Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[brb3]

brb3;10507928:

Understand .However, the must, the when, have evolved. The gospels say nothing about when or how often. Only Corinthians say "as often as you drink it ". Is that as often as you drink the passover cup, as the original last supper, which could be at least once a year, or is it every time you break bread and drink the supper meal -every day ? It is not every time you meet, unless of course you supper every time you meet. We do know in Acts they did it every day ,in homes, people brought their own food and “elements” and had a “celebration”. No evidence of priestly consecration. A blessing was said by somebody or everybody . We later do hear of Sunday meetings. Then we hear of presidents/officers/deacons involved with elements but brought by participants still. Later priests were formalized in the sacrament( per some historians, not CC teaching of course). I think around 1200 a definition was put forth for real presence by Catholics and further dogmatized at Trent. So there still remains transub…,consub… spiritual presence, and finally symbolic presence amongst Christian communities today.

Poco…

What are saying ? Haven’t u done your research on the Eucharist …what Paul teaches ? Nope !!

Look up a few verses higher Cor. 11:18-20 …where the proper context is set.

“For, in the ‘first’ place, WHEN YOU ASSEMBLE AS A CHURCH…When you meet together, IS IT NOT THE LORD’s SUPPER that you eat ?”

Protestants never taught you these verses …the proper CONTEXT …for the Sunday Eucharist ?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Yes ,ignatius mayhave but Paul interchanged them. Interesting he -Igantius- mentions no bishop at Rome. Ignatius mentions flesh cause the gnostics don’t believe he came in the flesh,nor died ,resurected in flesh .That is what communion is thankful for, His flesh and blood spilled for us.The heretics did not believ this .The issue was not transubstantiation.

And if they did not believe in the flesh of Christ, wouldn’t that have made the substance of the Eucharist an important question, especially if this was such a vital Sacrament? He specifically said that they abstain from prayer and from the Eucharist. Why even make a point of emphasizing the Eucharist if it was merely symbolic, when the subject is Christ’s flesh? Additionally, the Gnostics did have mock Sacraments and various different rituals. Gnostics were very Scriptural, and, as they still have today, would have celebrated ‘the Lord’s Supper’, but without proper belief in it. Thus, this was a vital issue to Ignatius and early Christians.

To the bishop of Rome, again, we have Clement write to a more distant church when John the Apostle lived (and was capable of writing at the time, as he wrote Revelations during this period), and Ireneaus citing the Roman succession as the only necessity to disprove heretics, and that all Apostolic Churches must be in communion with Rome.

You repeatedley do this, you bring up an issue that one father didn’t address, even though other fathers at later or earlier dates did, and then ask why that specific father didn’t address whatever issue you arbitrarily decide he should have. You are determining what and how the fathers should have written. It is ridiculous. So, instead of continually jousting with your strawmen, I will bring up an issue that you have not, and will not, address: WHERE DO THE FATHERS AS A WHOLE SHOW CONTINUITY WITH PROTESTANTISM? AS A WHOLE. WITH. PROTESTANTISM.

All you, and other, Protestants do is show where fathers DIDN’T address something, or proof text limited statements, and then when they are refuted by other fathers or councils, you ask why some other issue wasn’t shown explicitly by these fathers or by a certain council, as though you are the determiner of which issues should have. Absence doesn’t result in a refutation of a doctrine. A doctrine being addressed results in the refutation of contrary doctrine.

I’ll do the same now: Why didn’t the fathers proclaim sola fide? Why no sola scriptura? Why didn’t they reject the need for baptism? Why didn’t they speak against free will?

Oh, wait. That’s right. Several different fathers supported doctrine contrary to these issues. That’s the difference between your ‘why didn’t they’ and my ‘why didn’t they’ questions. Your questions of ‘why didn’t they address’ are answered by other fathers addressing the issue in favor of Catholic doctrine. My questions of ‘why didn’t they address’ are answered by… other fathers addressing the issues IN FAVOR OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

You can’t win against the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church by delving into the fathers. You won’t, you CAN’T, win. There is a reason that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the oldest, and that they both have similar beliefs in Sacraments and Liturgy. On the flip side, this is exactly the same reason why Protestants didn’t exist until the 1500s: there weren’t any. There were various random heretics throughout history that used similar illogical principles as Protestants, but they had nowhere near the same doctrine. In fact, even the Reformers considered past heretics to be heretics. That should be a clue.

 

[Apolojez]

I’m a living conundrum for assurance of salvation. Long before I came into the CC, I was baptized in the blood of Christ “knowing” that nothing could remove me from His hands once I had been sealed. I lived daily with the Holy Spirit in great joy and with God’s love bursting from my very being. I was the very definition of “saved”.

And yet those who preace this doctrine say that now that I’m Catholic, I obviously never was “saved” for whatever reason. So I ask… if I actually was never “saved”, then how does anyone truly know if they are “saved” if a future action can change things? Where exactly is the assurance?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I’m a living conundrum for assurance of salvation. Long before I came into the CC, I was baptized in the blood of Christ “knowing” that nothing could remove me from His hands once I had been sealed. I lived daily with the Holy Spirit in great joy and with God’s love bursting from my very being. I was the very definition of “saved”.

And yet those who preace this doctrine say that now that I’m Catholic, I obviously never was “saved” for whatever reason. So I ask… if I actually was never “saved”, then how does anyone truly know if they are “saved” if a future action can change things? Where exactly is the assurance?

‘Assurance’ of salvation is actually quite a misnomer. It’s more like ‘assured of salvation if we are actually a true believer which we won’t know until we die’, and then ‘we use various Scripture verses to cite evidence that will show to one another that we are saved’. So works and all other things are just to prove to one another that they are saved, which sounds prideful to me, but hey, what do I know?

They essentially arrive at the same conclusion as Catholics (we won’t know until the end if we are saved), but in order to support their doctrines of ‘sola fide’, the work of Christ changing the nature of sin to not count against them, and the non-necessity of works, they absolutely CANNOT say that any action will separate us from God. Otherwise they would stray into Biblical grace+faith+works trifecta that are inseparable, and perseverence in these, and would essentially be Catholic and need Sacraments.

So now you see their need for ‘assurance’, even though it is far from it (even in your own experience).

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10508324:

Poco…

What are saying ? Haven’t u done your research on the Eucharist …what Paul teaches ? Nope !!

Look up a few verses higher Cor. 11:18-20 …where the proper context is set.

“For, in the ‘first’ place, WHEN YOU ASSEMBLE AS A CHURCH…When you meet together, IS IT NOT THE LORD’s SUPPER that you eat ?”

Protestants never taught you these verses …the proper CONTEXT …for the Sunday Eucharist ?

Well, if one is legalistic that it should be done every time we meet, then we should be legalistic as to when we meet, which was one the first day of the week. So if it is every first day of the week, it is not every other week or once a month nor every day. So while we don’t do it every Sunday, you don’t do it just on Sunday. This is not the context of ch 11 .The inference may be there- come together to break bread, but the context is HOW you come together -with divisions and selfishness ? -this is not “breaking bread” Paul says. By the way I read like this ,“When you come together in one place , this is not to eat the Lord’s supper” . I understand it should have been, but the way they did it it was not, it was not honoring Christ, therefore not a valid “communion” in his remembrance. That is the context . The main thing is that when you do do it, do it in remembrance. It is repeated twice for a reason. Paul finishes with , “when you do come together to eat, tarry one for another”. He does not say ,“when you come together, eat and tarry for one another” . Good study though

 

[pocohombre]

Indeed.

So you are also acknowledging that the charism of infallibility has been given to men. Catholic men. Catholic bishops, to be specific. On multiple occasions.

But, I already knew that you believed that men could be infallible, by reading you quote from the NT. When you quote from St. Paul I know that you believe that what he wrote, he wrote infallibly, and therefore you believe that men can be infallible.

Dangerous . Again a jackass can be infallible, so long as he speaks the word of the Lord. Yes, I believe in the inspiration of the Holy ghost. May I even say you are infallible, such as when you say, “The Lord liveth” or “He’s coming again”.

 

[pocohombre]

I’m a living conundrum for assurance of salvation. Long before I came into the CC, I was baptized in the blood of Christ “knowing” that nothing could remove me from His hands once I had been sealed. I lived daily with the Holy Spirit in great joy and with God’s love bursting from my very being. I was the very definition of “saved”.

And yet those who preace this doctrine say that now that I’m Catholic, I obviously never was “saved” for whatever reason. So I ask… if I actually was never “saved”, then how does anyone truly know if they are “saved” if a future action can change things? Where exactly is the assurance?

Welcome. There are several threads I have read hear that beautifuly show one can have proper assurance, an inner witness form the spirit He puts within us.The debate here is then after that, are you on easy street or must you persevere etc ?. I don’t think you have to wait till your dead. For instance, I am sure a Catholic would and should be assured that just after going to the sacrament of confession, and even perhaps communion - he is graciously “ready” for the kingdom (maybe via purgatory) . Again, it is argued here one must maintain that state of grace till your death. Actually Catholics would also say a future action-mortal sin -does affect your salvation . I said blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable, damming sin. The assurance is not in what you do but what He promises to do for you - keep you. By ourselves we would fall immediately … Do you still view yourself as “sealed” ? Do you profess the Lord with your mouth, as your savior ?

 

[brb3]

I’m a living conundrum for assurance of salvation. Long before I came into the CC, I was baptized in the blood of Christ “knowing” that nothing could remove me from His hands once I had been sealed. I lived daily with the Holy Spirit in great joy and with God’s love bursting from my very being. I was the very definition of “saved”.

And yet those who preace this doctrine say that now that I’m Catholic, I obviously never was “saved” for whatever reason. So I ask… if I actually was never “saved”, then how does anyone truly know if they are “saved” if a future action can change things? Where exactly is the assurance?

Well …your situation is very easily explained away by those Protestants…using scripture ALONE, since they put no stock in James’ claim that Good (gracious) Works reveal the True Christian.

Here it is …so they say: ------ 1 John 2:19. " They (you) went out from us(them), but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

 

[Apolojez]

Do you still view yourself as “sealed” ? Do you profess the Lord with your mouth, as your savior ?

I’m fully Catholic now. But either way I’m covered. jk Again, this only shows that our salvation is dependent upon further considerations which refutes any true assurance. I kept telling my friends just how Catholic they are but they just don’t realize it.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Dangerous . Again a jackass can be infallible, so long as he speaks the word of the Lord. Yes, I believe in the inspiration of the Holy ghost. May I even say you are infallible, such as when you say, “The Lord liveth” or “He’s coming again”.

Something about your comparison of infalliblity doesn’t seem right to me. I smell a fallacy of some sort. As I understand it, infallibility does not apply to a statement of truth that has been deemed to be truth. Thus, when stating a truth already deemed true, infallibility doesn’t apply. Infallibility would have already been applied to determine the truth. One can reaffirm the truth infallibly, but infallibility is not something promised anywhere to any individual at all times. The only reason the Pope is infallible in faith and morals is because he is the head of the Church on earth, the deputy of Christ. He is infallible only in this function, as the Church, and thus the mouth, of Christ cannot proclaim error. When one speaks infallibly regarding truth, it means that they cannot proclaim error to be truth. This does not, and never will, apply to a donkey.

Now, aside from that, how can you possibly equate a donkey being infallible to God’s promise of discerning the truth through the Spirit?

Also, if there is Truth, we know it must be one. For instance, a truth cannot contradict a truth. Thus, when Protestants come up with contradictory proclamations of ‘truth’, or pick and choose different ‘truths’ from other denominations, this proves instantaneously that, if truth cannot be judged accurately by these groups, they do not have the promise of the Spirit to guage the Truth. If they did, they would come to one, definitive decision as a whole. Truth applies to all parts of faith; there are no ‘little issues’ that don’t need to be decided upon, as Protestants maintain. Truth is either all, or nothing. It is a logical sequence of thought, isn’t it?

 

[Apolojez]

Here it is …so they say: ------ 1 John 2:19. " They (you) went out from us(them), but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

Yep. That’s the verse.

I only revealed that I wasn’t sincere with all my crocodile tears and outpouring of the pretend Holy Spirit. How dare I believe that I was sealed.

 

[brb3]

Welcome. There are several threads I have read hear that beautifuly show one can have proper assurance, an inner witness form the spirit He puts within us.The debate here is then after that, are you on easy street or must you persevere etc ?. I don’t think you have to wait till your dead. For instance, I am sure a Catholic would and should be assured that just after going to the sacrament of confession, and even perhaps communion - he is graciously “ready” for the kingdom (maybe via purgatory) . Again, it is argued here one must maintain that state of grace till your death. Actually Catholics would also say a future action-mortal sin -does affect your salvation . I said blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable, damming sin. The assurance is not in what you do but what He promises to do for you - keep you. By ourselves we would fall immediately … Do you still view yourself as “sealed” ? Do you profess the Lord with your mouth, as your savior ?

Poco …

Christ taught " if you love me, you will keep my commandments"…that is: faith in action, where the rubber meets the road, the proof’s in the pudding, my sheep know my voice and they follow me.
Christianity is a LIFE LIVED …TO COMPLETION. Not a One-&-Done, flash-in-pan event 40 years ago, that carries us to the final finish line.

Yes, our initial Sinner’s Prayer Confession/Baptism got us justified, adopted, and filled with HS…but, we all must take up our cross and follow Christ thereafter, persevering in gracious works befitting our high calling IN CHRIST.

IF we grieve HS and don’t confess errs, …we of all men/women are to be most pitied…having once tasted of the blessings/graces of God, and sometime thereafter turned back from the plow. A sprouted seed of wheat …that failed to put down firm roots, refused to soak up the rains, blew away , with the East Wind, allowed the tares to entice us back into secular pleasures and trap us in addictions.

Only the wheat that makes it to maturity, that flowers, and produces seed …some two fold, some 3 fold, etc …has persevered to the end, and will hear the words " well done, my good and faithful servant. Enter in to my father’s rest."

 

[PRmerger]

Dangerous . Again a jackass can be infallible, so long as he speaks the word of the Lord. Yes, I believe in the inspiration of the Holy ghost. May I even say you are infallible, such as when you say, “The Lord liveth” or “He’s coming again”.

As long as you can acknowledge that the charism of infallibility was given to the Catholic Church (which you must, if you accept the canon of the NT), then

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul…and a jackass. You put that animal in good company.

 

[pocohombre]

And if they did not believe in the flesh of Christ, wouldn’t that have made the substance of the Eucharist an important question, especially if this was such a vital Sacrament? He specifically said that they abstain from prayer and from the Eucharist. Why even make a point of emphasizing the Eucharist if it was merely symbolic, when the subject is Christ’s flesh?

Because the thanksgiving (Eucharist) is in memory of what He did, shed his blood for us . We do not primarily show his work by the crucifix but by “communion”. Every time we commune, we show /proclaim/preach -to those gnostics -the Lord’s death, His real flesh and blood shed for us .This is true remembrance whether you believe it to be symbolic -of the real Calvary, or trans… or consub… or spiritual - they all point to a real remembrance of Calvary .

Additionally, the Gnostics did have mock Sacraments and various different rituals. Gnostics were very Scriptural, and, as they still have today, would have celebrated ‘the Lord’s Supper’, but without proper belief in it. Thus, this was a vital issue to Ignatius and early Christians.

Maybe some gnostics but not sure about this. Again, what is more important, to believe He was incarnated, or just what communion belief they have ? The fact is they didn’t believe in the incarnation if i recall, so of course they would not participate in any remembrance of that .

To the bishop of Rome, again, we have Clement write to a more distant church when John the Apostle lived (and was capable of writing at the time, as he wrote Revelations during this period),

This has been adressed.Rome had ties to Corinh thru paul and his friends,and John was very old if not deceased. and the letter came from the Roman church presbytery , not Clement.

and Ireneaus citing the Roman succession as the only necessity to disprove heretics, and that all Apostolic Churches must be in communion with Rome.

This has been discussed already also.

You repeatedley do this, you bring up an issue that one father didn’t address,

Sometimes I bring up what they did say , like Barnabus- be bound by what is written.

even though other fathers at later or earlier dates did,

It is usually the later ones that are definitely get more CC in views.

I will bring up an issue that you have not, and will not, address: WHERE DO THE FATHERS AS A WHOLE SHOW CONTINUITY WITH PROTESTANTISM? AS A WHOLE. WITH. PROTESTANTISM.

Well, they all say Jesus is Lord ? You wanna lump them all together ? Is that 1500 years of writing ? And they are all unanimous in all things?

Absence doesn’t result in a refutation of a doctrine.

Totally agree. It proves nothing, Evidence is something else though, which all we have. What , you didn’t like it when Ignantius mentions bishops of many churches and is silent on Rome’s Doesn’t one father say Rome had presbyters ruling for a time until head bishop was needed. This is not a father being silent but being very specific. Is this why most historians say Rome was ruled by a group of presbyters for up to a century ?

I’ll do the same now: Why didn’t the fathers proclaim sola fide? Why no sola scriptura?

And shall I answer as I hear often from others cause it was not needed, for Scripture was still adhered to and works had not proliferated yet?

On the flip side, this is exactly the same reason why Protestants didn’t exist until the 1500s: there weren’t any.

So, maybe they weren’t needed until then ?

There were various random heretics throughout history that used similar illogical principles as Protestants, but they had nowhere near the same doctrine. In fact, even the Reformers considered past heretics to be heretics. That should be a clue.

Perhaps some .But some indeed cried for reform and had a doctrine or two for reform that did rise, come to the forefront, was allowed or made possible, and finally gotten right by reformers. I would not paint a picture that says everything was perfect and hunky dory until 1517 and nothing was ever contested from within or with out the CC.

 

[pocohombre]

As long as you can acknowledge that the charism of infallibility was given to the Catholic Church (which you must, if you accept the canon of the NT), then

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul…and a jackass. You put that animal in good company.

You got me laughing PR .Gotta hit the hay , good night.

 

[PRmerger]

You got me laughing PR .Gotta hit the hay , good night.

Think about this when you drift off to sleep; you are getting closer and closer to becoming Catholic.

First you acknowledge Sacred Tradition is what gave you the canon of the NT.

Next you acknowledge the charism of infallibility has been given to men. Catholic men.

 

[PRmerger]

Because the thanksgiving (Eucharist) is in memory of what He did, shed his blood for us .

This is very Catholic of you to say, poco!

Again, what is more important, to believe He was incarnated, or just what communion belief they have ?

I don’t know–what does the Bible say is more important?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Because the thanksgiving (Eucharist) is in memory of what He did, shed his blood for us . We do not primarily show his work by the crucifix but by “communion”. Every time we commune, we show /proclaim/preach -to those gnostics -the Lord’s death, His real flesh and blood shed for us .This is true remembrance whether you believe it to be symbolic -of the real Calvary, or trans… or consub… or spiritual - they all point to a real remembrance of Calvary . Maybe some gnostics but not sure about this. Again, what is more important, to believe He was incarnated, or just what communion belief they have ? The fact is they didn’t believe in the incarnation if i recall, so of course they would not participate in any remembrance of that .

I can’t tell if I should take your arguments seriously anymore, but I’ll still attempt to do so. He refers directly to the Gnostics as heretics because they deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. Explain to me why he says this, if all he meant was ‘it is a remembrance of the flesh of Christ.’ He must deserve an admonishment for being way too literal or emphatic, unless, of course, he was actually refering to the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ.

You are also making a false dilemma: what is more important, to believe in the Incarnation or the True Presence? Both. Obviously.

You also didn’t actually address my argument, as you never do: he places importance in other sections on the literal Incarnation, but for some reason, in this section, denounces the Gnostics based on a specific result of the Incarnation: the Eucharist. Why? He condemns them for denying it is the flesh of Christ. Why? Maybe because, like the others, he believed it was Christ’s flesh?

This has been adressed.Rome had ties to Corinh thru paul and his friends,and John was very old if not deceased. and the letter came from the Roman church presbytery , not Clement. This has been discussed already also.

Clement wrote the letter. As a bishop. And, as Ignatius, pointed out bishops and presbyters as distinct from one another. John, who was alive, was able to write (as I pointed out), because he wrote Revelations during this time frame.

Your ‘discussion’ of Ignatius, Clement, and Ireneaus on authority and bishops, along with the real presence of Ignatius and Justin, hardly counts as discussion. You posit theories based, yet again, on absence, and what ‘should’ have been addressed.

Sometimes I bring up what they did say , like Barnabus- be bound by what is written. It is usually the later ones that are definitely get more CC in views.Well, they all say Jesus is Lord ? You wanna lump them all together ? Is that 1500 years of writing ? And they are all unanimous in all things?

Why do you think they get more and more ‘Catholic’ as they go on? Maybe it’s that the heresies grew more and more formal, or touched upon different things that needed to be addressed? No, couldn’t be.

And of course I want to lump all the Fathers together. The faith is unified. Or at least it is supposed to be. We see instances where fathers went astray (Tertullian, Eusebius), but we see the issues resolved in councils and by other fathers, and then a unanimous decision is eventually made. How, and why, would I want to separate their doctrine by individual father? It’s impossible to do this when the faith is supposed to be unified in it’s proclamation. Looking at it, as you do both Scripture and history, in isolated junctures leads to the disunity and confusion of Protestantism. Proof text can be found anywhere. I can make any darn doctrine I want by citing various individuals from history. It is how they developed in understanding as a whole that separates Faith from fiction.

Totally agree. It proves nothing, Evidence is something else though, which all we have. What , you didn’t like it when Ignantius mentions bishops of many churches and is silent on Rome’s Doesn’t one father say Rome had presbyters ruling for a time until head bishop was needed. This is not a father being silent but being very specific. Is this why most historians say Rome was ruled by a group of presbyters for up to a century ?

AGAIN, YOU ARE USING AN ARGUMENT BASED ON SILENCE. Irenaeus lists all the bishops that came after Peter. Why would I be upset that Ignatius doesn’t? You using his ‘silence’ is a fallacy, as I have pointed out numerous times.

This is a father not mentioning something. He is NOT being specific. You are using SILENCE as proof. Stop.

And shall I answer as I hear often from others cause it was not needed, for Scripture was still adhered to and works had not proliferated yet?

I answered why they (Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) weren’t mentioned: because I have fathers speaking definitively against them. Ireneaus speaks against interpreting Scripture without apostolic authority. Boom. Doctrine opposed to Sola Scriptura. Numerous fathers speak of taking the road to death after coming to faith. Boom. Doctrine against Sola Fide. My arguments are BASED ON AN EXISTING DOCTRINE. You are USING AN ARGUMENT BASED ON NOTHING. Fallacy, anyone?

Continued…

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Continued…

So, maybe they weren’t needed until then ? Perhaps some .But some indeed cried for reform and had a doctrine or two for reform that did rise, come to the forefront, was allowed or made possible, and finally gotten right by reformers. I would not paint a picture that says everything was perfect and hunky dory until 1517 and nothing was ever contested from within or with out the CC.

If Protestantism was needed, why didn’t they use theological councils and come to a unified proclamation of faith? Oh, that’s right, because it was impossible because of their completely contradictory doctrines to come to any kind of unified truth. This, by definition, is NOT TRUTH as it must exist, because truth will not contradict truth. Thus, Protestantism was not needed, because it resolved no issues definitively.

And of course everything wasn’t fantastic before the Reformation. It never was. Even Paul had to deal with Judaisers, and John addressed Gnostics in his Gospel. Yet the Church came to ONE, UNIFIED proclamation of faith, just AS IT HAD for the entirety of its existence, through the thick and thin of schism and heresy. Did Protestantism? Hardly. It fractured and split so many times over, that now denominations take from so many theological schools, they can hardly be defined. Some are barely Christian anymore.

If a kingdom divided against itself won’t stand, and Christ wishes us to be one, EVEN AS HE IS IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IN HIM (which is pretty freaking unified), then how can Protestantism, with so many contradictory theologies all based on the same ‘authority’ of Scripture (or rather, different interpretations by random individuals based on Scripture; more plainly, theologies based on random middle men), stand as truth?

 

[pocohombre]

Continued…

If Protestantism was needed, why didn’t they use theological councils and come to a unified proclamation of faith? Oh, that’s right, because it was impossible because of their completely contradictory doctrines to come to any kind of unified truth. This, by definition, is NOT TRUTH as it must exist, because truth will not contradict truth. Thus, Protestantism was not needed, because it resolved no issues definitively.

And of course everything wasn’t fantastic before the Reformation. It never was. Even Paul had to deal with Judaisers, and John addressed Gnostics in his Gospel. Yet the Church came to ONE, UNIFIED proclamation of faith, just AS IT HAD for the entirety of its existence, through the thick and thin of schism and heresy. Did Protestantism? Hardly. It fractured and split so many times over, that now denominations take from so many theological schools, they can hardly be defined. Some are barely Christian anymore.

If a kingdom divided against itself won’t stand, and Christ wishes us to be one, EVEN AS HE IS IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IN HIM (which is pretty freaking unified), then how can Protestantism, with so many contradictory theologies all based on the same ‘authority’ of Scripture (or rather, different interpretations by random individuals based on Scripture; more plainly, theologies based on random middle men), stand as truth?

Do you need a council to reform the clergy, make them educated, moral and holy, make them spiritual minded, helping the poor. Did you need a council to make them respectable again ? No what you needed,what happened is that Lutheranism was more spirtually relevant,and catholics /princes left in droves .Then came Igantius the Jesuit and really put forth a good counter attack. He reformed the ckergy as noted above and in several decades many Catholics came back within Germany. That is the way it happened. To say it (Ignatius and reform) may have happened anyway without any Lutheran competition is speculative.