Pelagianism

[Richca]

I don’t think it was your intent, but it seems anachronistic to use a teaching that wasn’t codified until the Council of Trent (which took place after the Reformation) as a proof of “the constant teaching of the Church.”

I am not as well-versed on the early fathers as some… Are there any pre-Tridentine (or pre-Reformation, for that matter) writings that directly refute the Lutheran understanding of Original Sin and the condition of Man (I’m referring to what Luther outlined in “On the Bondage of the Will,” and what the Lutherans defined in the Formula of Concord)? From what I’ve read of Augustine and Aquinas, it seems the Lutheran understanding would have been considered at least an acceptable Catholic stance (until Trent, of course). I mean, Luther and Erasmus couldn’t have been the first to debate it, could they?

Luther’s understanding of original sin was a break from the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject. Luther’s position was certainly not the position of Aquinas, Bonaventura, Scotus, etc. Luther’s position on original sin whereby man’s free will is totally incapable of doing anything in regard to one’s own salvation fostered Luther’s “Sola gratia,” by grace alone doctrine. Aquinas, on the contrary, taught that man by his own free will can impede or not impede the reception of grace.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think it was your intent, but it seems anachronistic to use a teaching that wasn’t codified until the Council of Trent (which took place after the Reformation) as a proof of “the constant teaching of the Church.”

The term ''constant teaching of the Church" is correct in that the “teachings” flow from Scripture, the early Church Fathers, the liturgy, writings of the ''doctors", philosophers, theologians, previous popes, clergy and lay people, preparations for previous ecumenical Church Councils, poetry, diaries, letters, sermons, histories, biographies, autobiographies, properly defined and duly declared previous doctrines, and so on.

What we often find in the New Testament Epistles and the writings of the Early Church Fathers and subsequent saints, etc., are clarifications of basic teachings. We find these clarifications expanded in a variety of means in my paragraph above. It is because of this activity that we refer to the constant teaching of the Church.

Divine Revelation is considered complete in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, Who is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. (CCC 65) As we study Chapter 14, Gospel of John, we learn that Jesus promised His Church “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name–He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (verse 26) From there we go to Chapter 15 of Acts which is the first Church Council. As we follow St. Paul, we hear him say to the Corinthians: “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” (1 Corinthians 1: 10 and following)
This process of agreement eventually resulted in explicit declarations of one or more aspects of a “teaching” over time.

What we have to realize is that Trent and similar Councils did not start with a blank slate.

At this point, we either trust the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit or we don’t.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition offers a realistic, practical approach to understanding the latter Councils. CCC 66, last sentence: “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”