Just Denounce Trent
OK, the Chuck Colsons and the Jim Dobsons of the world believe that something has changed at the Vatican. They want us to believe that the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document that they signed with their Catholic counterparts in 1994 puts to rest the major differences between Roman Catholic and Evangelical theology (namely, the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone) that have existed since the Reformation.
OK, Chuck, if that's the case, it should be a simple matter for those same Catholic signers to denounce the decrees of the Council of Trent. You remember Trent; the document that specifically condemns the Evangelical gospel scores of times in different ways?
I wouldn't believe any Catholic who says he believes what we believe about the merits of Christ's atonement on Calvary unless he is willing to denounce Trent. If we're right, then Trent must be wrong.
Oh, but there's a problem. By denouncing Trent, he would by extension be denouncing scores of Popes, Canon Law, the Second Vatican Council, the new Catholic Catechism, John Paul II... in essense, to denounce Trent is to denounce the Roman Catholic Church.
Just a taste:
"If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification...Let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 9)
"If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God...Let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 11)
"If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 24)
"If anyone says that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed [ex opere operato, lit., "the work worked"] but [says] that faith alone in the divine promises is sufficient for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 8)
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluos, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 4)
"If anyone says that baptism is optional, That is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 4)
"If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, let him be anathema."
(Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8)
"If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, let him be anathema."
(Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1)
"If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified...let him be accursed."
(Council of Trent, Canon 12)
Oh yeah, The Second Vatican Council (Chuck Colson's favorite document) contains an anathema for denying the efficacy of indulgences or denying the Catholic Church's authority to grant them. You remember "indulgences" don't you, Chuck? They sort of triggered the Reformation.
And I don't care how you want to nuance "anathema," it certainly isn't a good thing! They can't say, "we respect and honor your gospel" while at the same time declaring it "anathema" and its adherents "enemies of the cross of Christ."
Nothing has changed, Chuck. They may have suckered you, but they can't fool me.
That's not to say that there aren't any saved Catholics. The problem is that they are ignorant of their own church's doctrines. If they truly understood the mass, if they truly understood Trent, if they truly understood the condemnations found in Trent, Unam Sanctam, the Syllabus of Errors, the First Vatican Council, the Second Vatican Council, the New Catholic Catechism and the decrees of scores of Popes... they'd leave the Catholic Church yesterday.
If truly born-again people are in the Catholic Church, they are in because they are either ignorant or willfully ignorant. One can't profess to hold to a belief while simultaneously condemning that same belief as "the great revolt against God."
And Trent is not the only problem. The new catechism has "eternal punishment" warnings for Catholics who miss mass or a "Holy Day of Obligation." It also repeats the eternal condemnation from Vatican II for those who either "leave" or "refuse to enter in" the Catholic Church.
Are you planning on "entering in," Chuck?
OK, Chuck, if that's the case, it should be a simple matter for those same Catholic signers to denounce the decrees of the Council of Trent. You remember Trent; the document that specifically condemns the Evangelical gospel scores of times in different ways?
I wouldn't believe any Catholic who says he believes what we believe about the merits of Christ's atonement on Calvary unless he is willing to denounce Trent. If we're right, then Trent must be wrong.
Oh, but there's a problem. By denouncing Trent, he would by extension be denouncing scores of Popes, Canon Law, the Second Vatican Council, the new Catholic Catechism, John Paul II... in essense, to denounce Trent is to denounce the Roman Catholic Church.
Just a taste:
"If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification...Let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 9)
"If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God...Let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 11)
"If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Canon 24)
"If anyone says that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed [ex opere operato, lit., "the work worked"] but [says] that faith alone in the divine promises is sufficient for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 8)
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluos, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 4)
"If anyone says that baptism is optional, That is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Canon 4)
"If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, let him be anathema."
(Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8)
"If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, let him be anathema."
(Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1)
"If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified...let him be accursed."
(Council of Trent, Canon 12)
Oh yeah, The Second Vatican Council (Chuck Colson's favorite document) contains an anathema for denying the efficacy of indulgences or denying the Catholic Church's authority to grant them. You remember "indulgences" don't you, Chuck? They sort of triggered the Reformation.
And I don't care how you want to nuance "anathema," it certainly isn't a good thing! They can't say, "we respect and honor your gospel" while at the same time declaring it "anathema" and its adherents "enemies of the cross of Christ."
Nothing has changed, Chuck. They may have suckered you, but they can't fool me.
That's not to say that there aren't any saved Catholics. The problem is that they are ignorant of their own church's doctrines. If they truly understood the mass, if they truly understood Trent, if they truly understood the condemnations found in Trent, Unam Sanctam, the Syllabus of Errors, the First Vatican Council, the Second Vatican Council, the New Catholic Catechism and the decrees of scores of Popes... they'd leave the Catholic Church yesterday.
If truly born-again people are in the Catholic Church, they are in because they are either ignorant or willfully ignorant. One can't profess to hold to a belief while simultaneously condemning that same belief as "the great revolt against God."
And Trent is not the only problem. The new catechism has "eternal punishment" warnings for Catholics who miss mass or a "Holy Day of Obligation." It also repeats the eternal condemnation from Vatican II for those who either "leave" or "refuse to enter in" the Catholic Church.
Are you planning on "entering in," Chuck?
posted by bleechers at
7:21 PM
<< Home