Skip to main content
Just a clarifying comment, if I may, from a discussion in the comments: One cannot re-unite himself to "pre-Trent Catholicism," because that doesn't exist. The Council of Trent is an ecumenical council of Christ's Church. A child of that Church, then, submits himself to that Council unequivocally as a matter of divine faith. The later Councils (say, Vatican I and Vatican II) may express the deepening understanding of God's People (properly speaking) but the Councils cannot be placed in opposition to one another. An ecumenical council, the fullest and most solemn engagement of the Church's authority, is true as such. The bishops of the Church, united with their head, the successor of Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, discern God's will for his people. The only proper response to the determinations of the Council is submission, to the pope, to one's bishop, and to the priests united to that bishop.

Comments

Timothy R. Butler said…
We're not disagreeing per se. If you accept the Catholic claims (which Protestants do not, obviously!) then you must accept Trent. However, the point stands that you can't put all the pieces back together to how they were before the split -- as you had mused about in your other post -- because one side's doctrine makes it impossible to return its shards of glass. It has melted more glass onto the edges of the pieces and they no longer fit even if all the other pieces were willingly returned to their pre-Reformation places. True ecumenism headed towards unity, I think, can only occur when all sides are willing to learn from the other sides and, as Dulles and Newman suggest, be willing to learn from the other.

I should send you Dulles excellent little article on the Reformation. A lot of 20th century Catholics seemed to see the value in appreciating the Reformation -- and owning the cause of it.
4:29 PM
Jason said…
Please do! I love Cardinal Dulles (may he rest in peace). I would say that much has been learned on all sides. But the amount that can be learned is limited by the separation.
6:23 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more