Featured A Book Review: Born Fundamentalist - Born Again Catholic.

Do you fully affirm all that Trent stated, as they officially repudiated the true Gospel right then!

 

You didn't answer my question (intentionally). You said you have read Catholic apologetics. Please tell us which ones. You answer my questions and I will address yours. Also, I am not going to scroll through your posts to find the all the nasty comments and your tenor and vitriol in which you have addressed Catholics. I know enough, I don't have the time. I just know it is always 'contempt before investigation', meaning you will not bother to read the book being discussed and you will not list any books written by Catholic apologist you claim to have read.

If I misunderstood the request by the OP, I apologize.

 

Is this what you are addressing? We have been there many times before:
The anathema
Canon 9 from Trent’s Decree on Justification states: “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so that he understands 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.”

This is widely misunderstood.

One reason is that the term anathema is often glossed in Protestant circles to mean something like “damned by God,” and the canon is represented as condemning Protestants to hell.

It isn’t. At that time in history, the term anathema referred to a form of excommunication that could be imposed by a Church court for certain serious offenses. It was performed with a special ceremony, and its purpose was to motivate people to repent. When they did repent, it was also lifted with a special ceremony. It was seldom imposed and was eventually abolished.

The anathema did not sentence people to hell, it did not take effect automatically, it was never applied to all Protestants as a group, and it doesn’t apply to anyone today. The use of the term does, though, imply an authoritative rejection of the “faith alone” formula—when it is used to mean a specific thing.

The canon doesn’t say, “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, let him be anathema.” Instead, it rejects a particular use of the formula, whereby someone “understands 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.”

Trent is therefore concerned to reject “faith alone” when it’s used to say that you don’t need to in any way cooperate with God’s grace, that a merely intellectual faith would save you.

And that’s correct. Merely agreeing with the truths of the theology is not enough to be saved. As James puts it: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:17).

A Catholic “faith alone”?
If Trent didn’t reject all uses of “faith alone,” could the formula have an acceptable use from a Catholic point of view?

It might come as a surprise, but quite a number of the Church Fathers used it (see Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, 360). Even Thomas Aquinas used it(Commentary on 1 Timothy, ch. 1, lect. 3, Commentary on Galatians, ch. 2, lect. 4).

The fathers of the Council may have known that some Catholics sources used the formula, and this may have been one reason why they only rejected certain interpretations of it.

Since the time of the Council, Catholic theologians have explored the senses in which the formula might be compatible with Catholic teaching. Specifically, they have pointed out that the theological virtue of charity (the supernatural love of God) unites us to God, and so, if one has faith combined with charity, then one has “faith working through love,” which is what Paul says counts in Christ (Gal. 5:6).

That kind of faith, which Catholic theologians refer to as “faith formed by charity,” would—of itself—unite one to God spiritually.

 

That is bc you will not find one, and I only asked for one. Which indicates, as we can see here, it is you who bares false witness against thy neighbor and cast nasty comments.

Most of the articles I have read which were given to me came from "Catholic Answers".

 

So, not even a single book? Just articles? "

Btw, I have been reading your comments for years. No false accusations, just observations. The only forum member who comes close to the vitriolic rhetoric you post was 'Protestant' and I believe he no longer is allowed to post here. I have debated many evangelicals on this board over the years, rarely do I see the kind of nastiness that comes from members such as you.

Also, when asked if you had read the book being discussed in the thread you stated 'I have read many of these'. So WHO is really posting lies?'

 

Trent official rejected Pauline Justification!

 

The theology held by Rome is not found in the scriptures!

 

I just showed you the proof that it is. Did you bother to read it? Show me where it is wrong.

 

Sacramental, system of salvation not in Bible!

 

I can't add to the above. It's actually very simple, and you've kept it simple. Theology has its place but... when theology becomes a labyrinth that leads no one to Christ, then it needs a huge institution just to administer the theology (which keeps individuals wandering around forever in the labyrinths, and not reaching Christ).

 

Much greater intellectual theologians than you disagree with you on that. Ever heard of N.T. Wright?

 

You mean NT Wrong, the one who denies Pauline Justification?

 

And yet not even one example to give. Telling. Did you also know i have never had even one warning for a rule violation here on BB? Walter, are you an example of Catholicism? I have some Catholic friends and they do not bare false witness against their neighbors like you are doing.

 

Just re-read your post in the thread entitled' 'Would You Stay'. Your vile and baseless accusations were proven to be 'false witness'.

Steaver: Eh, it's just a minority, no biggie. Here is this sins proper context.....Actually, it is the RCC's entire body of Priest, for they ALL know exactly what goes on among their fellow priest, and they ALL keep their silence, including the Popes throughout the centuries. Even to this day. And you blindly just follow along, and if you could, I bet you would kiss the Popes hand, the Head of this Rape Ring which he keeps alive and well. The Vicar of Christ you call him, one who sits in place of Christ on earth, representing the Son of God. Nice.....

After reading your posts, including the ones following this one, you are really hitting your stride on hate for the Latin Rite. Kiss the Pope's ring? No. And now he's the head of a "Rape Ring"? Good grief, your vile accusations knows no bounds and you should be ashamed of yourself for placing the blame on people who hate and deplore this type of thing as much as you and I do. Pope Francis is actually working to end this scourge and to hold to account those who do such things

 

There is nothing baseless about those claims. They have been proven. You think all those priest and the popes didn't know how these rapist were being moved around unpunished? Really? You should have the same righteous anger I have for this. And you should understand the RCC is not the Church Christ founded.

There are 195 US archdioceses and
dioceses in the US ...
154 have released lists of "credibly accused" clergy
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...iests-arent-sex-offender-registry/4012206002/

 

The stats show that the percentage of sexual predators among protestants actually is higher than in the Catholic Church. 3% of Catholic clergy have been identified as having this sinful behavior. That leave 97% doing the work of Christ. BTW, lots of dirt now uncovered in evangelical churches. Pointing a finger at Catholics when you have four pointed back at you.

StopBaptistPredators.org