"What Still Keeps Us Apart" by Michael Horton (or Rome Anathematized Itself at Trent - my title)

http://www.the-highway.com/Horton_cath.html ^ | unknown | Michael Horton

[fishtank]

... We must remember that it is not we who anathematized Rome, but Rome that anathematized the gospel and thereby anathematized itself. The issue is not even really the condemnation of Protestants (those wounds are easy to heal) but the anathema against the gospel. The evangelicals who remain authentic witnesses to the gospel of grace alone through faith alone, therefore, are carrying on the Catholic faith. Just prior to the Council of Trent, there were many—including cardinals—who accepted the material principle (that is, the gospel) as the Reformation restated it. In fact, there was still much hope on both sides that a unity could be achieved. But when the Council of Trent repeatedly declared that those who believed that their only hope for salvation was faith in Christ now fell under the church's ban, Rome became a schismatic body. ...

This is an excerpt.

Entire article at the link.

[annalex]

Trent

James 2

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone (supra, chapters 7-8), meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works (ibid., chapter 10), but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

[17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? [26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

May the filthy lie of Protestantism be forgotten forever, amen.

[Cronos]

fishtank: and of the resulting effects centuries later..

[proe]

Do you have any objective verification of your questionable facts or is it just the usual self serving testimony?

So then if one were to believe your rant, 20% of the attendees were conversant with NT Greek and OT Hebrew. Even by today's standards that is a high number. Why were these aforementioned 20% unable to assist the 80%?

Did you also have a seminary professor relate this to you and if so would their persuasion be Calvinistic? This might bring their credibility into question.

[johngrace]

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/justification-sola-fide

[dangus]

Actually, I find in that text all the clarifications and nuances that 21st-century Lutherans think Luther was fighting for.

The notion of “faith alone,” as spelled out in that document, is clearly the notion that people can continue in every act of wickedness with no fear of justice. The church detected an ancient heresy, antinomianism, in Luther’s words, and summoned him to clarify. Luther refused clarification, and so the Church carefully condemned not the general notion of the requisite of faith (as Paul emphasizes), but merely that extreme which denies the participation of obedience to God (as is contrary to James).

Luther responded by preaching that James was a demonically spawned “epistle of straw,” and cast out of his own personal canon every part of scripture which disproved his very wrong interpretation: James (which says that faith must be accompanied by works), Revelations (which depicts the souls in Heaven watching the earth below and praying for us), 2 Peter (which insists that those who have faith and yet are disobedient will be saved, but “as one who passes through fire), 2 Maccabees (which has a prophet of God approving the people atoning for their fallen loved ones’ sins), and many, many more books.

THAT was why Luther was anathematized: not because the Catholic church rejected a given scriptural interpretation, but because Luther, when faced with an argument he could not biblically counter, literally made war against the very word of God.

Calvin, on the other hand, was anathematized because he decided to kill anyone who attended mass.

[nickcarraway]

How come Protestants didn’t remove the Sermon on the Mount from the Bible?

[narses]

Good question!

[dartuser]

Among other things, this biblical interpretation disregards the St. Paul's teaching on purgatory

lol ...

Paul taught purgatory?

[annalex]

St. Paul taught purgatory most clearly.

[9] For we are God's coadjutors: you are God's husbandry; you are God's building. [10] According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. [11] For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: [13] Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

(1 Cor. 3)

Observe: the inferior works of the believer are burned at his judgment, and he, purified, enters heaven. That is the essence of Purgatory.

[dartuser]

Somehow I knew the word "essence" would have to come into the picture.

There are at least several lines of evidence that contradict your assertion that this passage is speaking of purgatory.

1. There is no mention of bodily suffering.
2. There is no mention of any sort of heavenly vision.
3. The fire itself is being applied to the WORKS of the believer, not the believer himself.
4. This judgment clearly happens at the day of the Lord (a singular yet future event), not distributed across time at the death of each believer.
5. It is the work that is being burned, not the believer.
6. The context of the passage is reward, and loss of reward, not punishment for sins not atoned for.

This passage in no way contributes to the doctrine of purgatory.

[annalex]

1-6 would only contradict your incorrect notion of what the purgatory is, not to what is is really. For example, purgatory is not a punishment but preparation to entering heaven, just like St. Paul’s passage describes the stubble and such burning off; it is not someting that proceeds through time; the fires of purgatory do not intend to annihilate the believer by burning him, etc.

It is generally a good idea to have a good grasp on the notion that you intend to dispute about.

Better still, leave the grotesque error of Protestantism behind and get to know the authentic Christianity before it is too late.

[dartuser]

1-6 would only contradict your incorrect notion of what the purgatory is

How so? What specifically about 1-6 contradicts it? I see no context at all to support your claim ... or was that just a veiled remark suggesting that you, being a Catholic, are a mature believer and I, being a non-Catholic, am not?

For example, purgatory is not a punishment but preparation ... It is generally a good idea to have a good grasp on the notion that you intend to dispute about.

You should also get to know your own doctrine ...

1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things."

Your own cathecism teaches that you are atoning for your own sins in purgatory. You in fact proclaim with your doctrine, "the atonement of Jesus Christ was not sufficient to purify a Catholic from all their sin."

Colossians 2:13-14

13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross was completely sufficient and effective to clease you from all your sin ... purgatory is a very poor substitute.

Better still, leave the grotesque error of Protestantism behind and get to know the authentic Christianity before it is too late.

I left Protestantism long ago. What you have is not authentic Christianity ...

I pray that the Lord Jesus will remove the blinders from your eyes.

[annalex]

"expiating" is not "atoning". You are quoting from canon 1475 which teaches about the communion with the Church Suffering. If you want to know what purgatory is, read the chapter about it:

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.⁶⁰⁴ The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:⁶⁰⁵

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.⁶⁰⁶

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."⁶⁰⁷ From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.⁶⁰⁸ The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.⁶⁰⁹

---

604 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.


605 Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15; ⇒ 1 Pet 1:7.


606 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. ⇒ Mt 12:31.


607 ⇒ 2 Macc 12:46.


608 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 856.


609 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41, 5: PG 61, 361; cf. ⇒ Job 1:5.

Catechism

[dartuser]

Noun 1. expiation - compensation for a wrong; "we were unable to get satisfaction from the local store" atonement, satisfaction amends, damages, indemnification, redress, restitution, indemnity - a sum of money paid in compensation for loss or injury
2. expiation - the act of atoning for sin or wrongdoing (especially appeasing a deity) atonement, propitiation redemption, salvation - (theology) the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil amends, reparation - something done or paid in expiation of a wrong; "how can I make amends"

Enough said ...

[annalex]

You said, ignorantly, that St. Paul does not teach purgatory; I however, showed to you where he does, and then gave you authoritative teaching on what purgatory is. The teaching of St. Paul matches the teaching of the Church on the purgatory.

If you wish to drop that topic and instead tell me what the Catechism, in your opinion, says, you need to find someone interested in your thoughts and with time to listen. I have other things to do.

[dartuser]

Lets summarize the debate so far ...

You said that St. Paul taught the doctrine of purgatory

I believe my original response was "Paul taught purgatory?" with the implied question "where?" I was asking for Biblical evidence ... which you graciously provided.

You choose 1 Cor 3; which talks about judgment of works and you used that passage to claim that purgatory is what Paul is talking about. I highlighted at least 5 problems with the interpretation you espouse and you started to address maybe one of them. You made the claim that purgatory is not punishment, but merely some kind of preparation.

Then I showed you in your own catechism where the concept of atonement in purgatory (not merely some preparation) is clearly laid out, and your desire was then to play word games ... claiming that expiation does not mean atonement.

There is no shame in admitting that your religion teaches you are making atonement for your own sins in purgatory ... 1475 clearly teaches that ...

Let me highlight it again for you ... and perhaps you can find another way to explain it.

1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things." In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

So here is the position you are now in ... By holding to the doctrine of purgatory, you are trusting in your own ability (and other saints) to atone for your sins in purgatory. With that position ... you are spitting on the sacrifice of the Son of God ... in fact claiming that you must pay for your own sins in purgatory, with the theological consequence that the atoning work of the Lord of Glory is not enough.

What exactly is your faith and trust in? The atoning work of Jesus Christ ... or the doctrine of the RCC?

If it is Jesus Christ and His work on the cross ... then you must reject the doctrine of purgatory as both unbiblical and contrary to sound doctrine. If it is in the doctrine of the RCC, then you willingly invite eternal consequences for your error ... for to have a misunderstanding concerning the atoning work of Christ demonstrates that you have in fact synthesized a god in the image of the RCC, rather than the God of the Bible. This amounts to idolatry ... and you risk a judgment day pronouncement ... "Depart from Me ... I never knew you"

[annalex]

At most you can say that "expiation" in 1475 is an unfortunate translation because "expiation" might be mistakenly taken for "offering effective sacrifice in atonement for sin". However, the same canon also clarifies that the process is that of purification. I cited canons 1030-1032 which explain that "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification". So "expiation" in 1475 should not be taken in the same sense as that of atonement worked by Christ on the Cross. You disctionary quote has room for other meanings of "expiation".

If you want to know how our works participate in the atonement of Christ, there is a catechism for that as well, but it has nothing to do with purgatory (souls in purgatory cannot participate in the sacrifice of Christ because they cannot do any works; nor do they need it because they have already been saved).

Here is what the Church teaches on the unique atonement of Christ and how the living on this earth can participate in the sacrifice of Christ:

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

616 It is love "to the end"⁴⁴⁶ that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.⁴⁴⁷ Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."⁴⁴⁸ No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. the existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"⁴⁴⁹ and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."⁴⁵⁰ and the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."⁴⁵¹

Our participation in Christ's sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the "one mediator between God and men".⁴⁵² But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, "the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" is offered to all men.⁴⁵³ He calls his disciples to "take up [their] cross and follow (him)",⁴⁵⁴ for "Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps."⁴⁵⁵ In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.⁴⁵⁶ This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.⁴⁵⁷ Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.⁴⁵⁸

---

446 ⇒ Jn 13:1.


447 Cf. ⇒ Gal 2:20; ⇒ Eph 5:2, ⇒ 25.


448 ⇒ 2 Cor 5:14.


449 ⇒ Heb 5:9.


450 Council of Trent: DS 1529.


451 LH, Lent, Holy Week, Evening Prayer, Hymn Vexilla Regis.


452 1 Tim 2:5.


453 GS 22 # 5; cf. # 2.


454 ⇒ Mt 16:24.


455 I Pt 2:21.


456 Cf ⇒ Mk 10:39; ⇒ Jn 21:18-19; ⇒ Col 1:24.


457 Cf. ⇒ Lk 2:35.


458 St. Rose of Lima: cf. P. Hansen, Vita mirabilis (Louvain, 1668).

Paragraph 2. JESUS DIED CRUCIFIED

So what is your religion, if I may ask, that is "not Protestant" yet surpisingly repeats every canard about the purgatory and atonement that the Protestans use to spread their lies?

[dartuser]

At most you can say that "expiation" in 1475 is an unfortunate translation because "expiation" might be mistakenly taken for "offering effective sacrifice in atonement for sin". However, the same canon also clarifies that the process is that of purification.

Whether expiation means atonement or purification (I find your explanation very unsatisfying) the point remains ... your view of the atonement of Christ is lacking. Does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all sin ... or just some sin? Seems the scriptures are clear that His blood cleanses us from all sin ... there is nothing left to purify if His atonement was perfect.

If you want to know how our works participate in the atonement of Christ ...

Works do not do anything wrt salvation ... salvation is a work of God, it is absolutely free, it is not earned or deserved.

Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

And ... Titus 1:9

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit

Hebrews 10 talks about the one sacrifice that Christ made on the cross.

10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

If that one offering on the cross has perfected us ... where is there room for purification? What the doctrine of purgatory does is negate the clear teaching of scripture on the atonement ... and it affirms that the sacrifice of Christ did not perfect us.

When the Bible is clear on a topic ... and you desire to add something to that ... you negate the text of the scripture and follow another gospel.

So what is your religion ...

Christian ... non-denominational.

yet surpisingly repeats every canard about the purgatory and atonement that the Protestans use to spread their lies?

I have simply challenged your understanding and interpretation of 1 Cor. 3 and presented a clear passage in Hebrews 10 to clearly show that the doctrine of purgatory is unbiblical ...

My main question still stands ...

Is your faith and trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ... or is it in the teaching of the RCC?

[annalex]

there is nothing left to purify if His atonement was perfect.

The purgatorial purification is itself a part of the atonement. Remember, he is in purgatory only because his sin was already atoned for by Christ on the Cross. The question of his salvation is not resolved through the purgatory; it is merely entryway to Heaven.

Works do not do anything wrt salvation

Of course they do. The very passages you cite incompletely instruct us in the necessity of good works for our salvation if you read them completely. Read for example, down to Eph. 2:10 and Titus 3 (that is the one you cited, but misidentified) down to verse 9.

Let me summarize what the scripture teaches and what also the Church teaches. The salvation is by Grace of Jesus Christ alone (Eph 2:5-10) but it is not by faith alone: good works must accompany faith (Eph. 2:10, James 2:17:26). Good works, however, are never works of the law, or done for a temporal reward (Rm 3:28, Mt 6:5, 6:16). What are the good works? They are works of love done because of the Christian believer's ability to see Christ in every suffering, and they indeed save (Mt 25:31-46)

Is your faith and trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ... or is it in the teaching of the RCC?

Christ gave me my Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which speaks with the voice of Christ and I listen.

he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me (John 13:20).