Catholics Embracing Protestants

[Lenten_ashes]

My friend Wannano,

Do you notice that we were talking about the Council of Trent? And yet Fr Don has NOT addressed Trent still? Your concerns were about the language and what was said in that Council, right?

If I am mistaken, then please forgive.

 

[ajcstr]

I have seen numerous positions trying to spin this into something else. But for a denomination who always ask for an "official " document or clarification… point being something official would be appreciated. Otherwise it is pretty much the same thing according to Catholicism.

MichaelP3 and Wannano

I skimmed through this and it seems like a fair and modern interpretation of an anathema. I don’t know that you will find an official church document that defines anathema, just ones that use it.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/anathema

Let me know if this one helps, I’ll dig a little more if needed.

One thing I will say though is that throughout the life of the Church the councils had served to keep the faith pure as they saw it. Superficial research will uncover the many heresies that the Church fought against. This does not exist in Protestantism because there is no authority. Differences historically have resulted in a new branch with all the branches claiming to be from the same tree. This is simple fact. The Arians at the council of Nicaea could have decided to branch off and form the Arian church, but they didn’t I suppose because they accepted Church authority above their own beliefs. I don’t know why the Reformation was different, maybe the “approval rating” of the Church was lower, but by eliminating a governing authority, unity is lost also.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc, I have taken the time to go back and read all the posts again. I find that puts answers others give into perspective of what had been formerly presented.

LA first mentioned Trent and I followed on that so yes, I noticed we were talking about Trent!

That is a very important thing to acknowledge is this discussion. I noticed that Trent, specifically, was being questioned. And then, Fr. Don addressed the behaviors and abuses (and their subsequent modern day apologies). So the problem was that Fr. Don was not addressing the relative concern.

I have concerns about the language and the pronounced anathemas of Trent sure, but, my thoughts are coming from much deeper and longer ago. I have trouble explaining it so that it makes sense. It is unsettling to discover that part of who I am today and how I formulate what is truth for me is affected by the reality of the truth of past atrocities done to my own ancestors who were dismissed and martyred as simply heretics.

If you are expecting the Catholic Church to be impeccable, on the grounds that she claims to have the fulness of Truth, then you are not understanding the nature of Church. Catholics commit sins! We fall short of Jesus. There was abuses and corruption that led up to the Protestant Reformation.

But I don’t think it stopped there. I believe it always exists, even today!

What I keep in mind and heart, is the difference between the Deposit of Faith, the Teachings of God, the Fulness of Truth which are confirmed through the Magisterium and the practice and behaviors of all her members.

Trent represents the former. Though the language has an inevitable connection to the Era and generation.

As usual, I tried to ask Fr. Don to acknowledge these things. But he shrinks away from it.

I have embraced many Protestants in my life! Just yesterday, I called a counselor from an Evangelical Free denomination, who I met with a couple months back, to thank him for his ministry and assistance to me. I actually appreciated his advice and approach more than the Catholic counselor and priest I have also been working with. It doesn’t mean I want to become a member of his Church, or receive Communion there. It just means that I believe he was more objective and did not contradict the Catholic faith, such as the Catholic members I worked with.

And even all that doesn’t mean I don’t love and appreciate the ministry of these Catholics.

MichaelP3 mentioned having a lot of respect for Fr. Don. That is truly good! But we should have equal respect for all men, showing no partiality! So I respect you, and I also respect Fr. Don. But he does not care to fellowship with me. I believe a Catholic priest is bound to profess, uphold and defend the Catholic faith, FIRST to his own flock, and then to separated brothers and sisters.

 

[ajcstr]

I would love to see a modern Catholic definition that substantiates what you are saying. All I can find is “accursed”…“given over to Satan”…loss of salvation etc.

Can you be specific as to where you see “loss of salvation” in a church document?

 

[ajcstr]

Can you be specific as to where you see “loss of salvation” in a church document?

If you are referring to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

I think this is for a specific individual not a general anathema.
“Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the 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 N-- 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.”*

 

[reggieM]

If you are referring to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

I think this is for a specific individual not a general anathema.
“Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the 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 N-- 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.”*

True, a person has to be judged individually and be given due recourse for defense, correction and amendment.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think you misunderstood what he is saying. I believe he is saying that the CC views Protestants as brothers and sisters in Christ rather than heretics and many Protestants don’t realize this.

No, I understand what he’s saying. My point was that as it was used the term does in fact infer that the person or persons in question is Christian. That’s all…

And all of them who accepted martyrdom proved they were! Thank you!

The very same could be said of all those of us Catholics who have faced similar persecutions from Protestants. Thomas More for example…and of course my own Irish ancestors who had to practice the faith in secret lest they face prison, confiscation of properties, and even death, so I suggest that you not go there.

I am too., but I didn’t bring it up.

 

[reggieM]

It would be helpful to me if you would explain what both material and formal heresy are comprised of. Thanks.

There are various terms that define heresy, and material heresy and formal heresy are two of them. Additionally, there is manifest heresy and occult heresy.

Heresy is a opinion which contradicts one or more defined teachings of the Church.
A material heresy is a heretical belief which is expressed by a person who does not realize it is a sin or does not know that it is a heresy. This would include most Protestants in the world today. In order to be guilty of a mortal sin, a person must know it is a sin and willingly commit the sin. The person who expresses material heresy does not know this is a sin - thus there is no, or at least, very limited guilt on that part.

A formal heresy (or just “heresy” as it is), is a public (manifest) statement of an opinion that conflicts with the Catholic faith. The person must knowingly and willingly express this. Also, the person must have had a chance to be corrected in his or her error, but persist (show pertinacity) in the false belief even after correction and warning. Even then, there’s no formal heresy until it is proclaimed as such by the Church.
If a person rejects the teaching of the Church privately and does not express this publicly, that is a “hidden heresy” or what is called an “occult heresy”. That is the basis of material heresy mentioned above.

 

[Michael_Francis]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/offtopicyoda-1.jpg
Departed from topic and closed.