The Magisterium and Ecumenical Councils

[CDHealy]

Just for historical reference, here is the Eastern Church'scrack at "anathemas."  From the date, it may have been a responce to the Council of Trent:

The Sigillion of the Council in Constantinople in 1583 . . . (SNIP) . . .

First of all, these pronouncements are not the equivalent to the pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council.  These are the prouncements of a local council at most.

This is not to say that a local council's pronouncements are negligible.  Some local councils have later been ratified by Ecumenical Councils, and not infrequently the teachings and pronouncements of a local council have been "unofficially" adopted widely, having the same pragmatic effect as if an Ecumenical Council promulgated them.

Furthermore, this quoting of Ecumenical Conciliar pronouncements out of historical and theological context is extremely distorting and not an accurate reflection of the Council.

For example, I could quote from the canons of the Fourth Council on the resolution of the date of Pascha (or Easter).  But to do so without making reference to the Chalcedonian definition (itself an historical development of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus), would be to give a wholly distorted view of what the Council was about.  The Fourth Council (as all the Seven Great Councils) answered the question "What think ye of the Christ?  Whose Son is he?"  That is to say, the primary preoccupation of the Seven Great Councils was the clarification of the Person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.  The Third Council's declaration that Mary is properly called Theotokos (the God-bearer) was not a statement about Mary, but a statement about who it was that she gave birth to: namely God (Jesus).  The Seventh Council's declaration regarding the propriety of icons was not a statement about bowing down to or praying to pretty pictures on pieces of wood, but a profound statement of the meaning and implication of the Incarnation of Christ.

So, while it is of interest, historically and in terms of public debate, to quote from this or that Council and it's canons and such, we must stay away from selective citation and prooftexting if we are truly and lovingly going to communicate about these matters.

My tuppence, anyhow.

[Charles Sloan]

When I have responded, I have met your arguments head on, actually destroying some in the process...case in point.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=25031.msg482264#msg482264

It's good to know the RCC hasn't limited the practice of revisionist history from their members, since thats not even my argument but you quoted someone else and attribute it to me. But heres another post that dismantled your supposed "destroying" answers, which you promptly met head on by ignoring everything I said.

Case in point.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=25031.msg483069#msg483069

But its been a pleasure watching you wave your hand then run for the hills.

[broach972]

When I have responded, I have met your arguments head on, actually destroying some in the process...case in point.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=25031.msg482264#msg482264

It's good to know the RCC hasn't limited the practice of revisionist history from their members, since thats not even my argument but you quoted someone else and attribute it to me. But heres another post that dismantled your supposed "destroying" answers, which you promptly met head on by ignoring everything I said.

Case in point.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=25031.msg483069#msg483069

But its been a pleasure watching you wave your hand then run for the hills.

The argument you cited possessed very little substance.  Let's look at it.

Broach,

As I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this thread, the penalty may be gone but even Jimmy Akin admits the doctrinal definition still remains. So those found in doctrinal disagreement with these canons would be considered anathema by the roman church. This is the entire argument, and all that Jimmy is trying to do is redefine the term to make it less offensive and hedge the edicts of Trent so they seem to no longer apply.

I provided a link to two videos I would like you to see:

Protestants and Catholics: Do they Now Agree? (Part 1)
Protestants and Catholics: Do they Now Agree? (Part 2)

Please explain why John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy all disagree with your claims.

You just supported my argument with this statement.  You even admit that the penalty has been abolished.  Yes, the doctrinal pronouncement still stands.  Let me say this...the doctrine is the specific teaching or belief.  The penalty is not the same as the doctrinal pronouncement.  I have been saying this time and time again.  I cannot make this even more clearer.

However, if the penalty is gone, how can anyone be considered "anathema?"  You continue to ignore the historical context of Trent as well.  Trent was speaking mainly to Catholics who were in the process of rejecting the teachings of the Church.  Again, how can you excommunicate those that don't even belong to the Church?

Why do John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy all disagree with my claims?  I would imagine that they are as anti-Catholic and misinformed as as you are.   

If they are still in effect today just as they were in 1546-1563, why are you trying to obfuscate what they say?

I am not trying to obfuscate what they say.  They are the doctrines of the Church.  Still in effect today.  The doctrines pertaining to the Eucharist are the same as they were at Trent.  Period.

Wasn't Luther excommunicated January 3, 1521, some 25 years before the first session of Trent was even held? I believe you will find that Pope Pius XII "condemned the new and false opinion of Luther" as anathema with the Mediator Dei in 1947. So I believe you are either misinformed, or being deliberately misleading. Either way that results are the same.

Ummm...first, Luther was a Catholic.  Yes, he was excommunicated, which means cut off from the Sacraments, but he did not cease being "Catholic" and accountable for his actions.  He could have very well made amends and come back into the fold if he desired.  Pope Pius XII condemned the "opinions" and teachings of Luther.  Why wouldn't he?  Did you expect him to say that Luther was right?  Catholics reject the teachings of Luther.  I think this is a given.

After this, you make some statements concerning Harold and question my credentials to speak on such matters, which have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I think that this is the gist of it.

[Charles Sloan]

You just supported my argument with this statement.  You even admit that the penalty has been abolished.  Yes, the doctrinal pronouncement still stands.  Let me say this...the doctrine is the specific teaching or belief.  The penalty is not the same as the doctrinal pronouncement.  I have been saying this time and time again.  I cannot make this even more clearer.

We are not talking about the penalty, this has been stated enough times that I know you must have seen it at least once. We are talking about the infallible doctrinal pronouncements from Trent which are still considered catholic dogma.

Bury you head if you want, but the argument is not about being excommunicated.

Why do John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy all disagree with my claims?  I would imagine that they are as anti-Catholic and misinformed as as you are.

So because John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy disagree with you they are anti-catholic and misinformed?

Is it possible that you are full of hot air?

I am not trying to obfuscate what they say.  They are the doctrines of the Church.  Still in effect today.  The doctrines pertaining to the Eucharist are the same as they were at Trent.  Period.

So we are in agreement for the moment that the doctrines of Trent are still roman dogma, which would include every pronouncement of anathema in every canon that was uttered in these meetings.

I'm glad you at least admit this much.

Ummm...first, Luther was a Catholic.  Yes, he was excommunicated, which means cut off from the Sacraments, but he did not cease being "Catholic" and accountable for his actions.  He could have very well made amends and come back into the fold if he desired.  Pope Pius XII condemned the "opinions" and teachings of Luther.  Why wouldn't he?  Did you expect him to say that Luther was right?  Catholics reject the teachings of Luther.  I think this is a given.

So Luther was a catholic before and after he was excommunicated?

Are you serious? Have you ever even read what they pronounce to the recipient at the excommunication? There is no way you can try and make me believe that Luther was considered a catholic 25 years after his excommunication just to support your argument that the pronouncements of anathema in Trent were only directed at catholics, that is just absurd in the highest degree.

[CDHealy]

Charles:

Help me out here.  What's the point of insisting--as Broach seems to--that the dogma are still in effect?

Since both of you seem to be agreeing that, yes, by golly, the dogma are still in effect, what's the issue?

Okay, so Trent anathematizes those who teach in contradiction to the dogma.  And . . . .?

[broach972]

Charles:

Help me out here.  What's the point of insisting--as Broach seems to--that the dogma are still in effect?

Since both of you seem to be agreeing that, yes, by golly, the dogma are still in effect, what's the issue?

Okay, so Trent anathematizes those who teach in contradiction to the dogma.  And . . . .?

I have been trying to figure this out as well.

[Charles Sloan]

Charles:

Help me out here.  What's the point of insisting--as Broach seems to--that the dogma are still in effect?

Since both of you seem to be agreeing that, yes, by golly, the dogma are still in effect, what's the issue?

Okay, so Trent anathematizes those who teach in contradiction to the dogma.  And . . . .?

CDHealy,

If you had been keeping up with the thread both broach and his newest disciple are in denial that the roman church curses those who violate the canons of Trent, and have been laboriously trying to spin the canons to either been dismissed with the Code of Canon Law, limit them to the members of the RCC, or make them applicable only in a historical context. So your question is better directed to broach not I.

But I thank you for attempting to lend your comments and simple observation to resolve this foolish dispute.

[CDHealy]

Charles:

I'm not sure your reply helps me out all that much.

Although I haven't seen all the back and forth between you and broach, I did read some of the exchanges, and it seems you both agree that the dogma is unchanged, you both agree that the anathemas are still in place.  The only disagreement I see is that broach is asserting that the application of those anathemas (i.e., the penalties) has changed, whereas you are attempting to deny such a change.

But maybe you can clarify.

It also appears to me that in your replies to broach you are not keeping an important distinction he is trying to maintain: Trent was and is the Roman Catholic Church speaking to its members, not to those outside the formal boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church.  That is to say, the Roman Catholic Church does not enforce discipline upon those who are not part of its membership.  It may speak to them, and tell them they are in error, it may anathematize those who preach contrary to its teachings, but it does not (and cannot) enforce practical discipline upon those outside of it.

As I see it, you are trying to include all the Christian groups outside the Roman Catholic Church in the audience to whom Trent is speaking, and that is not only historically fallacious, it's not what Rome was/is trying to say.

Am I still missing something?

[Charles Sloan]

No CD, I don't believe you are missing anything. Although to be correct I have not denied that the penalties of being pronounced anathema changed, I have agreed to that without hesitation (with the understanding that the infallible doctrinal definitions still apply) but that has never been the argument in the first place.

But since this has been settled obviously, my main point was that a "good"  practicing catholic cannot call a "good" practicing protestant a "brother in Christ" because their very doctrines pronounce them accursed by God for violating hundreds of roman traditions and doctrinal teachings. So catholics I have seen on the board saying that the pope in my "brother in Christ" is either completely ignorant of what their own doctrines teach, or willfully rejecting these doctrines to draw people in.

This was all I have been driving at.

[CDHealy]

Ah, thanks, Charles, I think I now have a better handle on what you're after.

But here's where your argument founders again.

The Roman Catholic Church, as do the Orthodox Churches, recognize that due to the centuries of schism, there are Christians outside the formal boundaries of the Church, and that those Christians are legitimately and truly in a salvific state.

Furthermore, the term "anathema" is not pronouncing a judgment on the eternal state of a person who teaches doctrine contrary to the Church, but, rather pronouncing a judgment on the action and teaching of one who teaches doctrine contrary to the Church.  That is to say, the anathema is narrow and not broad.  That is why each canon you cite has an anathema attached to it.  The anathematization is on the action/teaching more than it is a general statement on the person.  Otherwise, the Roman Catholic Church would just simply say, "All those who aren't memebers of the Roman Catholic Church are going to hell."  But this is not what Rome (or Orthodoxy) teaches, and that is why the anathemas are on specific actions/teachings.

I can see how you've come to your conclusion, but what you're doing is generalizing from a specific, which is logically invalid.

Furthermore, these instances you cite are canon law, not pastoral directives.  There are, as broach has noted, the canons, and then there are the pastoral applications of them.  This is precisely the case in Orthodoxy, where, for example, the fasting canons are applicable to all Orthodox equally, both monastic and non-monastic, lay and clergy.  But, the spiritual state of each person is so different, and their obligations and mortal states in life so varied, the the Orthodox Church practices what is called economia, or the pastoral moderation and application of the canons.  So, although a strict application of the fasting canons would result in both a vegan diet and only one meal per day (during Great and Holy Lent), in actual fact, a pregnant or nursing mother, the very young and the elderly, and those with health concerns, would perhaps be asked only to fast from meat (but be allowed milk, eggs and dairy products) and be allowed to eat three meals a day, or perhaps actually forbidden from fasting altogether.  The canons are meant to serve the person not the person the canons.

In like manner, I think I am safe to say, the anathemas are statements about specific actions/teachings, and how they get applied would vary greatly.

And, again, we are talking about specific teachings and actions and not pronouncements on someone's eternal destiny.