Tracts and Letters (Volume 1) by John Calvin (Available from Amazon or free here). Commence 'Articles agreed upon by the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris' by reading Articles I to XII.
Today we begin reading the Roman Catholic articles of faith drawn up by the theological faculty of Paris.
Each article is accompanied by a defence from the Roman Catholic standpoint and then Calvin's rebuttal.
The articles we read today concern:
(i) baptism;
(ii) free will;
(iii) penitence;
(iv) justification by works;
(v) transubstantiation;
(vi) sacrifice of the mass;
(vii) communion in one kind;
(viii) power of consecrating;
(ix) intention to consecrate;
(x) confirmation and unction;
(xi) miracles of the saints;
(xii) worshipping the saints.
I love how Calvin refutes the articles not just with Scripture, but also with proofs from the Church Fathers.
Citing Scripture is sufficient for Protestants, but insufficient for Roman Catholics. Thereby Calvin is often playing ball on their terms.
This knowledge of the church fathers was particularly stunning to me regarding penitence: 'Of confession to be made in the ear of a priest there is no where any mention. Of satisfaction still less. Nay, it is even certain, that before Innocent the Third, no necessity of confession was imposed on the Christian people; for his decree, made at the Lateran Council, is extant, (Can. Omnis utriusque sexus.) Therefore, for about twelve hundred years the Christian Church had no knowledge of the dogma, that to repentance auricular confession was essentially requisite. And the words of Chrysostom are clear: "I do not say that you must confess to your fellow servant; let it be to the Lord," (Sam. ii. in Psal. 4.) Again, " It is not necessary to confess before witnesses. Let a searching out of sins be made in thought: let the decision be without a witness: let God alone see thee confessing," (Serm. de Pamit. et Confess.) Again, "I call thee not into the view of men. Show thy wounds to God, the best physician, that he may cure them," (Hom. v. Contra Anoma, Hom. iv. de Lazaro.) I do not, indeed, deny, that the practice of confessing is very ancient. But I say that it was free, as Sozomen relates in his Ecclesiastical History...'
How on earth the Roman Catholic church can demand confession to a priest as necessary for salvation is beyond me when Chrysostom strongly condemns it - let alone the lack of Scriptural proof.
Next week's reading
Conclude 'Articles agreed upon by the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris' by reading Articles XIII to XXV.
Now it's your turn
Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
No comments:
Post a Comment