Council of Trent
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:07 pm
This is for Byblos, especially, being our resident Catholic
I was doing a bit of reading on the Council of Trent, and I noticed several decrees that struck me as "popular Catholicism" (you know - the stereotypical ideas about Catholicism that almost every Protestant/non-Catholic is taught from youth up). These peaked my interest the most:
Thanks much,
God bless
I was doing a bit of reading on the Council of Trent, and I noticed several decrees that struck me as "popular Catholicism" (you know - the stereotypical ideas about Catholicism that almost every Protestant/non-Catholic is taught from youth up). These peaked my interest the most:
- Canons on Justification
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, 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. (Canon 9).
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema (Canon 12).
If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, 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. (Canon 14)
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 its increase, let him be anathema (Canon 24).
Canon on Baptism
If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema (Canon 5).
Where would you recommend I go to get some more information on this? I could always wade through the millions of Catholic apologists, but if you had something in mind, it would make life much easier! Obviously, there has to be some sort of reconciliation to these ideas . . . one thing you can't fault Catholics for (it seems to me in my research so far) is shoddy historical precedent. I get the impression that they expand on what has already been said, moreso than introduce entire new doctrines. Thus, the question.Wikipedia wrote:After the time of the apostolic church, the term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication. The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and excommunication evolved, where excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Body of Christ. While excommunication can be announced by a simple edict or papal bull, the Roman Catholic Church has a particular ceremony necessary for anathema, where a bishop clad in purple (the liturgical color of penitence) is required, and he is surrounded by twelve priests with lighted candles. As the sentence is uttered, the priests cast their lighted candles on the ground, to symbolize the exclusion of the anathematized group from the house of Israel.
Although anathema is the highest sanction of the church, it is usually pronounced in the form, "If anyone holds that..., anathema sit". (Let him be anathema.) Thus, the person as a person is rarely given to anathema, and a person can renounce the anathematized beliefs and be reconciled to the church.
Thanks much,
God bless