Anathema and the RCC

[steaver]

Does the Church condemn those who disagree with its teachings?

Ask any Catholic and he will say "of course not!".

The RCC has declared "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (session VI, can. 9).

Sounds like a condemnation correct? Not so fast, there is an explanation of course from the RCC.

"When the Catholic Church uses the term, such as at the Council of Trent and in its official documents, it is in the sense of excommunication or being cut off from the life-giving unity of the Church. If someone knowingly and publicly denies a defined (de fidei definita) doctrine of the Catholic Church, he can be formally declared to be excommunicated, meaning that he no longer enjoys unity with the Catholic Church."

You see? The RCC is not condemning anyone to hell, you just won't enjoy the unity with the Catholic Church. They go on to say...

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses"

That's all. The RCC just wants you to come to your senses, they are not condemning anyone to hell.

All sounds good right? Well, there is a bit more to it than that. The RCC does not stop short of condemnation for the unrepentant sinner opposing their declarations.

Here is the complete paragraph, I did tease with holding a little back...

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy."

There it is, as the RCC has said, "The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there),"

"An anathema or excommunication is designed to remind the sinner of his eventual fate if he doesn't repent. That's why the Church is always ready to absolve and receive back the repentant sinner. That's why those who willingly disobey the Church's teachings may be anathematized - so that they will recognize the grave danger of such a course and be willing to return to the fold."

Thus, if you are a Protestant, Baptist or any other Christian who says your are saved by your faith alone in Jesus Christ, according to the RCC, you are choosing to damn yourself to hell.

Resource: Does the Church condemn those who disagree with its teachings? | Catholic Answers

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Does the Church condemn those who disagree with its teachings?

Ask any Catholic and he will say "of course not!".

The RCC has declared "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (session VI, can. 9).

Sounds like a condemnation correct? Not so fast, there is an explanation of course from the RCC.

"When the Catholic Church uses the term, such as at the Council of Trent and in its official documents, it is in the sense of excommunication or being cut off from the life-giving unity of the Church. If someone knowingly and publicly denies a defined (de fidei definita) doctrine of the Catholic Church, he can be formally declared to be excommunicated, meaning that he no longer enjoys unity with the Catholic Church."

You see? The RCC is not condemning anyone to hell, you just won't enjoy the unity with the Catholic Church. They go on to say...

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses"

That's all. The RCC just wants you to come to your senses, they are not condemning anyone to hell.

All sounds good right? Well, there is a bit more to it than that. The RCC does not stop short of condemnation for the unrepentant sinner opposing their declarations.

Here is the complete paragraph, I did tease with holding a little back...

"This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy."

There it is, as the RCC has said, "The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there),"

"An anathema or excommunication is designed to remind the sinner of his eventual fate if he doesn't repent. That's why the Church is always ready to absolve and receive back the repentant sinner. That's why those who willingly disobey the Church's teachings may be anathematized - so that they will recognize the grave danger of such a course and be willing to return to the fold."

Thus, if you are a Protestant, Baptist or any other Christian who says your are saved by your faith alone in Jesus Christ, according to the RCC, you are choosing to damn yourself to hell.

Resource: Does the Church condemn those who disagree with its teachings? | Catholic Answers

I’m curious...have you ever been a Catholic? And do you have any relatives who are Catholic?

 

[Adonia]

Does St. Paul condemn those who disagree with his teachings? In Galatians 1:6-9 it says:

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel":

"Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ".

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed".

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed".

So, taking a cue from St. Paul, the Church with it's rightful authority has made a decision on what to do with those who pervert the gospel of Christ. The Church uses the word "anathema" and St. Paul uses the word "accursed" - same meaning, no?

Thus, if you are a Protestant, Baptist or any other Christian who says your are saved by your faith alone in Jesus Christ, according to the RCC, you are choosing to damn yourself to hell.

The problem with you is that for some reason you discount the fact that the Catholic Church also preaches that we are saved by faith, which is an integral part of the salvation narrative. Conversely, the Scriptures also say that faith is not the only thing that saves us, so why do you discount that reality as well?

 

[steaver]

I’m curious...have you ever been a Catholic? And do you have any relatives who are Catholic?

No. The only association I have with Catholics is on this BB. It is quite helpful to have them here for it helps us see the actual result of RCC teachings.

 

[steaver]

The problem with you is that for some reason you discount the fact that the Catholic Church also preaches that we are saved by faith, which is an integral part of the salvation narrative. Conversely, the Scriptures also say that faith is not the only thing that saves us, so why do you discount that reality as well?

The question is not why do I discount the false teaching of salvation by works? The question is why do I choose to go to hell for saying justification is by faith alone? Right? Don't you agree with the answer given in the Catholic website? There are plenty of Catholics on the BB reading these threads. Not one has stepped up and said the answer given on the Catholic website is false. According to the RCC's own declarations, and the explanations of a Catholic website, all who reject the RCC's teaching on faith alone are damned to hell.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No. The only association I have with Catholics is on this BB. It is quite helpful to have them here for it helps us see the actual result of RCC teachings.

I just don’t pay any attention to anything they do however I don’t persecute them either. Those who choose to stay in it are free to do so...at least in the USA which guarantees freedom of religion.

 

[HankD]

The Catholic Church is a master of doublespeak/doublethink.

What constitutes faith according to the Catholic Church?

Not only belief in the Bible but the pronouncements of the Magisterium and ex cathedra papal pronouncements.

Technically i have been excommunicated by the RCC because I do not accept their pronouncements.

Now this was abundantly clear to all of us who preceded Vatican II and of course i will (according to the RCC) be consigned to hell not only because I am of "the Separated Brethren" but a defector as well.

HankD

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Catholic Church is a master of doublespeak/doublethink.

What constitutes faith according to the Catholic Church?

Not only belief in the Bible but the pronouncements of the Magisterium and ex cathedra papal pronouncements.

Technically i have been excommunicated by the RCC because I do not accept their pronouncements.

Now this was abundantly clear to all of us who preceded Vatican II and of course i will (according to the RCC) be consigned to hell not only because I am of "the Separated Brethren" but a defector as well.

HankD

Join the crew

 

[Adonia]

The question is not why do I discount the false teaching of salvation by works? The question is why do I choose to go to hell for saying justification is by faith alone? Right? Don't you agree with the answer given in the Catholic website? There are plenty of Catholics on the BB reading these threads. Not one has stepped up and said the answer given on the Catholic website is false. According to the RCC's own declarations, and the explanations of a Catholic website, all who reject the RCC's teaching on faith alone are damned to hell.

God alone will decide all things at the proper time. His mercy knows no bounds, and like every other human here on planet earth - those Bishops of the Catholic Church, you and me, your Pastor, other religious leaders, we all will get judged for our actions in our lives. I'm leaving it all to Him - and that sounds like the best way to go to me.

 

[HankD]

Join the crew

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

HankD

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

HankD

And make sure you beat your chest as you go through that exercise!

The neighborhood has finally jettisoned there old gay RC pastor. In reality he has a Eastern European name that we distort to “Father Peculiar” that is quite appropriate for his personality .

Anyway I have toyed with the idea of going to the old parrish and telling them that I’m considering coming back to the fold and finding out what they would do... what penance I would have to go through.... I think that would be fun.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

God alone will decide all things at the proper time. His mercy knows no bounds, and like every other human here on planet earth - those Bishops of the Catholic Church, you and me, your Pastor, other religious leaders, we all will get judged for our actions in our lives. I'm leaving it all to Him - and that sounds like the best way to go to me.

Sounds like a plan! Tell me if you would, does this loyalty to the RCC have anything to do with family ties? Of course you don’t have to answer that if you don’t want to. I only ask because most of my family are Catholic and they look on in horror at my leaving...those are ties that sometimes bind.

 

[steaver]

I just don’t pay any attention to anything they do however I don’t persecute them either. Those who choose to stay in it are free to do so...at least in the USA which guarantees freedom of religion.

Persecute them? Neither do I. Nor JW's nor Mormons. However I do go after false teachings.

 

[steaver]

God alone will decide all things at the proper time. His mercy knows no bounds, and like every other human here on planet earth - those Bishops of the Catholic Church, you and me, your Pastor, other religious leaders, we all will get judged for our actions in our lives. I'm leaving it all to Him - and that sounds like the best way to go to me.

So you do not believe in the RCC's declarations? It's a crap shoot and we will just let God decide. Well that's fine, but then do not go about declaring the RCC is any final authority on Christian doctrines, for you do not really believe it then.

 

[rsr]

It is always amusing to see non-Catholics (and a lot of Catholics) try to explain Catholic dogma and canon law.

The beauty of the Latin Rite tradition is that dogma is whatever it says it is.

Eight hundred years ago, Boniface VIII could proclaims that "Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

Trent anathemized the Reformers (and sympathizers). But that's really a canon law distinction; it pronounced that people with specific incorrect doctrine (aka justification by faith alone) were to be worthy of anathema, but apparently the church apparatus seldom got around to making specific anathemas (a court decision) and finally got around to tossing the whole system in 1983. Of course, most of those might be found guilty of such heinous crimes didn't give a fig about it. Hard to think the Reformers were worried much about what the cardinals and bishops thought about them.

And then you get to Vatican II and its successors.

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church — for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church — whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church — do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means 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 Church. UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

"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. 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. 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. (My note: These as the Orthodox churches)

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, 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. 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. (My note: That would be we Baptists.) DOMINUS IESUS

Those are Vatican pronouncements. I often listen to David Anders (a converted Presbyterian) on EWTN radio (hey, it's the best thing on the radio at lunchtime) and even he grudgingly concedes that Protestants are not barred from heaven on the basis of their beliefs — but it may be more difficult for them because they do not have the full means of grace that the Catholic church possesses. (Anders, like converts of many kinds, is more Catholic than the pope on such things. And ETWN is very, very conservative, and I suspect that most of them would gladly revert to the Latin Mass if given the opportunity.)

So, to return to the OP, yes, many Catholics doubt that protestants can escape hell, but that is not the official teaching. (The twist, of course, is that Catholics believe that no man's fate is determined until the end and may have a chance to repent. Even at that, protestants can plead invincible ignorance in that they had no idea that had believed wrongly and thus may escape damnation.) And I've met many Baptists who think Catholics will split hell wide open when they die.[/quote]

 

[HankD]

It is always amusing to see non-Catholics (and a lot of Catholics) try to explain Catholic dogma.

Like I said - doubletalk/doublethink.

e.g.
1.) When the priest consecrates the communion bread and wine it turns into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

2.) The mass is called "the bloodless sacrifice of the mass".

They cannot both be true.

CHAPTER IX

I. The sacrifice of the mass

What the mass really is

It is the bloodless sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

It is a true sacrifice, for Christ is really present under the appearances of bread and wine, and is offered to God for our sins; and a bloodless sacrifice for He cannot die or suffer anymore and is not really, but mystically slain;

The True Church of the Bible

What in the world does “mystically slain” mean?
And if He is mystically slain is it therefore the real blood of Christ or the mystical blood of Christ which is shed?

A true verbal tap-dance of doublethink.

HankD

 

[HankD]

And make sure you beat your chest as you go through that exercise!

Thump, Thump, Thump.

HankD

 

[rsr]

Well, I was listening to David Anders on the topic today and was thinking the same thing. He wandered through a variety of texts to justify the Mass as a sacrifice (being completely out of context and missing the texts that might have supported him.) Too much Aristotelian philosophy trying to overlay a very simple command: Do this in remembrance of me.

I think it is true that Baptists downplay the importance of the Lord's Supper, partially in a reaction against the excesses of the Latin Rite folks. Paul was clear that it is a solemn exercise, not just a stroll down memory lane. I believe that Christ is present in an extraordinary way during the Supper, else he (as Paul attested) would not have required it be continued. If we do not consume him (bring him into our very flesh and blood and spirit) we are not one with him.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, I was listening to David Anders on the topic today and was thinking the same thing. He wandered through a variety of texts to justify the Mass as a sacrifice (being completely out of context and missing the texts that might have supported him.) Too much Aristotelian philosophy trying to overlay a very simple command: Do this in remembrance of me.

I think it is true that Baptists downplay the importance of the Lord's Supper, partially in a reaction against the excesses of the Latin Rite folks. Paul was clear that it is a solemn exercise, not just a stroll down memory lane. I believe that Christ is present in an extraordinary way during the Supper, else he (as Paul attested) would not have required it be continued. If we do not consume him (bring him into our very flesh and blood and spirit) we are not one with him.

Really, have we ever been one with Him? Can we be... it requires a purity way beyond human capability

 

[steaver]

So, to return to the OP, yes, many Catholics doubt that protestants can escape hell, but that is not the official teaching.

Who gets to be the "official"?