There Was a Time ... Social Networks were Stabler, and Internet Did Not Exist

I am not trying to assess here whether there is a connexion and which way it goes or if it goes both ways. I am just saying the two have changed the deal when Catholics interact with Protestants.

1924. Catholic on a workplace meets Protestant on a workplace. BOTH probably intend to stay working there. NEITHER probably envisages to quit his job or push the other one out of his job over a religious dispute. BOTH have families to feed, and both priorise this over any kind of missionary duty.

They come to chat over religion. Protestant will say a thing. Catholic will give a simple response.

If the Protestant is at least moderately satisfied, the Catholic thinks he has done his duty, the friendship continues, the question is probably out of the way, for next year, and in the best case scenario the Protestant ends up so satisfied that he converts.

If the Protestant thinks it's baloney, they will probably like each other less, tend to avoid each other a bit more, outside tasks where they are forced together.

Either way, it's not a complete waste of time if the Catholic gives a very superficial answer, though one that satisfies himself. The Protestant won't be a supernerd of amateur theology either. So, while it makes some shortcuts and is not completely true, the Catholic can say "the canon of the Bible was decided at Trent" ... since then, this has backfired longterm into Protestants believing this is all there is to the Catholic teaching. If the Catholic isn't claiming that Tobit or II Maccabees was canon in 1500, the Protestant can get away with saying "II Maccabees was added to the canon in the Council of Trent" as Frank Turek did.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Turek Ill-Informed on More than One Controversy Around S. C. "Apocrypha"
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 8:29 AM Tuesday, April 23, 2024
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/turek-ill-informed-on-more-than-one.html

My point from that debate is, it pays if the Catholic knows the Fourth Century councils in Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Not just Trent. It pays if the Catholic can say "you got the actual back and forth between Sts Augustine and Jerome wrong, the latter complied by obedience" rather than be totally fallen from the skies by learning Jerome actually opposed their canonicity. It pays if the Catholic can mention St. Jerome didn't just obey St. Augustine as a superior, potentially quasi boss, but obeyed him bc he represented "the bishops" ... (St. Augustine had arguably known all about the synod of Hippo, where he was as yet a monk, not yet ordained, not yet consecrated bishop).

Similar things are true on other controversies we can have over Old Church issues.

Protestant

The Catholic Church didn't exist in AD 33. It was founded in the Fourth Century by Constantine.

Catholic

That's not true. St. Sylvester was the 33rd Pope, starting with St. Peter.

Is it correct as far as it goes? Yes, far more than saying "we had no Bible canon prior to Trent" ...

But does it miss something? Yes, it does that too. Not too bad between two regular blokes on their work in 1924. But it can spell disaster between two blokes on the internet if the Protestant is geekier than that.

So, what exactly does it miss? What would a Protestant answer to such a thing?

Protestant, A

Gavin Ortlund

There was no monarchic episcopacy in Rome, for much of the time. Or anywhere. Jerome admits monarchic episcopacy is a later expedient.

Protestant, B

Ruckman (while he lived)

Sylvester was a heretic and a schismatic. Cornelius was selling out Christian purity and the real Christian Church at this time was often called Novatianism because of his righteous opponent, the rightful pastor in Rome. Sylvester was part of the bastard line started by Cornelius.

Protestants A, B and C

C = Frank Turek

You are aware that Popes had no universal jurisdiction pretensions prior to 500—600 AD or so?

I think it is pretty useful to be able to answer that kind of thing as well. So, I'll try to provide a Catholic answer to each.

Catholic on A

The evidence supposed to be against monarchic episcopacy (as I recall Gavin) can have to do with a tendency of actual wielders of monarchic authority in Rome to step behind assemblies of council.

For instance, if Caesar Nero wanted a law, it is pretty shrewd to guess, the law would not state "Caesar Nero decreed" but "the Senate and the People of Rome decreed" ...

If Gavin would like to invoke details about I and II Clement, perhaps this pope was simply following this Roman custom?

In many sees outside Rome, it could at least in the West be less important who at the moment was its bishop. It could have ten priests and all of them consecrated bishops, and then occasionally if one of them got martyred he was then stated as "our bishop" at this time. It could have only priests and no bishop between getting a bishop martyred and waiting for ordinations and consecrations from elsewhere to be available. It could have no clergy at all and be waiting for the next bishop sent from Rome.

This sort of stuff could contribute to this kind of evidence.

Catholic on B

Ruckman was wrong.

He contradicts Matthew 28:20. There is no line, least of all the one proposed in Trail of Blood, of any actual direct continuity between Novatians back then and Amish now.

Paulicians and Albigensians do not bridge that gap. They were not Christians.

Claudius of Turin was not a bridge between Old Church opponents of a major Catholic dogma and Waldensians, he was a sycofant to Iconoclasts over in the Imperial East.

Catholic on C

First, this is not true. If this had been a central part of my own learning, I would probably not have been part of the Romanian Orthodox from 2006 to 2009, so, let's hear some other guys:

Michael Lofton refers to how St. Athanasius considered the judgement of Pope St. Dionysius as equivalent to a condemnation ... Michael Lofton underlines "by all" = since Dionysius was Pope, his word was the word of all members of the Church.

St. Athanasius on the Papacy | Michael Lofton
Reason & Theology | 22 April 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDfqvA6XEM

Second, if it had been true, the default for non-papal early Church, as per continuity question, is not some version of Protestantism, it's more sth like Eastern Orthodoxy or Monseigneur Lefebvre. The Protestant making this point would still be obliged to hold to what Catholics have in common with Orthodox, like II Maccabees being canon.

I'm not saying you shouldn't say "St. Sylvester was the 33:rd Pope", but I am suggesting you should be prepared to back that up a bit. Pre-Consiliar resources can be much murer from error than Michael Lofton (whom I recommend only partially), but they can also be deficient in information that has now become relevant in a clime of a more complete debate.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Cletus
26.IV.2024

It's also Our Lady of Good Counsel.

Romae natalis beati Cleti, Papae et Martyris; qui, secundus post Apostolum Petrum, rexit Ecclesiam, et martyrio in persecutione Domitiani coronatus est.

130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification

130 Anathemas of Trent; the 5 First of Them · 130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification

With 33 Anathemas here, it would be onerous to first enumerate them. I'll comment on them as they come.

Session VI : ON JUSTIFICATION
FIRST DECREE : Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

This is where some Protestants will go "contradicts Ephesians 2, 'but not of works, so that no one may boast' "

Let's first cite three relevant verses, Ephesians 2:8 to 10.

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Let's check if the canons and anathemas of Trent Session VI fall afoul of this. Or. Not.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

O ... K .... sounds like the main point some Protestants are making is being made first, before anything else. A sinner will not be justified by his works.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

So, grace doesn't make a just life easier, without grace, rather, it is impossible. Again, the point Protestants would like to make.

They might dispute that it is possible with grace, we may come back to that, but not that it is impossible without grace.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

And the grace that sanctifies cannot be earned by anything a man does purely on his own initiative, if he is preparing himself to receive the grace that justifies or sanctifies, that preparation also must come from God. But now we will part ways with Calvinism, at least as Catholics tend to understand the concept of irresistible grace:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

Tovia Singer incorrectly thought that Christianity means Calvinism. His point against Calvinism is:

Consider that I have set before thee this day life and good, and on the other hand death and evil:
[Deuteronomy 30:15]

I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
[Deuteronomy 30:19]

Plus the Ninevites, in the book of Jonah.

Peoples and persons can chose. They are given freedom. Note, it doesn't say the freedom comes without God taking the initiative, and neither does this canon IV, see the previous three canons. Both in Deuteronomy 28 and in the book of Jonah, the populations responded to God's initiative.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

I think this targets the rhetorical overdrive, perhaps nightmarish belief expressed by Martin Luther in De servo arbitrio. Not sure how many Protestants these days would fall under the anathema. Arminians wouldn't, most Lutherans and Anglicans wouldn't, even Calvinists would often affirm some kind of freewill exists.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

I am not sure if Calvin himself had said this in Institutes of the Christian Religion. I am positive that both Westminister and Heidelberg catechisms, both of which were written after the Council of Trent actually avoid this anathema. Perhaps Trentine fathers were targetting the whole field of the question and not just extant errors, perhaps Calvinists actually learned some lessons from this anathema. I don't know.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

This sounds like the personal ravings of Martin Luther being the target. A Pentecostal these days would agree with Trent.

"I wasn't a Christian yet, I just knew I had to oppose Satan!"

From a testimony by someone who on his own view, was not justified yet, but at least did the right thing, in a connexion involving a possessed girlfriend (whether the story is true or not is beside the point, he is not being called out for heresy by fellow Protestants). Allie Beth Stuckey wouldn't fall under this anathema when she cites a line from Frozen, by Kristen Bell, as applicable to conversion stories:

Allie Beth Stuckey: DO THE NEXT RIGHT THING! | TPUSA Faith
TPUSA Faith | 15 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUYF6238E30

"Always do the next right thing" = what Catholicism affirms by this canon applicable even for those in a state of sin, whether original or personal or both), what Luther denied.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.

Again, Martin Luther.

Again, very few Protestants today would fall under this anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

So, anyone who believes getting saved involves, not just telling Jesus "I have faith that you died for my sins" but also "be my Lord, my life belongs to you, help me to do thy will" is not falling under this anathema. Or they may be doing so on a purely verbal basis, stating things that are actually not consistent with their beliefs.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

This one has two different directions. Here they are:

• 1) you must not imagine you are just on your own, as if Jesus' justice had nothing to do with it;
• 2) but you must also not imagine that the only justice you get by being justified is that of Jesus, in His life, nothing (directly) happens in your own life, you are still inherently unjust, it's just that His justice covers your soul before the sight of the Father, the justice you acquire does involve decisions in your life, and a sanctifying grace in your soul.

Part 1, every pious Protestant would agree with. No one would fall under the anathema on this account (but Jews like Tovia Singer would, if they were baptised).

Part 2, some would pretend with Luther that the justice of a justified sinner is like a dunghill covered with snow, the dunghill equal to the content of your own life and soul, the snow equal to the perfectly just life of Jesus. Such people would pretty certainly fall under the anathema, while there is another group. "Yes, that is true for justification, but that begins a process of sanctification" ... whether these are falling under the anathema is less clear. The Dimond brothers certainly do think they fall under the anathema, and they made a full length video to show why the distinction proposed by this latter category is wrong:

Documentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie
vaticancatholic.com | 4 March 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

I found the video very interesting, I have made both highlights and minor corrections to it, not yet on Assorted retorts blog, upcoming. Here is perhaps the most important of my minor corrections:

1:20:52 I think the correct term is "unnecessary occasions for sin" - if I am courting someone I hope to marry, seeing her may be an occasion, but necessary relative to my hope to marry, like if someone is a policeman and needs to step in with blows and gunshots, that is an occasion for sins of hatred or of unjust manslaughter or maiming, but relative to the duty of the policeman to eliminate threats to others, if correctly assessed, a necessary one.

I am afraid some will have prayed for me to avoid all occasions of unchastity, including such as are necessary to get me into a state where chastity is less irksome, since allowing for more satisfactions. I consider encouraging to such prayers is being guilty of Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. If themselves accepting marriage as a good, they would be collaborators with such (for instance left wing shrinks) who do no so consider it.

Next canon:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, 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 is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

So, basically, justification always involves at the outset a sanctification, we are completely pure when we step out of baptism or confession, and our bad habits do not count as sin, but do take care about the next act. Literally for God's sake.

Also, it's not just that God favours us, so we can do the next right thing, it's that God lives in us, so, from justification on, except when losing justification (see below, I think), God is doing the right thing in us.

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.
[Philippians 2:12f]

So, if we confers with the Ephesians passage above, the justice as life relates to God living in us, but the justice of good works works like this:

• God prepares a good work
• God starts doing the good work in the justified, by inspiring an aspiration to it
• when the justified cooperates, God continues to work in him as he walks in the good work God has prepared for him.

Perhaps this is the best occasion to note, a major divide between Catholics and Protestants as with permanent consequences up to this day is not whether the justified need good works, but rather what kind of works count as good.

"I confessed I was a sinner and needed Jesus to be Lord of my life"

No Protestant would object.*

"I walked to Santiago to ask for a favour"

And how many Protestants would shout "no, that's works salvation!"

If a Protestant were to say "I have never touched alcohol since" I for my part would consider this unnecessary works, unless he had been a real alcoholic with a definite medical diagnosis or had a relative who was.

The Reformation was very much more about discouraging certain things Catholics consider as good works than about theology. Because the kind of things I think about interfered too much with the dominion some North European Renaissance men wanted to exercise over Employees, Family, or, if a prince, Subjects to one's power.

Fasting weakened soldiers, so eating meat and drinking was a thing Protestant soldiers would do more than Catholic ones. In later centuries, people who were not soldiers and imitated the habit fell afoul of employers, so huge drinking became impopular with Protestants, like it was not back in Cromwell's time. This change occurred in the 19th, perhaps late 18th C. Not in the Reformation.

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.

So, justifying faith is faith (believing everything God has revealed) with practical consequences hope (hoping to be forgiven) and charity (loving God back, for the Love He gave me on the Cross). Nothing less, and nothing more. This means, when a Protestant goes about some doctrinal issue "this is not a salvation issue, this is not about the Gospel" (i e about Luther's Gospel on faith being all required and this requisite of faith being only a trust in "Jesus died for me"), I know he is wrong.

Trent, Session VI, Canon XII tells me so.

But also, if someone said "I didn't feel sorry for the sin, and I don't know I won't commit it again, but I am confident Jesus died for it" I am on the same canon sure, if he analyses himself correctly (which may be a big if in some cases), he is still in his sin and heading for Hell. This is also a huge point of this canon.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

In other words, Luther was wrong to believe that when he wasn't sure the absolution he had received was valid, that in and of itself made his sins not forgiven.

Outside Luther, I am not sure how much this has played a role historically, among Protestants, though I think it has played some role.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

The conditions for absolution (and again we are talking about a Protestant issue that has its roots in Martin Luther's personal life over some years), are actually:

• repenting of all mortal sins one can remember
• not hiding any mortal sin one can remember
• getting an absolution from a man who:
  
  
  • is a priest
  • and has the intention to absolve
  • plus the right to absolve in the area or about your person.

If you say "I want to get soak drunk again" or hide you got soak drunk or the man who absolved you wasn't a priest with apostolic succession, or he had the right to absolve a military but not a civilian or in the nighbouring parish but nopt yours, you are not absolved, even if you are very sure you are. If all the conditions are fulfilled, it doesn't hinder your actual absolution and hence justification (re-justification) that you felt unsure.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

This one targets Calvinism, even as understood today, alas.

Some would say:

• if you are not predestined, you are not born again in baptism
• if you are predestined, you are totally sure you are predestined.

Both are wrong. Some foreknown as going to be damned are really first born again in baptism and justified, and so, the reasonable supposal you are justified doesn't guarantee you are predestined. Again, Philippians, where does the "fear and trembling" come in if everyone is supposed to be sure they are predestined?

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

So, St. Bridget had learned she would go to heaven. St. Bernadette had heard the Blessed Virgin say "I do not promise you happiness in this life, but in the next" ... they are not targets.

A Calvinist who reasons "I am predestined, so I am certain God will give me the gift of perseverance" because that is what his heresy tells him he has to believe to be justified, he however is the target.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

Whether the Calvinist says "predestined for evil" or "not predestined for glory" he is wrong to say some baptised babies are not truly justified, with God living in them, or were not so, when newly baptised, just because one can fear they later actually got damned. At least the stronger form "predestined for evil" actually directly falls under the anathema, but I think those holding to Heidelberg or Westminister catechisms need to take care too.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

In other words, you cannot say that the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount are like Zen Buddhist Koans. They are not meant to dash either your head or your will against in impotence, they are meant to inform how you live with God's grace, always when it comes to the commandments, and at least for some states in life the Sermon (plus it being an ideal for every state).

When St. Paul says that some can and some can't live celibate and chaste, in I Cor. 7, he means it. A Protestant who (in prejudice against Catholic celibate clergy) pretends this is impossible is calling St. Paul and therefore the Holy Ghost a liar. Now, unless one has embraced this council, it does not oblige one, but the same is true of the things we are obliged to.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

There were some early Lutherans who did pretend things like that.

Most Protestants would now say that we are commanded to good works for our sanctification, if not justification, but early Lutheranism of the 16th and 17th C. would say the civil justice is commanded totally outside the context of the "Gospel" (or science of salvation), and that good works belong to only civil justice. There are some of that school left.

If that were so, requiring civil justice as a requisite for salvation would be inconsistent, but I already mentioned, some people in power favoured Protestant theology because it gave them more power.

This is where this comes in handy, if someone in power intends to break commandments (like divorce and remarry, or even bigamy as in the case of Philip of Hesse), the theologian can pretend that Henry VIII of England or Philip needs only to be sure Jesus died for him to be saved, but if a poor man contrary to the legislation steps onto a bus without paying his ticket, the theologian can use Romans XIII to pretend that by this disobedience he is damning himself. Other people have made similar comments on bus cheating from a refusal to distinguish mortal from venial sin.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

Again, see Ephesians 28—10, don't leave out the last of the three verses!

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

Trent may have targetted some who pretended not to divorce and remarry (or not to marry a second wife without relinquishing the first), like some advisors of Henry VIII, or Luther advising Philip of Hesse, was just advice, not actual law. The Catholic Church sometimes speaks of the New Covenant as The New Law.

Speaking of this, see John Alfred Faulkner, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, New Jersey.** He wrote a piece called

Luther and the Bigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse
John Alfred Faulkner
The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Apr., 1913), pp. 206-231 (26 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3154607

and in it he argues:

• not only was Philip of Hesse following the bad example of some Catholic princes, he called this "the immemorial privilege of Catholic princes" (which is like calling coverups for criminal family the "immemorial privilege of US Presidents");
• and furthermore, it wasn't clear if Jesus or Moses applied:

At this time the relation of the Old to the New Testament law was not clear, and from the bitter opposition of the High Church Anglicans to the Deceased Wife's Sister bill (but cf. Deut. 25:5—10) which was finally passed in 1907, that relation is not clear yet.

To Catholic theologians, however, it was clear. This means, the Reformation brought in unclarity and division. Plus a renewed sometimes very unhealthy interest in OT legislations.

Some have argued, very ineptly, Jesus on an occasion told Jewish fathers to stone disobedient sons. On the contrary, He told that portion of Pharisees they were disobedient sons, who, by their collusion in disobeying all their fathers, made a certain law inapplicable. The ones who were strong enough to stone someone were precisely the ones disobeying. So, he said they had annihilated the law on this point.

Nevertheless, Swedish criminal justice actually in the 17th C. under Charles IX, usurper from an actually Catholic monarch, took a turn to executing disobedient children.

Or Covenanters who considered Catholic populations in various parts of now UK and Ireland were the equivalent of Canaanites in Joshua's time.

CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

So, perseverance is an actual ability, but not inherent in human nature, it totally depends on God to be there.

On this one, I think Protestants would normally agree.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, 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 other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

Here most Protestants would also agree, except for the exception it makes. I have argued the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin elsewhere.

Great Bishop of Geneva! | Patrick Madrid is right about kecharitomene and blessed among women
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/02/patrick-madrid-is-right-about.html

Some would also take exception at the distinction between venial and mortal sin.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

Luther said they are signs that necessarily follow from justification, but not part of it in any way, shape or form.

I think more than one have followed him on this one. If Ephesians 2:10 could be tortured into compatibility with this error, what about Philippians? Here are both texts again:

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
[Ephesian 2:8—10]

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.
[Philippians 2:12f]

So, when one is doing good works, one is actually working out one's salvation, and this involves an increase of justice so one has more, and also a preservation of justice, so one does not fall into mortal sin.

St. Peter agrees:

Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
[II Peter 1:10]

CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

This would be one version of "total corruption" and one that Luther held. Here is the truth instead:

Good works are meritorious.

Good works of sinners merit some reward in this life. Conversion is beyond what they merit, but a clear option for God.

We do not sin with every breath we take.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

We already know, perseverance depends on God. See Canon XXII.

It is also noted in this very canon, that rewards only come through God's mercy and through the merits of Jesus Christ.

So, within this caveat, can one hope for rewards for good works? Yes.

Saying the opposite is making Jesus a liar, for instance in relation to the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema.

Some Protestants unfortunately believe this.

We do not read that Judas lost his faith, but he committed treason. And suicide.

CANON XXVIII.-If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema.

So,suppose I commit an obvious mortal sin, do I have the right to remain a believer? Yes. Do I have a duty to remain a believer? Yes. Is there any immediate risk that I am no longer a believer, if the sin was against sth other than faith? No.

There are unfortunately some Protestants who think everything I have written for the faith is hypocrisy or defense of sth other than the Christian faith, simply because they have seen sth they take for a mortal sin.

If I hadn't been an apostate or someone who never had the faith, they reason, I would not be committing that sin (as they judge it and they may be wrong).

Apart from doing for personal recklessness about one's own salvation, it also works a trainwreck in interpersonal relations, since it puts people asking about each other "is he really saved?"

And the recklessness is the same in people who reason "I committed this sin, so I can't have the faith" as in people who reason "I have the faith, therefore this sin I committed is not loss of grace." Both despair and presumption are ways to throw one's salvation away.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

This again has two directions.

It targets some Novatians and similar who held one cannot be forgiven if one falls after Baptism, and it targets Protestants.

For the necessity of Confession (under normal circumstances), see John 20.

And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
[John 20:20—23]

We'll get back to this one on the anathemas on Penance. God willing.

Please note, it disproves Novatians as much as Protestants, like the canon condemns both.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

Penances and purgatory.

And taking sufferings as an occasion for penance.

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

This is pretty much a twist on some things already written about. Here I think the Protestant reason for this error is shown at its clearest.

• Wanting to have an eternal reward is selfish
• but being selfish is a sin
• therefore wanting an eternal reward is a sin.

This one would make God a tempter.

But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.
[Matthew 6:20]

The problem with the reasoning, as opposed to the conclusion is, one presumes, selfishness is in an of itself, regardless of circumstances, a sin. Or, in other words, God has forbidden selfishness per se. This idea is reflected in some Protestant Bible translations.

somewhere else: Is Selfishness Condemned in the Bible?
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2023/01/is-selfishness-condemned-in-bible.html

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

I think this anathema follows pretty certainly from both prooftexts that have accompanied me over this section.***

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

Well, this follows from the rest.

It is also a response to the implicit Protestant anathema against Papism "if you say we need good works, you insult the Cross" ... well, no, we don't.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Caius, Pope and Martyr
22.IV.2024

Item Romae sancti Caji, Papae et Maityris; qui martyrio coronatus est sub Diocletiano Principe.

* And regardless of whether a Catholic thought this could be at the time referred to sufficient to justify someone or not, no Catholic would consider this as in and of itself a bad work. Unless done in explicit rejection of the faith herein outlined.

** According to their own site:

Founded in 1867 to provide organized theological education for Methodist Episcopal Church ministers, the Theological School is proudly grounded in and seeking to embody the Wesleyan and Methodist tradition of bold ideas that impact people’s lives for the good.

Not the first and not the last time Methodists are unfair to Catholics! Even if today they are "ecumenical", back in 1913, they were certainly not admitting Catholics. And Catholics wouldn't have been allowed there if they were.

*** Ephesians and Philippians.

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
[Ephesian 2:8—10]

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.
[Philippians 2:12f]

125 - 33 = 92 to go.

130 Anathemas of Trent; the 5 First of Them

130 Anathemas of Trent; the 5 First of Them · 130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification

Session V CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN FIRST DECREE
Celebrated on the seventeenth day of the month of June, in the year 1546
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm

Let's cite them in order as they stand:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:—whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, —is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

Few Fundie Protestants would deny this one:

1) If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

However, there are some Modernist Catholics who do try to bend this into Adam didn't really exist as a person, mentioning his name is symbolism, not straightforward history and so on.

2) If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:—whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

I think people like Teilhard de Chardin, he personally may have had a clever way out of that, but pretty many who assert an evolutionary origin of man would say our sinful tendencies may be leftover luggage from our pretended evolutionary past.

Obviously, in the case the smartasses would like to say "well, we don't really say he only transfused death and pain to us, we say he didn't even transfuse that, since he had it from his ancestors" this won't wash, since Trentine Fathers appeal directly to Romans 5.

I'm not sure if "Jimmy Akin's position" [see below] (or one he has expressed previously at least) is immune from anathema. He mentions the possibility Adam was a representative of the rest of mankind. Were all of them immortal prior to Adam sinning? Where would pre-Adamite skeleta come from then? If they weren't, did they belong to the human race? If they weren't and they did belong to the human race, how was Adam's action transfusing death and pain to them, rather than simply confirming its already existance?

So, one first man, his sin transfuses both death and sin, and this is because he is the origin of everyone else. Eve from his side. All men other than himself and Eve some generation of children, grandchildren and so on (obviously, one can be different numbers of generation from a common ancestor at the same time: Lewis XVII of France and his sister Madame Royale descended from Henry IV of France through both of his martyred parents, but they were a different number of generations from him, Lewis XVI having ancestor 128 as Henry IV, while Marie-Antoinette had ancestor 40 as the same, making him both 256 and 80 to the never ruling siblings I mentioned, another common ancestor was Elisabeth Stuart, 45 to Marie Antoinette and 125 to Lewis XVI: so, one can be in different generations simultaneously froma common ancestor, including Adam). This means, everyone in the human race, except Adam who was the originator, and Mary and Jesus who were immune, got sin as well as death from his physical origin Adam.

3) If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, —is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

Note, on the immunity of Mary from this sin, She was also saved from it, in a preventive manner, through the merits of Her Son.

Some Baptists may pretend infants don't get Adam's sin. They only get it later, when they imitate it. This is then wrong. It is shown wrong by the constant practise of the Church of baptising infants, when both parents are believers, even if there was a time when post-poning baptism, even to the deathbed, was pretty common in North Africa. The traditional Biblical reference for this is Psalm 50:7 (in KJ, it would be 51:5). Someone arguing against its meaning involving original sin says King David used hyperbole. How much Biblical doctrine can be ignored that way? I think it's safer to say, what the Church traditionally takes as hyperbole is that. He enumerated another attempt, namely reference to a personal sin involved in King David's conception. He was not born out of wedlock, and King David calls his mother "God's handmaid":

Psalm 85:16 O look upon me, and have mercy on me: give thy command to thy servant, and save the son of thy handmaid.

If we can therefore rule out personal sin, and also hypberole, it leaves, babies are born with sin since their mother's womb. Our Lord couldn't inherit any, since Mary didn't have any.

4) If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Follows from previous discussion, which foresaw the objection here condemned.

5) If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

If we are baptised for the remission of sins, and if God gives us a new heart, this follows from previous.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, I did not "read his paper" but heard him on a video, so I took the last view he presented, and he spent a bit more time on it than on others, as I recall the subjective feel, as that opinion being his own. It is possible I misjudged him on that one, he could simply not be intending to spell out his own view, here is a discussion of it, linking back to his video: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: A Discussion on one of the subjects of Glossa Ordinaria "Mary is the New Eve" https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-discussion-on-one-of-subjects-of.html Can Catholics Believe Theistic Evolution? - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World Jimmy Akin | 29 March 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBssnELtE94

130 - 5 = 125 to go.