Magisterium Condemning Straw Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CampionTheChampion

Guest
As one suffering from “convert-itis”, I’ve been nonstop discussion Catholic theology with my Protestant friends. I’ve noticed a common pattern.

Friend: “The Catholic Church teaches X.”
Me: “Actually, the Catholic Church teaches Y, not X.”
Friend: “No, they really teach X, but their apologists like to make it sound nicer by saying Y.”

Nearly every Protestant-Catholic discussion can that fit this pattern. Papal infallibility must be distinguished from impeccability, confession reconciles you when the priest says the words of absolution rather than when you complete your penance, infused righteousness must be shown to not preclude imputed righteousness, etc.

Discussions quickly become an argument about what the Catholic Church really teaches–essentially, you feel the need to constantly to cite the Catechism for proof of their actual beliefs. Even then, I’ve actually had one Protestant say that the Catechism wasn’t being honest about the true Catholic teaching. You might laugh hearing that, but that’s the way many Protestant think. They are deeply suspicious of Catholics.

So here is my idea. What if the Pope declared ex-cathedra or the Mageristirum at an ecumenical council that these straw man versions of Catholic doctrines were false. For example:

“If anyone says, that the Roman Pontiff is impeccable…; let him be anathema.”

Such a definition would surely be heard around the world and shock Protestants (maybe Orthodox). It would leave their common slanderous tactic void. There are many variations of such anathema’s which would be useful.

“If anyone says, that a man, by his own merit, can achieve justification after inheriting original sin…; let him be anathema.”
“If anyone says, that worship is to be offered to …; let him be anathema.”

You get the idea. Obviously, I’m no Catholic theologian and I’m such such anathemas would be worded much better.
 
The Pope does not make Ex-Cathedra statements that often… there have been maybe 3 in the last 400 years…
 
Hello.

God is the only one who can convert a person. Often arguments just drive people away. I know. I’ve tried with some fallen away family members and did and said the wrong thing.

I think if the Pope started handing down excommunications and things all over the place that would drive people away even more.

It might be better to love others and to really know your faith, so you’ll be ready to discuss with them when they ask questions about the faith and be ready to love them when they stop listening because they aren’t ready.

Anyway, we all have the free will and that must be honored.
 
I like the idea but not probable. On the other hand, we could start a “…let him be anathema” thread here on CAF where only Catholics could voice all the would-be anathemas they have been wrongly accused of. 😀

Peace!!!
 
CampionTheChampion said:
“If anyone says, that the Roman Pontiff is impeccable…; let him be anathema.”
Click to expand...
I got a chuckle out of that one.

What I like to do is to ask those who say that the Catholic Church teaches X is to ask them what Catholic document they got that from. Make them defend their statement. Make them do the work.

All I try to do is give them the information and then pray for them. It’s God’s job to change hearts. I’m just one link in the chain for their conversion, if they convert.

Blessings
 
Many Protestants are Protestant because they really don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches.
 
CampionTheChampion said:
So here is my idea. What if the Pope declared ex-cathedra or the Mageristirum at an ecumenical council that these straw man versions of Catholic doctrines were false. For example:

“If anyone says, that the Roman Pontiff is impeccable…; let him be anathema.”

Such a definition would surely be heard around the world and shock Protestants (maybe Orthodox). It would leave their common slanderous tactic void. There are many variations of such anathema’s which would be useful.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t work. The ones who say “No, they really teach X” would just say “No, the Pope is just trying to hide the truth.”
 
Last edited:
Just so we are clear, this is not my statement but it’s @CampionTheChampion 's statement. (Although I still think it’s humorous.)
 
guanophore said:
I love it!
Click to expand...
The title “pontiff” (as also the term “pontificate” meaning to speak in a pompous manner, which literally means “bridge builder” (pons, bridge, and facio, make) comes not from the bible but from pagan Rome, where the emperor, as the high priest of the heathen religion and in that sense professing to be the bridge or connecting link between this life and the next, was called “Pontifex Maximus” The title was therefore lifted from paganism and applied to the head of the RCC. (Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner p. 125)
 
tgGodsway said:
The title was therefore lifted from paganism and applied to the head of the RCC.
Click to expand...
While anything coming from Loraine Boettner as a source on Catholicism is suspect, there is no doubt that this title was given to the Bishop of Rome by the Roman Emperor. When Rome fell, and what was left of the government escaped to the East, there was no one left in the city to manage secular affairs. The bishop of Rome was committed to remain in the occupied city to care for the flock. The Emperor conferred upon him this title, and left him in charge of secular rule of the city. This was the beginning of the Papal States, and the conflation of Church government with secular affairs.

Although the title has remained, the Church now forbids priests to occupy any secular/political office, so that the abuses of the medieval times can be prevented.
 
Last edited:
Anathema is misunderstood by anti Catholics for example the book written by Mike P. Gendon states that many Christians are unaware that the Catholic councils of Trent and Vatican 2 issued over 100 anathema ( condemnation) on anyone who believes in salvation by grace alone are by faith alone , in Christ alone. All these condemnations are still in affect today.

Gendon has obviously never read Trent or Vatican 2. Vatican 2 never used the word anathema in there documents and while Trent canon does use the term there is nowhere near 100 canons devoted to the subject of salvation nor any canons that Properly understood Condemn the three points of soteriology Gengon names.

We find similar confusion about the term among those presenting themselves as intellectuals. In his book the Roman catholic controversy, James R. White, in summarizing Trent’s canon on the Eucharist, states that, according to the council, anyone who denies the truthfulness of any of these proclamations is under the anathema of God (164).

It reflects a concept that is found in the Old Testament. The Hebrew equivalent of anathema is ( kherem), which refers to eat thing devoted to the Lord a thing solemnly offered to God in a manner frequently involving it’s complete destruction. Kherem Is often rendered in English by the term “devoted thing” “dedicated thing” or things placed under ban. The old testament applies kherem to physical objects (Deut.7:26,13:17, livestock ( 1 Sam.15:21), individual people (1Kgs.20:42), groups of people (Is 34:5,43:28), entire towns(Josh 6:17), And lands or pieces of land (Lev27:21,Zec14:11,Mal 4:6). Things to be placed under the ban by men were either destroyed (Lev27:28) or given to a priest (Num 18:14, Ezekiel 44:29). He land under the ban was a land that had been cursed Zec 14:11,Mal 4:6). Paradoxically, something could be kherem either because it was holy or because it was on unholy.

Of special interest are Paul’s ecclesiastical uses of anathema…Gal 1:8-9 and 1 Cor 16:22…in which Paul says that if a person is guilty of certain faults then “ let him be anathema .”

Among ecumenical council, this usage began with the first…1 Nicea (AD 325)… which apply the formula to those denying the divinity of Christ. Since then the formula has been used by all ecumenical council‘s that have issued dogmatic canons. Since Vatican II did not issue any dogmatic cannons, it never use the term anathema.

Hope this helps the Confusion God bless
 
CampionTheChampion said:
As one suffering from “convert-itis”, I’ve been nonstop discussion Catholic theology with my Protestant friends. I’ve noticed a common pattern.

Friend: “The Catholic Church teaches X.”

Me: “Actually, the Catholic Church teaches Y, not X.”

Friend: “No, they really teach X, but their apologists like to make it sound nicer by saying Y.”

Nearly every Protestant-Catholic discussion can that fit this pattern. Papal infallibility must be distinguished from impeccability, confession reconciles you when the priest says the words of absolution rather than when you complete your penance, infused righteousness must be shown to not preclude imputed righteousness, etc.

Discussions quickly become an argument about what the Catholic Church really teaches–essentially, you feel the need to constantly to cite the Catechism for proof of their actual beliefs. Even then, I’ve actually had one Protestant say that the Catechism wasn’t being honest about the true Catholic teaching. You might laugh hearing that, but that’s the way many Protestant think. They are deeply suspicious of Catholics.
Click to expand...
No sympathy from me. In the couple of weeks I’ve been here, I’ve had Catholic after Catholic insist that we Christians believe things that would get one laughed out of a Christian Church, if not excommunicated.

So if I don’t seem particularly concerned that somebody misrepresents your beliefs, blame those Catholics here who have repeatedly lied about what we believe.
 
FloridaAngler said:
No sympathy from me. In the couple of weeks I’ve been here, I’ve had Catholic after Catholic insist that we Christians believe things that would get one laughed out of a Christian Church, if not excommunicated.

So if I don’t seem particularly concerned that somebody misrepresents your beliefs, blame those Catholics here who have repeatedly lied about what we believe.
Click to expand...
Could you be a little more clear? Which “we” are you speaking of? I ask this because there are many non-Catholics here agree that there are many diffing beiefs among non-Catholics with no precise term that identifies.

Peace!!!
 
Maybe the Magisterium doesn’t spend time arguing these matters is because it would rather focus on moving forward, leading by example, and doing the work of the Lord. There will always be critics, and actions speak louder than words. For example, I need to take action and get some work done rather than look at the Interwebz. 😎
 
FloridaAngler said:
I said “we Christians”. I would think that would be pretty obvious that I was speaking of Christians.
Click to expand...
But there are thousands of Christian denominations in America alone. Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, believe some things in common but also disagree on many things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top