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.
Gamecock, did you know that Vulcans are Catholic?
The above portion of your post sounds like you were saying that Christ said the opposite of the Trent anathema you quoted.
***especially the pre-trib rapture, the scripture taught the exact opposite! ***
From what I’ve read, Baptists held the amillinialist line until Schofield came out with this bible notes. Schofieldism has taken over most fundamentalist churches.
The SBC has never OK’d the Schofield end times doctrine, but has never said it war wrong. The Independent Baptist leader John r Rice did not promote it, but after Rice died, Schofield’s notes became standard in the Independent Baptist Churches.
I tossed my Schofield bible years ago returning to the KJV without notes.
No. God put him on that cross, FOR us.
Humility please. How could we the created force Him to do anything?
It was, is, and will be, the ultimate Proof of his LOVE.
And it still doesn't answer what makes Rome Holy.
I’ve never seen a Protestant rebuttal to John 6:51-58.
I imagine such would not, could not, be succinct, would be lengthy and convoluted, and I would get a headache trying to understand it.
You weren't alive then, of course. Trent was 40 years after the Protestant revolt started, so it was hardly a bolt from the blue. The Protestant side was even invited to send representatives, but didn't.
To be fair, the last few times a dissenting opinion went to a Catholic Council, they got burnt at the stake for it.
Safe conduct was viewed, rightly, as useless after John Hus.
I was referring to Gamecock’s posting in that post.....I don’t know why they don’t believe the Christ’s words in the Bible.
Selective Bible reading, I guess.
Semantics, if Rome put Jesus on the cross, then every human being on the planet put him there.
Rome is called holy because they wrote the history books.
Are you familiar with osmosis? How about entropy?
Our Savior was, is, and will forever be Divine.
The Divine was created into the temporal.
Here in the temporal creation, everything touches everything else. You are breathing oxygen atoms breathed by Einstein, Washington, and even Jesus.
He was pretty much literally torn to shreds, the equivalent of a human food processor, to spread his Divine flesh and blood upon, and throughout the WHOLE EARTH.
Not just the lil wafers, and wine in only your cup.
The WHOLE WORLD!
Every meal is communion, or it should be. He came to SAVE the world. Jesus doesn't go into hiding in the Popes kitchen pantry away from the sinners.
Good try, bit of a stretch for me; but if I return my gaze to Scripture itself, I am getting a sacrament vibe, not an osmosis all-I’ve-got-to-do-is-breathe vibe.
In worthiness, yes, which means the use of the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation too.
Initially a baby or an adult baptized has all their sins washes away, so that they may then receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist if they do not sin.
Now this is comical...a catholic accusing someone of "selective" Bible reading.
I doubt you'll understand it, but here goes:
"John 6:61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
Jesus was speaking figuratively! If the flesh counts for nothing, then the consumption of food while in the flesh also counts for nothing. It is Spiritual.
John uses the word "believe" 46 times, and John 3:16 summarizes the gospel perfectly.
Since the doctrine of transubstantiation is such a critical issue, there must be several elaborations of it in scripture, but this is the only one that gets used as proof of doctrine. Are there others?
Incidentally, if a Christian has only taken communion once in a non-catholic church, does it satisfy the passage you quoted?
Augustine: “Believe, and thou hast eaten”
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.