Trent: Let Me Be Anathema

The sixth session of the Council of Trent,the Canons Concerning Justification, anathematizes me how many times?
Else where in the meta Dan Phillips mentioned to me that we should have a contest.

“How many Romish anathemas can you rack up?”

I decided to count the number of anathemas that I am under from the 33 canons on justification. My count is 23 anathemas as I understand the canons. I tried to consider any nuances. Keep in mind that this is only 1 of 25 sessions of Trent.
It is a wonder if the doctrines of faith alone and imputed righteousness matter anymore. Trent has not changed so the wondering is of the Protestant side. It would not be difficult to find evidence that the doctrines are minimized today. One example is the upcoming National Conference on Christian Apologetics to be held at a baptist church which includes three (as best I can tell) Roman Catholics presenters. (As James White mentions the speakers may not have known who they were to share the stage with.) Another example comes from one of the observations from a recent evangelical conference on evangelism at the 9Marks blog.
Jonathan Leeman in Beware Your Seminary Professors writes the following.

Most of the speakers seemed only too happy to treat Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox as “brothers and sisters in the faith,” as easily as a Baptist might refer to a Presbyterian. Now, I trust that some RC and GOs are Christians, but such unqualified, unnuanced passing remarks effectively dismiss the Reformation and jeopardize souls. Don’t you realize the effect your passing comments have on sheep?

There are two recent examples from the evangelical side of things that seem to gloss over the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics. To compromise the theological differences in an apologetics and an evangelism conference makes no sense. In both of these areas the Gospel is central. These mixes are like oil and water.
The canons in question are listed below. Also, here are two resources explaining sola fide: 1 – An mp3 from the Issues, Etc. radio show: The Reformation and Its Theology: Faith Alone. 2 – Justification by Faith Alone: The Relation of Faith to Justification by Dr. Joel Beeke.

Oh Anathema, My Anathema

Canon 4.
If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
Canon 6.
If anyone says that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil as well as those that are good God produces, not permissively only but also propria et per se, so that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of St. Paul, let him be anathema.
Canon 7.
If anyone says that all works done before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins, let him be anathema.
Canon 9.
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 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, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, 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, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
Canon 13.
If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certainty and without any hesitation arising from his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema.
Canon 14.
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 15.
If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema.
Canon 17.
If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.
Canon 18.
If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.
Canon 19.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.
Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.
Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, 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 its increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 25.
If anyone says that in every good work the just man sins at least venially, or, what is more intolerable, mortally, and hence merits eternal punishment, and that he is not damned for this reason only, because God does not impute these works into damnation, let him be anathema.
Canon 26.
If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.
Canon 27.
If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief, or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.
Canon 29.
If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again, or that he can indeed recover again the lost justice but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and His Apostles, has hitherto professed, observed and taught, 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,[132] let him be anathema.
Canon 31.
If anyone says that the one justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal reward, 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, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.
Canon 33.
If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.
What did I miss? What did I let slip through?
Thoughts?

None

in apologetics,Church Issues,Evangelism,Gospel,heresy,roman catholic,theology
The above article was posted on October 22, 2009

Enjoy this site?
Please click and review!

Mark | hereiblog October 22, 2009 at 8:21 am: Anathematizing popes would be an interesting study. I do recall one who was dug up from the grave and tried for heresy.
Reply
Jason Smathers October 22, 2009 at 8:05 am: It would be interesting to go back further than Trent, then count how many anathemas the Pope racks up.
Reply
Jae October 22, 2009 at 11:29 am: My brothers, these anathemas were proclaimed to guard against false teachings and teachers and were directed to the founders of such heresies (errors) and not to the next generations. The main purpose of the Authority of the Church is to preserve the deposit of Faith. To every true Christian who sincerely try to follow the ways of Christ and His Teachings considerered EVERY word in the Scripture as ALL important, because it is God’s Word. Now; Who is to say which is important and not? Who is to say we only need to have the “essentials” and rest are not important in the Scriptures? By claiming and declaring which “one is or not important” is already an affirmation of Authority with which the protestants hated the Catholic Church for. Minor differences in protestants? Take for example baptism… the Church has decided that the references to Baptism in Scripture must be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, no exceptions. In fact, the Council of Trent bases this teaching on John 3:5 where Jesus said: “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Now, granted, you may have a different interpretation of that verse. In fact, yours may even sound better than ours. It's easy to believe that the water is merely symbolic. The Bible uses symbols all the time. But the $64,000 question is: is the Bible using symbols in John 3:5? How would we know for sure? We seem to have at least two possibilities. In fact, there are other possibilities. Some Protestants believe the water refers to the word of God, and base that interpretation on Ephesians 5:26. Others believe the water refers to the amniotic fluid in the mother's womb. Others believe the water is more than just a symbol but still doesn't save anyone. So, in effect, we have five different interpretations of John 3:5, and they all sound very good, but there can only be one correct interpretation and the others are devilish imposters. The context of John 2-4 doesn't help too much in settling on one meaning. So what do we do? Well, the good Catholic will ask: what did John mean when he wrote the words of John 3:5? Well, we need to ask John what he meant. But, of course, John is dead. Fortunately, however, we know what John meant because he told his fellow apostles, and they told the disciples, and they told the churches. When we examine the record of the churches (and we know them be reading the documents of those times) it is a fact that every church, every Father, every council, and every other body with any semblance of ecclesiastical authority said that the interpretation which holds that the water is the miraculous means of grace and actually procures justification is the only correct answer, and all the others are pious frauds. I would just add as an illustration of the basis for Protestant doctrinal decisions: When Jesus said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” Catholics believe that Jesus meant what he said. Protestants believe that whatever Jesus meant, he certainly did not mean what he said. And why? Because Jesus statement is not logical or easily understood. It is difficult, too difficult to believe by faith alone. Blessings!
Reply
Jae October 22, 2009 at 11:44 am: My brothers in Christ, if you look closer at what Jesus PROMISED to His Church in John 16:12-14.. “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into ALL THE TRUTH; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the THINGS THAT ARE TO COME.” Jesus promised, ALL Truth, ALL means: whole, every single one, FULLNESS…not one or two or three “essential doctrines” but ALL and still are to COME. If He promised that, then why do have differing doctrines amongst us? There should only be one True Church from the begining who has a living Authority from Him. There has to be, if indeed Christian doctrine is a divine revelation in which men must believe under the pain of eternal lost, then the promised (gift) of infalliability to the Church is necessary because if she could err at all, she could err in ANY POINT, the flock would have no guarantee to the ALL Truth. Do you think it is very logical? God Bless.
Reply
Paul October 22, 2009 at 7:09 pm: Jae, Christ did not promise the church an “evolving Gospel”. One that was to be expanded as time went on.
Reply
Paul October 23, 2009 at 2:09 am: Jae, Christ did not promise the church an “evolving Gospel”. One that was to be expanded as time went on.
Reply
June June 20, 2010 at 1:17 am: And then the Pope wonders why he and his church are suffering so? Psychology now, which Catholic nuns as much as the AMA are guilty of bringing in, is also like the Egyptians whom God reversed the harms done to His Children on. The more Christians know and understand that Blood of the Lamb (of God) is at least as powerful, with a mind (of God) all its own to do His will, the better and free-er we will live. Catholic anathema’s did not stop Protestantism from flourishing, it impaired it many times, so did communism. We, who live in Christ, and understand our only salvation is by and through and under the blood of the Lamb have at least as much power to watch the curses of the servants of the enemy be turned back on themselves. That’s what happened (even before) that final night called Passover; both the first one and the night Jesus gave us Communion. Let those who have cursed the children of God be the ones, instead, who have to live under those curses. And may as many of them turn to God as can possibly happen. May the children of God serving the satanic and/or evil deeds in Psychology repent before their loved ones suffer with them for participating in the destruction of so many traditional families, and righteous people. Amen. Fiat. Fiat, Fiat. A Pope has not more power to issue a real anathema that the least among us who really do belong to the Christ.
Reply
SPQR February 28, 2012 at 6:25 pm: Jae, You wrote: “I would just add as an illustration of the basis for Protestant doctrinal decisions: When Jesus said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” Catholics believe that Jesus meant what he said.” So by your logic, do you hate your father and mother (Luke 14:26)? Literally? If God is the Author of language, can He not speak in metaphor? (And don’t use the false rabbit trail of “So, does that mean you do not believe anything Jesus said?) Go check out the real history of transsubstantiation (or homoousios). Nothing on record until at least 600 years after Christ. Jesus did not teach this heresy. Jesus was alive before the crucifixion when he said that statement. Was He telling people to convert to cannibalism? Did He sanction the blasphemous treatment that Roman and Greek priests infer from their invocation of “communion”? (John Francis Noll, Bishop of Fort Wayne – approval of book “Faith of Millions” by John O’Brien, pp.268-9 – see http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n2248.cfm ) Or was this metaphor to describe something else (truly loving and serving Him)? Please consider objectively what God’s Word is really saying. Thank you, SPQR Blind literalism obscures true meaning. Surely you would never eat a lite
Reply
Michael McMillan April 12, 2012 at 8:40 am: well its intersesting to me when people will take a scripture out of the bible and ignore its context,you know i dont need the catholic church to make me understand scriptue becouse God will use the Holy Spirit and mature born again christians to “sharpen my iron”, raised as a catholic in south boston,(catholic capital), i was taught to just trust the catholic church for explanations about God,,your in good hands with the all saints club you know,, the problem is that after i got saved,after i was of a reasonable age to understand i was a sinner in need of a savior,and i started reading the bible it didnt take long to see that all the things iwas taught were foriegn to scripture!,infant baptism,priest(in the n.t,), popes, nuns, 1st holy communion,purgatory,salvation by sacraments,and the list goes on and on and on,and not anly were things foriegn but many were completely opposed,and now that im saved,and by the way if protesting the devil makes one a protestant than protestant i am,, so the real 64,000 dollar question is this…”can God communicate to His creation without the roman catholic church.? and my answer is yes, im saved in spite of the roman catholic church not becouse of it,,and the many people who i have shared my faith with who are catholics are absolutely clueless about the gospel,which leads to another question..”are all roman catholics so incredibly dumb that they just dont get it ao is the R.C. church preaching a different gospel?,, its the latter, this aint the gospel the apostle paul,or saint paul preached but it is the gospel in which he said was another gospel and therefor the real anathema is the ones preaching it!,read galatians and you will know what im talking about,,and the bible also says “if anyone loves not the lord Jesus Christ let him be anathema” and Jesus said “if you love Me you will keep my words,commandments”,, im not all i should be or could be but im doing alot better since ive been filled with the Holy Spirit and left the R.C. church,,catholism was imposed on me by my family as most catholics,, i personally chose to repent and ask Jesus to save me. well anyways as far as eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood,,you know it would help if you just read a little further in John,,,JN. 6:60-63…many therefore of His disciples when they heard this,said “this is a hard saying;who can hear it.?when Jesus knew in Himself that the disciples murmured at it,he said unto them,”does this offend you?what if you see the Son of man ascent up where He was before?it is the spirit that gives life,the flesh is useless;the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life.. now how can a street brawler from southie understand this and the pope cant?,,well couse the Spirit gives life not a church,, Jesus said the flesh profits nothing!!!! you can say your eating His literal flesh but i say with Jesus it profits nothing,,these words are spiritual as He said,,dont start a whole docrine and tell people if they dont agree with you they are anathema when your wrong,,come to Him like a child and He will open your eyes and if you try to defend heresy you will answer to God,its by grace thrugh faith you are saved, its not of yourself, it is a gift of God lest anyone should boast.
Reply
Manfred June 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm: Michael, Most excellent testimony of the work of God in your soul! I had a boss who was a cradle Catholic and God saved her while she was recovering from cancer treatment. She left the cult of Rome and devoured the Bible, dieing 6 months later with a joyful, credible testimony of having been saved in spite of, not because of, the cult of Rome. http://defendingcontending.com/2011/04/22/the-power-of-the-word-of-god/
Reply