Salvation - Contradictory Councils?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnrogers85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnrogers85

Guest
Hi all-

I noticed that the Council of Trent declares Protestants to be “anathema” in regard to “faith alone” salvation, among other issues. Pope Zachary’s excommunication formula also seems particularly harsh regarding those having been excommunicated:

“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.”

With that, when one looks at the ecumenism passages within Vatican II, the councils are seemingly contradictory? Is there a clear argument that reconciles the seemingly harsh posture toward Protestants in Trent, and the seemingly much more conciliar tone in Vatican II?
 
Paragraph 17 of Dominus Iesus might be a place to start looking:

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67
 
Last edited:
Thanks Bartholomew. What stands out to me is “…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.”

For someone that fundamentally disagrees with the Church on doctrinal issues, they’re unlikely to “turn and repent” to agree with the Church, so it seems like given Trent’s and Pope Zachary’s language, they would still stand “condemned to eternal fire”?
 
If Dominus Iesus doesn’t help you find the answer to your question, you might try this. It’s Pope Francis’ address to a meeting of the Lutheran churches in Lund, Sweden, four years ago.
 
One major difference is that during the Council of Trent, the Protestants were within the Church and subject to her jurisdiction. Naturally the Church wished them to recant their formal heresies and return to communion.

For the Second Vatican Council, the Protestants are most decidedly outside of the Church and not under her jurisdiction at all. The Catholic Church has much less power over Protestants in modern times. They have their own ecclesial structures in place. We can, at this point, hope for dialogue and mutual understanding, but it would be farfetched to think that they will en masse recant (material) heresies and rejoin the Church, although Anglicanorum coetibus proves that it is, sometimes, not so far-fetched at all.
 
What do you think is implied by the statement “…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”?

My understanding is that no Catholic can truly judge another’s eternal destiny, as that’s God’s purview alone?
 
The power to bind and loose, as mentioned in the original quote, yaknow?
 
The power to condemn a soul to Hell? Would a hypothetical Protestant fall under that pronouncement as well, if they believed non-Catholic doctrine and wouldn’t recant?
 
That depends, is the hypothetical Protestant a baptized Catholic?
 
40.png
Salvation - Contradictory Councils? Liturgy and Sacraments
One major difference is that during the Council of Trent, the Protestants were within the Church and subject to her jurisdiction. Naturally the Church wished them to recant their formal heresies and return to communion. For the Second Vatican Council, the Protestants are most decidedly outside of the Church and not under her jurisdiction at all. The Catholic Church has much less power over Protestants in modern times. They have their own ecclesial structures in place. We can, at this point, hop…
Click to expand...
 
So I guess the thought would be, through baptism in the Catholic Church, the individual is acknowledging they believe it is the true Church, and would thus be surrendering an “invincible ignorance”-based argument?
 
Heresy is defined as the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth of the Catholic faith. Therefore, to be guilty of heresy, you must be baptized Catholic, you must be informed of the truths of faith, and you must resist assenting to them after being informed. Heresy is grave matter, so given that definition, all criteria for mortal sin are met.

Someone outside the Church is not held responsible as a heretic for beliefs they have been taught, and which, in good faith, they have believed. A non-Catholic is not subject to Canon Law, nor the precepts of the Church, nor can they receive the sacraments, such as Penance. They are outside her jurisdiction.
 
I’m just thinking of the case where someone was baptized Catholic as an infant, they didn’t really “choose” the faith in the first place - would the above still apply?

Not trying to nitpick the doctrine, just seeking to address the tension.
 
Yes, it applies. A baptized Catholic is within the jurisdiction of the Church, no matter what happens afterwards.

Parents, when they baptize their children, take on a sacred duty to educate them in the faith. This is a primary responsibility that cannot be substituted or avoided. What is the culpability of a baptized but uncatechized Catholic? I’ve given you the definition of heresy, what do you think?
 
I would imagine only God truly knows do what degree the individual was catechized and truly knew the Church?

My main confusion was that in the passage I originally posted, the Pope can seemingly bind and individual to Hell, and yet I see elsewhere that this power is denied to the Pope?

Appreciate your feedback!
 
The condemnation lasts only as long as the heretic refuses to repent. As long as he lives, he can repent and be restored to the Church and God’s Grace. If he is danger of death, any priest can absolve him if he repents. Formal excommunication only occurs as the result of a canonical trial, and as such, the fact of the heretic’s willful rejection of sound doctrine is manifest.
 
johnrogers85 said:
I noticed that the Council of Trent declares Protestants to be “anathema” in regard to “faith alone” salvation, among other issues.
Click to expand...
The formula “If anyone says [insert proposition], let him be an anathema” is taken from St. Paul in Galatians “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” In other words, the formula implies the inserted proposition is a different Gospel.

In this context, for someone to be anathema is to treat them as not a member of the Church. In another context, “anathema” is a canonical penalty, essentially a ceremonial excommunication (that’s different–that is what the rite you quoted is from, and mirrors St. Paul’s language excommunicating the incestuous man in Corinth).

That being said, a bond is created through baptism that can never be broken, even by heresy or apostasy. That’s why we don’t re-baptize Protestants when they convert. Furthermore, while heresy does separate from the Church, just being wrong does not make one guilty of heresy. As St. Augustine explained:
But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm

Someone born into a Protestant community nowadays is less likely to be guilty of the sin of heresy than someone at the time of Trent who made the active decision to defect from the faith.
 
Last edited:
NO there is no contradiction.
The first is addressing Catholics who ARE schisming (Is there such a word?) from the Catholic Church. So the language is harsh because it wants for these people to reconsider their position.

In the second example the people the Council is considering are NO longer Catholics, yes Christians but who lack many of the graces afforded by Jesus through His Church.
Peace!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top