The Anathemas of Rome

The Reformed Reader ^

[Gamecock]

In the 1540’s and beyond, when the Protestant Reformation had spread and taken hold in various places in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church met for a series of meetings called Council of Trent.  At these meetings they wrote many canons and decrees that specifically addressed the theology of the Reformation (among other things).  In these canons and decrees are very clear rejections of Protestant theology.  Very often Rome used the term anathema (not maranatha!), a Greek word which means “accursed” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22).  Here are a few canons that clearly anathematize the theology of the Reformation.  Note: I’ve emphasized the theological words under discussion in each canon.

- If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost or destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name…let him be anathema.

- If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification…let him be anathema.

- If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

- If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema.

- If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

- If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven [listed here], or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.

- If anyone…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…which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

And the list goes on.  This isn’t semantics or politics.  Rome understood the Reformation and she anathematized many of its major emphases: bondage of the will, justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the sacraments, and so forth.  Though I am a Protestant who strongly disagrees with Trent and many of the doctrines of Rome (and therefore am under their anathemas), I do recommend reading these documents for a better understanding of the Reformation – and for proof that the Reformation still matters today.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[jimmyray]

Thanks for the links.

[CTrent1564]

No, he was not wrong. But Papal Encyclicals are not the most definitive teaching on a subject. And he clearly says a man becomes a heretic when he splits from the Catholic Church. But who is he talking about in 1896. The Letter is addressed to Catholic Bishops and Patriarchs in communion with Rome.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

So yes, those who split from Rome are in fact heretics, but those Protestants in 1896 are over 350 years removed from Communion with Rome by that time. Even before Vatican II, I will point to the Fr. Feeney issue who posited his own interpretation of Outside the Church there is no salvation and was stating all Protestants will go to hell. This was going on in the 30’s and 40’s and he was told to “chill” by Rome and when he did not, well he was excommunicated, so by his own theology, he was on the road to hell. Of course, there is no teaching ever by any Council or Pope stating who is definitively in Hell because that is not in the realm of anybody this side of heaven to know.

[CTrent1564]

actually, the Catholic Church does not command anyone to ever pray the Rosary. You are 100% mistaken. The only thing one is required to hold are certain Dogmas, that are related to the Blessed Mother such as 1)Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, 2) Mary as “Theotokos” {Mother of God, dogmatically defined at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD], 3)Mary as “ever Virgin” which and 4) Mary by God’s Grace being preserved from original sin which is rooted 2nd century theology by Saint Justin Martyr and Saint Ireneaus of Lyon’s as Mary being the “new or 2nd Eve”. The other Marian Dogma is what we Catholics call the “Assumption of Mary” which the Orthodox Church calls the “Dormition of Mary”.

These are the only things an orthodox Catholic are to hold.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Tell me, does your Bible have Tobit, Judith, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach & Baruch, books that were in Jesus's Septuagint?

Martin Luther also removed John's letters, a letter of James, and Revelations. Later Protestants decided that was a no-go and put them back. Somewhat of a seesaw, not suprising from a group that has 30,000+ different offshoots in violation of Biblical teaching.

The Catholic Church interprets scripture as a whole, taking into account context and overarching themes, rather than cherry-picking one-liners as Protestants tend to do.

[narses]

Well said. Sadly the teenagers who haunt these threads have trouble with higher order concepts.

[Salvation]

Just as I thought.

[fidelis]

"Curses are direct ...trent does not say this applies to only former RC’s they are blanket curses"

Trent never says this applies to those outside the Catholic Church. A church can only discipline it's own members. Certain Protestants seem to want these to be seen to apply to them because they have a persecution complex. It's one of the most popular myths around. They need to get over it.

[piusv]

To say that Protestants are not heretics is flat out wrong. Most are at least material heretics. Some are, in fact, formal heretics.

Catholic Definition of heresy is the

obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

Protestants have been baptized and they obstinately oppose or deny Catholic truths. Now, some may just be "material" heretics but they are still "heretics". To say they are "just in error" is just more of the post Vatican II PC-ness: Don't say the H-Word!

[Rashputin]

" . . .have trouble with higher order concepts."

People busy adding to the Tower of Babel have trouble with even simple concepts.

John 6:56 "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed."

for example.

[narses]

“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “

[narses]

-Matt.26-29 “26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.

[narses]

-John 6 “53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”

[ealgeone]

actually, the Catholic Church does not command anyone to ever pray the Rosary. You are 100% mistaken. The only thing one is required to hold are certain Dogmas, that are related to the Blessed Mother such as 1)Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, 2) Mary as “Theotokos” {Mother of God, dogmatically defined at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD], 3)Mary as “ever Virgin” which and 4) Mary by God’s Grace being preserved from original sin which is rooted 2nd century theology by Saint Justin Martyr and Saint Ireneaus of Lyon’s as Mary being the “new or 2nd Eve”. The other Marian Dogma is what we Catholics call the “Assumption of Mary” which the Orthodox Church calls the “Dormition of Mary”. These are the only things an orthodox Catholic are to hold.

do you have to believe ALL catholic law?

[narses]

-1 Tim. 4:16 “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”

[ealgeone]

Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1 However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon or standard writings of Scripture.

Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles

1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Rejection by the Jewish Community

3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church

6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

False Teachings

9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.) •The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7). •Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9). •Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

Not Prophetic

10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible

[Rashputin]

Actually, what Catholics and Protestants disagree on is whether or not the Holy Spirit is capable of protecting Scripture from the inclusion of error.

Protestants believe the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect Scripture from including errors for roughly eighteen hundred years. They also believe that neither Jesus Christ or the Apostles thought Scripture was important enough to mention the fact the the same Jews they took to task for so much else had also included books in in the Septuagint that shouldn't be there.

Catholics believe the Holy Spirit can and does protect Scripture from the inclusion of error including when the Septuagint was put together. Furthermore, Catholics believe that Christ and the Apostles held the Scriptures dear enough that they would have made it clear errors had been included in the Septuagint if that was in fact the case.

It boils down to Catholics trusting in the Holy Spirit to safeguard His Word while Protestants prefer to trust in anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees.

[CTrent1564]

ealgeone:

Nobody has to do anything, just for the record. However, I accept all Doctrines of the Church because I strive to be a faithful Catholic. That does not mean I always hit the mark in terms of my life decisions, but by God’s Grace, I keep moving forward. So in the matters of Doctrine/Dogma, I hold to all tenants of the Catholic faith, yes.

There are also teachings of the Church that are not doctrines, but a taught as part of Church discipline [for example, Lenten disciplines are not Doctrines, and can and do change], Celibacy is not a doctrine, but a Church Discipline. One can personally think the Church should allow Married men to be ordained without restrictions in all sui juris Catholic Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome, i.e. Priests of the Roman-Latin Rite are normally celibate, although married Anglicans and Lutherans have been ordained as married men for the Roman Rite. That does not make one a dissident or heretic. However, how one goes about it can make all the difference, so if someone is causing dissension in a local parish or diocese over the issue of married priests, etc, that is promoting schism and that would not be good.

The CCC [paragraph 90] states “The mutual connections between dogmas and their coherence, can be found in the whole of Revelation of the mystery of Christ. In Catholic doctrine, there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.

Later in paragraph 234 the CCC states “The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”. The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men, and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin.”

So everything in Catholic Doctrine flows from the nature of God himself, which is a perfect communion of Love. Catholic Doctrine of the nature of the Church, Salvation, Sacraments, saints, etc, all flow from this mystery, the Holy Trinity, in a coherent way. Now, to say that the Trinity is the central mystery, does not mean other mysteries or doctrines of faith are not important, no, obviously, Christ Incarnation, passion, death and resurrection and ascension into heaven would be among the first hierarchy of truths. This link below sort of explains it.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/dbushman_hiertruths_sept05.asp

But as I said, the Church’s teaching on the Disciplines of Lent can change and have changed, requirements to fast from meat on Fridays can and have changed. It is a teaching that one should observe but it can and was done away with because it in no way approaches the Doctrine of the Trinity. Celibacy would be a higher order teaching than the Church’s Disciplines for Lent [prayer, fasting and almsgiving] but it too can be changed and in no way approaches the Mystery of the Trinity.

[BlueDragon]

Why is that an "example"?

Try reading just a little bit further on to verse 62 (as numbered in KJV, being that the Douay has differing numbers than most others for various passages, quite often).

That's right, not verse 63, but 62. ~What~ was He talking about there ~and~ how could that relate to the passage you brought which is one of those alleged "high order concepts" few around here are capable of understanding?

Then go ahead and put those two (verses 62 &63 --for those of you in Rio Linda) together, and after some contemplation of how those not only go with the previous but are indeed very much key to the rest --- of not only John 6, but beyond also, tell us in your own words how so.

That could demonstrate to one and all just how well either of you two geniuses actually do understand "higher order concepts".

You guys are both talking about it -- and how others "have trouble with even simple concepts", let's see just how much better it could be if those whom really really knew, would really really reveal just how much they know!

Just think of what a wonderful world it could be! So bright and shining, if only the pair of you would lift the lamps of your own brilliance and light a path the rest could fruitfully follow!

Now -- this oh so very brilliant and illuminating 'breaking of bread' (the bread of the word) of which; whom-ever would it ever be that could doubt for even the briefest moment --->that either or both of you do indeed have as talent and gift to understand these sort of higher concepts?

Why, not me...no, I'm just one of those who so ~obviously~ would be dependent upon the brilliance of you both to dispel "the darkness" of how John 62-63 has been all but entirely orphaned from the light of the marvelous, magical, munificent Magesterium's scriptural expository expertise.

The absence of common (RCC sourced) theological treatment and discussion for those verses is puzzling beyond measure, being they are so generous with their words in much everything else which they so centrally identify themselves as primary & foremost if not only proper interpreters of.

To truly understand a thing, one does need to also be capable of explaining that thing..?

If that true...and if either or both of you guys were relying on perceived lack of ability in others to explain things, as sufficient evidence that these same persons not understand the precise sort of higher concepts which you brought rather naked scriptural sign of -- then where are your own explanations showing one and all for a certainty that you both do understand the particular concepts, including in those discussions full [enough] treatment & incorporation of consideration for the "two" verses I have been continually referring to?

We are to trust you that you know things? But at the same time, assume that others whom demonstrate 'lack' of ability to "explain", is proof they lack ability also to understand -- again trusting your own declarations as to these conditions?

Sadly enough the RCC magesterium, along with and oodles and gobs of RC apologists -- more than one can shake a stick at, do seem to have set near fully aside this lonely pair of sentences (as if those were mere & negligible afterthought) even though both of them (verses 62 & 63) are attributed to having been uttered by none other than Christ Himself, when he was speaking of what it meant, what He intended to be understood, concerning this consumption of His own flesh and blood.

Being that the two of you both are so capable of understanding Higher order concepts(?), to establish this now beyond any further doubt and enlighten others too, the (I'm so sure will be) illuminating explanations & treatments, do need to be written out, in your own words, expressing your own thoughts and understanding.

It would fairly well need to be in your own words regardless, for in discussions of scriptural foundations for RCC Eucharist theology, although other portions of John 6 have had veritable train-car loads of ink spilled concerning them, in comparison, those two otherverses (John 62-63) I do doubt there is much available in the way of opportunity for copy/past from, that would have been written by RCC source or apologists.

What is called for, is fuller considerations of how verses 62 & 63 should well enough apply --- to not only the rest of what preceded those two verses in John 6, but what can be gleaned from Luke 22 also, and how John 4, John 14, Matthew 17, Psalms 78, Psalms 139, Exodus 1, and yet even more can relate to John 6 -- (for that chapter though speaking of perhaps only a relative handful of concepts, can use support from the chapters I have just mentioned, and those other chapters too are themselves further illuminated in turn by John 6) --- all of which should be a piece of cake, simple-dimple, easy-peasy to discuss & demonstrate for those whom truly do have 'High & Holy'(?) magisterial-like ability to understand "Higher order concepts" that other people "have trouble with".

Take your time(!) all the time you may need. I'll wait.

You know, like the Jewish mother in the light-bulb joke?

How many Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a lightbulb -- None, "that's ok, I'll just sit here in the dark" (which assumes she speaking to someone else of course, to make the joke 'work')

What's the difference between Jewish babies and Catholic babies?
Jewish babies are born with guilt, but Catholic babies have to go to catechism school and learn it.

Did you hear about the pope's first miracle? He touched a cripple and made him blind.

Two Irishmen walked out of a bar. Hey, it could happen.

If a moose bit your sister, and cheese in Wisconsin does not come from cows as happy as the Milk Board says that California cows are, did your sister bite the moose back before running off and joining the Flying Wallendas?

See? somebody's sister can be and understand concepts like high and 'balance', too, all while working in full view of a peanut gallery.

Are you going to let your (or somebody else's?) kid sister ...her having suffered so from that moose bite) now make yourself appear as flea-bitten puny and scowl-y face bitter in comparison to her and happy California cows too?

Or will it be explained why He asked -- What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

As helpful hint to assist one in beginning formulation of the needed essay of explanation, I would ask; can it be determined where it was the He (Jesus Christ) went when He was seen to Ascend?

When He arrived fully there, back to where He was before, would He need there to Himself eat and drink just exactly as He did when still as yet-to-be transfigured (as I here admit to assuming that He likely was transfigured/transformed into incorruptible "flesh" which is Spirit, in some way, along the way when Ascending back to where He was before).

Would He there still need oxygen to breath, food to eat, something to drink, even vitamin C lest He come down with scurvy --- or is that place He was before, far beyond things of this earthly realm in ways most all of us still abiding upon this planet's surface know not much of?

As it is written, God is a Spirit, and those whom would worship Him need do so in spirit and in truth.

Since by your own testimony is could be assumed that you do(?) understand the higher concept associated with the scripture you provided for example of the same --- then there could be so many other "Jewish-mother light-bulb joke" persons sitting around in the dark needing you to do something about that bulb, and

Let your light so shine before men they can see your good works and glorify your father in heaven

unless

you really do prefer to hide your candelstick under a bushel, and leave those poor jewish mothers out there sitting around in the dark?

What would that little sister have to say about that? Don't you love mothers? Mary was a mother herself. A Jewish one, even. Do you want to make her sad? How could you even dream of doing such a thing?

There is no option left. You must write it all down, and tell of these higher concepts, so that others will be able to see the light.

[JPX2011]

Allow the Early Church Fathers to set your mind at ease about John 6:62-63:

CHRYS. The revelation however of these hidden things was a mark of His Divinity: hence the meaning of what follows; And if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before; supply, What will you say? He said the same to Nathanael, Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, believe you? You shall see greater things than these. He does not add difficulty to difficulty, but to convince them by the number and greatness of His doctrines. For if He had merely said that He came down from heaven, without adding any thing further, he would have offended His hearers more; but by saying that His flesh is the life of the world, and that as He was sent by the living Father, so He lives by the Father; and at last by adding that He came down from heaven, He removed all doubt. Nor does He mean to scandalize His disciples, but rather to remove their scandal. For so long as they thought Him the Son of Joseph, they could not receive His doctrines; but if they once believed that He had come down from heaven and would ascend thither, they would be much more willing and able to admit them.

AUG. Or, these words are an answer to their mistake. They supposed that He was going to distribute His body in bits: whereas He tells them now, that He should ascend to heaven whole and entire: What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before? You will then see that He does not distribute His body in the way you think. Again; Christ became the Son of man, of the Virgin Mary here upon earth, and took flesh upon Him: He says then, What and, if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before? to let us know that Christ, God and man, is one person, not two; and the object of one faith, not a quaternity, but a Trinity. He was the Son of man in heaven, as He was Son of God upon earth; the Son of God upon earth by assumption of the flesh, the Son of man in heaven, by the unity of the person. THEOPHYL. Do not suppose from this that the body of Christ came down from heaven, as the heretics Marcion and Apollinarius say; but only that the Son of God and the Son of man are one and the same.

CHRYS. He tries to remove their difficulties in another way, as follows, It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing: that is to say, You ought to understand My words in a spiritual sense: he who understands them carnally is profited nothing. To interpret carnally is to take a proposition in its bare literal meaning, and allow no other. But we should not judge of mysteries in this way; but examine them with the inward eye; i.e. understand them spiritually. It was carnal to doubt how our Lord could give His flesh to eat. What then? Is it not real flesh? Yes, verily. In saying then that the flesh profits nothing, He does not speak of His own flesh, but that of the carnal hearer of His word.