Condemnation of fellow Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter uniChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

uniChristian

Guest
I just don’t get this?
CANON I.-If any one denieth, 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 saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, 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 denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, 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 during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema. CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

Why Does the Romanist Church want to condemn me to hell just because I don’t believe in Transubstantiation? I still believe Jesus is God and he was born of Mary just like prophesy claimed, but the Romanist church condemns me to hell. Could someone tell me why?
 
Why Does the [Catholic] Church want to condemn me to hell just because I don’t believe in Transubstantiation?
Click to expand...
She doesn’t. Go and be well.
 
  1. An anathema does not condemn one to Hell.
  2. For more amiable dialogue (which is what I assume you are here for), do not refer to Catholics as “Romanists”, because it is unecessarily inflamatory as well as an insult to Eastern and other rite Catholics.
Scott
 
Why Does the Romanist Church want to condemn me to hell just because I don’t believe in Transubstantiation? I still believe Jesus is God and he was born of Mary just like prophesy claimed, but the Romanist church condemns me to hell. Could someone tell me why?
Click to expand...
Peace, uniChristian. The Roman Catholic Church does not condemn anyone to Hell (indeed it does not have nor claim the power to do so). The term “anethema” is the old term for “excommunication”. Excommunication places a person outside the Church. It does not condemn them to Hell. Basically it says that if you don’t believe certain things that the Church holds true, then you aren’t Catholic.

So, since you don’t believe what the Canons state, you aren’t a Roman Catholic. I think both you and the Church can agree in this regard.
 
CCC - A sure norm for teaching the faith JPII

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Code: 
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
(My Bold)

To take the example of EENS, (no salvation outside the Church) the CCC is quite clear

CCC 847 - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

CCC 838 - The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[322] Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”[323]

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
 
40.png
uniChristian:
I just don’t get this?
Why Does the Romanist Church want to condemn me to hell just because I don’t believe in Transubstantiation? I still believe Jesus is God and he was born of Mary just like prophesy claimed, but the Romanist church condemns me to hell. Could someone tell me why?
Click to expand...
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[818](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/818.htm’)😉 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

YOU are not condemned. However, if you had been brought up in the Catholic Church, and separated yourself from it, by denying the basic teachings of the Church, then you would be a heretic.
 
UniChristian,

The other posts have explained things very well. I would only add Paul’s words: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).
 
40.png
Sherlock:
UniChristian,

The other posts have explained things very well. I would only add Paul’s words: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).
Click to expand...
I agree with this completely!
 
40.png
uniChristian:
Why Does the Romanist Church want to condemn me to hell just because I don’t believe in Transubstantiation? I still believe Jesus is God and he was born of Mary just like prophesy claimed, but the Romanist church condemns me to hell. Could someone tell me why?
Click to expand...
They aren’t condemning you to hell, they are declaring you to be a heretic and excommunicating anyone who is in the church who does not believe in the true presence. They are also declaring your doctrine to be degenerative and false. An anathema is not a declaration that says anyone is going to hell. It is to get someone to realize there errors and to know that they are in opposition to the church.

There was only one church for 1200 years and everyone believed in the true presence of the Eucharist. By denying the true presence of the Eucharist you deny the church that Christ started and the sacraments he instituted.

Ignatius, writing around 100AD, talked about the bishops and said that you should follow the bishop in everything. He goes as far as saying that you should treat the bishop as you would treat Christ. He also talks about heretics and says that they should be avoided and not socialized with. He also talks about unity in the church.

Irenaeus, writng about 170AD, says that the church is where the bishops are. He also says that the truth is to be found nowhere but in the Catholic Church.

If you want to see the proof of the true presence from the fathers, you can read “Not by Bread Alone” by Robert Sungenis. I am in the process of reading it and it is good so far.
 
40.png
jimmy:
They aren’t condemning you to hell, they are declaring you to be a heretic and excommunicating anyone who is in the church who does not believe in the true presence.
Click to expand...
The Church does not condemn UniChristian – no one born outside the Catholic Church is condemned or charged with heresy, no matter what their religion.

And ALL religions must – by implication at least – hold that what they teach is true, and that any other religion which teaches differently is by definition heretical.

In other words, if the Catholics refer to, say Methodism as heretical, the Methodists at least by implication say the same about the Catholics.
 
vern humphrey:
The Church does not condemn UniChristian – no one born outside the Catholic Church is condemned or charged with heresy, no matter what their religion.

And ALL religions must – by implication at least – hold that what they teach is true, and that any other religion which teaches differently is by definition heretical.

In other words, if the Catholics refer to, say Methodism as heretical, the Methodists at least by implication say the same about the Catholics.
Click to expand...
Jimmy I am a Cradle Catholic and I can read what the word anathema means! Webster’s on line of anathema "Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse, from anatithenai

1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed – usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen – S. J. Gould>
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation : CURSE"

I’m sure glad this comes from the Romanist church and not God.
 
Jesus Gave Apostolic Successors His sworn oath that any sins they hold bound on earth, He will hold bound in heaven. Can you go to heaven if Jesus holds you bound to a sin? The power to hold sins bound or loost are refered to as the “Keys to the Kingdom”. Please visit Throwing Stones for a closer look.

Times change, unfortunantly it seems that old Church Bulls remain the same. I would be much more at ease if the Pope used his authority to change these old Church Bulls rather than just assure us that anathema will not have negative effects on anyone. When I read the definition of anathema, it sure looks to me that Popes of the past think they are using the “Keys to the Kingdom” to send people to hell with anathema (unless they repent). I am told that the Church almost always puts a clause at the end of anathema statments which puts the final decision back into Jesus hands. It seems that this would make anathema an idle threat.

I think that rather than Church leaders simply telling us that anathema doesent mean this or dosent mean that, they pope should simply go through some of these anathemas and weed out the ones he does not want to effect people’s souls with the “Keys to the Kingdom”.

anathema

An example of such an anathema is found in these words of Pope Silverius (536-38): “If anyone henceforth deceives a bishop in such a manner, let him be anathema maranatha before God and his holy angels.” Benedict XIV (1740-58–De Synodo dioecesana X, i) cites the anathema maranatha formulated by the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Toledo against those who were guilty of the crime of high treason: “He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions. Amen.” There is frequent mention of this anathema maranatha in the Bulls of erection for abbeys and other establishments. Still the anathema maranatha is a censure from which the criminal may be absolved; **although he is delivered to **Satan and his angels, the Church, in virtue of the Power of the Keys, can receive him once more into the communion of the faithful.
Quoted from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
So you have a problem with authority, not with God.

Is that what your saying.🙂

anathema

anything laid up or suspended; hence anything laid up in a temple or set apart
as sacred. In this sense the form of the word is anath(ee)ma, once in plural
used in the Greek New Testament, in Luke 21:5, where it is rendered “gifts.” In
the LXX. the form anathema is generally used as the rendering of the Hebrew
word herem, derived from a verb which means (1) to consecrate or devote; and
(2) to exterminate. Any object so devoted to the Lord could not be redeemed
(Num. 18:14; Lev. 27:28, 29); and hence the idea of exterminating connected
with the word. The Hebrew verb (haram) is frequently used of the extermination
of idolatrous nations. It had a wide range of application. The anathema or
herem was a person or thing irrevocably devoted to God (Lev. 27:21, 28); and
“none devoted shall be ransomed. He shall surely be put to death” (27:29). The
word therefore carried the idea of devoted to destruction (Num. 21:2, 3; Josh.
6:17); and hence generally it meant a thing accursed. In Deut. 7:26 an idol is
called a herem = anathema, a thing accursed. In the New Testament this word
always implies execration. In some cases an individual denounces an anathema on
himself unless certain conditions are fulfilled (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). “To call
Jesus accursed” [anathema] (1 Cor. 12:3) is to pronounce him execrated or
accursed. If any one preached another gospel, the apostle says, “let him be
accursed” (Gal. 1:8, 9); i.e., let his conduct in so doing be accounted
accursed. In Rom. 9:3, the expression “accursed” (anathema) from Christ, i.e.,
excluded from fellowship or alliance with Christ, has occasioned much
difficulty. The apostle here does not speak of his wish as a possible thing. It
is simply a vehement expression of feeling, showing how strong was his desire
for the salvation of his people. The anathema in 1 Cor. 16:22 denotes simply
that they who love not the Lord are rightly objects of loathing and execration
to all holy beings; they are guilty of a crime that merits the severest
condemnation; they are exposed to the just sentence of “everlasting destruction
from the presence of the Lord.”
 
40.png
uniChristian:
Jimmy I am a Cradle Catholic and I can read what the word anathema means! Webster’s on line of anathema "Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse, from anatithenai

1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed – usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen – S. J. Gould>
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation : CURSE"

I’m sure glad this comes from the Romanist church and not God.
Click to expand...
How can you claim to be Catholic, yet not believe what the church teaches? You reject the true presence, consequently you reject the church authority. Christ said, speaking to the apostles, that those who rejected them, rejected him, and anyone who rejected him rejects the one who sent him.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
Jimmy I am a Cradle Catholic and I can read what the word anathema means! Webster’s on line of anathema "Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse, from anatithenai

1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed – usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen – S. J. Gould>
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation : CURSE"

I’m sure glad this comes from the Romanist church and not God.
Click to expand...
You also see what you want to see, you skip over every word in the definition and go straight to the very last one. Definition 2 most fits what the church teaches. You underline the word curse. It is a vigorous denunciation as the definition says. By rejecting the doctrines of the church, you also reject the authority of the church, and consequently you reject Christ who founded the church. So they vigorously denounce you.

When it says curse, it does not mean some voodoo curse or anything like that. It means exactly what the preceding two words mean, a vigorous denunciation.
 
Uni,

My, my, such anger tsk tsk.

Maybe you’ll loosen up once you stop calling us names and derogatory terms, eh?

If you have a problem with anathema (which, by the way, if you only research a bit more, has been STRICKEN from present-day Church law), then you’ll have a bigger problem with Paul in 1st Cor chapter 5, where he commands the Coritnthian church to hand over a “fellow Christian” over to Satan for the destruction of his body so that his soul may be saved. The Church doesn’t even do that anymore! No matter what dictionary you look at, the only definition that counts is the definition of the Catholic Church, which is TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE!

And another thing. If you’ve formally renounced the Catholic faith prior, then these penalties don’t even apply to you anymore.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
Jimmy I am a Cradle Catholic and I can read what the word anathema means! Webster?s on line of anathema "Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse, from anatithenai

1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed – usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen – S. J. Gould>
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation : CURSE"

I’m sure glad this comes from the Romanist church and not God.
Click to expand...
Since you want to open a can of etymology in ADDITION to slapping as many Roman Catholics as hard as you can in what you think is the most sensitive part you can find, Romanist is a political label like “Conservative” or “Liberal” or “Fundamentalist” that you have applied to me for the sole purpose of shunting me to the end of your worldview’s political scale so you can hope that I will become marginalized and that eventually my votes will not be counted in a Democracy. Some people still call black people Niggers because they hope to hurt their feelings by marginalizing and mocking them.

You blew your cover.

I’ll tell you a little secret for next time. If you want to REALLY break Catholics’ hearts, just mock our Eucharistic Christ fully present and alive, body, blood, soul and divinity – every bit as real as when He walked among us despite the accidents of bread and wine in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, if you dare. We’ll feel so bad that thousands of people you will never even meet will do penances you’ll never know of in this life in an effort to make reparation before God for you.

You want to talk about anathema.

Oh, and since you’re so into sticking political labels on people for religious reasons (the Nazis for instance were big on that, too), you can tell me another political label I don’t know the name of–what would you call a Christian who makes it their business to persecute another Christian for their belief in Christ?

But you can’t use “uniChristian”. Some of us are serious enough about witnessing and emotional enough about loving and defending our Holy Mother Church that we use our real Christian Baptismal names. I wonder why you don’t. Don’t want anyone to recognize you? Prefer to stay in the dark?

Unfortunately, your classical opening canard is one of those things that can have the effect of giving some non- or anti-Catholic Christians a bad name–especially when people don’t understand that there can actually be people who use Christ as a weapon to inflict pain on other Christians AND there can be loving non- and even anti-Catholic Christians who would never dream of such a thing because they love Our Lord too much.

I hope by now you’re properly amazed at the responses you’ve received to your expressed will to hurt. Either we’re all crazy, or you’ve figured out something on your little lonesome that either Jesus the Christ or His Apostles somewhere in 2,000 years of documented, unbroken apostolic succession through Catholic Teaching have missed. You must be so proud.

Kevin Fraser
Romanist
 
UniChristian, As a Traditional Anglican, I would appreciate it if you would not call all of us “Romanists”. In one word, you’ve not only managed to offend me and mine, but also the Greek Orthodox Gentleman who’s been coming to my parish for Divine Liturgy, since his Orthodox parish is nearly a hour’s drive away.

The text you’re quoting from was adapted by the Church during the same era the Creeds were written, and while the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were still in unity. It, therefore, applies to both the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholic and all the Uniate Churches. John 6:53 says: “Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You” and 1 Cor 11:27-30 Talks about those who eat and drink unworthily of the Eucharist or in such a manner as to be unable to discern the body and blood of our our Lord bring damnation on themselves. The Church doesn’t do this. We do to ourselves.

UniChristian, you might want to ask yourself what keeps you from believing such a BIBLICAL Doctrine and what prevents you from accepting such a wondrous and unifying Grace as the Body and Blood of Our Lord, rather than asking why the Church would do that which it would NEVER do. I understand a good place to do such questioning is in front of the Blessed Sacrament itself, if your local parish priest will allow you to sit, pray, question and read.

Please understand, you’re having exactly the same difficulty with this that the people who first heard this from Jesus’ mouth had. I know that it’s not easy, but there’s not more intimate way to know our Lord than in the Eucharist.

I pray that you can meet Him there.

Peace be with you, Michael
 
Hi Folks,

When you say that the catholic church does not condemn someone to hell when you give an anethema, well this brings a question to mind. According to the Catholic Church there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. So doesn’t the logic necessarily follow that if folks refuse the doctrine of Transsub. and then are anathema that they are condemned to hell? At least till they accept the Catholic’s Stance?

Jeff
 
Reason I tend to disagree with Transubstantiation:

Jesus at the last supper never said that the bread becomes his body. He said “This is my body”. Not beomes. Now logically the bread could not have been his body because his body was already present at the table. And Jesus was in it. And since the Spirit could not come till he ascended it could not have lived in the bread. So it seems to me that Jesus is using the wine and bread symbolically to teach his disciples an important lesson. He wanted to impart to them a message that they were to partake of his body, which they do by suffering in love for one another. Which also seems to be the message of 1 cor. 11:20-34 where the main emphasis of the passage is on how believers treat one another, and in fact the main message of 1 cor. letter is about how believers treat one another specifically. In a sense Jesus message was prophetic of what was about to take place. Hence the sending of His Spirit into every single believer. Therefore the wine is symbolic of the pouring out of the Spirit and the bread is symbolic of His living body which is even now on earth and we are partaking of as believers.

Regarding my first statement about the bread could not be his body, someone might make the argument that the same logic would apply in heaven because Christ still has a body. But I would disagree, because Christ said himself that he must go in order for the Spirit to come. When the Spirit dwells in us we are able to be his body.

Now I am not extremely familar with the whole doctrine of substan. But I believe it is the catholic answer to how we partake of Christ. However if the saints in acts (day of pentecost, Corneilius the gentile and a few other cases) can receive the indwelling Spirit of Christ then why would they need a wafer?
To be honest with you in light of the fact that Christ now dwells in us it seems silly to me to defend or put forth a teaching that Christ becomes a wafer.

It makes me want to ask a similar question that Stephen asked when he asked in Acts :

Act 7:48 Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in housesmade with hands; as saith the prophet,

But we know where does dwell:
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath a templeof God with idols? for we are a templeof the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Likewise does Christ Dwell in Wafers? Or doesn’t he rather dwell in us?

In a nutshell we as His body Indwelt by Hist Spirit are Christ incarnate.

Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top