Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"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

Posted on 10/17/2011 7:29:39 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at the-highway.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Ecumenism; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: catholic; reformation; revisionisthistory; sourcetitlenoturl; trent
This is an excellent summary of the history of the Protestant Reformation... and of the resulting effects centuries later....
1 posted on 10/17/2011 7:29:42 PM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

A longer quote ...

Even as the curia began sitting in Rome to draft a conciliar response to the Reformation, there was hope of reconciliation. A number of cardinals who had gathered at the Council of Trent were convinced of one or more of the Reformers’ objections to the popular teaching of the day, and the popular rejection of the gospel by the pope and the monks had not yet been solidified. Since at this stage popes were not regarded as infallible (that was not declared until Vatican I, 1869-70) the door was open to the full reformation of Western Christendom until the Council of Trent (1545-63) finally closed it with its devastating canons against the gospel. Things that had been left to debate in the universities were now closed to discussion as the Council issued what it considered infallible pronouncements on the doctrine of justification and related truths. Now, issues upon which men and women of goodwill could differ were given a single answer: tradition is equal to Scripture in authority; the interpretation of Scripture and the elements of Holy Communion are to be denied to the laity; the Mass is a repetition of Christ’s sacrifice and each Mass atones for the people; transubstantiation was officially affirmed, as was the belief in purgatory.

However, the most important decree was also the longest, Concerning Justification. The decree begins by affirming, against any Pelagianism, the traditional Augustinian insistence on original sin and the need for grace. Human beings cannot even believe until grace first enables them. In fact, “It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called”—then the good news ends and the Roman error begins—”that they who by sin had been cut off from God may be disposed through his quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace.” So, while a person is not “able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in his sight,” he can and must cooperate with grace. Justification is defined as “not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just.”

The Protestants never denied the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, but this was identified in Scripture as sanctification, not as justification. Rome simply combined the two concepts into one: God justifies us through the process of our moving, by the power of God’s Spirit at work in our lives, from being unjust to becoming just. This, however, rejects Paul’s whole point in Romans 4:1-5, that justification comes only to those who (a) are wicked and (b) stop working for it. God justifies the wicked as wicked, the sinner as sinner. That is the good news of the gospel, and the scandal of the Cross!

The most relevant canons are the following:

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 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 5:5), and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, 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.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

In other words, men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God’s grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ’s finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone. There are indeed two fundamentally different answers to that recurring biblical question, “How can I be saved?” and, therefore, two fundamentally different gospels.

2. The doctrine of the church as expounded by the Roman church, which requires sound, orthodox Roman Catholics to regard the gospel, as understood by evangelicals, as heresy.

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.


2 posted on 10/17/2011 7:31:15 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; Absolutely Nobama; Elendur; it_ürür; Bockscar; Mary Kochan; Bed_Zeppelin; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


3 posted on 10/17/2011 7:35:22 PM PDT by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Bookmark..


4 posted on 10/17/2011 7:37:24 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
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...

Reformation Day is coming PING!

5 posted on 10/17/2011 7:56:35 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2703506/posts?page=518#518)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Just prior to the Council of Trent

PING!

I read an article not to long ago, from a feschrift for John Gerstner. John Warwick Montgomery on the history of the Council of Trent.

Far from being the general council Luther wanted, it was a very stacked deck.

6 posted on 10/17/2011 8:09:37 PM PDT by Lee N. Field ("And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" Gal 3:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
In other words, men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God’s grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ’s finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone..

If you are going to misrepresent the teaching of the Church, it is better you leave to your reader free to interpret the text. Your interpretation is certainly different from what 2005 of the Catholic Catechism says:

Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith.We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. (cf. Council of Trent, DS 1533-34). However, according to the Lord, "Thus you will know them by their fruits," reflection on God's blessings in our lives and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty. [quoting St.Joan of Arc's testimony] Asked if she knew she was in God's grace, she replied," If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there. "

Co-operation is a poor term. Rather we must open our hearts to the graces that pour on us as unrelentingly as the sun's rays fall on the earth, though we be on the far side and do not see the light nor feel its warmth. To close our hearts is to remain forever in the dark and shiver in the cold.

7 posted on 10/17/2011 8:15:32 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

Working with the Holy Spirit always gives you a stacked deck.


8 posted on 10/17/2011 9:14:45 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I heard/read Horton was so embarrassed by ho badly he lost this debate that he cut out the Catholic comments and responses when he aired the debate on his radio program.

https://store.patrickmadrid.com/what-still-divides-us-debate-mp3/

I listened to that debate in 1995 or so. Even the Protestant church which ran the debate admitted the Protestant side stunk.


9 posted on 10/17/2011 9:20:47 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
The Protestants never denied the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, but this was identified in Scripture as sanctification, not as justification. Rome simply combined the two concepts into one: God justifies us through the process of our moving, by the power of God’s Spirit at work in our lives, from being unjust to becoming just. This, however, rejects Paul’s whole point in Romans 4:1-5, that justification comes only to those who (a) are wicked and (b) stop working for it. God justifies the wicked as wicked, the sinner as sinner. That is the good news of the gospel, and the scandal of the Cross!

Among other things, this biblical interpretation disregards the St. Paul's teaching on purgatory and St. James' direct anathema against he principle of salvation by faith alone.

2. The doctrine of the church as expounded by the Roman church, which requires sound, orthodox Roman Catholics to regard the gospel, as understood by evangelicals, as heresy.

Notice the hesitancy and weakness of this claim. The author dares not say that Protestantism (or Evangelicalism) represents the One, True, Orthodox Christian teaching. Such a claim is made by the Catholic Church alone (and by Easterners who share the Catholic position). That is because there were no Protestant Church Councils or non-Western manifestations of Protestantism in prior to Luther.

The authenticity of Catholic biblical interpretation is proven by the record of history. Protestantism disputes the interpretations of all previous Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

10 posted on 10/17/2011 9:32:06 PM PDT by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

and for his next article, it must be:
“What Still Keeps Us Apart” by Michael Horton (or why Michael Horton and the Calvinists Anathematized themselves from the Lutherans)


11 posted on 10/17/2011 9:36:14 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (I might go back to New Hampshire to campaign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

From a Calvinist website — I don’t think I’ll believe their slant on things.


12 posted on 10/17/2011 9:38:58 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
And now for the TRITH.

It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us….On the Council of Jerusalem...(Catholic Caucus)
A Timeline of Catholic Church history, 1-500 A.D. (includes Councils, Canon of the Bible)
MAJOR COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH - 1st Council of Nicaea - 325 A.D. (1st in a series)
MAJOR COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH - 1st Council of Constantinople - 381 A.D. (2nd in a series)
MAJOR CHURCH COUNCILS - The Council Of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.

13 posted on 10/17/2011 9:42:12 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field
A seminary professor of mine researched the invitees of the Council of Trent. In spite of supposedly being an ecumenical council for all the Western Church, over 80% of the Cardinals and Bishops there were from Italy--the most anti-Evangelical and mostly ignorant of the Evangelical movement (using the word Evangelical as Luther used it, with a modern usage of "Protestant.") of all Roman Catholic leadership at the time.

Lutheran leaders were initially invited...but, when it was clear they were to be completely stonewalled and ignored (not to mention being at serious risk of being arrested, tried and burned by the Inquisition...) they soon left.

14 posted on 10/17/2011 11:04:15 PM PDT by AnalogReigns ((since reality is never digital...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

I’d like to see the historical texts you cite when referring to “being at serious risk of being arrested, tried and burned by the Inquisition...”

Can you do that for me?


15 posted on 10/18/2011 3:07:27 AM PDT by sayuncledave (et Verbum caro factum est (And the Word was made flesh))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

Correct, not only were 80% of those at Trent from Italy, not one of them knew NT Greek or OT Hebrew.


16 posted on 10/18/2011 4:44:04 AM PDT by fatboy (This protestant will have no part in the ecumenical movement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Sorry, but no. Lame article. There are, simply put, too many holes, half-truths, and misty assertions, for one to take apart while waiting to start the work day. Suffice it to say that those who call themselves evangelicals will doubtless enjoy the article, while those who love history, and the Catholic Church, will not.


17 posted on 10/18/2011 4:55:22 AM PDT by sayuncledave (et Verbum caro factum est (And the Word was made flesh))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
What ahistorical rot.

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

Trent made no such declaration, much less did so repeatedly.

But Trent did anathematize those who believed that "saving faith" is merely believing that Christ saved you, which is what Luther said. That amounts to believing your own salvation into existence, an error that is the direct progenitor of the "prosperity Gospel" error. After all, if you can believe your own salvation into existence, why can't you believe your own wealth into existence?

18 posted on 10/18/2011 5:05:03 AM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

The Protestant leaders were offered safe-conduct passes. And they didn’t “soon leave”; they never showed up at all.


19 posted on 10/18/2011 5:07:28 AM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
(not to mention being at serious risk of being arrested, tried and burned by the Inquisition...)

Given the fate of Hus, in the not too distant past, not an unreasonable concern.

20 posted on 10/18/2011 5:22:44 AM PDT by Lee N. Field ("Bad eschatology drives out good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
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.

21 posted on 10/18/2011 5:36:20 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; narses; RobbyS; vladimir998; mas cerveza por favor; sayuncledave; Salvation; Campion; ...
fishtank: and of the resulting effects centuries later..


22 posted on 10/18/2011 6:32:20 AM PDT by Cronos (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatboy
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.

23 posted on 10/18/2011 7:15:48 AM PDT by proe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All; fishtank

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


24 posted on 10/18/2011 8:22:05 AM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4!- which is also declared at every sunday mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

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.


25 posted on 10/18/2011 8:40:41 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

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


26 posted on 10/18/2011 12:30:03 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Good question!


27 posted on 10/18/2011 3:32:02 PM PDT by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
Among other things, this biblical interpretation disregards the St. Paul's teaching on purgatory

lol ...

Paul taught purgatory?

28 posted on 10/18/2011 4:05:04 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
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.

29 posted on 10/18/2011 5:08:38 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: annalex
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.

30 posted on 10/18/2011 5:48:10 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

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.


31 posted on 10/18/2011 6:06:39 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: annalex
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.

32 posted on 10/19/2011 10:09:44 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"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


33 posted on 10/19/2011 5:55:25 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: annalex
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 ...

35 posted on 10/19/2011 8:57:58 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

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.


36 posted on 10/20/2011 5:31:46 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: annalex
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"

37 posted on 10/20/2011 4:15:48 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 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. 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?

38 posted on 10/22/2011 8:50:29 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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?

39 posted on 10/23/2011 12:43:43 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
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).

40 posted on 10/23/2011 1:21:31 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The very passages you cite incompletely instruct us in the necessity of good works for our salvation

Hard to say a passage is incomplete teaching when it clearly says "by grace you are saved ... not of yourself ... not by deeds done by us ... "

I will have to leave you with this ...

The difference between what you espouse to be Christianity (the teachings of the RCC) and what I espouse (the Bible) is that works means something totally different for each of us.

Since you believe your works are required to secure your eternal life ... your works are of necessity borne out of a selfish motive. Even when you believe your motives are altruistic they are performed in selfishness, since you must do them to attain eternal life.

Biblical Christianity releases you from the burden of selfish works. A saved believer knows that his works (both past, present, and future) have contributed nothing to his salvation. So his motive for doing them is in response to the salvation he already has. Since the works are performed in gratitude, they are not selfish ... but rather ... selfless. Only by possessing eternal life in the here and now can a believers' works be truly selfless. If your works are necessary for your salvation, by definition they are not selfless.

My sincere prayer is that Christ will open your eyes to the truth, that you will repent of your false doctrine and place your full faith and trust in Him alone, and make Him Lord of your life. Until you do that ... you have no part in Him ... and you will never have true peace ... because you will never know if you have ever done enough.

2 Cor. 5:17
Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

Regards

41 posted on 10/23/2011 4:29:59 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Hard to say a passage is incomplete teaching when it clearly says "by grace you are saved ... not of yourself ... not by deeds done by us ... "

With that part we all agree. Grace, by which alone you are saved is not a product of any kind of works.

Read the Gospel every now and then and drop Protestantism (or whatever it is you got). It is a silly attempt to amputate about half of the gospel in order to enable self-made preachers to ensnare and scatter the Christian flock. "the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep" (John 10:12)

42 posted on 10/24/2011 5:32:36 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

ping


43 posted on 10/24/2011 5:44:58 AM PDT by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson