What is that RCC? Among the ridiculous assertions that overflow the RF, folks, we have a new blue ribbon winner, right there. Of course, I am open to consider the evidence that backs up the statement.
but Protestants are anathematized.
My knowledge of anathema is confined to the seven ecumenical council. Of course, there were no Protestants (by that name) then. The councils determined that certain beliefs that were being taught by self identified Christians were, in fact, not compatible with the true faith. The anathema simply marks wrong belief as wrong belief.
An interesting aspect to consider about heresy is that heretics claim theirs is the true faith. They have scripture and arguments. They get a bunch of followers. They bring in confusion that must be dealt with. So it was, all the way back to Acts 15. Consider that the Apostles, taught by Christ Himself, has disagreement and look at how it was resolved.
I'm certain the actual Catholic teaching on separated brethren has been presented (and ignored) many times on this forum.
I myself would not charge Rome with saying Muslims are saved, as that nuanced statement is not exactly saying this, but to anathematize a person goes beyond simply stating her/she is wrong, while there is disagreement whether this is in effect.
Noted RC apologist James Akin states that “the Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one”.
But another notable lay apologist, Robert Sugenis states,
“The Mass, confession, indulgences and purgatory are all part and parcel with Catholic justification. According to Church dogma, those who knowingly refuse to accept them are still under anathema.” http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sungenisjointdeclaration.html
The RC Peter and Paul Ministries also disagree:
“there is not the slightest hint in the documents of Vatican II that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated. Second, prior to the 1983 Code, those who were excommunicated from the Church were divided into two categories; i.e. vitandi and tolerati. The 1983 Code of Cannon law eliminated these distinctions which has given rise to the false impression that the condemnations of Trent were repealed, but this is not the case. Catholics must remember that canon law deals primarily with internal discipline. While there is always some relation between canon law and dogmatic theology, as a rule the law does not make doctrinal pronouncements. Mr. Charles M. Wilson, an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America and president of the St. Joseph Foundation stated, “I can find nothing in the Code now in force that explicitly or implicitly removes any anathemas of Trent.”
Evang. apologist Mike Gendron responds here: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC1W0303.pdf
New Advent states
“Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity.”
“Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.
Whereupon all the assistants respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat.” (Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii.)
Multitudes of notable practicing immoral Catholics escape such, while even if Akin is right,the condemnations are still the issue, and it is notable that such an articulate clarification must come from a lay apologist.
That's right, because it teaches that we are condemned to hell for not willingly being part of the Catholic hierarchy and we don't believe it.
Non-Catholics are not considered "separated brethren" by many who claim the name of Catholic but rather heretics staring down the very throat of hell.
It's really no surprise considering that most Catholics are unsure of where they're going to end up and only hope that the best they can look forward to is uncounted years in purgatory to finish paying for their sins that Christ died on the cross to forgive. So, if a *good* Catholic can't even be sure of his salvation, it's no wonder they'd never concede that a NON-Catholic could be.
Is UNAM SANCTAM an "Infallible" declaration?