The Evangelical Gospel Cursed at Trent?

[christcnection1]

I have been unable to find too much information on this issue from Catholic apologists. That’s why I’m here. A Protestant friend of mine raised the issue of a curse placed on those who believe the Evangelical Gospel.

It appears some of our separated brethren hunt for new ways to undermine or demonize Catholic theology to give the appearance their perspective is pristine Gospel. We all know that Catholic dogma normally needs elaboration beyond a few verses of Holy Scripture. Furthermore, the Reformation was a confusing time period, with various perspectives, deep emotions, and painful misunderstandings.

Recently this friend gave a woeful presentation of the Catholic faith to his Evangelical audience, and it appears his false understanding is, in part, due to no fault of his own. How do I respond to my Evangelical brother? I think he is primarily addressing “the curse”, and justification/salvation issue(s) of Trent. **Thank you all. **

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Ask him a few hundred questions.

What came first, the members of the Church or the written word of God?

Who told him which books are in the Bible?

Do all baptized people have the same faith in their soul or heart?

I am a Roman Catholic.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod believes that Catholic baptism places faith in our soul.

And if faith saves, Catholics are saved.

Tom Baker is a of the LCMS. He agreed that this is so. (I know the Catholic teaching for this, but was most surprised by Baker’s agreement.)

How does one know which copies of the St. Mark are inspired?

The list is really long.

 

[Fidelis]

christcnection1:

I have been unable to find too much information on this issue from Catholic apologists. That’s why I’m here. **A Protestant friend of mine raised the issue of a curse placed on those who believe the Evangelical Gospel. **

That would be a pretty slick trick since Trent occured in the 1500’s and Evangelicalism (as it is believed and practiced today) has only been in existence for about 150 years or so. Maybe you haven’t see much on it because the charge is almost too silly to dignify with a straight-faced answer.

Maybe this article might help, however:
"Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths
envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

 

[RyanL]

Fidelis:

That would be a pretty slick trick since Trent occured in the 1500’s and Evangelicalism (as it is believed and practiced today) has only been in existence for about 150 years or so. Maybe you haven’t see much on it because the charge is almost too silly to dignify with a straight-faced answer.

You’re entirely correct that Trent didn’t address modern evangelicism (a most recent invention), though some of the theology was definitely anticipated:

**Canon 9.
**If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. (Not by Faith Alone)

**Canon 12.
**If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy,[117] which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema. (Not by Eternal Assurance)

**Canon 14.
**If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified,[118] or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema. (Not by Eternal Assurance)

**Canon 15.
**If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined,[119] let him be anathema. (Born Again != Definitely Saved)

**Canon 16.
**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 a special revelation,[120] let him be anathema. (Born Again != Definitely Saved)

**Canon 19.
**If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema. (Not By Faith Alone)

**Canon 20.
**If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe,[122] as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema. (Must Still Obey God)

**Canon 21.
**If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey, let him be anathema. (Must Still Obey God)

**Canon 23.
**If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace,[124] and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema. (Not by Faith Alone)

**Canon 24.
**If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema. (Works are a part of Justification)

**Canon 33.
**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 Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.

Keep in this in mind, though: anathema doesn’t = damned. Anathema means outside of the Catholic Church (which they would readily agree that they are). Additionally, this mostly applies to those who know that the Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded, but deny anyway; it does not apply to those who are invincibly ignorant (further clarification available on request).

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Fidelis]

Excellent post RyanL! I’ll be sure to hang on to this info for future reference.

 

[mercygate]

Here’s the old apologetic necessity: since he made the allegation, he must provide the reference.

Sola fide? Definitely anathematized at Trent.

But Trent is “difficult” in that the language is extremely precise and “legal.” It is VERY easy to mis-read it. Also, a word like “merit” should actually be translated “reward” – so there are complexities upon complexities in interpreting Trent.

I any event: Find out exactly what your friend is referring to. “Trent condemns the evangelical Gospel” is an irresponsible statement.

 

[RyanL]

mercygate:

Also, a word like “merit” should actually be translated “reward” – so there are complexities upon complexities in interpreting Trent.

True, but only as applied to us. Catholic documents include multiple references to “merit”, and it could be taken in various ways depending on the context. Jimmy Akin gives some insight here (full explanation at the link):

Strict merit is what would occur when someone gives to God something of equal intrinsic value to the reward he has promised to give. The trick is, only Christ is capable of doing this since only Christ is capable of doing things of infinite value for God. Other humans are totally incapable of this because we lack the infinite dignity of the Godhead supervening on our actions. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator” (CCC 2007)

**Congruent merit**: in some cases God has not promised a reward. A reward might be fitting, but it may not have been promised. To give a human analogy, if someone holds the door open for me while I have a load of books in my arms (a common event for me), it is fitting that I hold the door for them next time. However, I have not promised to do so, and all things being equal I am not strictly bound to do so. Thus it is fitting for me to hold the door for this person, but there is no strict obligation involved. This is, on a natural human level, what Catholics would call congruent merit.

The obvious next higher form of merit is one in which God has promised to reward the action. In this case when a person under the influence of actual graces performs the supernatural act, God is not only pleased by the act but he is guaranteed to reward it because he has promised to do so. This kind of merit is known in Catholic theology as condign merit.

One thing it is important to realize about condign merit is that, even though God has promised to reward the at, that does not mean that the act has an intrinsic value equal to the reward it is receiving. If I perform an act of charity and God gives me a heavenly reward in the next life by giving me an additional level of supernatural beatitude, the value of the act I perform in no way equals the value of the beatitude. There may be a proportionality that can be drawn between the amount of charity God’s grace has led me to exercise in this life and the amount of beatitude I get in the next life, but there is no equality between the two values.

This gets further complicated when you include the different types of graces (sanctifying (which is composed of actual: sufficient and efficatious and habitual grace) and charismatic (both ordinary and extraordinary)) by which we merit certain rewards.

Rule of thumb:
“Catholic theology - don’t try this at home without a helmet, a life preserver and a CPR qualified individual present”

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[mercygate]

RyanL:

True, but only as applied to us. Catholic documents include multiple references to “merit”, and it could be taken in various ways depending on the context. Jimmy Akin gives some insight here (full explanation at the link):

This gets further complicated when you include the different types of graces (sanctifying (which is composed of actual: sufficient and efficatious and habitual grace) and charismatic (both ordinary and extraordinary)) by which we merit certain rewards.

Rule of thumb:
“Catholic theology -** don’t try this at home without a helmet, a life preserver and a CPR qualified individual present”**

God Bless,
RyanL

RyahL – that is EXACTLY what I was getting at. You were braver than I; I didn’t want to get into all the nuances of merit and the relationship with reward – much less the relationship between justification and sanctification.

That said: the ordinary bloke doesn’t need to have all this nuanced theology at his fingertips. All we have to do is trust in God and trust in the Body of Christ. We can leave the high-flown theology to the professionals. It IS important that SOMEBODY know this stuff. It just doesn’t always have to be ME.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

christcnection1

Are you trying to prove him wrong? Just a question…

Are you trying to prove yourself right? Just a question…

I try to show that we must love God to be saved. All Christians know that we cannot do that unless God gives us His love.

We are saved by God’s love.

Ask him the old one: Where in the Bible does it say only the Bible?

Also, where in the Bible does it say ONLY Faith?

Which is greater: Faith or love?

From where does faith gets its “energeo”? Galatians 5: 6, Faith works (energeo) by charity. God is LOVE ( I John and the new encyclical, God is LOVE). Faith needs love.

Please let me know what you think, thank you!

 

[christcnection1]

Thank you all for the info and comments so far. I posted this thread with a few goals in mind Seamus Sully…

For starters, I’m not familiar with this topic and couldn’t find Catholic apologetics on the issue. (The only information I could find was from Fundamentalists or Evangelicals bashing Trent’s stance.)

As for my friend, my goal is to show him (as I suspected), that the Catholic position is being misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. Intellectually, sometimes I wonder if you can convince anyone of anything, so the goal is to soften his heart and open his eyes to the Church’s true teaching.

Finally, it seemed important to alert my dear siblings in Christ that this was even an issue. Had there been sufficient information easily available on the topic, this post would have never been made.

Have any of you been confronted with this issue before by a Protestant? (It’s a new one to me!) If so, how did it go?

I’ll be out of town for a few days, but I’ll be back to check the convo then. Peace and Blessings

 

[RyanL]

christcnection1:

As for my friend, my goal is to show him (as I suspected), that the Catholic position is being misinterpreted and/or misunderstood.

One of the things your friend may be stumbling on is the Catholic teaching that “Outside the Church there is no Salvation”. It is a thoroughly Catholic teaching, though it has a penchant for being completely misunderstood. Here’s a link that should explain it as well as I could. Excerpt:

Those who are not in visible communion with Christ’s Church may be invisibly united to it by their desire to do all they believe God asks of them and by their reliance on his grace to do so. Such people are, to use Ronald Knox’s expression, “unconscious Catholics.”

There’s no “curse” on those who simply don’t know the truth of the Catholic faith but still have a desire to please God. It helps to keep this in mind when reading things like the canons of Trent.

christcnection1:

Had there been sufficient information easily available on the topic, this post would have never been made.

There’s plenty of information on just about any topic you are having issues with. A trick I use is to go to www.google.com and type in a phrase I’m looking for like “outside the church there is no salvation” and then restrict my search by typing “site:www.catholic.com” in the search bar along with my phrase. I always get tons of hits. Another good site is www.scripturecatholic.com - this is good for finding Scriptural citations for Catholic teachings and support from the 1st/2nd/3rd century Christians for Catholic beliefs. Since most Evangelicals profess to believe like the “early Christians” did, it’s helpful to show them what the early Christians actually believed - I’ll give you a hint…they weren’t Calvary Chapel kinda’ believers…

Hope this helps.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Ruthie]

Your friend is probably referring to this:

“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.”

And this:

“And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes.”

Both of which can be found in the 4th session of Trent, which can be found here: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html.

It is important to explain two things:

1. Trent describes the penalty as anathema; it does not automatically confer anathema. To make someone anathema required a specific rite which could be performed only by the Pope. If he did the rite for every person whose heresies were condemned by Trent, he wouldn’t have time to eat.
2. While the dogma that had to be **not **received to generate anathema remains, anathema itself is no longer a punishment decreed by the Church.

Hope this helps…

 

[tjmiller]

Anyone who rejects any dogmatic decree of any ecumenical council is, ipso facto, accursed.

 

[Todd_Easton]

St. Paul said:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed [anathema]. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed [anathema]. (Galatians 1:8-9)
By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, 20among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:19-20)
The anathema pronouncements made against heretics by the Church fathers of the Council of Trent that the heretics might come to repentance and the similar anathema pronouncements by the Church fathers of other Church councils throughout the centuries are nothing new.

 

[christcnection1]

This is what I think he’s getting at…

Let’s say I’m an Evangelical Christian that has a deep love and trust in the Savior, Jesus Christ. My goal is to honor Him with all my heart mind and soul. My goal is to follow His perfect will found in God’s Holy Word, the Bible.

Essentially, if I do this, I’m genuinely embracing the Gospel, the “Good News”. Because of God’s grace and mercy through Jesus Christ in His atoning death on the cross, I am set free from the chains of death, and will be welcomed into His glorious kingdom at the appointed time.

If I simply believe this (without getting into the faith vs. works issue), and sincerely seek to love Him, am I still accursed according to the council of Trent? The issue is not anything complex, though he is misunderstanding the complex issue, I believe, and through no fault of his own. (That’s of course until he’s corrected.)

What other considerations are there to the issue beyond this?

Please “keep it simple stupid”; I have to articulate this to someone with a hardened heart. Thanks!