Trent and reconciliation with the Reformed?

[CopticChristian]

While I certainly grant that we do tend to be indifferent toward ecumenism with Rome (and anyone else for that matter), confessional Lutherans did not agree with the document because it doesn’t say anything substantially different than what Rome has been saying for the last five hundred years. The LWF churches that did agree to it no longer maintain any kind of theological orthodoxy anyway, so I am not sure how much weight it carries even in Roman circles, let alone Lutheran ones.

I would agree. While you note the last 500 years as it regards Protestant thought…these thoughts transmit time and are consistent with constant Catholic teaching…you are correct…Rome will not be changing their point of view…I agree…

 

[Contarini]

You will have difficulty in your thinking believing that there is no possibility to believe that it is not possible to believe something that is entirely false. For this to be true you must believe that it is impossible to believe something is entirely true.

Well no, that’s not the case. If the privation theory of evil is correct–and I believe it is–then only good (and hence only truth) actually exists.

You are right in calling me out on my overly sweeping statement, however, since it is certainly possible to make a perceptual or computational mistake. Even this, though, needs to be examined a bit further. For instance, you use this example:

2+2= 4. This is entirely true.

2+2= 3 This is entirely false.

I have never met someone who believed that 2 + 2 = 3. Perhaps you have.

Is it theoretically possible to believe this? Maybe, but it’s pretty hard to conceptualize what the mental state called “believing 2 + 2 = 3” would look like. Generally mathematical mistakes are much more complex than that, and involve many steps that are true along with some error.

In no other domain of life are questions of truth and falsehood as clear-cut as in mathematics.

If you believe as you say concerning heresy and orthodoxy then the only way any Protestant in the Reformed position is to recognize where they have accepted heresy and where they have accepted orhtodoxy. The orthodoxy comes from what they learned as transmitted in time from the OHCAC. The heretical belief once corrected then becomes orhtodoxy. Union will only be as individuals not as ecclesial communities. There are few if any ecclesial communities that have the abilities to correct heresy to orhtodoxy and unite. The Anglicans have been evidence of a group.

And Anglicans are weird, and even among Anglicans the number who are willing to be reunited to Rome as a group is very small-even after a century of intense ecumenism, many joint statements that show a good deal of basic agreement, etc.

Practically speaking, I tend to agree with you, with deep regret.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

Well no, that’s not the case. If the privation theory of evil is correct–and I believe it is–then only good (and hence only truth) actually exists.

You are right in calling me out on my overly sweeping statement, however, since it is certainly possible to make a perceptual or computational mistake. Even this, though, needs to be examined a bit further. For instance, you use this example:

I have never met someone who believed that 2 + 2 = 3. Perhaps you have.

Is it theoretically possible to believe this? Maybe, but it’s pretty hard to conceptualize what the mental state called “believing 2 + 2 = 3” would look like. Generally mathematical mistakes are much more complex than that, and involve many steps that are true along with some error.

In no other domain of life are questions of truth and falsehood as clear-cut as in mathematics.

And Anglicans are weird, and even among Anglicans the number who are willing to be reunited to Rome as a group is very small-even after a century of intense ecumenism, many joint statements that show a good deal of basic agreement, etc.

Practically speaking, I tend to agree with you, with deep regret.
Edwin

My brother Dr. Edwin,

You are as familiar as I am with words. You as I have Know that for what one calls regret is another’s joy. The joyful part of all of this is that whatever any of us feel, to dismiss feelings allows acceptance. Agreement on any level brings peace and joy. Peace and joy to you.

 

[CopticChristian]

While I certainly grant that we do tend to be indifferent toward ecumenism with Rome (and anyone else for that matter), confessional Lutherans did not agree with the document because it doesn’t say anything substantially different than what Rome has been saying for the last five hundred years. The LWF churches that did agree to it no longer maintain any kind of theological orthodoxy anyway, so I am not sure how much weight it carries even in Roman circles, let alone Lutheran ones.

I realized after sleeping on this that this is a testament of one Protestant that testifies as I believe as it concerns Faith and Morals…the Church has not and will not change…many talk about reform, veering, corruption…not in Faith and Morals…this is a matter of Faith and stands as an admission of 500 years of consistent transmission of thought. Thank you for the honest insight.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I realized after sleeping on this that this is a testament of one Protestant that testifies as I believe as it concerns Faith and Morals…the Church has not and will not change…many talk about reform, veering, corruption…not in Faith and Morals…this is a matter of Faith and stands as an admission of 500 years of consistent transmission of thought. Thank you for the honest insight.

Well, no credit to me. I don’t think any serious confessional Protestant would argue that Rome has, in any way, veered from the formulations of the Council of Trent. That is precisely why reconciliation with the Lutheran view, as claimed by supporters of the Joint Declaration, is and was impossible.

If the Roman Catholic party to the JDDJ had changed the Tridentine statements on justification, they would have basically said that the Roman Catholic dogma of infallible conciliar decrees is false, which would upend the entire system of Roman Catholic theology. The “Lutheran” side of the equation has and continues to disregard what our confessional viewpoint says, so they didn’t have that issue.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, no credit to me. I don’t think any serious confessional Protestant would argue that Rome has, in any way, veered from the formulations of the Council of Trent. That is precisely why reconciliation with the Lutheran view, as claimed by supporters of the Joint Declaration, is and was impossible.

If the Roman Catholic party to the JDDJ had changed the Tridentine statements on justification, they would have basically said that the Roman Catholic dogma of infallible conciliar decrees is false, which would upend the entire system of Roman Catholic theology. The “Lutheran” side of the equation has and continues to disregard what our confessional viewpoint says, so they didn’t have that issue.

Iggy,

You really can not blame everything on Trent…lets put some responsibility here on the Ancient Church…after all the Church has to be consistent…where would we be if in formulating Trent something was written that was contrary to past writings…

This has to be taken into account…

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Iggy,

You really can not blame everything on Trent…lets put some responsibility here on the Ancient Church…after all the Church has to be consistent…where would we be if in formulating Trent something was written that was contrary to past writings…

This has to be taken into account…

Not a question of “blame,” Coptic. Just a historical and theological fact as to why Rome cannot reconcile with evangelical Christianity on the topic of justification. If, for the sake of discussion, the reformers were correct in their understanding of the gospel, it would still be impossible for Rome to change its position on the doctrine because it would contradict their understanding of Trent as an infallible council.

As to the ancient church, yes, I grant that there are writings of the fathers which include the idea that we merit justification by becoming holy. There are also writings that support an evangelical understanding. Both sides can cherry pick quotes until the cows come home. However, there was no universal statement by the ancient church on justification and the opinions can vary from church father to church father, even to the point of contradicting their own writings.

Be that as it may, none of them spoke in the language of the medieval church, Protestant or Catholic, as heavily influenced by realism, nominalism, and scholasticism as it was. We both commit the error of anachronism.

 

[Contarini]

Not a question of “blame,” Coptic. Just a historical and theological fact as to why Rome cannot reconcile with evangelical Christianity on the topic of justification. If, for the sake of discussion, the reformers were correct in their understanding of the gospel, it would still be impossible for Rome to change its position on the doctrine because it would contradict their understanding of Trent as an infallible council.

As to the ancient church, yes, I grant that there are writings of the fathers which include the idea that we merit justification by becoming holy. There are also writings that support an evangelical understanding. Both sides can cherry pick quotes until the cows come home.

That’s a cop-out.

The concept of forensic justification was a sixteenth-century innovation. There is nothing at all that supports it in the Fathers.

There is certainly “evangelical” language. But it’s only because of your Protestant assumptions that you see this as standing in tension with the merit/sanctification language.

On justification, the cherry-picking is on the Protestant side. Period.

However, there was no universal statement by the ancient church on justification and the opinions can vary from church father to church father, even to the point of contradicting their own writings.

Examples? And are you sure that the “contradiction” doesn’t stem from your assumptions?

Be that as it may, none of them spoke in the language of the medieval church, Protestant or Catholic, as heavily influenced by realism, nominalism, and scholasticism as it was. We both commit the error of anachronism.

Indeed. I would agree with the Orthodox that both sides have muddled the issue by approaching it in primarily legal terms.

But it is classical Protestantism that rests its identity on this late medieval Western approach to salvation.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

While I certainly grant that we do tend to be indifferent toward ecumenism with Rome (and anyone else for that matter), confessional Lutherans did not agree with the document because it doesn’t say anything substantially different than what Rome has been saying for the last five hundred years. The LWF churches that did agree to it no longer maintain any kind of theological orthodoxy anyway, so I am not sure how much weight it carries even in Roman circles, let alone Lutheran ones.

Any kind of theological orthodoxy?

That’s a very bold statement, and pretty hard to defend, I think.

Certainly they don’t maintain what you regard as theological orthodoxy. But “any kind”? Really?

That’s just not true.

The basic premise of ecumenism is that if we look back to our common heritage in Scripture and the early Church, and restate our respective positions in those terms, then we may find that we agree more than we thought we did, because ultimately what we have in common is more fundamental than what divides us.

If you persist in thinking in “confessional” terms–i.e., taking the rival formulations of the 16th century as the standard by which everything is judged–then sure, you can look at the Joint Declaration and say “it doesn’t look substantially different than Trent.” But the whole point is that if you restate what Trent was trying to say in more Biblical and patristic terms, hopefully the orthodoxy of Trent will become clearer. And similarly, if you take Lutheran teaching out of its late medieval nominalist framework and restate its positive claims about God’s gracious forgiveness of sinful humanity in Jesus Christ, then it may turn out not to be as opposed to historic Catholic faith as it has appeared to be in the past.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s a cop-out.

The concept of forensic justification was a sixteenth-century innovation. **There is nothing at all that supports it in the Fathers.**There is certainly “evangelical” language. But it’s only because of your Protestant assumptions that you see this as standing in tension with the merit/sanctification language.

On justification, the cherry-picking is on the Protestant side. Period.

Examples? And are you sure that the “contradiction” doesn’t stem from your assumptions?

Indeed. I would agree with the Orthodox that both sides have muddled the issue by approaching it in primarily legal terms.

But it is classical Protestantism that rests its identity on this late medieval Western approach to salvation.

Edwin

So Edwin,

In response to my statement you state the above…

You really can not blame everything on Trent…lets put some responsibility here on the Ancient Church…after all the Church has to be consistent…where would we be if in formulating Trent something was written that was contrary to past writings…

You say that there is nothing that supports it in the Fathers…Is it your contention that the Church at Trent formulated something that was not seen in the Ancient Church?

 

[Contarini]

So Edwin,

In response to my statement

No, it was in response to IggyAntiochus’ statement. The fact that I quoted his post, not yours, in my own is surely a clue to that effect!

Why on earth did you think I was responding to you?

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

No, it was in response to IggyAntiochus’ statement. The fact that I quoted his post, not yours, in my own is surely a clue to that effect!

Why on earth did you think I was responding to you?

Edwin

Edwin,

Let me clarify. You made a statement.

The concept of forensic justification was a sixteenth-century innovation. There is nothing at all that supports it in the Fathers.

I stated concerning Trent…

You really can not blame everything on Trent…lets put some responsibility here on the Ancient Church…after all the Church has to be consistent…where would we be if in formulating Trent something was written that was contrary to past writings…

I asked this…

You say that there is nothing that supports it in the Fathers…Is it your contention that the Church at Trent formulated something that was not seen in the Ancient Church?

So in response in general is it your contention that Trent no support from the Ancient Church…I say that there had to be consistency and you suggest that Trent was a 16th Century innovation.

So, now I have addressed you…is this the way you see it…Trent has no support to be consistent in the Ancient Church…?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

So, now I have addressed you…is this the way you see it…Trent has no support to be consistent in the Ancient Church…?

I repeat: I was responding to IggyAntiochus.

I was saying that the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification is without support in the Ancient Church.

I am not sure what about this failed to be obvious.

Why, for the second time, do you persist in thinking that my post was a response to your post? If it had been, I would have quoted your post.

And are you under the misapprehension that forensic justification is taught by the Council of Trent?

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

I repeat: I was responding to IggyAntiochus.

I was saying that the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification is without support in the Ancient Church.

I am not sure what about this failed to be obvious.

Why, for the second time, do you persist in thinking that my post was a response to your post? If it had been, I would have quoted your post.

And are you under the misapprehension that forensic justification is taught by the Council of Trent?

Edwin

Edwin,

I understand the sequence as to who was responding…note that I said to you…

So in response in general is it your contention

you are Edwin to whom this was addressed.

I never stated anything about justification specifically…all I said was that Trent had to adhere to the Ancient Church for consistency…

Iggy said this…

I don’t think any serious confessional Protestant would argue that Rome has, in any way, veered from the formulations of the Council of Trent.

I then said…

You really can not blame everything on Trent…lets put some responsibility here on the Ancient Church…after all the Church has to be consistent…where would we be if in formulating Trent something was written that was contrary to past writings…

This has to be taken into account…

I do believe that Trent had to take into account the writings of the Ancient Church to be consistent or it would be considered an invention…

 

[CopticChristian]

Not a question of “blame,” Coptic. Just a historical and theological fact as to why Rome cannot reconcile with evangelical Christianity on the topic of justification. If, for the sake of discussion, the reformers were correct in their understanding of the gospel, it would still be impossible for Rome to change its position on the doctrine because it would contradict their understanding of Trent as an infallible council.
As to the ancient church, yes, I grant that there are writings of the fathers which include the idea that we merit justification by becoming holy. There are also writings that support an evangelical understanding. Both sides can cherry pick quotes until the cows come home. However, there was no universal statement by the ancient church on justification and the opinions can vary from church father to church father, even to the point of contradicting their own writings.

Be that as it may, none of them spoke in the language of the medieval church, Protestant or Catholic, as heavily influenced by realism, nominalism, and scholasticism as it was. We both commit the error of anachronism.

I agree that Trent could not change any position at Trent. It was a response and as I said…

COLOR=“Red”]**You really can not blame everything on Trent…lets put some responsibility here on the Ancient Church…after all the Church has to be consistent…where would we be if in formulating Trent something was written that was contrary to past writings… **

You agree that Trent could not contradict writings of the Ancient Church…as I said…for Trent to do so would have created a situation where something that was written in the Ancient Church would contradict Trent and for consistency and infallibility to hold true Trent was bound by past writings…otherwise there would be contradiction and people would say…wow…that contradicts the writings of the Ancient Church…sounds like a bunch of Mormons or us Protestants…waxing and waning…you do understand.

 

[CopticChristian]

I repeat: I was responding to IggyAntiochus.

I was saying that the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification is without support in the Ancient Church.

I am not sure what about this failed to be obvious.

Why, for the second time, do you persist in thinking that my post was a response to your post? If it had been, I would have quoted your post.

And are you under the misapprehension that forensic justification is taught by the Council of Trent?

Edwin

No,

I was not addressing anything but Trent…I am only considering Trent as a whole and since you insist that there is no one ECF…I had to think…and I would say that if I were to offer just one…that would be Augustine as it concerns Trent…

 

[Contarini]

No,

I was not addressing anything but Trent…I am only considering Trent as a whole and since you insist that there is no one ECF…I had to think…and I would say that if I were to offer just one…that would be Augustine as it concerns Trent…

Again, I am baffled by why you persist in thinking that I was talking about Trent’s consistency with the early Church, when I was not doing anything of the sort.

I do not find any obvious areas of contradiction between Trent and the Fathers, as I do between the Reformers and the Fathers. There are certainly patristic themes that the Reformers picked up on and elucidated well, but on the basic issue of imputation vs. “infusion” it seems to me that the Fathers are pretty unanimously on the Catholic side.

You seem determine to read some kind of Protestant polemic into my posts even when I am quite plainly saying exactly the opposite!

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

Again, I am baffled by why you persist in thinking that I was talking about Trent’s consistency with the early Church, when I was not doing anything of the sort.

I do not find any obvious areas of contradiction between Trent and the Fathers, as I do between the Reformers and the Fathers. There are certainly patristic themes that the Reformers picked up on and elucidated well, but on the basic issue of imputation vs. “infusion” it seems to me that the Fathers are pretty unanimously on the Catholic side.

You seem determine to read some kind of Protestant polemic into my posts even when I am quite plainly saying exactly the opposite!

Edwin

I wasn’t addressing you in particular. I was just stating that Trent was bound by writings of the Ancient Church and Scripture to be consistent. Trent utilized many Scriptures. When considering the Ancient Church Scripture is part of that writing and Trent would have to be consistent with…

Ezech. 18:20

Ps. 67:19, Ps. 78:8, Ps. 58:11
Isa. 65:1
Prov. 8:35

John 6:44, John 15:5 John 3:27, John 8:36
Matt. 16:17, Matt. 25:29
Luke 19:6, Luke 23:43

Acts 10:3

Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:5 Rom. 6:16, Rom. 10:20

Phil. 1:6, Phil. 2:13, Phil. 1:29

I Cor. 4:7, I Cor. 7:25, I Cor. 12:3, I Cor. 15:10
II Cor. 3

Eph. 2:8, Eph. 4:8

II Pet. 2:19

I Tim. 1:13

Jas. 1:17

That is all I am saying…

 

[hn160]

grandfather;8643011:

Great post. I find that protestants living in denial or they cant really see what goes on in their midst. Most protestant dont have the Catholic Creed, and rightly so. to recite the Creed that belongs to the Catholic Church which they dont believe in it is affirming a lie. It is a delusion to recite a Creed which was made for the CC and for Catholics to recite in teh Church. it does not make any sense that those outside find that they have the right to recite our Creed just because they feel they can do so just like they do with the Bible when they took out of the Church .

Where did you get the idea the the three Ecumenical Creeds are the property of the Roman Church? The Creeds are catholic or universal. They do not belong to Roman Catholic Church, but to all Christendom…

 

[hn160]

HN,
If scripture is the word of God and Christ’s promises found in scripture can be relied on, Luther’s doctrines must be false. Here is why.

Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into ALL truth, and to be with His Church until the end of time. He made promises guaranteeing the doctrines of His Church, binding in heaven what His apostles bind on earth. He founded His Church on men, not scripture, according to scripture.

If we are to take Him at His word then we can conclude that the things the Church believed in the year 100 were true. The same is true for the year 500, 1000, 1500, 2000.

One test of any doctrine would be whether or not it agrees with the truths of faith the Church has always taught. For example only, if some group or sect comes along at some late date and says they refuse to believe that babies should be baptized, and there is historical evidence from the very beginning that the Church baptized babies, the novel doctrine must be false if Christ’s promises to His Church as found in scripture are true.

The Holy Spirit is either leading us into all truth for all time, past, present and future, or He is not. According to Christ’s promises the Church can not believe or teach error, ever. If Joseph Smith’s claims are true, that he have a vision of an angel who told him no Christian group’s doctrines are true, the Christ’s promises are false.

If history shows that the Church has always prayed for her beloved dead and someone says this is nonsense that person is wrong, or Christ’s promises are false. Truth can not change. The oldest historically known rote prayer is from the year 50. Mary was still alive. It is a prayer to Saint Joseph. This is history not theology. If someone says it is wrong or useless to pray to the saints and the Church has always done this, the novel doctrine or Christ’s promise is false.

The same is true of morals. If the Church has always taught that it is sinful for people to engage in homosexual behavior and it is not sinful as some now claim to have discovered, and they are correct, then the Church was wrong since the begining and Christ’s promises are false, because the Church taught and believed error. This is very serious matter. It would mean the Church has heaped guilt and shame on people unjustly for two thousand years.

Anyone who opposes the constant practice of faith the Church has always upheld, under the claimed authority of their personal reading of scripture, must either be wrong, or Christ’s promises to us about leading into all truth for all time are false.

If Luther taught what contradicted faith and practice that was believed from the beginning based on his personal understanding of scripture, he is wrong.

If Luther is right and the Church is wrong this would also mean that no doctrine can be relied upon. It becomes impossible to know that what you believe is true if it can suddendly be declared by someone as an error based on some new understanding of scripture. This is what unleashed denominationalism on us, which is a never ending adjusting and changing and fixing doctrines according to someone’s new opinion.

As Luther said the Roman Church often said one thing then another on the same subject. One time priests could marry, then a pope said that the couldn’t marry, nowhere in Scripture does it say that priest cannot marry. Man made rule. One time the lay people could take both elements in Communion, then a pope said they could not and Jan Huss was burned at the stake for this, then along came Vatican II and the could. poor Jan Huss.