Posted on 06/23/2014 6:44:09 AM PDT by Gamecock
In the 1540’s and beyond, when the Protestant Reformation had spread and taken hold in various places in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church met for a series of meetings called Council of Trent. At these meetings they wrote many canons and decrees that specifically addressed the theology of the Reformation (among other things). In these canons and decrees are very clear rejections of Protestant theology. Very often Rome used the term anathema (not maranatha!), a Greek word which means “accursed” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22). Here are a few canons that clearly anathematize the theology of the Reformation. Note: I’ve emphasized the theological words under discussion in each canon.
- If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost or destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name…let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification…let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
- If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven [listed here], or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.
- If anyone…denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood…which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.
And the list goes on. This isn’t semantics or politics. Rome understood the Reformation and she anathematized many of its major emphases: bondage of the will, justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the sacraments, and so forth. Though I am a Protestant who strongly disagrees with Trent and many of the doctrines of Rome (and therefore am under their anathemas), I do recommend reading these documents for a better understanding of the Reformation – and for proof that the Reformation still matters today.
That he is the truth, the light and the way? That no one gets to heaven except through him? (Not Mary, not the Saints and not the Pope)
Yep, the heretics would not agree with him.
Vatican II and the Catechism put it this way: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
The ones that were in effect at the time I was born. You essentially are saying that a Catholic who, in 1954, believed all the extant teachings of the Church, was not Catholic but protestant. Ridiculous. You are also implying that a Catholic who dies in 2014 is not a Catholic because he did not believe new teachings of the Church issued in 2015. Ridiculous.
The question is: Are the teachings of Vatican II Catholic?
There are Catholics who see absolutely nothing wrong with Vatican II and as such they profess a different religion than those Catholics who find much wrong with it because they see that there are contradictions between VII and what the Church taught for 1960 years.
The hard part for the latter group is trying to make sense of that. Sometimes I am strongly sedevacantist in my conclusions; other times I still question how to make sense of things. Regardless, although I once belonged to the former group above, I can NEVER go back. And I don’t consider anything other than Traditional Catholicism as an option.
Paired with inane prooftexting, there is no person alive more selective in Bible reading than a Protestant.
Curses are direct ...trent does not say this applies to only former RC’s they are blanket curses
Great site and article:
**The vivid Greek term anathema, meaning “accursed,” is directed by the Council of Trent and other Catholic ecumenical councils primarily towards doctrines, rather than persons, based on the ancient practice in the Church of condemning heretical teachings — a procedure itself derived biblically from passages such as Galatians 1:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22 (the latter has anathema both in Greek and in many English versions). There is nothing improper whatsoever in defining correct doctrine and rejecting contrary notions. St. Paul does this constantly. The Catholic Church, however, makes no presumption as to the eternal destiny of any individual whatsoever (not even Martin Luther, whom many Protestants might suspect was on our “damned” list). **
Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about John 6 :
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. (The Instructor, 1:6)
Augustine
Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
Wow! Lots of caps!
Anathemas are not about people but about doctrine and dogma.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3171185/posts?page=88#88
Jesus said He "was the door" ..Jesus said He was the vine... Sal..did Jesus eat his own flesh at the last supper ? Did the apostles eat the
I’m sure that transubstantiation has been explained to you.
trans=transfer
substantiation=substance
The bread and wine are transferred into the substances of the Body and Blood.
Appearance is still the same — but Christ worked all kinds of miracles, didn’t he?
Why don’t non-Catholics believe this? It’s in your Bibles!
Can you provide a source for this? Are these the prayers that were offered during the Passover?
It seems plain enough to me that Jesus was telling his disciples to take the bread and wine in remembrance of his death, a "New Covenant" in his blood.
Luke 22:14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.
15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.
18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Sounds like you ask, seek and knock..
And testing is only how we know what is from Him...
My thoughts have changed to the point where I pray the reformation gets a restart and it won’t start from the mother church.... they are the standard and the denominations have splintered from that...
And asking what one has in common with the catholic mother church is a good start.....one I just started a couple years ago...
Game may not like this on the thread, but I think some questions that never get asked could do some good...if nothing else, iron sharpens iron...
My first question after I did a testing on the rosary and the mary spirit:
What do I and my church share in common with what the first reformers called the antichrist? ( because I could see it in that rosary)
I have found a couple I am no longer comfortable with...
What about the world observing the ‘pope’s’ calendar instead of the scriptural one?
And how about the pope’s sabbath and the pope’s holy days as the standard for all Christendom (with exceptions to those that see saturday as the true sabbath or those who just wink at december 25 as symbolic, not literal-still start with the papacy calendar)
Those are not ‘theology’- but those are three things that are core to a believer’s work and worship life...it affects a nonbeliever’s work and leisure life too..
What if the entire believing world is accepting a false premise to begin with, and argues from that false premise, in an never ending circular pattern?
And it all originates in a vessel chosen by the enemy- the mother church (not the believers). Is that not what the reformers believed?
the first reformers were quite comfortable calling the papacy antichrist..they were in my study bible and I have seen quotes of them that acknowledged it...
I think that has been softened over 400 years..
For ecumenical reasons, churches may want to cozy up with what the first reformers believed was counterfeit, because the goal of the world is ‘unity’...
Is the reformation dead or will believers be willing to ask very hard questions that may affect their very belief in their own ‘church’ or their own beliefs and worship practices, that are far more subtle than what normally gets debated on the forum...
Were the reformer’s opinions wrong? Or were they just wrong about calling the mother church and papacy the Antichrist?
Were they brilliant theologians that never contemplated that they too may have been arguing from a false premise, accepting the mother church as their standard to jump off from, (because they too originated there) only to hold some rather key core worship practices of their mother’s at the same time?
They have an excuse that I do not.. I never was in the mother church.. my questins would be with the reformed churches who accept so much that maybe the first reformers didn’t think about, even as brilliant and brave as they were...
We may accept the same false premise 400 plus years later..
I don’t anymore...
While it is true individuals spoke of those as heretics, that was not official teaching. When I was a kid, there was still a few hard cores teaching “Limbo” as Doctrine. It never was a doctrine, it was a theological speculative opinion to a theological question regarding the fate of unbaptized infants.
There were lots of things presented as doctrine that were not. Of course today we many times have the other extreme, things that are Doctrine are watered down or not taught as such.
Now again, there are things in the protestant faith that are heretical [that would contradict both what the Catholic Church teaches as well as the Orthodox]. So I have no qualms of saying there are heretical beliefs in Protestantism. To call a protestant a heretic for denying the Catholic Faith when they have never embraced it is where I stop. On the other hand, there are many FR Prots here that are outright Nestorians and I will point blank say they are positing heresy then they attack the Doctrine of Mary, the Blessed Mother, as “Theotokos”, but many of them are taught by the local Pastor Jim, or Reverend Bob who cites the Bible [of course] and interprets it according to how “he interprets” it apart continuity with Apostolic Tradition.
The HaMotzi Blessing and the HaGaffen Blessing are said on the Sabbath and the Holy Days, so yes, it would have been said at Passover (though I don't think the Last Supper was a Passover Seder).
It seems plain enough to me that Jesus was telling his disciples to take the bread and wine in remembrance of his death, a "New Covenant" in his blood.
Yep... But the 'remembrance' was already in place - It isn't new. Research the matter and you will see. The most excellent way to start is in the Hebrew Wedding - There is no better defense for the Rapture... And your understanding will be vitally and wonderfully increased by the knowledge... Then you might begin to wonder what else you haven't been taught...
I hate to break it to you but the text of the OT and the NT match those of all the records we have.
Just which books were allegedly "torn out of the Bible" as you claim?
The OT was decided before Christ.
The NT was decided no later than mid 2nd century.
The RCC is the master at one verse theology and twisting the text to read what "they" want them to read. This leads to Mary being declared sinless her whole life, commands to pray to mary, mary participates in our salvation, that peter was the first pope, which btw is not a Biblical title...not that that ever stopped the RCC before from making stuff up. I can go on, but you get the idea.
So, I guess Pope Leo XIII was wrong here.
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.