The Concept of Catholic Unity in the Doctrine of the Eucharist at the time of Trent

Rome had been selling bishoprics to the highest bidder as a standard practice for a long time.

It was believed that all of the money that Tetzel raised was for the ongoing reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica, although half the money went to the Archbishop of Mainz, Cardinal Albert of Brandenburg (under whose authority Tetzel was operating), to pay off the debts incurred in securing Albert's appointment to the Archbishopric. -

....there is no doubt that Tetzel did, according to what he considered his authoritative instructions, proclaim as Christian doctrine that nothing but an offering of money was required to gain the indulgence for the dead, without there being any question of contrition or confession. He also taught, in accordance with the opinion then held, that an indulgence could be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. Starting from this assumption, there is no doubt that his doctrine was virtually that of the well known drastic proverb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Tetzel

Moreover, the council fathers followed the policy of not discussing theological differences among Catholics; their full thrust was toward delineating clearly the Catholic stance vis-à-vis the Protestants.

as Pelikan found ,

"Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity.. ."

“The reformers were catholic because they were spokesmen for an evangelical tradition in medieval catholicism, what Luther called "the succession of the faithful." ...”

“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.

Additional support for this insistence comes from the attitude of the reformers toward the creeds and dogmas of the ancient catholic church. The reformers retained and cherished the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the two natures in Christ which had developed in the first five centuries of the church….”

“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. — Jaroslav Pelikan [Lutheran, later Orthodox] , The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46),the Reformers looks to history is that Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, pp. 46,47)

The reality is, that the Reformers were too Catholic, not by holding to Scriptural Truths as the above, but in holding to such things as paedobaptism.

With Protestants, your own personal spin on scripture takes priority. In essence there are not 30,000+/- Protestant denoms, there are as many denoms as there are Protestants. And who can dare to question your own, personal interpretation of scripture? Who has the authority? No one, when you enter the Protestant mindset.

So you mean Prots see themselves as popes, possessing veracity, or that they interpret Scripture as their supreme infallible source, and thus their claim to veracity must rest upon the premise of Scripture being that infallible source, and consequently the weight of Scriptural substantiation for their arguments?

And those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as literally being the word of God are far more conservative than the fruit of Rome, and liberal Prots who are not really Prots in this regard?

And that RCs likewise interpret their churches teaching as their supreme infallible source, and thus their claim to veracity must rest upon the premise of Rome being that infallible source, and consequently the weight of substantiation from her for their arguments?

But in both cases the person decides what to believe, and interpretation is involved

(Need to do PC configuration here so i may not get back to you soon. )

In essence there are not 30,000+/- Protestant denoms, there are as many denoms as there are Protestants. And who can dare to question your own, personal interpretation of scripture? Who has the authority?

Anyone can and is free to and it isn't necessarily a matter of authority.

One doesn't need authority to question someone's interpretation of Scripture.

And believers, unlike Catholics, do not take personal offense at someone questioning or challenging their interpretation because we are aware that sometimes we might be wrong, or that someone might have a perspective on a passage that we had never thought of or seen before.

Christians are teachable and don't think they're perfect, and since they are interested in and willing to learn more about God, they welcome inquires as opposed to taking them as a personal affront or attack.

The junk you guys post always follows the same pattern. Some modern "scholar" or "commentator" is quoted to tell you what Trent said, or what the Fathers said, or what the Bible says.

Only rarely is a primary source cited, and then it's usually cherry-picked to death, and the contrary primary sources aren't quoted, explained, or even mentioned.

So it is with this one.

This is confirmed by Fr. Robert J. Daly

Really? Robert J Daly is a Jesuit at Boston College, who appears in his faculty photo on the BC website in what appears to be a business suit. Did I mention that it's perfectly acceptable for the "scholar" or "commentator" to be a flaming liberal, as long as his words are useful for trashing the Church?

Trent defined the Mass as a “true and proper sacrifice…but left it to the theologians…to argue over what sacrifice is

I don't know whether your source is taking Daly out of context or not, because I don't have his book (and have no intention of buying it). But I have a hunch they are. Notice that Daly didn't say:

left it to the theologians to argue over what THE sacrifice is

but

left it to the theologians to argue over what sacrifice is

That's a bit of a difference.

Contrary to what your polemic says, the actual words of Trent (see: a primary source, albeit in translation) say quite clearly what the sacrifice is:

For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of [Page 154] Egypt, [Jesus] instituted the new Passover, (to wit) Himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through (the ministry of) priests, in memory of His own passage from this world unto the Father, when by the effusion of His own blood He redeemed us, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his kingdom. And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it); which the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place, clean to his name, which was to be great amongst the Gentiles ...

(Trent, Session 22, Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter 1), which you can read here.) I don't see any ambiguity over what and Who the Sacrifice is, do you?

Chapter 2 continues:

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation).

Any ambiguity there? I don't see much. I don't see any way to read that except that the Mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary, continuously made present to us.

That is not to denigrate the sense in which the Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It's to say that there is no question that Trent taught precisely that the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

but the truth is overtime you go to a bile study

It's bile study day every day on the FR religion forum!

or your priest preaches it is HIS OWN PERSONAL interpretation of scripture cause the magisterium has never written an infallible commentary

That's a nice James White polemic, but it's bogus because it employs the fallacy of the excluded middle.

An "infallible commentary" is not required for someone to interpret, or preach on, Scripture cum sentire ecclesiae ("with the mind/heart of the church"). Nor would an infallible commentary even achieve that, because a merely infallible commentary could not exclude all possible valid insights into Scripture, nor would any sane person ever want it to. It would permanently ossify Scripture study for all time.

As for the 30,000 denominations..just another lie from the pit of Roman hell

Except that it came from a PROTESTANT source, the World Christian Encyclopedia.

Now, it can be legitimately argued whether their criterion for "denomination" is really the right one, because it is "an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country". It doesn't follow from that that there are 30,000+ distinct doctrinal "flavors" of Christianity, which is what Catholic apologists would sometimes like to claim.

Catholic apologist Phil Vaz takes it apart for you here. Notice the email at the bottom. I'm pretty sure Gordon-Conwell is not the "pit of Roman hell," despite Scott Hahn being an alumnus.

Whatever the number is, it's certainly far larger than one, and far larger than 1,000, for that matter.

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.