Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind
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 Luther’s 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.
33 posted on 03/18/2013 7:48:42 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: RobbyS

RE: 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.

Sure, but remember this, WE HAVE SPIRITUAL DESCENDANTS OF THE REFORMERS EXISTING TODAY, BY THE MILLIONS I MIGHT ADD.

I think the question has to be asked — if Trent considers these people anathema, why does Vatican II consider those who share their beliefs “United with Christ”?

RE: 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.

We are NOT talking about war here. we are talking THEOLOGICAL differences. So, kindly dispose of that idea.

These are theological differences that affect SPIRITUAL CONCERNS and that is where we should focus the discussion on.

It is clear that Vatican I and Trent still ex-communicates
the reformers and their followers. It is NOT CLEAR if Vatican II does. By using the words they are “united with Christ”, it looks like Vatican II is softening the words of the previous councils.

So your explanation does not solve the problem. If as you say, false is still false, and not accepting the Pope’s primacy is anathema, you don’t use the words — “United with Christ” to refer to those people who hold to what is false.

You might call them friends, but you don’t call them “united with Christ”.

To give you an example — I can be a friend of a self-professed supporter of abortion and gay marriage and even have a beer with him or even play ball with him, but I would not consider him “united with Christ”. He is MOST DEFINITELY NOT “united with Chris”t in any sense of the word by his support of murder of children and the destruction of marriage.

So, If Logic is to prevail, and the force of Trent and Vatican I is to be taken seriously, the millions of people who hold to the same beliefs as Luther or Calvin should NOT be “united with Christ” based on their beliefs. They should still be ex-communicated.

You cannot simultaneously hold to beliefs that are anathema and still be considered “united with Christ” ( or does Vatican II now says that you can?).

Whatever it is, I don’t see how the words of Vatican II and Vatican I can be reconciled.


34 posted on 03/19/2013 7:09:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

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