Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone...let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins...or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ's sake...let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life...let him be anathema.

Guess that means if I attend a relatives wedding or burial (all of them are RC), I should expect the church to fall down when I enter, or a serious beat down from the priest.

quote:

---

Guess that means if I attend a relatives wedding or burial (all of them are RC), I should expect the church to fall down when I enter, or a serious beat down from the priest.

---

No, V2 has softened the modern RC’s feelings considerably. They made us back doors… We will even let them be president of the US and things like that now...

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/5/2005 9:09a).]

So did Vatican 2, replace the dogma of Trent? Did the Roman Catholic church declare the decrees of Trent null and void? In other words, did Vatican 2 make it clear that the dogma of Trent was replaced or amended by the dogma of Vatican 2?

quote:

---

So did Vatican 2, replace the dogma of Trent? Did the Roman Catholic church declare the decrees of Trent null and void? In other words, did Vatican 2 make it clear that the dogma of Trent was replaced or amended by the dogma of Vatican 2?

---

No it did not, and that is the problem! To this day, those anathemas still stand!

Well, at least us anathema types have pretty good company with Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.

If that is the case, how can the Roman Catholic church membership ever complain about the use of the dogma of Trent in religious discussions? Why can't the membership demand that the Trent dogma be replaced by Vatican 2?

Rev 2:4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5 Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

A&O,

quote:

---

If that is the case, how can the Roman Catholic church membership ever complain about the use of the dogma of Trent in religious discussions? Why can't the membership demand that the Trent dogma be replaced by Vatican 2?

---

They can’t… That was just a garbage argument. At some points though, trying to speak the truth to some people (who are not interested in the truth) is a waste of time. I like to think of any of these arguments as a marathon, not a sprint. You know as well as I that the Lord is the only one that can change the heart and make one see and love the truth.

Remember that it was not all of them that said that... Just one, and he does not even consider himself an RC.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/5/2005 9:31a).]

quote:

---

So did Vatican 2, replace the dogma of Trent?

---

If it is dogma, then it cannot be changed or replaced. There are three sources for dogma in the catholic church: Scripture, the Pope speaking ex cathedra, or a pronouncment from an ecumenical council. If any dogma from the church ever contradicts previous dogma, this would disprove the Roman Catholic Church's claims of infalliblity on matters of faith.

-Denny Crane-

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm

Rather than going all the way back to the Council of Trent to figure out what the HCC teaches, here is a link to the Catchism of the Catholic Church. It was put together by Pope Benedict XVI, while he was still a Cardinal. This Catchism is the no-fooling official teaching of the Catholic Church, taking into account all of the councils.

Texasag73

Trent is dogma, a Cardinal's teaching is not. Trent is a better place to go to find what the Roman Catholic Church's official doctrine is. If you are saying that Trent is no longer dogma, then you admit that the Catholic Church is not infallible on matters of doctrine.

-Denny Crane-

Someone please clarify something for me. Are these counsels actually used as prooftext for doctrinal support? Do these conclusions carry the same weight as scripture? As a Prot, should I view them as being closer to say a commentary or are they quasi-cannonized?

The Lone Stranger: Dogma from the Catholic Church carries the same weight as scripture. It is as if God himself said it. Indeed, even the canon of scriptures was determined by dogmatic prounouncment of an ecumenical council. The three sources of dogmatic authority (scrpiture, pope speaking ex cathedra, and ecumenical councils) are collectively called the magisterium of the church. They have the ability to determine what is and is not scripture, what is and is not "sacred tradtion", what is and is not church history, and the proper way to interpret all three.

-Denny Crane-

Thanks for the clarification.

quote:

---

This Catchism is the no-fooling official teaching of the Catholic Church

---

73, are you saying that Trent was "just trying to fool people?"

Trent was in no small part a response to Luther, who argued with himself over which Sacraments to keep and which to disregard, and Calvin, who quarreled with Luther(ism) and Wesley(ism) over predestination and many other topics.

The Catechism is what 73 suggested - a concise and quick source.

I would be curious for someone to bring up what in their mind are contradictions between the two, since the Catechism is built on Scripture, long-held doctrine, and the Church Councils documents that were brought about after internal consideration and debate.

So Redstone, the canons of the Council of Trent still stand here today in the 21st Century as authoritative decrees of the Roman Catholic church? There are no contradictions between the Catechism and the canons of Trent? Then what does '73' mean when he calls the Catechism the "no fooling official teaching" of the Roman Catholic church?

I can't speak for 73. The Catechism is, however, what it is: a quick, concise, and comprehensive guide to doctrine and dogma.

The Council was called because of an array of Protestant ideas on justification - something which is still hotly debated of course. The Joint Declaration with the Lutherans was, however, an important step toward future reconcillation.

Fundamentally, there is little disagreement: salvation through faith by the graces of God.

But there's quite a bit else, as there was with Luther against the Church and against his Protestant advesaries, especially as they set themselves against the predestination of he and Calvin.

So Redstone, have these canons been rescinded or are these canons still the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church today?

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone...let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins...or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Ecumenical canons cannot be rescinded.

We've been through this before pretty comprehensively....

Trent fits in with the long-standing teachings of justification and salvation, because it was a restatement and clarification in the face of the various communitites of Protestantism.

We sin every day, we offend God everyday, we need God's grace everyday - and the sacraments are an excellent way to receive these graces...

So far as salvation goes, its by the grace of God through Christ, which is why serious and smart Protestants and Catholics consider the other Christian. The emphasis of "receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior" as a one-time event are as such different, religiously/culturally, but not wrong necessarily, because God changes hearts.

The bottom line is salvation by the grace of God through Christ, received in faith. The Sacraments were instituted by Christ for this purpose - but as the thief on the cross demonstrated God can and does grant His graces as He chooses, based upon our responses to His call and example.

Here, in detail:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

Redstone: If the thief on the cross was not justified by faith alone, what other things did he do to obtain that justification?

-Denny Crane-

[This message has been edited by Aggie4Life02 (edited 5/6/2005 1:36p).]

quote:

---

Trent fits in with the long-standing teachings of justification and salvation, because it was a restatement and clarification in the face of the various communitites of Protestantism.

---

Sorry, Redstone but you have brought this "Protestantism" thing up several times and it does not answer the questions. There is Proetestantism today. Just please answer yes or no. In your opinion, are canons 9 and 11 of Trent applicable as Roman Catholic doctrine here in the 21st Century?

Do you think it makes God mad that he has no veto power over the "faith alone" rule?

quote:

---

Do you think it makes God mad that he has no veto power over the "faith alone" rule?

---

God Almighty, through His Word, gave us the "faith alone" rule (as you call it). It is, of course, not His fault that so many let pride hinder their understanding of that simple truth.

Yes, and I thought I had made it evident earlier.

Our salvation is by the grace of God received in faith, not by faith alone. God has His part; we have ours.

The promise of eternal life is a gift, freely offered to us by God (CCC 1727). Our initial forgiveness and justification are not things we "earn" (CCC 2010).

God plants his love in our hearts, and we should live out our faith by doing acts of love, as it says in Galations Chapter 6.

Even though only God’s grace enables us to love others, these acts of love please him, and he promises to reward them with eternal life. Thus good works are meritorious.

He gives us grace to obey his commandments in love, and he rewards us with salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him

Romans 2:6–11
Gal. 6:6–10
Matt. 25:34–40

We do not "earn" our salvation through good works but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life.

quote:

---

We do not "earn" our salvation through good works

---

quote:

---

our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life.

---

Please explain how these two statements are not contradictory. Only way I can see is if you try to say that obedience is not a good work.

-Denny Crane-

quote:

---

It is, of course, not His fault that so many let pride hinder their understanding of that simple truth.

---

Sucks for the babies left in trashcans to die. Prideful jerks.

A point of perspective, as with all its flaws, Trent is still mischaracterized further when its positions are stated as if de-facto wrong. Its not often realized that some of the anethamas were aimed at Catholic scholastic positions that had creeped in too much as well, and that like most councils, they are trying to negate, rather than to define.

Its true it over-stepped in authoritarian response, but its an open question whether it really is `categorically wrong' as claims of anathematizing the gospel would imply.

A&O,

quote:

---

So Redstone, have these canons been rescinded or are these canons still the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church today?

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone...let him be anathema.

---

But that *wasn't* the gospel. The emphasis and even addition of the alone part that Luther did is what Trent had in mind. It is certainly true that by doing so, it can overshoot, especailly in the hardened positions of today.

quote:

---

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins...or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

---

Rejecting extrinsic justification was felt to be consistent with the teachings of the church. It too, is indeed arguable. There was also some attempted combatting of a de-emphasis of baptisim's role that seemed unsound.

The point is that Trent was not as reactionary and hasty as it is sometimes painted. Did it err outright? Possibly. Did it anathematize the gospel as it had been received?, No.

quote:

---

Our salvation is by the grace of God received in faith, not by faith alone. God has His part; we have ours.

---

So as the canons state, are we that believe otherwise "to be anathema?"

Redstone, why do you think that "faith alone," would not lead one to "good works?" Are you saying that one can have faith, and not do any good works? That God Almighty would change our heart to love Him, yet at the same time leave that heart so cold that we would not serve Him on the earth with "good works?"

Faith alone saves us, good works will follow. Does that make me anathema?

Another point --- and this one was a bit startling. Trent is having to deal with flawed statements of the gospel on *both* sides, and there was alot that Luther and Calvin had on the mark about, but also things that were being over-stated that appeared to clearly confict with the ancient tradition when it was carefully re-consulted.. It was steering this course that Trent was trying to do.

I say `carefully re-consulted' because Trent used Orange II to condemn many of the positions, as well as St Bernards's writings. But what is striking is that, Orange II itself had fallen from general awareness until the magesterium reconsulted it in the research for Trent. This may go a long way to explain much of the "drift" that the Reformers rightly saw.

You see similar in today's growing distortion of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, yet re-consulting the works re-clarifies.

All I am saying is that it is worth while to any interested to study Trent even closer, outside of polemical websites and sound-bytes. Read on what they were contending with, and how rather not at all indifferently, they did re-examine the traditions.

This may all become relevant again soon, for Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardnal Ratzinger, had made a point to closely examine the precise lines of Trent, and what could be softened, and what appears to be valid statements of the doctrine, and thus not changeable. If he attempts to speak on it, I hope that for discussion there can be some flexible minds on both sides about reconsidering just what the `conventional wisdom' says about it.

A common Protestant assumption that Trent was flatly wrong is the key question. It was one I even could see possible. Its implied in many of the statements here, and it seems worthwhile to just point that presupposition out. But was it?

[This message has been edited by titan (edited 5/6/2005 2:14p).]

Bandit, you leave out the "mercy" of God Almighty and even you (as smart as you are) have no idea of the depth and breadth of that MERCY!

That much we can certainly agree on.

My point is God is not bound by what any man says.

quote:

---

My point is God is not bound by what any man says.

---

I would hope that NO ONE would argue that our sovereign God is bound in any way, shape or form by His creation.