Good stuff on the previous post's comment thread.
since the Catholics did kinda sorta take a lot of it back in Vatican II, don't you think that amounts to a de facto retraction, at least of some of it?
The inconsistencies and complete lack of clarity with respect to this issue make such questions an exercise in wishing upon a star, I should think. Which side do you want to prefer they meant? They certainly can't tell you; the RCC has felled thousands of trees in its self-"clarification"; if they could, they'd'a done it by now.
So, what are we, Reformedigelicals, to do? I guess it comes down to what you want to do. I think it's far more useful to nail people to Trent and hold them there, b/c ISTM this allows the difference inherent in the true Gospel to shine forth that much more brilliantly. Much like the Law kills in its condemnation, and it is in finding our condemnation to a messy and awful eternity lifted by the messy and awful sacrifice of Christ that we understand how exalted and wonderful the free gift of grace truly is.
There's also the smaller issue that people need to come out of RCC, whether you think RCC teaches saving doctrine or not. Being right before God is not the end; it is the beginning. And most ppl are far more familiar with Vat2 and the modern squishy liberal RCC than they are with the heretic-burning Trent RCC. I seek to remind them that the modern RCC has not taken back Trent, and remind them that they need to come out of such a screwed up church in favor of one that is far less doctrinally screwed up. Even if you're saved, it does you no good, and in fact does you a lot of bad, to be bowing down to Mary all the time.
Let's go further into Trent, though:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-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.
(In other words, if you say you're justified ONLY by the sacrifice of Christ, anathema to you.)
CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
(Anathematises Calvinists. And Augustinians.)
Oh, and "anathema" to RCC generally means "cut off from the Church". It's a roundabout way of damning you, but a few observations on that:
1) It's sort of a cowardly way of affirming Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus w/o affirming it.
2) It allows a man the time to come back to the Church.
3) It's a different meaning than what the Bible means when it uses the term. Which is a problem.
4) It's supposed to be a bad deal for the anathematised man b/c he is thus cut off from the reception of the Sacraments (confession, Eucharist, etc), which are the main ways thru which grace is infused into the soul. The hidden message is: "Good luck getting to Heaven without the Sacraments. If you know what's good for you, you'll come back to The Church®".