P
pnewton
Guest
Anathema was a canonical penalty with specific meaning. It is no longer a penalty that is used.
- Status
G
Genesis315
Guest
It was also that (an excommunication with extra ceremony), but that is not how it is being used in the context at issue (the Tridentine canons defining certain propositions as heresy). All those points where Trent said “let him be anathema” are still errors which, when obstinately professed, break communion with the Church. That is all that means (innocently being mistaken was never a crime, so long as one was open to correction)–not all heretics who professed these errors got the extra-ceremonious excommunication.
For example, in the Official Response to the JDDJ, the Church notes how certain points in the JDDJ cannot be accepted as they appear to be “touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification” and still “incur the condemnations of the Council of Trent.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...tuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
If a word is used in two different ways, how is it known that this is the way that Paul used it, or the way the Catholic Church uses it in canon law? The same formula is used for that which is also of a disciplinary nature. It would seem wise to quit using the word all together than use it in a way that is both ambiguous and offnsive.
Last edited:
Should evangelicals continue to evangelize Catholics?
R
runningdude
Guest
If you think communicating is worthless, are you communicating that sentiment to us?
Obviously, you believe that dialog is important. Why then do you think dialog between two churches, which for centuries have spread myths about each other and inspired bloodshed, is a bad thing?
Do you believe that Lutherans will be more inclined, or less inclined, to convert individually to the true faith, if these myths and misunderstandings are never talked about and not addressed or clarified?
Obviously, you believe that dialog is important. Why then do you think dialog between two churches, which for centuries have spread myths about each other and inspired bloodshed, is a bad thing?
Do you believe that Lutherans will be more inclined, or less inclined, to convert individually to the true faith, if these myths and misunderstandings are never talked about and not addressed or clarified?
D
De_Maria
Guest
Good question, Jon. Although you won’t hear me admit this very often, I believe that some Catholics are so far away from God, that it would serve them a good purpose to be evangelized by Protestants. Even Muslims.De_Maria:
Should evangelicals continue to evangelize Catholics?
I know a fellow who, when he was Catholic, was so unlawful and so sinful, that he hardly had any conscience. But he converted to Islam and became unrecognizable. In fact, he changed his ways so fast that he was completely unrecognizable after about a week.
This was a couple of years after his conversion, but just as an example of how thoroughly he had changed. I used to own a large ciclid that I kept in my tank at home. To entertain my children, I would throw in some mosquito fish to show them how the ciclid would eat them. It was amazing how lightning fast this fish could go from one side of the tank to the other. The poor mosquito fish would hardly touch the water and they were swallowed.
Since this fellow was a former dog fighter. By that I mean that he raised pit bulls and handled them in the pits while they pretty much ripped themselves to shreds. Well, since that was part of his history, I thought he might be entertained. But he wasn’t. He was horrified.
Amazing what a little grace will do. Unfortunately, he’s still a Muslim.
Oh, and I’m sure there are Protestants and Muslims and all sorts of folks that could use a bit of conversion. Whaddaya think?
Clearly. I just think it is generally better just to keep the door open, instead of evangelizing current Christians. And even at that, use caution. I’ve been at CAF a long time,and more than one Catholic had asked me about being Lutheran. I always told them to first be sure they recognize that it is at least as important to know what your walking away from as it is what you’re walking toward. In other words, your priest is the first stop.
But having the door open, particularly to Christians who do not discern the sacraments, is okay. And I’ve never criticized people who become Catholic because they will find grace in word and sacrament.
W
Wannano
Guest
You are so right. Actually some non-Catholics believe anathema to mean “go burn in hell.” About a year ago on CAF it became obvious some Catholic posters felt it meant that too.Genesis315:
If a word is used in two different ways, how is it known that this is the way that Paul used it, or the way the Catholic Church uses it in canon law? The same formula is used for that which is also of a disciplinary nature. It would seem wise to quit using the word all together than use it in a way that is both ambiguous and offnsive.
As I understand the Catholic anathema it only applies to members of the Catholic faith, am I right?
A
AlNg
Guest
if you have been anathematized, and do not repent, can you still receive Holy Communion?
W
Wannano
Guest
I would think the answer would be “no.”Wannano:
if you have been anathematized, and do not repent, can you still receive Holy Communion?
G
Genesis315
Guest
As the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm
Heresy is a sin of separation that excludes one from being a member of the Church (aka being fully incorporated or being in full communion with the Church–the Baptismal bond always remains of course). (cf. CCC 817-818). So when the Council of Trent says “If any one says [X], let him be anathema” it is saying that a person who professes that error is committing heresy, which separates from the Church.
The Church has not abolished this theological truth about the necessity of the unity of faith in the unity of the Church, rather all it abolished was a certain ceremonial form of excommunication that was rarely used anyway (and had long fallen out of use completely). Theoretically this ceremony could have been applied to any of the baptized, since even baptized non-Catholics are subject to the jurisdiction of the Church by virtue of their baptism, but it was only ever applied to Catholics.
Heresy itself of course only applies to the baptized (see CCC 2089) (the unbaptized have no communion with the Church to be broken or wounded anyway).
I hope that helps!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm
Heresy is a sin of separation that excludes one from being a member of the Church (aka being fully incorporated or being in full communion with the Church–the Baptismal bond always remains of course). (cf. CCC 817-818). So when the Council of Trent says “If any one says [X], let him be anathema” it is saying that a person who professes that error is committing heresy, which separates from the Church.
The Church has not abolished this theological truth about the necessity of the unity of faith in the unity of the Church, rather all it abolished was a certain ceremonial form of excommunication that was rarely used anyway (and had long fallen out of use completely). Theoretically this ceremony could have been applied to any of the baptized, since even baptized non-Catholics are subject to the jurisdiction of the Church by virtue of their baptism, but it was only ever applied to Catholics.
Heresy itself of course only applies to the baptized (see CCC 2089) (the unbaptized have no communion with the Church to be broken or wounded anyway).
I hope that helps!
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
It does, at least for me.
W
Wannano
Guest
The Council of Trent was a reaction to the Protestant Reformation taking place. To say the anathemas only applied to baptized Catholics I believe is a modern definition of the anathemas of Trent. At the time of Trent it would seem the term “anyone” meant anyone including innocent children and babies of those not registering as Catholic. It is a new thought for non-Catholics such as myself to learn that the RCC claims they never tortured, abused or murdered anyone in those times. That apparently was only done by the civil authorities. The Church’s role was only to identify who was a heretic and worthy of death. Is there a parallel to the Jews and Romans with the death of Christ? I think it was at Pentecost that Peter told the Jews they were responsible for the death of Christ. It seems to me that the actions performed in those years are what causes non-Catholics today to fear that the anathemas of Trent would bear the same consequence today if there was no separation of Church and State. That is why you see non-Catholics asking “have the anathemas of Trent been lifted.”
Please understand that I know times have changed and that forgiveness has been asked and granted. Thankfully we live in more peaceful times.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
There were different degrees of consequences of anathemas. Since there is no more burning on stake today, then that part must have been lifted by natural event. However, what are wrong which are what anathemas addressed, those stay.
P
pnewton
Guest
Only that which was doctrine. Anathemas also were used for disciplinary purposes.
- Status