Sunday, October 31, 2004
Well, I don't think I'm going to Hell for this . . .
It [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
I can't believe how much this council is coming up recently. First the traditionalists use it to argue such and such, then the doctors use it to argue about my damnation. Any insight? It's from the 11th session of the Council of Florence. I really can't imagine that the Council Fathers meant to make it sound this bad in English, since the talk about the "observation/practice of circumcision", which is somehow related also to placing hope in it. I'll sort out this one later.
I can't believe how much this council is coming up recently. First the traditionalists use it to argue such and such, then the doctors use it to argue about my damnation. Any insight? It's from the 11th session of the Council of Florence. I really can't imagine that the Council Fathers meant to make it sound this bad in English, since the talk about the "observation/practice of circumcision", which is somehow related also to placing hope in it. I'll sort out this one later.
