The C0uncil 0f Trent

[brakelite]

One prominent aspect, maybe even crucial, to the whole controversy between Catholicism and what was then quickly  developing and by the time of the council of Trent, had formed a firm foundation, and which afterward formed the basis for Protestantism, was the issue of what became known as 'sola scriptura'. The council itself to a great extent was called on the premise that the church, that is the ecclesiastical hierarchy head-quartered in Rome and centered in its authority invested in the 'curia', had the final say as to what scripture meant, and was intended to be understood as doctrine.

Protestantism on the other hand came to understand scripture as being readily understood by anyone who was willingly submissive to the teaching of the Holy Spirit. This of course was anathema to the Vatican, because it shut out a great deal of tradition which heretofore had been extensively used to guide the church in her teaching of not only  scripture, but on dogmas which found no great relevance in scripture whatsoever, and which Protestants came to teach in many cases contradicted contradicted scripture. The debate on this subject was a protracted one, and at one stage it appeared that the non-traditionalists, who of course were represented by Luther at Trent, were winning the debate. This difference in understanding was reflected in the very first four decrees decided upon within the first few weeks of the council.

(1) The Vulgate was the true Bible and not the Received Text which the Reformers followed and which had been the Bible of the Greek Church, the Church of the east, and the true churches of the West through the centuries; (2) tradition was of equal authority with the Sacred Scriptures; (3) the five disputed books found in the Catholic Bible, but rejected by Protestant scholars, were declared canonical; (4) the priests only, and not the laity, were capable of rightly interpreting the Scriptures.

The above precepts were vigorously and successfully defended by the archbishop of Reggio, Gaspare de Fosso. Below is an excerpt from his speech, reflecting a concept which may well please many Catholics, but which ought to challenge many Protestants, who would seek to defend their 'sola scriptura' banner.

Reggio, quote: "Such is the condition of the heretics of this age that on nothing do they rely more than that, under the pretense of the word of God, they overthrow the authority of the church; as though the church, His body, could be opposed to the word of Christ, or the head to the body. On the contrary, the authority of the church, then, is illustrated most clearly by the Scriptures; for while on the one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, offers them to us to be read, in doubtful matters explains them faithfully, and condemns whatever is contrary to them; on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day. "  (Note: the Protestant would claim that the church has no authority over scripture, but the scripture has authority over the individual, and the church. The archbishop has correctly challenged the Protestants on the premise that if they were truly convicted of following scripture, then they ought to be observing the Sabbath, as enjoined by the 4th commandment. But lo, in submissive surrender to the authority of the church, they continue to observe Sunday, that day created and established upon church tradition, and not on any "Thus saith the Lord" in scripture. What the archbishop proved, and what many Catholics today may deny, but which history on this matter clearly confirms, is that the church in Rome considers itself higher than scripture, claiming authority to change it in accordance to her own traditions).

  Archbishop de Fosso cont..."Circumcision, enjoined upon Abraham and his seed under such threatening that he who had not been circumcised would be destroyed from among his people, has been so abrogated that the apostle asserts: "If ye be circumcised, ye have fallen from grace, and Christ shall profit you nothing." These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church. Indeed, if she should be removed (since there must be heresies), who would set forth truth, and confound the obstinacy of heretics? All things will be confused, and soon heresies condemned by her authority will spring up again . (On this matter however, in contradistinction to the Sabbath question, the archbishop goes one step too far. On the subject of circumcision there is indeed a "saith the Lord", as he quotes from the writings of Paul. To credit the 'church' with this change is to incorrectly align Paul's admonition regarding circumcision and the inspiration which brought it to light, with teachings of a church which here in the 16th century claimed that same inspiration and so-called authority to change even the written commandments of God, as per the Sabbath issue, which clearly the church has no such authority. )

The 'authority' the Protestants were being charged with rebelling against was that authority which the archbishop claimed capable of changing the very laws of God, which Protestants at the time by their practice of observing Sunday, agreed to. Thus their hypocrisy was exposed, their protest successfully shown, at least in law, if not morally fraudulent, and the Vatican's authority and right to teach and interpret scripture vindicated.

A modern Sabbath keeper however, has no such difficulty. One keeping the commandments of God will always have the moral high ground when compared with those merely observing the precepts and teachings of men, which in some cases attempt to nullify the commandments of God. This goes a long way in explaining the historical persecutions of the Roman church against those who observed Sabbath, such as the early Waldenses and the Celtic church of Britain.

 

[Flowerwater]

16 hours ago, brakelite said:

One prominent aspect, maybe even crucial, to the whole controversy between Catholicism and what was then quickly  developing and by the time of the council of Trent, had formed a firm foundation, and which afterward formed the basis for Protestantism, was the issue of what became known as 'sola scriptura'. The council itself to a great extent was called on the premise that the church, that is the ecclesiastical hierarchy head-quartered in Rome and centered in its authority invested in the 'curia', had the final say as to what scripture meant, and was intended to be understood as doctrine.

Protestantism on the other hand came to understand scripture as being readily understood by anyone who was willingly submissive to the teaching of the Holy Spirit. This of course was anathema to the Vatican, because it shut out a great deal of tradition which heretofore had been extensively used to guide the church in her teaching of not only  scripture, but on dogmas which found no great relevance in scripture whatsoever, and which Protestants came to teach in many cases contradicted contradicted scripture. The debate on this subject was a protracted one, and at one stage it appeared that the non-traditionalists, who of course were represented by Luther at Trent, were winning the debate. This difference in understanding was reflected in the very first four decrees decided upon within the first few weeks of the council.

(1) The Vulgate was the true Bible and not the Received Text which the Reformers followed and which had been the Bible of the Greek Church, the Church of the east, and the true churches of the West through the centuries; (2) tradition was of equal authority with the Sacred Scriptures; (3) the five disputed books found in the Catholic Bible, but rejected by Protestant scholars, were declared canonical; (4) the priests only, and not the laity, were capable of rightly interpreting the Scriptures.

The above precepts were vigorously and successfully defended by the archbishop of Reggio, Gaspare de Fosso. Below is an excerpt from his speech, reflecting a concept which may well please many Catholics, but which ought to challenge many Protestants, who would seek to defend their 'sola scriptura' banner.

Reggio, quote: "Such is the condition of the heretics of this age that on nothing do they rely more than that, under the pretense of the word of God, they overthrow the authority of the church; as though the church, His body, could be opposed to the word of Christ, or the head to the body. On the contrary, the authority of the church, then, is illustrated most clearly by the Scriptures; for while on the one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, offers them to us to be read, in doubtful matters explains them faithfully, and condemns whatever is contrary to them; on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day. "  (Note: the Protestant would claim that the church has no authority over scripture, but the scripture has authority over the individual, and the church. The archbishop has correctly challenged the Protestants on the premise that if they were truly convicted of following scripture, then they ought to be observing the Sabbath, as enjoined by the 4th commandment. But lo, in submissive surrender to the authority of the church, they continue to observe Sunday, that day created and established upon church tradition, and not on any "Thus saith the Lord" in scripture. What the archbishop proved, and what many Catholics today may deny, but which history on this matter clearly confirms, is that the church in Rome considers itself higher than scripture, claiming authority to change it in accordance to her own traditions).

  Archbishop de Fosso cont..."Circumcision, enjoined upon Abraham and his seed under such threatening that he who had not been circumcised would be destroyed from among his people, has been so abrogated that the apostle asserts: "If ye be circumcised, ye have fallen from grace, and Christ shall profit you nothing." These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church. Indeed, if she should be removed (since there must be heresies), who would set forth truth, and confound the obstinacy of heretics? All things will be confused, and soon heresies condemned by her authority will spring up again . (On this matter however, in contradistinction to the Sabbath question, the archbishop goes one step too far. On the subject of circumcision there is indeed a "saith the Lord", as he quotes from the writings of Paul. To credit the 'church' with this change is to incorrectly align Paul's admonition regarding circumcision and the inspiration which brought it to light, with teachings of a church which here in the 16th century claimed that same inspiration and so-called authority to change even the written commandments of God, as per the Sabbath issue, which clearly the church has no such authority. )

The 'authority' the Protestants were being charged with rebelling against was that authority which the archbishop claimed capable of changing the very laws of God, which Protestants at the time by their practice of observing Sunday, agreed to. Thus their hypocrisy was exposed, their protest successfully shown, at least in law, if not morally fraudulent, and the Vatican's authority and right to teach and interpret scripture vindicated.

A modern Sabbath keeper however, has no such difficulty. One keeping the commandments of God will always have the moral high ground when compared with those merely observing the precepts and teachings of men, which in some cases attempt to nullify the commandments of God. This goes a long way in explaining the historical persecutions of the Roman church against those who observed Sabbath, such as the early Waldenses and the Celtic church of Britain.

 

Did you forget to link the source for that? 

[brakelite]

2 hours ago, Flowerwater said:

Did you forget to w  source for that? 

Apart from the 4 principles quoted and the archbishops speech which should be readily available on any catholic  web site dealing with Trent (such as Vatican archives) the rest is my own commentary.

[KiwiChristian]

Havent read it yet, but many people think the Bible was put together by the catholics.

 

This is a lie. They mearly defined what THEY would use as the "Bible".

 

The Bible was compiled miraculously by God. 

[brakelite]

18 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

Yet for all of that, Scripture says this:

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.” But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent." (Matthew 12:1-7, NASB, emphasis mine)

The account in Mark adds a bit more:

"And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” nd He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-28, NASB, emphasis mine)

Paul speaks the word of the Lord on this matter in Colossians:

"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God." (Colossians 2:16-19, NASB, emphasis mine)

While there is nothing that is wrong with observing the Sabbath on Saturday, we need to be careful that we are not turning the Sabbath into an idol all its' own and staking our salvation on the observance of it. Let those who wish observe the Sabbath, but if someone is not moved by the Holy Spirit to do so, then Scripture states they are not to be judged for that decision.

I don't think we want to have to explain before the Bema Seat why we did that when Scripture told us otherwise.

 

Okay, these points are made often in Sabbath threads throughout the the world, and debates go on infinitum without any real resolution. To continue here would likely not be beneficial, apart from possibly being way off topic. The point I was making in my post re the Council of Trent was the difference in attitude towards God's word by Catholics and Protestants, something exemplified by the archbishop's presentation, a presentation that at the time, could not be adequately answered by anyone at the council, including Luther. Only a Sabbath keeper could, with any moral certitude, defend the Protestant tenet of sola scriptura. Why? Because the archbishop is correct when he declares that Sunday observance was a change brought about by the church, and not a doctrine explicitly taught in NT scripture, as even your own scriptural quotes reveal.

My own take on the Sabbath is that I see it as a gift...as you quoted, "made for man"....and one which I celebrate and delight in as it gives me an opportunity to turn aside from the things of this world for 24 hours, enjoy God's creation in fellowship with family, my brothers and sisters in Christ, and in nature outside. It is like a birthday, that comes along every week....a celebration of creation, the original creation 6 or so thousand years ago, and the recreation going on inside us now as born again believers.

As far as Sunday is concerned, Archbishop de Fosso said that as an institution of the church, we ought to obey the church if we are to claim to be members of God's family. Jesus taught different. Jesus taught that to keep the commandments of men above the commandments of God was courting trouble.  I am very confident, and have no fear, of God's  judgement in this matter.

 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

On 7/3/2017 at 3:48 AM, KiwiChristian said:

Havent read it yet, but many people think the Bible was put together by the catholics.

 

This is a lie. They mearly defined what THEY would use as the "Bible".

 

The Bible was compiled miraculously by God. 

the "bible" is a collection of books and this collection has been called "the bible". It was Catholic Bishops of the Catholic church which determined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit what was to be considered inspired scripture and what wasn't. So I'm not sure I understand what distinction you are trying to make. The Bishops never wrote any of the books nor did the Church, and Catholics do not make that claim.

[KiwiChristian]

13 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

the "bible" is a collection of books and this collection has been called "the bible". It was Catholic Bishops of the Catholic church which determined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit what was to be considered inspired scripture and what wasn't. So I'm not sure I understand what distinction you are trying to make. The Bishops never wrote any of the books nor did the Church, and Catholics do not make that claim.

That is a lie.

 

They merely determined what CATHOLICS would use as the bible, NOT what the Bible IS.

[PageofGrace]

I must ask this question. 

Is there an effort to convert members here to the Roman Catholic tradition? 

 

 

[PageofGrace]

On 7/2/2017 at 9:26 PM, Flowerwater said:

Did you forget to link the source for that? 

I do see the note below your name. But I do miss you. I like your posts. In the event you ever browse here again.  Our Fathers best be with you.

[Wayne222]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, simplejeff said:

 Revelation 19English Standard Version (ESV)
Rejoicing in Heaven

19 After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,

“Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2
    for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
    who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.”

The great prostitute is not the RCC. No one can identify who she is till the end during the tribulation period of three and a half years. You can only speculate.