I was wondering if someone could respond to this as well…
When one discusses the sordid history of the Catholic Church- the abuses, the abductions, the “holy wars”, the pregnant nuns and the fornicating priests, the ridiculous doctrines and the Jesuit oaths to slaughter Protestants, one frequently gets the response from weak-kneed evangelicals that “the Vatican changed all that”. Well, the “Blessed” Pope John XXIII, who was responsible for the Vatican II council, declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” The Council of Trent, for those of you who don’t know, was an ecumenical council, a product of the Counter-Reformation held solely to combat the rising avaliability of the Bible. You can read the entire text here, but here are some highlights:
“CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”
Now, what exactly is anathema? Well, consider this phrase, used elsewhere in the Council, and read it very carefully:
"The sword of excommunication is not to be rashly used: when an execution can be made on property or person, censures are to be abstained from: the civil magistrates shall not interfere herein."
And the “good Pope” adhered to this, and agreed with it. Vatican II did not change the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, my friends.
I’m a bit shaky with history, but does anyone have any thoughts on this?