Anathema to me?

[*Paul*]

I have just read through the Council of Trents declarations on Justification and counted that I have some 15 - 20 anathemas against my beliefs in that one declaration, i'd like to know:

1) What exactly does "let him be anathema" mean in the Cathoilc Church?

2) Does it apply to non Cathoilcs?

3) What are the consequences of these anthemas?

5) Are they still in effect? Doesn't Vatican II say that it reproposes the teachings laid down in Trent?

 

[Runlikethewind]

Hello Paul, I don’t always check the Roman Catholic dir but I read your response in the Catholic Protestant Gospel debate and found my way over here.

1) What exactly does "let him be anathema" mean in the Cathoilc Church?

The Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. The phrasing that is often used, which you probably saw, is "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". So to translate it might read "If any one says . . . let him be cut off (from the Church)". It is related to excommunication, the distinction being that excommunication is done by the Church saying to someone that they are cut off, while anathema is done by the person to themselves (they basically excommunicate themselves). By believing what the Church has proclaimed as wrong one cuts themselves off from the Church instead of the Church cutting them off. It is easier to be reconciled with the Church from being anathema then being excommunicated. All one has to do is reject their false beliefs (as defined by the Church) and they are back in. To reconcile from an official excommunication takes a Papal declaration if I am not mistaken.

2) Does it apply to non Cathoilcs?

It applies to everyone. Whoever does not believe what the Church teaches as binding they cut themselves off from the Church they are not Catholic, and may never have been.

3) What are the consequences of these anthemas?

If one is cut off from the Church then they should not receive the sacraments and if they do, they may not receive the graces therein and may even bring greater sin upon themselves for knowingly doing so.

5) Are they still in effect? Doesn't Vatican II say that it reproposes the teachings laid down in Trent?

All the anathemas of all the councils are still effective to my knowledge. I can see no reason why they would not be. I am not sure what the second Vatican council says about Trent but if it is reproposing them then it may just be that they are clarifying them for modern understanding and not negating them.

So if there are is even one thing in the council documents that you believe that results in you being anathema, then you are not a Catholic, you have cut yourself off from the Church. But that is probably no surprise to you since you where not a Catholic to begin with (right?).

Hope that helps!

God Bless

 

[*Paul*]

Hello Paul, I don’t always check the Roman Catholic dir but I read your response in the Catholic Protestant Gospel debate and found my way over here.

Thanks very much RLTW. IF I can reciprocate in any way I often post in the baptist DIR which is under the protestantism part.

The Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. The phrasing that is often used, which you probably saw, is "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". So to translate it might read "If any one says . . . let him be cut off (from the Church)". It is related to excommunication, the distinction being that excommunication is done by the Church saying to someone that they are cut off, while anathema is done by the person to themselves (they basically excommunicate themselves). By believing what the Church has proclaimed as wrong one cuts themselves off from the Church instead of the Church cutting them off. It is easier to be reconciled with the Church from being anathema then being excommunicated. All one has to do is reject their false beliefs (as defined by the Church) and they are back in. To reconcile from an official excommunication takes a Papal declaration if I am not mistaken.

Thanks that does clarify this for me, I didn't know it was reconcilable, let him be anathema has a final sound to it.

If one is cut off from the Church then they should not receive the sacraments and if they do, they may not receive the graces therein and may even bring greater sin upon themselves for knowingly doing so.

As per corinthians? Taking the communion unworthily?

All the anathemas of all the councils are still effective to my knowledge. I can see no reason why they would not be. I am not sure what the second Vatican council says about Trent but if it is reproposing them then it may just be that they are clarifying them for modern understanding and not negating them.

Yes vatican II does say this,I have read that statement for myself, it doesn't seem to make distinctions about what parts of trent so I take it to mean all of it.

So if there are is even one thing in the council documents that you believe that results in you being anathema, then you are not a Catholic, you have cut yourself off from the Church. But that is probably no surprise to you since you where not a Catholic to begin with (right?).

It was no suprise but at the same time reading it made me feel sad. There is no safety net for me that is for sure, the stakes are high, if I am mistaken about my faith I am going to hell for sure, I have opposed catholic doctrine and discussed things with other cathoilcs trying to point them to what I believe to be biblical truth, I have taught other Christians things from the bible and contrasted them with Cathoilc doctrine. So if the Roman Catholic church is the one true church then I have been fighting against God all this time.

This is why it is so important, our souls are at stake. One of us is very wrong RLTW and have only misery to look forward to.

I don't mean to be miserable or doom and gloom but I think sometimes debates and discussions just become word play and we loose focus of what matters and the reason why we try to teach others.

Thanks very much for your responses. They were very helpful.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why is this in the Eastern forum ?
set by an evangelical protestant and answered by a Roman Catholic

 

[Quiddity]

Why is this in the Eastern forum ?
set by an evangelical protestant and answered by a Roman Catholic

It is the Catholic Church forum (both eastern and western) of those rites that are in union with the Vatican. We are in the process of finding a more suitable name.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Thanks very much RLTW. IF I can reciprocate in any way I often post in the baptist DIR which is under the protestantism part.

I might take you up on that, especially considering the discussion we are having in the other thread, questions are bound to come up.

As per corinthians? Taking the communion unworthily?

That is the very one I had in mind

Yes vatican II does say this,I have read that statement for myself, it doesn't seem to make distinctions about what parts of trent so I take it to mean all of it.

I'll have to look into this.....

It was no suprise but at the same time reading it made me feel sad. There is no safety net for me that is for sure, the stakes are high, if I am mistaken about my faith I am going to hell for sure, I have opposed catholic doctrine and discussed things with other cathoilcs trying to point them to what I believe to be biblical truth, I have taught other Christians things from the bible and contrasted them with Cathoilc doctrine. So if the Roman Catholic church is the one true church then I have been fighting against God all this time.

This is why it is so important, our souls are at stake. One of us is very wrong RLTW and have only misery to look forward to.

Do you think that God would really punish us for a mistake? I mean I too question at times whether the Catholic Church is the true Church. I am glad that I have a strong faith in it but if I am wrong then I have wasted my whole life. I just can't think that God would damn anyone who truly searches and truly seeks to find Him. If the Catholic Church is the true Church then perhaps you have been fighting against God this whole time but did you do it intentionally? Jesus said whoever is not against us is for us, or something to that effect. You are very right in the importance of the matter, but you recognize the importance of it, you truly are seeking God, and you recognize Jesus as your savior. If God would send you to hell because you make an honest mistake, well then maybe I'll ask him to send me there with you too. I mean I just don't think God is that legalistic, I think he is a fair judge and he will judge us according to our hearts. I can tell you love God and you love Jesus, God won't reject anyone who loves him, at least I hope.

I don't mean to be miserable or doom and gloom but I think sometimes debates and discussions just become word play and we loose focus of what matters and the reason why we try to teach others.

I agree, it is good to be reminded of the importance of what it is we are discussing. Thank you for helping me to better understand your position, and for also forcing me to better understand my own because of your very good questions.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes vatican II does say this,I have read that statement for myself, it doesn't seem to make distinctions about what parts of trent so I take it to mean all of it.

Paul, I'd like to help. Could you be so kind as to give me a link or reference as to where you got this from? We catholics have libraries of documents and it can be time consuming if we don't have any reference.

 

[bible truth]

Dear Roman Catholic friends who are familiar with Trent,

Who would accumulate more anathemas from Trent?

1. A Christian with a Reformed (staunch Calvinist) theology

Or

2. A Christian with a semi-Pelagius theology?

This is not a trick question but an insider's debate between two dear protestant brothers, united as one in Christ. Please help us out here. - BT

 

[Quiddity]

Dear Roman Catholic friends who are familiar with Trent,

Who would accumulate more anathemas from Trent?

1. A Christian with a Reformed (staunch Calvinist) theology

Or

2. A Christian with a semi-Pelagius theology?

This is not a trip question but an insider's debate between two dear protestant brothers, united as one in Christ. Please help us out here. - BT

Neither……as anathemas is for those within the confines of the Catholic Church. If you aren’t Catholic, you can’t be anathematized. Keep in mind that anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "ex-communion-icated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.

Since I assume, rightly so, (based on other posts of yours on the forum) that you are a Sola Scripturist (Bible Alone) I know a scripture is crucial. This is where we get it from:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed {anathema}. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed {anathema}. (Gal 1:8-9)

By the way, the statements made in Trent are PG13 compared to what Luther had to say about the Pope, Bishops, and Catholic Church. They make Trent look like Christmas cards compared to what he said:

"The Pope and the Cardinals . . . since they are blasphemers, their tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks, and nailed to the gallows!" (92:94/35)

"It were better that every bishop were murdered . . . than that one soul should be destroyed . . . what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed ...." (122:377/36)

"If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition . . . The word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal . . ." (109:41/37)

Truth be told, there was plenty of emotions and statements made that could have been dealt with much better on both sides. That doesn’t void out the fact that there is some real disagreements and some truths spoken on both sides.

 

[bible truth]

Dear Roman Catholic friends who are familiar with Trent,

Who would accumulate more anathemas from Trent?

1. A Christian with a Reformed (staunch Calvinist) theology

Or

2. A Christian with a semi-Pelagius theology?

This is not a trick question but an insider's debate between two dear protestant brothers, united as one in Christ. Please help us out here. - BT

Okay,

Assuming that both Protestants were baptized Roman Catholic and fulfilled all of the other requirements for Trent to apply, which Protestant would have more anathemas? This has nothing to do with a protestant and Roman Catholic debate. I'm just debating Calvinism within the protestant circles. I know the answer, because Trent was a response to the "Protestant Reformation". Actually, Martin Luther taught predestination with greater force than John Calvin. It is very interesting that Saint Augustine, the Roman Catholic Monk, taught the same things as Calvin and Luther regarding predestination, man's inability, original sin, lack of free will, etc that can be summarized in the 5 points of Calvinism. For more insight, John Calvin never officially formulated the 5 points of Calvinism. - BT

 

[bible truth]

Neither……as anathemas is for those within the confines of the Catholic Church. If you aren’t Catholic, you can’t be anathematized. Keep in mind that anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "ex-communion-icated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.

Since I assume, rightly so, (based on other posts of yours on the forum) that you are a Sola Scripturist (Bible Alone) I know a scripture is crucial. This is where we get it from:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed {anathema}. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed {anathema}. (Gal 1:8-9)

By the way, the statements made in Trent are PG13 compared to what Luther had to say about the Pope, Bishops, and Catholic Church. They make Trent look like Christmas cards compared to what he said:

"The Pope and the Cardinals . . . since they are blasphemers, their tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks, and nailed to the gallows!" (92:94/35)

"It were better that every bishop were murdered . . . than that one soul should be destroyed . . . what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed ...." (122:377/36)

"If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition . . . The word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal . . ." (109:41/37)

Truth be told, there was plenty of emotions and statements made that could have been dealt with much better on both sides. That doesn’t void out the fact that there is some real disagreements and some truths spoken on both sides.

My hardcopy book of the 'Westminster Confession of Faith' declares that the pope is the Anti-Christ. I bet the version found on-line will still have this same declaration. I believe the London Baptist Confession has a simlar statement regarding the Papacy. Historically, Protestants and Roman Catholics were able to discern the line in the sand. Personally, I have no problem with the statements made by the Reformers about Rome. I believe the framers of Trent wrote with greater force than it is presented today by 20th century Rome and yourself. Since Trent is dogma and we live in an age of ecumenicalism, 20th century Rome had to temper the original emphasis and intent of Trent.

We live in a strange time in redemptive history consisting of pluralism, ecumenicalism, and relativism. I even see a blending of Orthodox Christianity with Islam. I have noticed that Rome has taken this same position of ecumenicalism. I think calling me a seperated brothern clouds the essential issues that Protestants died for almost 500 years ago. The Foxes Book of Marytrs (about Protestant marytred in the hands of Rome) used to be a mandatory book for Protestant Christian households. Your typical evangelical protestant Christan has no idea what we are talking about. - BT

 

[Quiddity]

My hardcopy book of the 'Westminster Confession of Faith' declares that the pope is the Anti-Christ. I bet the version found on-line will still have this same declaration. I believe the London Baptist Confession has a simlar statement regarding the Papacy. Historically, Protestants and Roman Catholics were able to discern the line in the sand. Personally, I have no problem with the statements made by the Reformers about Rome.

I find that very disturbing and sad. Did you actually read what Luther said? Here let me post a section of it again:
....their tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks...
Lovely words aren't they?

I believe the framers of Trent wrote with greater force than it is presented today by 20th century Rome and yourself.

Really? What have I said to minimize it?

Since Trent is dogma and we live in an age of ecumenicalism, 20th century Rome had to temper the original emphasis and intent of Trent.

It's history not owned by Rome. Every person can see the rated "R" version with a simple visit to the library.

We live in a strange time in redemptive history consisting of pluralism, ecumenicalism, and relativism. I even see a blending of Orthodox Christianity with Islam. I have noticed that Rome has taken this same position of ecumenicalism.

This I agree with. The Church in the west has down several changes to make it more "Protestant friendly".

I think calling me a seperated brothern clouds the essential issues that Protestants died for almost 500 years ago. The Foxes Book of Marytrs (about Protestant marytred in the hands of Rome) used to be a mandatory book for Protestant Christian households. Your typical evangelical protestant Christan has no idea what we are talking about. - BT

You think Protestants are the only ones that has marytrs?
You think Protestants didn't persecute Catholics?
Please don't tell me so...:cover:

One would think that we can get passed such things and change the tone of dialogue. You guys screwed up and so did we. Let's move on....

 

[bible truth]

I find that very disturbing and sad. Did you actually read what Luther said? Here let me post a section of it again:
....their tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks...
Lovely words aren't they?

Really? What have I said to minimize it?

It's history not owned by Rome. Every person can see the rated "R" version with a simple visit to the library.

This I agree with. The Church in the west has down several changes to make it more "Protestant friendly".

You think Protestants are the only ones that has marytrs?
You think Protestants didn't persecute Catholics?
Please don't tell me so...:cover:

One would think that we can get passed such things and change the tone of dialogue. You guys screwed up and so did we. Let's move on....

Are you familar with ECT 1 and ECT 2? Should Roman Catholics and Protestants unite and fellowship with each other? Or, are we the mission field to each other. That's the bottom line. - BT

The doctrine of justification by faith alone remains the article which the church stands or falls. If you reject the doctrine of justification by faith alone, biblical Christians consider you the mission field. Sorry, God commands us to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4).

BTW - Us and them is defined by God in this way: united to the first Adam, or united to the 2nd Adam. There is no other place to be in.

 

[Quiddity]

Are you familar with ECT 1 and ECT 2? Should Roman Catholics and Protestants unite and fellowship with each other? Or, are we the mission field to each other. That's the bottom line. - BT

Not familiar with it. So I have no idea what you speak of.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone remains the article which the church stands or falls. If you reject the doctrine of justification by faith alone, biblical Christians consider you the mission field. Sorry, God commands us to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4).

It goes deeper then that but.........topic for another day.

BT, be very careful with your choice of words in this area of the forum. There is no debating in here. This section is for Discussion of Individual Religions and intended for you to understand us, not the other way around.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Neither……as anathemas is for those within the confines of the Catholic Church. If you aren’t Catholic, you can’t be anathematized. Keep in mind that anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "ex-communion-icated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.

It appears that Victor and I have a different understanding of what anathema means. I will admit that I am not well versed on the subject and so I am not sure which of us is right. I will look into it more if I can to gain a better understanding of the whole thing.

The Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. The phrasing that is often used, which you probably saw, is "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". So to translate it might read "If any one says . . . let him be cut off (from the Church)". It is related to excommunication, the distinction being that excommunication is done by the Church saying to someone that they are cut off, while anathema is done by the person to themselves (they basically excommunicate themselves). By believing what the Church has proclaimed as wrong one cuts themselves off from the Church instead of the Church cutting them off. It is easier to be reconciled with the Church from being anathema then being excommunicated. All one has to do is reject their false beliefs (as defined by the Church) and they are back in. To reconcile from an official excommunication takes a Papal declaration if I am not mistaken.

It (anathemas) applies to everyone. Whoever does not believe what the Church teaches as binding they cut themselves off from the Church they are not Catholic, and may never have been.

 

[bible truth]

Not familiar with it. So I have no idea what you speak of.

It goes deeper then that but.........topic for another day.

BT, be very careful with your choice of words in this area of the forum. There is no debating in here. This section is for Discussion of Individual Religions and intended for you to understand us, not the other way around.

Please study the ECT link posted on the Roman Catholic Gospel and the Protestant Gospel. - BT

 

[Quiddity]

It appears that Victor and I have a different understanding of what anathema means. I will admit that I am not well versed on the subject and so I am not sure which of us is right. I will look into it more if I can to gain a better understanding of the whole thing.

No problemo.....you know I'm always up for being corrected. You and I share a passion for truth even if it means we are the ones that are wrong. So I don't anticipate us starting a debate about it. Lord knows, I've been wrong more then once.

 

[Quiddity]

Please study the ECT link posted on the Roman Catholic Gospel and the Protestant Gospel. - BT

Yes sir! I'll get right on it....
Figured you could give me the short version...I guess not.

 

[bible truth]

Yes sir! I'll get right on it....
Figured you could give me the short version...I guess not.

The first link does not give you the actual ECT 1 document. Please go to the second link on the next post on the same Thread. Confused yet? ECT1 and ECT2 are famous documents in our generation.

 

[*Paul*]

I might take you up on that, especially considering the discussion we are having in the other thread, questions are bound to come up.

That would be cool, just give me a heads up so I don’t miss it and you think I am ignoring you.

That is the very one I had in mind

I bet our understanding of that is different as our views on the communion are radically different. Perhaps we should do a series of Protestant – Catholic debates. I bet my good friend bible truth would be interested too. I’m sure we can keep it friendly though we are strongly opposed. Such things as Peter the rock?, the role of blessed Mary, the papacy, justification, the one true church etc. I such a concept appeals let me or bible truth know (I hope I’m not being presumptuous speaking for him). Feeling do run high (at least for me) on this topic but I will make every endeavour to be fair.

Do you think that God would really punish us for a mistake?

I believe we are punished for sin, if I am outside of the one true church then I have missed my provision for receiving the atonement. My act of fighting against His church would be just one more of a myriad of sins.

I mean I too question at times whether the Catholic Church is the true Church. I am glad that I have a strong faith in it but if I am wrong then I have wasted my whole life. I just can't think that God would damn anyone who truly searches and truly seeks to find Him. If the Catholic Church is the true Church then perhaps you have been fighting against God this whole time but did you do it intentionally?

But no one really fights God intentionally, even when they think they are they are only fighting against a misconceived notion of Him, for to know Him is to love Him and is life eternal. Yet there are only (comparatively) few that be saved according to Jesus, most follow the broad path to destruction.

Jesus said whoever is not against us is for us, or something to that effect. You are very right in the importance of the matter, but you recognize the importance of it, you truly are seeking God, and you recognize Jesus as your savior.

But what if you only think you are for Him many think they are for Him, such as Jehovah’s witnesses, they would never intentionally resist Jesus or lead people away from Him yet they do lead people away from the true Jehovah because they teach contrary to His word and give people a wrong knowledge of God and so they worship not the true God but the god of an Arian imagination. Remember also Paul’s desire that his brethren the Jews might be saved, he acknowledged their zeal for God but it was not according to true knowledge and even wished that he could be accursed for their sakes if it were possible.

If God would send you to hell because you make an honest mistake, well then maybe I'll ask him to send me there with you too.

I firmly believe that “in that day” everyone will acknowledge God righteousness and justice in His judgements.