Frankly, I have a problem with anyone who tries to force or coerce my actions or beliefs through threats. It doesn’t speak well of the strength of their argument intrinsically that one has to be threatened to co-operate.
Why did the Roman Catholic Church feel the need to call down curses on people and eternally condemn them for not adhering to its doctrine? It comes across too much as spiritual blackmail.
Canons concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist (September 5, 1551)
Canon 1.If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.
Canon 2.If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.
Canon 3.If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema.
Canon 4.If anyone says that after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but are there only in usu, while being taken and not before and not after, and that the hosts or consecrated particles which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain, let him be anathema.
Canon 5.If anyone says that the principal fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result from it, let him be anathema.
Canon 6.If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.
Canon 7.If anyone says that it is not lawful that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a sacred place, but immediately after consecration must necessarily be distributed among those present, or that it is not lawful that it be carried with honor to the sick, let him be anathema.
Canon 8.If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema.
Canon 9.If anyone denies that each and all of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have reached the years of discretion, to communicate every year at least at Easter, in accordance with the precepts of holy mother Church, let him be anathema.
Canon 10.If anyone says that it is not lawful for the priest celebrating to communicate himself, let him be anathema.
Canon 11.If anyone says that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend the contrary, he shall be eo ipso excommunicated.
Because the Reformation was destroying the stranglehold Rome had on the church, and the papacy and its hirelings were worried about losing power and position and a covering for their evil deeds.
Some things never change.
It all sounds like sixteenth century lawyer-talk to me.
Why did the Roman Catholic Church feel the need to call down curses on people and eternally condemn them for not adhering to its doctrine? It comes across too much as spiritual blackmail.
Canons concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist (September 5, 1551)
Canon 1.If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.
Canon 2.If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema...
So, I post proof that an Apostolic Father was teaching the Real Presence no later than 117 AD and your response is to post canons from the Council of Trent? Saint Ignatius of Antioch personally knew many of the Apostles, he taught the doctrine of the Real Presence very early and his teachings were NEVER contradicted. The only logical assumption is that the Apostles and other early Church Fathers fully agreed with The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans.
Do you actually know what it means to anathemize a person?
My suspicion is that many non-Catholics on here have no idea, it is basically a step beyond excommunication, it IS NOT some sort of physical threat.
Why SHOULD'T the Church be permitted to expect certain beliefs from its members?
Should the Church be allowed to excommunicate or anathemize those who deny the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Should the Church be allowed to excommunicate or anathemize those who deny the Holy Trinity?
If the Church is permitted to excommunicate and anathemize those who deny the Divinity of Christ or the Holy Trinity, why should they not be allowed to anathemize those who deny the Holy Eucharist?
The fact remains that throughout the New Testament the Apostles used the thread of curse or anathema for those who denied their teachings.
I do find it odd that people who deny the authority of the Catholic Church get so offended when the Church criticizes their beliefs. Why DO you care so much?
Do you belong to one of these Kumbaya-singing "churches" that teaches that you can believe whatever you want as long as it makes you happy? Have you joined a group that has devolved to this level? It would be difficult for me to conclude otherwise.