I’d suppose that most folks don’t know too much about the Council of Trent (1545-1563), but they should – we should all be more familiar with it. Why? It was the Council at which the modern Roman Catholic church was defined. Trent was convened at least partially in response to the Reformation, which it stringently opposed. Also, it was the last Ecumenical Council of the RCC until the First Vatican Council of 1869-70. It was a biggie. Check out Wikipedia, or New Advent (a RCC site) for information. See John Calvin’s famous response for an early Protestant reaction.
Anyhoo, I was reading a bit in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent this morning (a little light reading) and I thought I’d post the following Canon from the Sixth Session of the Council:
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
The Council of Trent
So, a person is damned of God for articulating that if a sinner casts himself, by faith alone, on God’s mercy in Christ, that God will forgive his sins for Christ’s sake. Am I reading that correctly? What do you think about that?
This Canon is the point when the Roman Catholic church declared Augustine anathema, as it directly contradicts the Council of Orange.
This is a cautionary tale for current Roman Catholics. Since authority is based on the church, there is nothing to stop a council centuries from affirming any number of issues contrary to the teaching of Scripture.
Take heed, for you may be declared anathema centuries after your death as well!
[...] Catholic Church, there are several ways in which one might be anathematized. Tim Prussic reviewed one in particular over at Providence this morning. While Tim deals with Canon XII of the Council of Trent, I want [...]
Sproul is always wry enough to point out that the RCC condemned Pelagius when he opposed Augustine. Then they condemned semi-pelagianism in the teaching of Cassian, again opposing Augustine. Then they condemned Augustine’s position at Trent. Talk about a contradiction!
Augustine did not subscribe to justification by faith alone – it is invented by the 16th century Reformers. Refer to the following link:
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/augustine-on-faith-alone/
Below are other links on what Augustine wrote about grace and freewill:
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/augustine-on-grace-and-free-will/
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/grace-and-free-will-which-comes-first/
and finally a side by side comparison of justification in catholicism and Protestants that includes Baptism and purgatory.
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/
Thanks for the link, Vivator, and thanks for joining the conversation. You’re welcome at my blog and I value your scholarship and insights. I’m particularly interested to take a look at article about justification in Augustine. As to free will, I think that the Roman Catholic position is more along the Semi-Pelagian line, and not along the firmer Augustinian line, would you agree? No Calvinist worth his salt denies free will, but we certainly define it differently than Arminians and Semi-Pelagians.
Vivator,
The second half of your first assertion is incorrect. Justification by faith alone is a biblical doctrine. See numerous places in Paul’s letters for instance.
Catholics are not semi-pelagian – this is common mis-conception believed even by scholar like Sproul. You may read my posts on this issue:
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/catholicism-and-semi-pelagianism/
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/pelagianism-semi-pelagianism-catholicism-and-calvinism/
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/a-simple-analogy-to-explain-the-difference-among-monergism-synergism-semi-pelagianism-and-pelagianism/
From Arminian site I would like to recommend the following:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/35
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Outline.FACTS-of-Arminianism-vs-the-TULIP-of-Calvinism
I am not Catholic or Protestant, but to be fair, Rome sides with Augustine over against the semi-pelagians since it affirms that one cannot move themselves of their own natural power to faith. Its all over Albert, Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Scotus, not to mention clearly stated in Trent.
Augustine in his On Grace and Free Will clearly advocates for co-operation under the influence of condign grace.
And Catholicism precludes a libertarian account of free will that Arminians usually endorse since it is incompatible with the doctrine of the beatific vision.
To put the shoe on the other foot, it is the Reformed who take righteousness to be natural to Adam prior to the fall, who side with the key error of Pelagius, who took nature to be grace. And so when the fall occured, the imago dei was lost. The Reformed endorse then a pre-lapsarian Pelagianism. No surer sign of this could be the Covenant of Works.
A pre-lapsarian Pelagianism, eh? That’s interesting. At first glance, I don’t think I object – but the jury’s still out!
I am amused and intrigued by the insistence with which defenders of Roman Catholicism deny that Rome is Semi-Pelagian. It reminds me very much of the way that Dispensationalists deny they’re antinomian. Makes me want to look into it further.
You wrote “I am amused and intrigued by the insistence with which defenders of Roman Catholicism deny that Rome is Semi-Pelagian” and “makes me want to look into it further”. Please do the latter. However you only rely on information from Reformed scholars then you end up the same. Give chance to Catholics and Arminianists to explain about themselves. You are fully entitled to disagree but make sure you disagree with what they really believe – not with what you think they believe.
In semi-pelagianism men make the first move using their freewill – because of this there is no predestination – men decide whether they want to be saved or not.
In synergism God always takes the initaitive in our salvation and men response using their freewill. There is predestination in synergism – though it is not double predestination as in Calvinism.
Tim,
I am not a defender of Catholicism any more than I am of Calvinism. Being Orthodox, I have the luxory of thinking you are both wrong and heretical.
I simply wrote what I did because I think the facts support it.
Noting your amusement isn’t an argument that demonstrates the conclusion you are proffering. If you think Rome is semi-Pelagian, then give a rough and ready definition of semi-Pelagianism and then a reason for thinking Rome qualifies.
You two are a kick in the pants! Perry, my amusement demonstrates everything and nothing, here and there, past and future. TAKE THAT! Vivator, the only source of infallible information is Reformed blogs. I KNOWS how to do me some research… don’t worry yer pretty little head ’bout that.
On a more serious note, maybe over time we’ll get more and more of an opportunity to hammer on some of these issues. My guess is that, while both you (Viv) and I are filthy heretics (!), we probably have a good deal in common. And we probably have a good deal in common with Perry, too. Thanks for reading this blog; I also appreciate your comments, gents.
Tim,
Quite true that your amusement demonstrates everything and nothing since any conclusion can follow from a fallacious form of reasoning.
Try this for some material on Augustine.
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/no-gospel-for-augustine/
Tim, you are entitled to live inside your cocoon. What is the point of having blog if you permit only one way communication, i.e. you want your readers to read what you wrote based on your “infallible” Reformed blogs while you don’t want to read theirs?
Vivator, I was JOKING, man. Quit being so serious all the time. Lighten up and have a laugh.
I’ve been in dialog for the last couple months with the guys at Called to Communion, working through an essay that they produced. You can see my responses here by clicking on “Roman Catholicism” on the right column. I’m open to a lot of charges, but intellectual provincialism is not one of them.
Tim, if you still insist that Catholics practise semi-pelagianism, tell me what makes you think so.
If you believe in the fall, but do not affirm that man’s liberty of will with regards to righteousness is wholly taken away from him, that he cannot will any good thing apart from the divine enablement (grace), you’re a semi-Pelagian.