early "church fathers", that are in contradiction to the Bible.
These teachings of the ECF are not to contradict the Bible, which a good number do.
Hey, this is a good discussion and one of the best I've had on this board. I appreciate your honesty and tact.
Won’t be the last thing I’ll say that doesn’t “warrant a reply”, lol.
Thank you for that!
Wow, I lucked out and made sense to someone! Thank YOU!
ealgeone:
Well it could cover it? well in fact, for an orthodox Christian believer and one who sees the Philosophical reality that infant in the womb is in substance no different than the older man or woman, only the appearances [accidents are different], I agree, it would. However murder has always been understood as the premeditated taking of a life. Someone could take that to say the Death penalty is murder since a prisoner is no longer a thread. Killing in a just war is not an objectively good thing, but it is not murder.
You are using a allegorical scriptural approach to the commandment thou shall not murder, which is one that is actually solid and I agree with. The Catholic Church in the Catechism lays out the multiple senses in which scripture speaks one is the Literal but the other is the Allegorical, which encompasses several dimensions, moral, anagogical [leading to a faith truth, while using a metaphor, parable, etc].
The problem is someone can take the literalist approach and say “abortion is not mentioned” and say I will only accept what the Bible explicitly says [many here on FR make such claims]. Again, for the record, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, abortion is linked to the commandment thou shall not kill so your approach here is actually consistent with the Catholic theological approach to the question.
BlueDragon:
Ascension of Mary is not a Catholic Teaching. In fact, that would be heretical. Only Christ Ascended into Heaven. The Assumption of Mary is the Western theological term that is called the Dormition of Mary in the Orthodox Church. The question of what happened to Mary and thus the Dormition is an Eastern Theological tradition, and one that has its earliest celebrations in Liturgy in the 4th century.
The Assumption of Mary means that Mary was assumed by God’s power into Heaven after she died or fell asleep. The feast day of what Catholics Call the “Assumption of Mary” and what the ORthodox Call the “Dormition of Mary” are on August 15th in both CHurches.
And yes, Mary being assumed into heaven is connected the paschal mystery of Christ because anyone who goes to heaven will be “assumed into heaven” by God’s power, not their own and as the Creeds state, I believe in the resurrection of the body, etc, that is in essence connected to being assumed into heaven by God.
BlueDragon:
Here is a readers digest summary of hte Dormition of the Theotokos from a Greek Orthodox CHurch Website. I have a good understanding of Orthodox Theology but I am not Orthodox so it is better to let their own Church sites explain their teachings.
http://www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/dormition
So the Assumption of Mary in Catholicism and Dormition are describing the same thing, although there are a few differences in what happened with Mary when she died. I think in Catholic Theology, one can hold that she died, but did not experience corruption in the tomb [which is the most held position] or she was assumed before she died. The way the Dogma was proclaimed “having completed the course of her earthly life” leaves open both views in Catholic Doctrine. In the Orthodox view, Mary did die “fell asleep” before being taken up.
If you look at Orthodox Liturgies, they speak of Mary being taken up into Heaven which is consistent with the Catholic view of “Mary being Assumed into Heaven” In Catholic Tradition [Rome and the West], things get defined, vs the Greek East, things are left more in the realm of Mystery and are celebrated in the Liturgy of the Church so they are believed as part of the faith, but not given precise dogmatic terminology which is what Rome has traditionally done on questions.
And I am aware that it wasn’t until the 4th century that the question of what Happened to Mary’s body became a subject of Theological inquiry. Clearly by the time of Saint Epiphanius of Salamis, it was a question theologians were debating for he writes that nobody new whether she had died or not [circa 377AD]
It's not Self and Self Alone, it's what the Holy Spirit allowed Satan to hide for fifteen hundred years.
It's really Scripture Alone as the Self chooses to interpret Scripture with no regard to how it's been understood for two thousand years and Faith Alone as Self chooses to define Faith on any given day.
As I said, I'll pray for you.
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.