keep reading Letter and Spirit: The Authority of Mystery, the Word of God and the People ... - Google Books
I’m sure we have all done that…it is just that the word "divisive " is so divisive because apparently the divisive are headed for hell.
Do you have a proper referenceGorgias:
How does this square with the Council of Trent, which condemns not only those who separated, but anyone who espouses Protestant ideas? “Whoever says… is anathema.” It seems that the Roman Church has changed its position with respect to those outside of its formal communion. For now, the Church says that Protestants are in some manner connected to the true Church. And this gets back to the question of infallible teaching.
Correct. A very Catholic ducument (DV), and very Catholic article (Dulles).
No, but they (JW’s) gloss over any perceived error or back peddling by citing being in better light, better understanding now.
Are you the Glenn that the article references?
Because they’re talking to a Catholic audience who has separated themselves from the Church. It’s a matter of context and audience (and Catholic writings have had this dynamic throughout the Church’s entire history)!
The ‘anyone’, here, refers to those whom the Church has the ability to apply an ecclesiastical penalty. In other words, “Catholics” (in this case, “Catholics who have started their own denomination”).
No – it still holds the position that leaving the Catholic Church is an act of schism. And, it continues to not impose penalties of canon law on non-members. No change there.
Yes, because back in the 16th century, we didn’t have a large body of non-Catholic Christians, and therefore, making such a definition wouldn’t have made sense. Are you arguing that the Church should have defined every possible contingency back in the 2nd century?
It really doesn’t. Does doctrine develop? Yes. Does that mean that it goes from ‘false’ to ‘true’? No.
Yes, I can see how doctrine can develop over time to address new contingencies. But the canons still appear to speak in a universal matter. Is there any direct statement by the Church that these canons address only schismatics? They in themselves speak only to particular beliefs which they deem to be in in error; they are not contextualized by schism. Also, when I read many of canons, they also appear to oppose strawmen. In other words, they are only partially correct in their analysis of the opposing position which they anathematize. Half right is still wrong. If the Catholic Church speaks only truth, then it would not be subject to error in its understanding of opposing beliefs, especially when it presumes to condemn them.
I just wanted to jump in and point out that I think there might be a bit of confusion here.
…Maybe this article on anathema will help explain, it goes into the history of anathema and what it really means then and today…
This is a bit confusing, could you maybe give an example?
This statement might be going a little too far. How could anyone fully understand someone else’s belief? Many denominations now a days have nothing in writing, which means they can change something anytime they wish. My first thought is… how could the Church correctly analyze the opposing position when many of the opposing positions are oppose each other?
Yes, very good–and helpful–article. I’ll bookmark this one in my browser. If this article is correct, then we might consider the anathemas more in regard to protecting those within the Church rather than condemning those outside.
I would think it would apply to Luther because he was a Catholic Monk. My thoughts on this would be the Anathema would be for the benefit of showing other Catholics that Luther is not teaching in line with the Church and not so much as to shove it at Luther. After all if Luther doesn’t regard the Catholic Church as his authority then why would he regard their anathematizing him as authoritative?
They lay down an ecclesiastical penalty. The Church only has jurisdiction over her subjects. While it applied to those who left the Church, it doesn’t apply to people who were never Catholics.
For example…?
No, you’re misconstruing what the Church claims with respect to “infallibility.” The Church doesn’t claim infallibility in other denominations’ doctrines, but only in her assertion of her own statements on faith and morals, and only when she’s explicitly attempting to make an assertion with that level of gravity. (For example, when Pope Francis says it’s immoral to use air conditioning the way we do, it’s not an infallible statement.)
Like you says here “would generally” but I’m sure we could agree that not ever Christian out their believes this, which was kind of where I was going with my question. How could the Church cover every single scenario when the scenarios appear to be endless?
Yes it is a mixed bag, depending on what you believe, but from the Catholic understanding (which is what these statements are based on) we don’t believe grace is one and done.
Yes we agree, but Catholics believe we can accept that gift and then later reject that gift, which would mean when we later reject grace, that grace is lost to us because of our rejection not because Christ rescinded it.
Believe it or not some do. There was a new thread on here yesterday linking a website that stated never sinning is the only sign of a true born again Christian.
I never really understood this statement. How could any of us claim someone was never truly justified? If persistence in sin is the evidence that a man was never justified there is no way we could ever know if we were justified until the judgement. How could any of us know that some drastic change in our life, 40 years from now, won’t lead us into a life of persistent sin?
The basic intent here is to defend Baptism. OSAS is in a certain sense based on the idea that baptism cannot be repeated. You will sometimes hear people around here say things like Once Catholic always Catholic. A proper way of saying it is that Baptism imparts a permanent character. There is a lot of baggage there, that I think is explained in the text accompanying the canons.
So does Trent consider excommunicated (anathemized) Catholics as “separated brethren”, or does Lumen Gentia, (today’s version) anywhere differentiate between x Catholics and separated brethren?
Understand. But i am beginning to see Glenn’s point, that then the CC’s excommunication may not be infallible. Not sure to say it is not a matter of faith and morals (basis for excommunication) is a bit squeamish on the point. Another words some people may have been excommunicated with faulty evidence so to speak. Like maybe i don’t quite believe as a Catholic should, but i don’t quite believe what CC declares to be fit for anathema either.
thank you.