Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope: Other Christians not true churches
AP ^ | July 11, 2007 | NICOLE WINFIELD

Posted on 07/10/2007 8:57:47 AM PDT by f150sound

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; exclusivefranchise; orthodox; quidestveritas; religion; truthisabsolute; vatican; viniusinvictus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620621-623 next last
To: kosta50

Exactly. And there is greater chance of George Bush becoming a Muslim...:)


581 posted on 07/12/2007 11:50:59 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: Cincincinati Spiritus
Actually you are confused on the difference between dogmatics (which is the purview of councils) and canon law which deals more with practicing Catholics.

However, even such a distinction just raises (again) the problem in the Pope's last statement. Either we are NOT a part of Christ's church (excommunicated or pre-christian) or we are FULLY a part of Christ's church (practicing Catholics), or we are a part of a WOUNDED church (the language of the Dominus) and are in the church, but not fully receiving all that we should. This "wounded" language never came out in the 1500s, when the anathemas (125 of them) were being formulated, but I will take your word that YOU believe that to be the case now. However, even that has grave problems, for if you admit that I am a part of the christian church, the doctrinal positions of Trent place me squarely as one who is immediately excommunicated FROM the true church. You guys (God love you!) want to have your cake and eat it as well.

The fact is that you have a Gordion knot here, and I just don't think you can cut it. The Code of Canon Law of 1983 did NOT do away with Trent's anathemas. Before this, anyone who was excommunicated was either classified as vitandi or tolerati. ALL the code of 1983 did was to ERASE THOSE TWO DISTINCTIONS. There is no release of the demand that persons who are subject to excommunication (and you must hold that we are, if we are in the church, however imperfectly) are, in fact, excommunicated and anathematized if we hold to these teachings. Further, the dogmatics of Trent are still the dogmatics. The canons deal with only the applications of those dogmatic pronouncements, (i.e. BECAUSE your theology damns you - dogmatics - we therefore declare this to be true -canon law) not the underlying doctrinal pronouncements. Trent's underlying theological pronouncements are regarded as infallible and thus the anathemas are really inescapable...., unless you can figure a way to get me OUT of the church, which is sure going to piss off alot of Protestants even more.

I wish you guys could just say "we screwed the pooch with Trent" but that would upset the whole magisterium teaching. You know I love you guys anyway. I just think your hearts are better than your heads.

582 posted on 07/12/2007 11:56:00 AM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now they bleat like sheep for security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I think I already put up a link to Dominus Iesus. If not, it is easily Googled. Section IV of Dominus Iesus, for which Cardianl Ratzinger, as he was then, was largely responsible deals with the relationship between the Catholic (Note: NOT "Roman Catholic") Church and other bodies which profess Christianity. These are excerpts from that section:

With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.

...

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.

...

In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.

From:Section VI. THE CHURCH AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS IN RELATION TO SALVATION

...“it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”....

...

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

Is this responsive to your question?I think I said before (but evidently not convincingly) that "means of salvation" used as your quote uses it means the full sacramental stuff, not Jesus, who is Salvation and the means to it.

583 posted on 07/12/2007 12:14:20 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
I get that they're different things. I don't see that it's a huge leap. If praying for others is a good thing, why is asking others to pray for me (or for my "intentions" as Calflicks say) NOT a good thing? I don't see that it's "quite a leap". It looks like a natural conclusion to me.

And you said you had no problem with threads asking people to pray for others. And St. Paul asks us to pray for others. So it's only asking people to pray for ME that is "quite a leap"?

Oh crumb! This is hard, in the sense that you are questioning some connection which I think is so close I can't imagine the edge of even the sharpest question separating it.

'Nother appeal for help, patience, etc.

584 posted on 07/12/2007 12:19:09 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
A Consuming fire not every consuming fire. I was going to say that was CLEARLY a metaphor, but then I thought of OT theophanies and now I'm not so sure. Maybe rapid oxidation is the metaphor.

John here is saying that Jesus is THE sacrifice, right? He is the reality of which passover lambs are archetypes.

"In His light we see light." I think we have clear warrant for thinking of the kind of light that God "is" is, ah, "lightier than light", it does what light does only more so. Not my best counter argument, I confess.

The Love one, is not YOUR best. If it had said God is eros or storge you might well have considered that penny dreadfuls were about Him. Since it says agape, I think lots of Love stories are indeed about Him.

Alamo Girl did an awesome word study on Rock. Here I would say the metaphorical or comparative nature of the saying is clear. Rocks are creatures (like the Body and Blood of our Lord) so the creator ain't gonna sho' 'nuff be a Rock.

As I said first THE Foundation Stone, not every Foundation Stone. And the creature argument goes again.

Rushing wind ("but the LORD was not in the wind") All I can come up with is the creature argument -- and our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus to provide Scriptural warrant for saying it's a comparison.

How about: I'm like the Spirit of God because I have no clue where I'm going ....Okay, maybe not.)

Both in Aramaic and in Greek there are ways to say "sort of like". Jesus uses them often, "The Kingdom of heaven is like ..." Here if He used a verb (and the Gk presents us with the copula) the process of getting from the ipsissima verba to the text presents no "sort of like" language.

Oh that it were conclusive. I don't think it is, but at least at the micro level I think Occam tilts me to "This IS my body."

I guess you ahve already noted that your mileage varies.

585 posted on 07/12/2007 12:33:48 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary
I have to stop drinking.

WOAH! Don't do anything hasty now! Be vewwy vewwy careful before you make a decision like that. (I have a recipe for white wine sangria which will definitely bring world peace!)

586 posted on 07/12/2007 12:36:02 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
I just think your hearts are better than your heads.

In my case that wouldn't be remarkable.

What, on the ground: is the canonical meaning of anathema. You ARE excommunicated, what's the big deal about that? But anathema, yeah, them's fightin' words. So let's look at it some.

587 posted on 07/12/2007 12:40:10 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Exactly. And there is greater chance of George Bush becoming a Muslim...:)

I am not sure; he already said that Islam is a "religion of peace."

588 posted on 07/12/2007 1:31:54 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Will do!

In your ignorance that is.

589 posted on 07/12/2007 1:57:00 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

I thought that it was “pieces.”


590 posted on 07/12/2007 2:01:01 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
But anathema, yeah, them's fightin' words.

Not me. You see, I believe that the current group of evangelical RC folks are alot more amiable than Trent. I am not lying when I say I love you guys, and I fully expect to see you in heaven. I would say odds are that most of the folks who wrote the stuff up in 1547 are dead now, and so God can deal with them in his own infintely wise manner. I am not going to fight anyone over this.

I just think before we break out a round of "We are the world" that we should all know the official stance of the church......... I am lying. I am just having a little malicious delight in all this, and I like to rag on you folks sometimes. That HAS to be at least a venial sin! However, I do believe this issue is one which really conflicts with the church's teaching on the magisterium.

Jesu uber alles.

591 posted on 07/12/2007 2:28:49 PM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now they bleat like sheep for security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Somewhere along the way, someone decided they didn't like the idea of Peter and his successors as heads of the Church on earth

Well, we might like them if you guys had a clue as to who they were. The first one I see pops up about 379 AD with Pope Damasus.

592 posted on 07/12/2007 2:38:57 PM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now they bleat like sheep for security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm has the entire list. I guess your list is a tad abbreviated.

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) — also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)


593 posted on 07/12/2007 2:42:47 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp

Hmm, as is mine, apparently:

St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) — also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)


594 posted on 07/12/2007 2:44:36 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp

~”Trent and the anathemas.”~

While I do find rancor over almost 500-year-old events rather silly, I suppose it does serve as a reason for the enmity between Protestants and Catholics.

I am a Mormon, though. This is an independent branch of Christianity, and had nothing to do with Trent. Yet we are attacked every bit as vigorously for our “faith and works” theology as Catholics. In light of this, Trent doesn’t stand up as a viable reason.

I welcome additional explanation as to why Protestants, and particularly Evangelicals, feel so threatened by the concept of “faith and works” grace.


595 posted on 07/12/2007 3:49:30 PM PDT by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
As far as I'm concerned, any group that lays claim to being led for a while by some guys named Cletus and Clem has MY vote! If there was a Pope Fud (Ferdinand for you city slickers) my loyalty is set in STONE!

I'm actually going to spend some time researching the bobbing and weaving on what "anathema" as a "term of art" means. Certainly taken on its face it IS fighting words, no matter how "We are the World" your placid approach is.

But I'm not looking for it tonight. I have the grippe or the collywobbles or something, and it's taking the fun out of on or off line research.

596 posted on 07/12/2007 3:55:17 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: whitedog57

~”You have to wonder what they do with the jello with carrots. Very Freudian!!!”~

Sometimes, Whitedog, a carrot is just a carrot.


597 posted on 07/12/2007 3:55:36 PM PDT by tantiboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
What say you to this?

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9712qq.asp
Saith:

Q: Someone told me that the anathemas of Trent have all been repealed. Is this true, and does it mean Catholics no longer believe these things?

A: The anathemas do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication. This does not mean that the Church no longer rejects the beliefs that had been anathematized. The formula "let him be anathema" is a traditional expression that ecumenical councils used when making infallible definitions. Therefore, the dropping of the canonical penalty of anathema does not "undo" the infallible definitions expressed in Trent's canons. An infallible definition, by its very nature, can never be "undone." The Church still believes and teaches all the definitions Trent issued.

Furthermore, even though a person no longer incurs anathema by violating the canons of Trent, he still may incur excommunication. Many of Trent's definitions concern articles of faith, and for a Catholic to doubt them culpably or to deny them constitutes heresy (CIC 751), which in turn incurs excommunication (CIC 1364 §1). While the canons of Trent may no longer lead to the specific penalty of anathema, they still can lead to the more general penalty of excommunication.

(In the Bible "anathema" usually means condemnation, but Trent used the term in its later canon law sense. In official Church documents "anathema" never means that the person against whom the term is applied is being condemned to hell. This is a misunderstanding commonly held by non-Catholics.)

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp
Saith:

The word anathema is one of the most misunderstood terms in anti-Catholic apologetics. Almost all anti-Catholics, from the lowbrow end of the spectrum to those who give themselves airs of scholarship, misunderstand it.

For example, toward the more lowbrow end of anti-Catholicism, the article "Apostolic or Apostate," by Mike P. Gendron, states, "Many Christians are unaware that the Catholic Councils of Trent and Vatican II issued over 100 anathema’s [sic] (condemnations) on anyone who believes salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. All these condemnations are still in effect today."

Gendron has obviously never read Trent or Vatican II. Vatican II did not use the term anathema in any of its documents. And while Trent’s canons do use the term, there are nowhere near one hundred canons devoted to the subject of salvation nor any canons that, properly understood, condemn the three points of soteriology Gendron names.

We find similar confusion about the term among those presenting themselves as intellectuals. In his book The Roman Catholic Controversy, James R. White, in summarizing Trent’s canons on the Eucharist, states that, according to the Council, "anyone who denies the truthfulness of any of these proclamations is under the anathema of God" (164).

When I read White’s statement to a knowledgeable friend, he busted out laughing. After he quieted down, he suggested that perhaps the statement was calculated to deceive those who didn’t know how the term anathema is used, since it is absurd to those who do know. I said, in keeping with charity, we shouldn’t infer that this is a case of deliberate deception, but only that it exposes White’s ignorance and his determination to criticize without proper research.

However that may be, the widespread presence among anti-Catholics of chucklers like those committed by Gendron and White suggests that some time spent on the meaning and use of anathema is warranted.

Though the term is Greek, it reflects a concept that is found in the Old Testament. The Hebrew equivalent of anathema is kherem, which refers to a thing devoted to the Lord—a thing solemnly offered to God in a manner frequently involving its complete destruction. Kherem is often rendered in English by the terms "devoted thing," "dedicated thing," or thing placed "under the ban." The Old Testament applies kherem to physical objects (Deut. 7:26, 13:17), livestock (1 Sam. 15:21), individual people (1 Kgs. 20:42), groups of people (Is. 34:5, 43:28), entire towns (Josh. 6:17), and lands or pieces of land (Lev. 27:21, Zec. 14:11, Mal. 4:6). Things to be placed under the ban by men were either destroyed (Lev. 27:28) or given to the priests (Num. 18:14, Ezek. 44:29). A land under the ban was a land that had been cursed (Zec. 14:11, Mal. 4:6). Paradoxically, something could be kherem either because it was holy or because it was unholy.

The Greek term anathema shares something of this paradox. It is derived from the roots ana- (on, upon, among, between) and tithemi (to place, put, set). Etymologically, the word suggests something placed among the holy things (i.e., in a temple)—a sense preserved in the variant term anathema (Luke 21:5). The more common anathema has the sense of a curse and is applied in the New Testament to a curse by which individuals bind themselves (Acts 23:14), to individuals who reject the true gospel (Gal. 1:8–9), who do not love Christ (1 Cor. 16:22), or who are otherwise separated from Christ (Rom. 9:6). It is applied by blasphemous false prophets to Jesus himself (1 Cor. 12:3).

Of special interest are Paul’s ecclesiastical uses of anathema—Galatians 1:8–9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22—in which Paul says that if a person is guilty of certain faults then "let him be anathema." Minimally, this directed the Christian community to hold the offender in a certain regard. This involved his exclusion from fellowship, as clearly must be done in the case of a person preaching a false gospel. Such exclusion—for a variety of offenses—is attested to elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Matt 18:15–18), and often spoken of as "handing [the offender] over to Satan" so that he might suffer without the Church’s protection and thus be driven to repentance (1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5–11; Tit. 3:10).

Later in Church history, this exclusion to provoke repentance received the name "excommunication." Originally, the Church did not differentiate between excommunication and anathema, which is why ecumenical councils have traditionally constructed their dogmatic canons using the formula "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," meaning that anyone teaching the condemned proposition is to be anathematized or cut off from Christian society.

Among ecumenical councils, this usage began with the first—I Nicea (A.D. 325)—which applied the formula to those denying the divinity of Christ. Since then the formula has been used by all ecumenical councils that have issued dogmatic canons. (Since Vatican II did not issue any dogmatic canons, it never used the term anathema).

Over time, a distinction came to be made between excommunication and anathema. The precise nature of the distinction varied but eventually became fixed. By the time of Gregory IX (1370–1378), the term anathema was used to describe a major excommunication that was performed with a solemn pontifical ceremony. This customarily involved the ringing of a bell, the closing of a book, and the snuffing out of candles, collectively signifying that the highest ecclesiastical court had spoken and would not reconsider the matter until the individual gave evidence of repentance.

Such solemnities have been rare in Church history. They remained on the books, however, as late as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided that, "Excommunication . . . is called anathema especially when it is imposed with the solemnities that are described in the Roman Pontifical" (CIC [1917] 2257 §§ 1–2).

Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

With this as background, the absurdity of the things said by anti-Catholics about the anathemas pronounced by Trent and other councils is plain. A number of errors are nearly ubiquitous in anti-Catholic writings:

1. An anathema sentenced a person to hell. This is not the case. Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God’s alone, and the Church cannot exercise it.

2. An anathema was a sure sign that a person would go to hell. Again, not true. Anathemas were only warranted by very grave sins, but there was no reason why the offender could not repent, and those who repent aren’t damned.

3. An anathema was a sure sign that a person was not in a state of grace. This is not true for two reasons: (a) The person may have repented since the time the anathema was issued, and (b) the person may not have been in a state of mortal sin at the time the anathema was issued.

Anathemas—like penalties imposed under civil law—rest on the judgment of the court, which must make its decision based on the evidence presented. It cannot directly examine the conscience of the individual in question. Thus, while anathemas were imposed on account of gravely sinful behavior, this was not a guarantee that it was mortally sinful. For a grave sin to become mortal, it must be performed with the requisite knowledge and consent, and while an offender might have given every appearance of these conditions, they might not be there in reality—e.g., through a hidden cognitive or volitional impediment.

4. Anathemas were meant to harm the offender. No. Anathemas were simply a major excommunication performed with a special papal ceremony, and, like all excommunications, their intent was medicinal, not punitive. The goal was to protect the Christian community from the spread of evil doctrines or behaviors and to prompt the individual to recognize the nature of his actions. While being deprived of the fellowship of the Church is not pleasant, this does not change the fact that the fundamental orientation of excommunications and anathemas is medicinal, not punitive.

5. Anathemas took effect automatically. While the Church does have penalties that take effect automatically (latae sententiae), the penalty of anathema was not one of them.

This should be obvious from the fact that a special pontifical ceremony had to be performed as part of the anathema. Obviously, the mere fact that someone utters a heresy in some part of the world does not cause the pope to suddenly stop what he is doing and perform a specific ritual concerning this person.

The anathemas of Trent and other councils were like most penalties of civil law, which only take effect through the judicial process. If the civil law prescribes imprisonment for a particular offense, those who commit it do not suddenly appear in jail. Likewise, when ecclesiastical law prescribed an anathema for a particular offense, those who committed it had to wait until the judicial process was complete before the anathema took effect.

6. Anathemas applied to all Protestants. The absurdity of this charge is obvious from the fact that anathemas did not take effect automatically. The limited number of hours in the day by itself would guarantee that only a handful of Protestants ever could have been anathematized. In practice the penalty tended to be applied only to notorious Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.

7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn’t true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one.

Because the penalty has been abolished, a word should be said about the status of the conciliar canons that employed this penalty. In addition to prescribing the imposition of a juridical penalty, the phrase anathema sit ("let him be anathema") also came to be one of the phrases that the Church traditionally has used to issue doctrinal definitions.

Catholic scholars have long recognized that when an ecumenical council applies this phrase to a doctrinal matter, then the matter is settled infallibly. (If a council applied the phrase to a disciplinary matter, then the matter would not be settled infallibly, since only matters of doctrine, not discipline, are subject to doctrinal definition.)

Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º), though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).

Unfortunately, there is little likelihood that passionate anti-Catholics such as Gendron, White, and numerous others will get the facts straight, openly admit their error, and actively work to counteract the damage they have done by spreading so much misinformation on this subject. But one day it will all get straightened out—by God.


598 posted on 07/12/2007 4:05:52 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

thanks for the link...and effort


599 posted on 07/12/2007 4:24:59 PM PDT by wardaddy (I loved Apocalypto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Oh crumb! This is hard, in the sense that you are questioning some connection which I think is so close I can't imagine the edge of even the sharpest question separating it.

I have to because the RCC is writing new doctrine about prayer. In all of my prayer meetings I've never considered until yesterday just how scant the scripture is about asking for prayer. I am forced to consider it when the RCC invents doctrine about asking the freshly dead, or seriesly dead for prayer. Biblically it has far more to do with necromancy than it does with prayer. The bible says how to pray and it says what not to do with the dead but the RCC erases that line.

600 posted on 07/12/2007 5:34:02 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620621-623 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson