Anathema!

The question of the Council of Trent and the status of various Reformed symbols frequently comes up in our circles. These are just a few sketchy thoughts about confessional subscription:

1. Do you subscribe to a confessional document if you contradict it with other teachings? For example, in Reformed vs Lutheran debates, the claim is typically ventured by the one that the other's doctrine of the Lord's Supper contradicts Chalcedon, despite the equal assertion by both to subscribe to the definition laid down by the Council. So can we really say that both of us subscribe to CoC, or do we necessarily have to conclude that one of us does not actually subscribe?
2. Do you subscribe to a confessional document if you take the liberty of fundamentally changing what the terms used in it means? For example, the word "tradition" in Trent was understood by its authors to refer to an uncorrupted corpus of doctrine and practice (right down the manifold ceremonies surrounding baptism) handed down orally by Jesus to the apostles and transmitted in unbroken succession until that time. If you don't believe me, check out what the theologians of the time were actually saying. Primary sources, people! But as we know, after Newman and especially Vatican II, "tradition" has been redefined as unfolding, developing, and evolving under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This view of Tradition has been projected back onto Trent, and the document has been reinterpreted accordingly. So does the Vatican really subscribe to Trent?
3. Do you subscribe to a document that isn't enforced? And at what level? The PCA doesn't require confessional subscription of its members...not even on baptism. Clergy can take a few exceptions, too. The Vatican seems to take almost an "anything-goes" policy toward its vast array of dogma and canon law. It seems less than adamant that anyone actually believe what it teaches or do what it says, as long as you're showing up in the right building and take your kids there. Jesuits seem to get away with saying all kinds of stuff.

All of this is just part of my generally feeling that boldly-worded, stern statements of doctrine and policy are often little more than paper tigers.