J
jemfinch
Guest
You may already know this, but be careful to recognize that infallibility (i.e., in teaching on faith and morals) is not the same as impeccability (i.e., “can never make mistakes”).I don’t affirm it either though. I believe I brought that question up because someone implied that the Catholic Church cannot make mistakes, therefore it follows that they were doing God’s will.
Who are you to tell the Catholic Church what “logically follows” from its canons? Neither you nor I have the prerogative to do so; only the Catholic Church can do so.Yes it did. This is semantics. If a Catholic (who believes as a Protestant) is called anathema it logically follows that Protestants are anathema as well.
Apart from that, however, your premise is still faulty. Anathema was a canonical penalty, the strictest form of excommunication. Non-Catholics cannot be excommunicated from a Church to whom they do not belong; ergo, the anathema does not apply to non-Catholic Christians.
Secondly, since anathema is a punishment, it involves a matter not only of morality, but of culpability. It’s objectively morally wrong for you to teach falsehood, but you might be inculpable for that wrongdoing for any number of intervening factors. For this reason, it’s completely false for you to say that you’ve been anathemized by the Catholic Church.
Christ said to the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me.” But you’ve rejected the Apostles and their teachings, preserved by the Catholic Church (as well as, by and large, the other apostolic Churches). Submission to Christ doesn’t involve merely speaking the words; it means submitting yourself to the leaders put over you to keep watch over your soul.We are under the Church’s jurisdiction…just not the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope. We are under Christ.
Ah, then you are Catholic. Didn’t know thatAccording to Catholics I am Catholic. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant;
Anathema as a canonical penalty doesn’t exist anymore. Besides, as discussed above, your culpability is probably less than full, depending on the sort of catechesis you’ve received.therefore I am anathema.
It should. It’s very much the sort of thing I would expect from the pillar and foundation of the truth. Like the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife in 1 Corinthians, any penalty levied against you is to convince you to return to Christ and His Church.Doesn’t exactly encourage me to “return home” so to speak, ya know what I mean?
Of course it was a point. Whether you could say the same thing is irrelevant. I believe our separation (as far as maintaining doctrinal purity) is good.
Historically, the separation of Protestants from the Church has greatly harmed any semblance of doctrinal purity. Take a look at what the original reformers (radical or otherwise) believed, and compare that to the what the churches they’ve founded believe today. It’s not the same, and that’s because the formal principle of the reformation, Sola Scriptura, natural leads to doctrinal impurity, by removing the possibility of comparing interpretations of Scripture against the constant Tradition of the Church.
When [link=[URL]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Why_Be_Catholic.htm]75%[/URL] of Christians agree on 95% of theology[/link], (far more than 75% if we count all Christians throughout history) and the remaining 25% are hopelessly divided amongst themselves, you can be almost certain that the Truth isn’t in that 25%.The only thing left to decide is which side is right.
Jeremy