Council of Trent

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracelife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracelife

Guest
The documents from the Council of Trent often declare, “let him be anathema”.

For example from Session 4 regarding the canon:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

What was the intended definition of anathema when it was used in those documents?
 
Thank you Fidelis.
So anathema was meant as excommunication, not a “sentence to hell”. But was this not at a time when it was taught being outside the RCC basically meant one had no hope of salvation?
Did the Church really state in the Council of Trent (paraphrased)"

Anyone who believes salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, was an anathema?

How does that stand today in the church?
 
gracelife said:
Did the Church really state in the Council of Trent (paraphrased)"

Anyone who believes salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, was an anathema?

How does that stand today in the church?
Click to expand...
Still stands – Sola Fide is still heresy and anyone who believes it is still not Catholic.

We still, however, maintain that salvation is through grace alone. Very Catholic. Don’t forget that Canon 1 of Trent, Session VI, is still in effect:

**Canon 1.
**If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
I understand why by faith alone is a problem. That faith comes through God’s grace. So it cannot work alone.

What is the official way of salvation then in the Catholic church?
 
gracelife said:
I understand why by faith alone is a problem. That faith comes through God’s grace. So it cannot work alone.

What is the official way of salvation then in the Catholic church?
Click to expand...
I guess you could describe the “formula” as:

salvation is by grace alone, through faith working in love.
 
mtr01 said:
I guess you could describe the “formula” as:

salvation is by grace alone, through faith working in love.
Click to expand...
Thank you mtr, that is a beautiful “formula”.

I see the problem some Protestants have with it is the working part. They would take the stance that there is nothing we can do to merit salvation.

They would maintain: “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64)

I see in the NT where we are follow Christ’s commands, but how do we work around the above verse?
 
Catholic Answers responded as follows:
Q: A Fundamentalist I know has been bashing my Catholic faith by quoting Isaiah 64:6, where the Bible says, “our acts of righteousness are as filthy rags.” He says this proves humans have no good works before God. What should I say in return?
A: He misunderstands the verse he is quoting. It does not say that all acts of righteousness are as filthy rags to God, but that those being rendered to him in Isaiah’s day were.
Click to expand...
In context the passage says: “Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him. You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Your sacred cities have become a desert; even Zion is a desert, Jerusalem a desolation. Our holy and glorious Temple, where our fathers praised you, has been burned with fire, and all that we treasured lies in ruins” (Is. 64:4-6, 10-11 [NIV]).
Click to expand...
This pertains to a particular historical situation, not to a general condition. The passage appeals to a time when Israelites once had a right relationship with God, when God helped them against their enemies because they waited on him, gladly did right, and remembered his ways.
Click to expand...
When they sin against him and did not repent and return to their former state, he abandoned them to the will of their enemies, so that even Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed. (Isaiah speaks of this prophetically, before it happened.)
Click to expand...
It was during that period of continued sin, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., that they had “become like one who is unclean”–they hadn’t always been like that. In this state, even the nation’s acts of righteousness appeared like filthy rags to God, so he wouldn’t help them: “When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!” (Is. 1:15-17 [NIV]).
Click to expand...
Protestants are often confused about the role Catholics believe good works play in salvation, so you should clear this up for the Fundamentalist you know. You should explain to him that we do not perform good works in order to enter a state of justification. The Council of Trent stated that “nothing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification” (Decree on Justification 8).
Click to expand...
In fact, it is impossible for an unjustified person to do supernaturally good works, since these are based on the virtue of charity (supernatural love), which an unjustified person does not have. Good works therefore flow from our reception of justification; they do not* cause* us to enter a state of justification. Good works increase the righteousness we are given at justification and please God, who promises to give us supernatural rewards on the last day, including the gift of eternal life (Rom. 2:6-7, Gal. 6:6-10).
Click to expand...
God Bless,
RyanL
 
gracelife said:
Thank you Fidelis.
So anathema was meant as excommunication, not a “sentence to hell”. But was this not at a time when it was taught being outside the RCC basically meant one had no hope of salvation?
Click to expand...
At no time in history has the CC said a person is outside the hope of salvation, infact it always calls for the offenders to return, even at Trent it was clear the invitation was always open to return to the flock and they would be accepted with open arms.
Did the Church really state in the Council of Trent (paraphrased)"

Anyone who believes salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, was an anathema?

How does that stand today in the church?
Click to expand...
Trent phrased it much more directly and powerfully at Session 6, some examples: CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
There are protestants who believe “God gave us tough commands because He knew we couldnt keep them”…this is false and an abomination in the eyes of the CC.CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.
In short, by “faith alone” any passage in the Gospels which doesnt mention “faith” isnt required of Christians…this is also an abomination and tosses out 90% of the teachings of Christ. CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.
Here is one of my favorites, it hits the nail on the head, in otherwords if you really examine the consequences of “faith alone” your really saying the teachings of Jesus are nothing more than a quickie prayer and that the New Testament wasted paper talking about commandments and such. CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.
Another one of my favorites, this is for those who think/teach Jesus is simply a cool dude and your buddy but turn a BLIND eye to His clear teachings and stern warnings against disobeying Him. Yes the CC teaches He is our loving Saviour, but He is also our Master to obey. CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.
This was one of the worst errors started by Luther and other Protestants, the idea that led to the faith alone problem in the first place by mistakenly thinking any and everything we do including good works is seen as “filthy rags” in God’s eyes.
 
gracelife said:
They would maintain: “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64)

I see in the NT where we are follow Christ’s commands, but how do we work around the above verse?
Click to expand...
The verse is no problem at all, its called “context” which protestants commonly ignore:5 Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways. Behold, thou wast angry, and we sinned; in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved? 6 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Their works were like “filthy rags” because they had angered God for SO LONG to the point where prayer and other charitable works (which are nomally very pleasing to God) wouldnt let them off the hook of punishment this time.
This in no way means our good works are worthless in God’s eyes and that is a total abuse of the passage to say so. Infact the CONTEXT says God likes those who live righteously!
 
Quote from above:
In fact, it is impossible for an unjustified person to do supernaturally good works, since these are based on the virtue of charity (supernatural love), which an unjustified person does not have. Good works therefore flow from our reception of justification; they do not cause us to enter a state of justification. Good works increase the righteousness we are given at justification and please God, who promises to give us supernatural rewards on the last day, including the gift of eternal life (Rom. 2:6-7, Gal. 6:6-10).

Please be assured I’m not being argumentative for the sake of arguing, I truly want to understand this. Thus the questions. And I know I’ve gone a bit off the OP. sorry.

I agree good works are a fruit of our justification.

But, how can good works “increase the righteousness we are given at justification?” Is this speaking of sanctification, then?

We are justified by Grace, through faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice. By saying we can increase our righteousness through good works, it sounds like we would be giving less to what God did for us through Christ’s work. Can you see how someone would think that?

By doing good works we become more sanctified?
or is God our only hope for santification?
 
Catholic_Dude said:
The verse is no problem at all, its called “context” which protestants commonly ignore:5 Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways. Behold, thou wast angry, and we sinned; in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved? 6 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Their works were like “filthy rags” because they had angered God for SO LONG to the point where prayer and other charitable works (which are nomally very pleasing to God) wouldnt let them off the hook of punishment this time.
This in no way means our good works are worthless in God’s eyes and that is a total abuse of the passage to say so. Infact the CONTEXT says God likes those who live righteously!
Click to expand...
Yes, some Protestants do ignore context, not all. 😉

Thank you for the explanation of Isaiah 64. That makes sense.

Do you think Christians today have not angered God, how is it different? The state of Christendom is a mess, our culture, a culture of death. 😦
 
gracelife said:
Thank you mtr, that is a beautiful “formula”.

I see the problem some Protestants have with it is the working part. They would take the stance that there is nothing we can do to merit salvation.

They would maintain: “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64)

I see in the NT where we are follow Christ’s commands, but how do we work around the above verse?
Click to expand...
In John 6 we see that the work of God (that is, the work we must do, given to us by God) is to believe in Him whom He has sent. Yet according to a literal, universal understanding of the verse in Isaiah, believing in Christ is only like a filthy rag. Hmmm…
 
VociMike said:
In John 6 we see that the work of God (that is, the work we must do, given to us by God) is to believe in Him whom He has sent. Yet according to a literal, universal understanding of the verse in Isaiah, believing in Christ is only like a filthy rag. Hmmm…
Click to expand...
VociMike, I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying.
 
gracelife said:
VociMike, I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying.
Click to expand...
I’m saying that a literal, universal understanding of the passage in Isaiah, combined with Christ’s own words in John 6, leads to the (obviously false) conclusion that the very act of believing in Christ is like a filthy rag. So a literal, universal understanding of the passage in Isaiah must be incorrect.
 
Oh, okay.

You’re saying our eating of eucharist is a righteous act, and far from a filthy rag. The eucharist like grace is a gift, we receive it. But I see, still we must come to the eucharist to receive.
 
gracelife said:
Oh, okay.

You’re saying our eating of eucharist is a righteous act, and far from a filthy rag. The eucharist like grace is a gift, we receive it. But I see, still we must come to the eucharist to receive.
Click to expand...
Yes, believing in Christ, and receiving Him in the Eucharist, which are the works given to us by God, are the exact opposites of filthy rags.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top