The fifth session deals with original sin and its effects upon all of humanity, both adults and children. The first couple statements reject Pelagianism with which all of orthodox Protestantism agrees. They anathematize anyone who rejects the idea that Adam lost his holiness and glory (image?) and that he obtained for himself, and for all of humanity after him, a transfusion of sin, the wrath of God, judgment of death and transferred himself and his posterity to the empire of the devil. It also states that the only remedy for this is the merit of Jesus Christ and not any merit obtained by human beings through any other means.
Now, of course, Protestants would very much agree with this statement thus far but Trent's soteriology will explain this in a particular way that is very much not Protestant.
The means of applying Christ's sacrifice to both adults and infants is baptism into the church and these doctrines, apart from which, as this session states in its very first statement, "it is impossible to please God."
Hence, the idea that baptism is the means through which imputation occurs carries with it an entrance into the Catholic Church. It is through baptism that one is made completely innocent before God, having completely removed all of the sin and guilt obtained by Adam, in whom there is now "nothing that God hates" is "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."
However, Trent argues "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."
In other words, there is a sin inclination that remains that is not sin itself but rather leans toward sin and must be countered by those who have entered into Jesus Christ.
Again, no disagreement from Protestant theology per se, although I personally would explicitly differentiate between the water of baptism itself and what it represents, which is one giving his allegiance to Jesus Christ by entering into His church, which I don't identify as Rome itself. But there are Prots who would see the act of baptism as faith itself. This may be the way Peter is using it in both his epistle and in Acts 2:28, so this sort of language of synecdoche isn't really the problem some may make it out to be. Both RC's and Prots agree that it is allegiance to, and unification with, Christ that regenerates an individual and removes all sin and condemnation from him, and Trent would agree with us that this includes children. Hence, it argues for the Augustinian position of baptizing infants against Pelagius. This is not to say that Augustine had it correct but simply that this is not necessarily a Roman Catholic vs. Protestant issue or an innovation of the sixteenth century.
Of course, the biggest disagreements here would be over the fact that after all of this is said, Trent makes sure to state that Mary is not included in these statements concerning original sin. Mary herself declares herself as needing a Savior and at one time we even see her doubt Christ as she and others in his family seek to come get him because they think he has gone crazy (Mark 3:20-32). She is included in the "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" with Jesus alone identified by Paul as the sinless one upon whom everyone else's sins, and the sin of Adam, have been placed.
The final word of the session is actually the longest and deals with reforming the churches so that only qualified teachers within churches, monasteries, and schools are employed. In other words, only teachers who are going to teach what Trent views as consistent with its decrees are to be supported financially and recognized by the church. I don't really have any pushback here as if a church thought they were in the right, theologically speaking, then this would be a proper course to take.
The council ends by setting the text session date.
No comments:
Post a Comment