RE: It is Catholic doctrine that the Church is the baptized.
So, why are those who are not baptized in the Roman Catholic Church considered “united with Christ” by Vatican II?
RE: What Trent condemns is essentially novelties in doctrine which divide the Church.
OK, not recognizing the Pope as Primate is a novelty according to Trent right? Then why are those who believe in this “novelty” now considered “United with Christ” by Vatican II?
Makes no sense.
RE: The Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Baptists all claim to be the Catholic Church,
Correction, the The Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Baptists all claim to be MEMBERS of the Catholic ( as in Universal ) church. They recognize each other as members as well and include ALL who by grace through faith in Christ ( regardless of which denomination they belong to ) as members of the catholic church.
The question they will ask of ANY PERSON ( regardless of denomination ) is this -— DO YOU CONFESS JESUS CHRIST AS LORD AND SAVIOR ? If the answer is “yes”, then they are recongized to be part of the catholic church.
If you don’t believe me, ask any pastor of any of these denominations.
RE: The Council of Trent said, no, YOU who say this are the apostates
Which of course begs the question -— IN WHAT SENSE ARE THEY UNITED WITH CHRIST according to Vatican II?
An apostate cannot be united with Christ can he?
So, You can’t have both Vatican II and Trent or Vatican I simultaneously be correct on this issue. So, which one prevails?
A council deals with specifics. Trent was dealing with the claims of the Reformers that they taught the true Gospel. That the Church of Rome did not. Trent rejected their claims. That Luthers doctrines, or principles, were novelties unknown to Christians until now. The Reformers, on their own authority, on their own interpretation of Scripture, claimed to teach who ought to have been taught all along, citing Scripture as their guide. Both sides accepted that public revelation had closed with the deaths of the Apostles, but the Reformers would accept nothing except what was contained in the writingsof the Apostles. The Council disputed this, on the grounds that those scriptures had authorized the Church to say what was Gospel and what not. In the end, of course, the decision is in the hands of God. At the time, however, both sides were willing to use force against the other. Each side declared the another anathema. Because religion was so much part of the established order of society that meant, intimately, war. Vatican II basically said, no, war is not appropriate; persuasion only, which of course is yet a kind of force. Charity must prevail. Neither side ought to resort to force to compel unity. But what was false is still false. But Christians should approach their differences as estranged brothers ought to, honestly and with charity. In a way, like parties in a national parliament. Divided, often deeply divided, but countrymen still. Civil war, above all, to be avoided.
posted on 03/18/2013 7:48:42 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson