Council of Trent?

[lynnie]

I don't want to derail the RCSproul/RCCbaptism thread, but why would the RCC would be considered apostate now in a way that it wasn't at the time of the Reformation? What happened at the Council of Trent?

If the Pope was called the antichrist back at the time of the Reformers, what happened that the RCC was more acceptable then than now? How did they go from "antichrist but baptisms are valid", to something even worse such that now Sproul is saying baptisms are invalid?

Thanks in advance for a brief history lesson.

 

[Zach]

The Council of Trent occurred before the Reformed Confessions labeled the Roman Church anti-Christ. The statement out of Trent that abandoned the gospel:

"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."

 

[Galatians220]

A minor correction that keeps getting a bit lost over on the other thread: it was R. C. Sproul, Jr. who said RC baptisms are not valid; it was he with whom I had my beef, not R. C., Sr., whom I've met. Do the Sprouls - R. C. and R. C., Jr. - walk in lockstep on this issue? I don't know.

The RCC formally carries forth the pronunciation of anathema upon people who believe in justification by faith alone, by grace alone, but that's not the counsel of many of the bishops and archdiocesan and order priests. Several years ago, I had a long, e-mail discussion with a Franciscan in NY who finally capitulated and, because we'd agreed initially to use Scripture alone to support our points, conceded that we'd argued to a win for the Reformed position. It was very gratifying and I still pray for this dear man, who may be as Richard Bennett was so long ago. One never knows.