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.
Well, at least you recognize the consistency of the Church from at least the 16th century (if not before). Most Protestants on here deny the Church has been consistent throughout the centuries.
Sure I do. I just think that y'all are preaching another gospel.
It wasn't until Vatican II when we got all PC. Even EWTN admits to it:
Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth.
aka "Church of Nice"
Semantics are fun! You say sacrament, I say ordinance, they say ritual.
Before that argument continues, yall need to decide on what the term means, and if it/they are then required for salvation. Council of Trent says why yes, they are, and if you refuse to believe, you are anathema.
CANON IV.- If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; -though all (the sacraments) are not necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
No, I say it cannot be any of the above without adding to Torah. And adding to (or taking from) Torah is sin. It is a simple thing.
It’s interesting, Deut 8 (including the passage you cited) was read at Mass this Sunday, which was the Feast of the Body and Blood of our Lord.
It (manna) is a prefigurement of the Eucharist. This has been understood since the time of the Apostles.
What? We -- as individual practicing Catholics -- know the state of our souls immediately after a good confession. I also know the state of my soul immediately before confession -- not so good.
You may want to look at CCC #819
Isn't that a Vatican II addition? In a way I hope it is right, though, for your own eternal benefit.
Semantics, I say. Jesus instituted Baptism and the Commemoration of the bread and wine, which I trust you are not denying?
You need to define "sacrament" and then defend that, much as one who attacks or defends "evolution" must define the term first.
I agree with your intention, but don't understand the point you are making. Jesus gave us a new command (John 13:34) to go with the new covenant (Matt 26:28)
1. What is a "sacrament" in your mind, the RC definition as posted in the Council of Trent?
2. How does that relate to "adding" to the Torah?
Of course it is.
Well, yes I am denying... sort of. Neither could have been newly instituted without breaking Torah. Both, as practiced today, are pagan in origin - Less of a problem in the greater Protestant sphere, as both are (rightly) considered symbolic, but still, it is corrupting the images which were specified early on (Torah). For the Roman church, since they retain so much magick juju around their sacraments, it is far worse.
Jesus gave us a new command (John 13:34) to go with the new covenant (Matt 26:28)
... and as with every covenant, Moses was ratified into the 'new' covenant (Matt 5:17-20), and since every covenant is included in Moses (likewise ratified)...
1. What is a "sacrament" in your mind, the RC definition as posted in the Council of Trent?
Incidental to the argument, but any good dictionary will suffice.
2. How does that relate to "adding" to the Torah?
EVEN IF one were to suggest that things changed at the cross, these 'instituted things' were instituted prior to the cross, wherein Yeshua's function was as the sinless lamb, and as the Great Prophet who must be listened to... For him to be sinless, he cannot add a single thing to Torah, and for him to be listened to, he cannot have spoken anything against Torah. Period. To admit otherwise is to make him false. Since Torah cannot be added to or taken from, he cannot have 'instituted' anything.
And btw, John the Baptist was 'baptizing' before Yeshua, so it cannot have been instituted by Him.
Are you breaking new ground here?
What denomination are you?
No, more like tilling up the old fertile ground, which has lain barren for centuries.
What denomination are you?
Technically Dutch/Christian Reformed, though I doubt they would claim me anymore. I currently attend a conservative non-denom Evangelical church.
However, Jesus did tell his disciples to take the Bread and Wine in remembrance of him (1 Cor 11:23-28), and He did command his disciples in Matt 28:19 to "...make disciples...baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit..."
The reason I argue that the issue can be a semantical one is this, several definitions for the word "sacrament" exist, and one's definition definitely defines one's position on the matter. To wit, the Oxford online dictionary lists 4
1.0 A religious ceremony or act of the Christian Church that is regarded as an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual divine grace, in particular.
1.1(In the Roman Catholic and many Orthodox Churches) the rites of baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, ordination, and matrimony.
1.2(Among Protestants) baptism and the Eucharist.
1.3 (also the Blessed Sacrament or the Holy Sacrament) (In Roman Catholic use) the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, especially the Host
1.4 A thing of mysterious and sacred significance; a religious symbol.
That said, the RCC has a definite meaning as conveyed in the Council of Trent that most Protestants or Baptists reject outright.
If the question is directed to me: I'm undecided, but convinced that Vatican II (or its rotten fruits) served well the intentions of the devil. I'm Catholic by baptism and my comments on the pope, the current state of the church and liturgies thereof don't change that.
A common mistake made by Christians of all stripes is supposing that 'Bread and Wine' are a new thing - The Jews have been keeping 'communion' for millennia, long before Christians. The ceremonial prayers (actually two, one for bread and one for wine), a remembrance of Melchizedek and of Abraham, were what Yeshua was performing - What is important is not the ceremonial prayers He performed, but rather, the revelation he announced thereby:
'Blessed are you, oh YHWH, Creator of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth'...
This is my body, broken for you...
'Blessed are you, oh YHWH, Creator of the universe, who brings forth fruit from the vine'...
This is my blood, which is shed for you...
This is an institution of the Order of Melchizedek being revealed... HE is the BREAD brought forth from the earth. HE is the VINE. This is BIG-TIME Abrahamic Covenant stuff.
The same with Baptism - Look to the Hebrew mikvah to find it's true root.
The same with marriage - look to the Hebrew marriage to understand your marriage covenant and betrothal.
The reason I argue that the issue can be a semantical one is this, several definitions for the word "sacrament" exist, and one's definition definitely defines one's position on the matter.
Again, it is incidental to my argument. It is the actual images portrayed by these sacraments or symbols which are corrupted - It depends upon what a baptism IS... What communion IS... What they look like, what they are for. If the picture is wrong, one can try to explain it and lend attributes to it until the cows come home, and you will get nowhere.
I unalterably believe the teachings that were in effect when I was born — that means probably 99.5% of the teachings in the current Magisterium.
see #6
Yet it still draws vile attacks on him
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.