Christian Forums

Interestingly enough, if you asked them if they agreed with the things written in these canons, without telling them that they were actually canons from the Council of Trent (and better yet, that they were offical decrees from the Roman Church itself), they would most likely say no... Only to quickly change their mind, and agree with them, as soon as they found out what they were, so as to avoid damnation.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sun Mar 23, 2008 - 00:19:26

QuoteCanon 6. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of <latria>,[47] also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.

They even acquiesce to the accusation of idolatry in their practices defense.

Actually, you are wrong.  You need to reread the provision, especially the words you bolded.  If anyone considers those that engage in this practice to be idolaters, let them be anathema.  It is specifically saying that the practice IS NOT idolatry and those that consider the adorers to be idolaters are to be anathema.

I just couldn't let this one pass uncorrected.  God bless.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 10:16:17

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sun Mar 23, 2008 - 00:19:26

QuoteCanon 6. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of <latria>,[47] also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.

They even acquiesce to the accusation of idolatry in their practices defense.

Actually, you are wrong.  You need to reread the provision, especially the words you bolded.  If anyone considers those that engage in this practice to be idolaters, let them be anathema.  It is specifically saying that the practice IS NOT idolatry and those that consider the adorers to be idolaters are to be anathema.

I just couldn't let this one pass uncorrected.  God bless.

Broach,

That is what I said, but thanks for validating my point from a Catholic POV.

Quote from: kensington on Sat Mar 22, 2008 - 17:44:22
Harold, do you realize that your comments are demanding that we as posters clarify why we are participating in a forum that was place here for the specific purpose of discussion?

I think this was dealt with the past few days... if you think this discussion or topic has no merit and is misplaced or doesn't belong here, I think someone said to contact a mod. 

I have not in the past few days even looked at this thread, but what I have see was less than Biblical responses.

Without looking to Vatican II for modern clarification, then any thing said here that points to modern day catholics is just foolishness.

Now as for Trent, again they were stating the catholic Church's official stance concerning the reformers. If you were in the reformed churches then in their eyes you were lost. They used the term anathema.

G331
ἀνάθεμα
anathema
Thayer Definition:
1) a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept
1a) specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place
2) a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction2a) a curse
2b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

FTL

I still have yet to see one reference to Vatican II nullifying the Council of Trent.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 14:29:45
I still have yet to see one reference to Vatican II nullifying the Council of Trent.

Then you need to go to the Web page and become educated on catholic theology as per Vatican II.

Vatican II

FTL

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 14:29:45
I still have yet to see one reference to Vatican II nullifying the Council of Trent.

It didn't... And anyone who believes those things that were listed at Trent as bringing about "anathema", whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or otherwise... Whether in the 16th Century, or in the 21st Century... Such a one would still be considered "anathema" by the Roman Church.

Quote from: Harold on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 14:40:56

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 14:29:45
I still have yet to see one reference to Vatican II nullifying the Council of Trent.

Then you need to go to the Web page and become educated on catholic theology as per Vatican II.

Vatican II

FTL

Don't just post links and claim people aren't educated, you make the claim the burden of proof lies on you. Please demonstrate to us where and how Vatican II nullifies or changes the infallible canons and decrees of the Council of Trent made under Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III, and Pope Pius IV that are currently accepted in the Roman Curia.

Generally, Benedict has been seen making moves toward Trent, not away from it.  Examples include reinstatement of the Latin mass, encouragement to move toward more ancient music, telling the Anglican church that they are not a true church because of a lack of apostolic succession (and that their priests are not true priests able to offer mass), and so on.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 15:07:59

Quote from: Harold on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 14:40:56

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 14:29:45
I still have yet to see one reference to Vatican II nullifying the Council of Trent.

Then you need to go to the Web page and become educated on catholic theology as per Vatican II.

Vatican II

FTL

Don't just post links and claim people aren't educated, you make the claim the burden of proof lies on you. Please demonstrate to us where and how Vatican II nullifies or changes the infallible canons and decrees of the Council of Trent made under Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III, and Pope Pius IV that are currently accepted in the Roman Curia.

No, you claim the Council of Trent is still the voice of the catholic church, if you only know their theology from the middle ages then you should get up to date info that supports your claims. Educated people know all sides of an argument before they start making claims that may or may not be true.

There are many protestant churches that wold say if you are not in their fellowship you are not saved. But before I pointed one out I would make very sure that is their stance today.

Can you post a link to the Roman Curia.

FTL

I did not say you are uneducated, I said you should educate yourself in catholic theology in the modern era.

Harold,

You are just trying to smokescreen your inability to provide proof that the Council of Trent was annulled by the Roman Church in Vatican II. Unsubstantiated claims are good for nothing.

If you have some evidence, please provide it.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 16:44:13
Harold,

You are just trying to smokescreen your inability to provide proof that the Council of Trent was annulled by the Roman Church in Vatican II. Unsubstantiated claims are good for nothing.

If you have some evidence, please provide it.

I agree... if this is not the position of the church, we do need to know, so post it. If there is updated dogma that corrects these teachings and it is "DOCUMENTED" as proof that this is old doctrine now laid aside would someone please show it. 

Because if this is the last documented doctrine on these issues, they stand in the canon... am I right?  IF it has not been actually changed in writing... these are the dogmas of their faith. I'd LOVE to see it changed, in writing... I'd LOVE to see they found the error of their ways towards those Christians like myself and indeed are not teaching future generations, including my nieces and nephews that I am damned.  That would be so nice.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 16:44:13
Harold,

You are just trying to smokescreen your inability to provide proof that the Council of Trent was annulled by the Roman Church in Vatican II. Unsubstantiated claims are good for nothing.

If you have some evidence, please provide it.

Please provide evidence that it was not, it is your topic prove your claim.

FTL

I asked you for a link.

Kensington you are making the claim, you should be able to provide the evidence that this is the stance of the catholic church today, anyone can come forward and take mass. This does not sound like rules from the council of Trent.

Until you can prove your claim, would it not be an unsubstantiated claim.

Quote from: Harold on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 19:07:33

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 16:44:13
Harold,

You are just trying to smokescreen your inability to provide proof that the Council of Trent was annulled by the Roman Church in Vatican II. Unsubstantiated claims are good for nothing.

If you have some evidence, please provide it.

Please provide evidence that it was not, it is your topic prove your claim.

FTL

Harold,

This makes no sense. Because I made the thread you can shift the burden of proof without providing any support to your claims, and you consider this a viable argument? Ecumenical councils are convened under the infallibility of the Pope, their canons become Roman Church law. There is no way that any latter council can nullify a previous council or else they would be cease to be infallible. Not to mention disagreeing with the canon law of the Council of Trent would automatically make the recipients anathema.

But I am not going to wrangle our this with you, you have said you peace and it amounted to nothing.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 10:37:56

Quote from: Harold on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 19:07:33

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 - 16:44:13
Harold,

You are just trying to smokescreen your inability to provide proof that the Council of Trent was annulled by the Roman Church in Vatican II. Unsubstantiated claims are good for nothing.

If you have some evidence, please provide it.

Please provide evidence that it was not, it is your topic prove your claim.

FTL

Harold,

This makes no sense. Because I made the thread you can shift the burden of proof without providing any support to your claims, and you consider this a viable argument? Ecumenical councils are convened under the infallibility of the Pope, their canons become Roman Church law. There is no way that any latter council can nullify a previous council or else they would be cease to be infallible. Not to mention disagreeing with the canon law of the Council of Trent would automatically make the recipients anathema.

But I am not going to wrangle our this with you, you have said you peace and it amounted to nothing.

You did not just make the thread you made the accusation against catholics.

QuoteSince according to their very doctrines I am not a brother but a curse upon the earth and doomed to damnation in hell.

QuoteThe word anathema is one of the most misunderstood terms in anti-Catholic apologetics. Almost all anti-Catholics, from the lowbrow end of the spectrum to those who give themselves airs of scholarship, misunderstand it.

For example, toward the more lowbrow end of anti-Catholicism, the article "Apostolic or Apostate," by Mike P. Gendron, states, "Many Christians are unaware that the Catholic Councils of Trent and Vatican II issued over 100 anathema's [sic] (condemnations) on anyone who believes salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. All these condemnations are still in effect today."

Gendron has obviously never read Trent or Vatican II. Vatican II did not use the term anathema in any of its documents. And while Trent's canons do use the term, there are nowhere near one hundred canons devoted to the subject of salvation nor any canons that, properly understood, condemn the three points of soteriology Gendron names.

Does this sound familiar.

QuoteThe Greek term anathema shares something of this paradox. It is derived from the roots ana- (on, upon, among, between) and tithemi (to place, put, set). Etymologically, the word suggests something placed among the holy things (i.e., in a temple)—a sense preserved in the variant term anathema (Luke 21:5). The more common anathema has the sense of a curse and is applied in the New Testament to a curse by which individuals bind themselves (Acts 23:14), to individuals who reject the true gospel (Gal. 1:8–9), who do not love Christ (1 Cor. 16:22), or who are otherwise separated from Christ (Rom. 9:6). It is applied by blasphemous false prophets to Jesus himself (1 Cor. 12:3).

QuoteYet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

Quote6. Anathemas applied to all Protestants. The absurdity of this charge is obvious from the fact that anathemas did not take effect automatically. The limited number of hours in the day by itself would guarantee that only a handful of Protestants ever could have been anathematized. In practice the penalty tended to be applied only to notorious Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.

7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren't in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn't true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one.

For complete article click here.

A little searching would have shown your statements to be false.

Do we get an apology now?

How many people were hurt by this false claim, that is why we need to educate ourselves before making statements. I found this info by following the link Broach gave back in the beginning.

FTL

I am not a Catholic, I don't agree with everything the catholic church might say, but then again I don't agree with what others may say. I still love them and pray for them.

Harold,

My OP states that the catholic apologists will seek to redefine the term anathema. If you had closely read my post you would have noticed that, since I am not unfamiliar with this article.

The idea that the canons of the Council of Trent were ecclesiastical law is nonsense, they are decrees and canons established by the Popes. All canons and decrees made by an Ecumenical Council are no different than when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. They can't just be abrogated because they don't agree with them anymore and don't want to include it in their new codes.

But notice nowhere in this article does the author just simply state, Vatican II nullified the Council of Trent, nor does he claim that the Council of Trent is over 400 years old and isn't valid anymore. All that is left is to try and redefine the terms (such as "anathema") to try and soften the blow of what this word really means.

By the way another article you may want to read:

QuoteTHE ANATHEMAS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT CANNOT BE REVOKED

According to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," the Catholic doctrine of infallibility applies not only to the Pope, but also to Church Councils (including the Council of Trent). [Note 16]

As a result, the official statements of the Council of Trent are considered to be infallible. This means that they cannot be changed. Therefore, the anathemas of the Council of Trent cannot be revoked.

The Catholic Church may find it expedient not to call people's attention to these anathemas, but it cannot revoke them.

The present preference for a gentler approach to people who disagree with Catholic doctrine may explain the apparent discrepancy between the Council of Trent and the ecumenical movement.

The Catholic Church is engaging in ecumenical dialog with Protestants, calling them "separated brethren," and speaking as if it respects their beliefs. But at the same time, behind the scenes, it still officially declares that they are damned to hell because of their beliefs.

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Trent.html

Also let me tack this on:

QuoteCATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren't in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

So this canon law never happened?

Of course they would refute your definition, they believe it to be false. I am going to make a claim but don't you dare try to confuse the issue with your own claims. 

G331
ἀνάθεμα
anathema
Thayer Definition:
1) a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept
1a) specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place
2) a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction2a) a curse
2b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

It is the same definition that he used in the article.

FTL

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 13:42:20
7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren't in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

So this canon law never happened?

Of course the judicial penalty was abolished (which was death), but the doctrinal definition still applies.

QuoteToday, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

Did you even read the article?

Great post, Charles, in that thread you started entitled The Magisterium and Ecumenical Councils. What you have written and included there truly addresses issues that have been brought up in this thread, and why the canons of Trent cannot, and have not been amended, annulled or abolished.

The point is anathema has been removed from the tenants of the catholic church as of 1983. So they are not cursing anyone.

FTL

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 15:30:02
The point is anathema has been removed from the tenants of the catholic church as of 1983. So they are not cursing anyone.

FTL

It has already been established that an ecumenical council is infallible, and thus cannot be change. This is according to their own doctrines and teachings of the Catechism (also established by the Council of Trent). So these canons cannot be removed from the laws of the Roman Church. The Council of Trent and the canons and decrees forthwith shall remain a sickly pall that will follow the Roman Church forever. No decrees or councils or canons can contradict, change or remove an infallible canons from an ecumenical council.

Like the author of your article states:

QuoteEverything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

That would include cursing Christians as "anathema"

QuoteCATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

It seem to me though that this has been made abundantly clear, and I suspect you are only disagreeing now because you would have to admit your wrong in the face of such overwhelming evidence contrary to your assertions.

Believe what you like, theres no harm it that. Just don't claim to be right when your not.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:10:46

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 15:30:02
The point is anathema has been removed from the tenants of the catholic church as of 1983. So they are not cursing anyone.

FTL

It has already been established that an ecumenical council is infallible, and thus cannot be change. This is according to their own doctrines and teachings of the Catechism (also established by the Council of Trent). So these canons cannot be removed from the laws of the Roman Church. The Council of Trent and the canons and decrees forthwith shall remain a sickly pall that will follow the Roman Church forever. No decrees or councils or canons can contradict, change or remove an infallible canons from an ecumenical council.

Like the author of your article states:

QuoteEverything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

That would include cursing Christians as "anathema"

QuoteCATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

It seem to me though that this has been made abundantly clear, and I suspect you are only disagreeing now because you would have to admit your wrong in the face of such overwhelming evidence contrary to your assertions.

Believe what you like, theres no harm it that. Just don't claim to be right when your not.

I can read and I see plainly what is being said.

The person who wrote the article said the Council of Trent statements are still in effect, but as of 1983 the catholic church no longer anathema anyone.

Have you checked out the 1983 writings he stated removed anathema.

Kinda like stealing a horse would get you hung back 100 yeas ago, now stealing a horse will only get you community service. It is still wrong to steal a horse though.

My statements are dead on, you are just going in circles with your assertions that no one is discussing any more.

If anathema has been dismissed then this whole thread was for naught.

FTL

So, what you are saying it... that they still consider us to be anathema...  because they left it in the documents, but now no one actually has the guts to speak it?

I still am not clear was there ever a "STATEMENT OF DOCUMENTATION" That it was revoked?  Because if not, then... it's still there, and we are still being called horse thieves, even if we do only get community service.

And for the record, I wouldn't want to be given community service for a crime I didn't commit. That is just dumb.

It's still stated as dogma, but no one is speaking it out loud. 

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
I can read and I see plainly what is being said.

Somehow I seriously doubt that.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
The person who wrote the article said the Council of Trent statements are still in effect, but as of 1983 the catholic church no longer anathema anyone.

This is a contradiction, you cannot observe the Council of Trent and dismiss the anathema. You cannot accept one portion of an infallible council but dismiss another. Especially since this was the entire purpose of convening the council in the first place. Besides, the author of the article does not speak for the Roman Church, and his article is of no gravity in this discussion.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
Have you checked out the 1983 writings he stated removed anathema.

Thats like asking me to find a news story in todays paper from the 1500's.

The Code of Canon Law does not embody the entirety of the Magisterium or the recognized doctrines from the ecumenical councils. No can it nullify any canons from the councils or decrees of the Pope.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
Kinda like stealing a horse would get you hung back 100 yeas ago, now stealing a horse will only get you community service. It is still wrong to steal a horse though.

And by stealing a horse you would still be a thief, and violating these canons would make you anathema. They might not kill you but you would still be cursed by God according to these doctrines.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18My statements are dead on, you are just going in circles with your assertions that no one is discussing any more.

My assertions are supported by all the ecumenical doctrines and the catechism. It is irrelevant if anyone is discussing it anymore.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
If anathema has been dismissed then this whole thread was for naught.

Since I have clearly demonstrated (to anyone of reasonable intelligence) that a ecumenical council cannot be dismissed. I think its safe to say this thread is in no danger of vanity.

Quote from: kensington on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:49:57
So, what you are saying it... that they still consider us to be anathema...  because they left it in the documents, but now no one actually has the guts to speak it?

I still am not clear was there ever a "STATEMENT OF DOCUMENTATION" That it was revoked?  Because if not, then... it's still there, and we are still being called horse thieves, even if we do only get community service.

And for the record, I wouldn't want to be given community service for a crime I didn't commit. That is just dumb.

It's still stated as dogma, but no one is speaking it out loud. 

Most Churches have a bottom line faith agreement, it states what is necessary in their opinion to be in fellowship.

Most lay out what is necessary for salvation; so are they wrong for making such a statement?

1983 anathema was set aside by the catholic church according to the article, they no longer call or curse anyone.

QuoteYet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

I am not going to become a catholic so I don't care what their beliefs are, but I'm not going to stop loving my catholic friends.

FTL

You know Harold, I didn't see anyone ask you to stop loving your Catholic friends.  Not once. 

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 17:20:03

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
I can read and I see plainly what is being said.

Somehow I seriously doubt that.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
The person who wrote the article said the Council of Trent statements are still in effect, but as of 1983 the catholic church no longer anathema anyone.

This is a contradiction, you cannot observe the Council of Trent and dismiss the anathema. You cannot accept one portion of an infallible council but dismiss another. Especially since this was the entire purpose of convening the council in the first place. Besides, the author of the article does not speak for the Roman Church, and his article is of no gravity in this discussion.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
Have you checked out the 1983 writings he stated removed anathema.

Thats like asking me to find a news story in todays paper from the 1500's.

The Code of Canon Law does not embody the entirety of the Magisterium or the recognized doctrines from the ecumenical councils. No can it nullify any canons from the councils or decrees of the Pope.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
Kinda like stealing a horse would get you hung back 100 yeas ago, now stealing a horse will only get you community service. It is still wrong to steal a horse though.

And by stealing a horse you would still be a thief, and violating these canons would make you anathema. They might not kill you but you would still be cursed by God according to these doctrines.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18My statements are dead on, you are just going in circles with your assertions that no one is discussing any more.

My assertions are supported by all the ecumenical doctrines and the catechism. It is irrelevant if anyone is discussing it anymore.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 16:43:18
If anathema has been dismissed then this whole thread was for naught.

Since I have clearly demonstrated (to anyone of reasonable intelligence) that a ecumenical council cannot be dismissed. I think its safe to say this thread is in no danger of vanity.

A whole list of assertions which are founded in pre 1983 doctrine, I am only discussing anathema.  You are now the only true voice of the catholic church, even if the catholic church web sight says it ain't so.

FTL

Not one of them has ever said I am cursed.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 17:46:09
1983 anathema was set aside by the catholic church according to the article, they no longer call or curse anyone.

QuoteYet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

The article states the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law, not that being considered anathema doesn't exist.

The penalty of being anathema was excommunication and/or death.

QuoteYet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

The Code of Canon Law can't amend a decree or canon of an ecumenical council.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 18:44:05

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 17:46:09
1983 anathema was set aside by the catholic church according to the article, they no longer call or curse anyone.

QuoteYet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

The article states the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law, not that being considered anathema doesn't exist.

The penalty of being anathema was excommunication and/or death.

QuoteYet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

The Code of Canon Law can't amend a decree or canon of an ecumenical council.

Since you don't want to believe the catholic church official web sight lets move on.

Vatican II stated that the Council of Trent or any other council only applies to catholics ie...to break the catholic rules you first have to be catholic. So if you are not Catholic the rules do not apply to you. So that means the catholic church cannot anathema me even if it wanted to, which it does not.

Protestants can register with the catholic church, attend mass, go up front, and receive blessings from the priest. The only thing they cannot do is partake of the bread. Kinda like most Southern Baptist Churches which require you to be baptized in their church to take communion.

Doesn't sound like anathema to me. So they do not any longer, since 1983, consider anyone excommunicated unless you are catholic. Makes sense I can't be kicked out of the catholic church unless I belong to the catholic church.

FTL
FTL

So now you claim that the canons of Trent only apply to Catholics, what happened not being dismissed altogether?

You are very difficult to discuss a topic with since your argument changes the moment you are proven wrong.

Before we go further, I would like to comment again on infallibility and the idea that post-councils and decrees can somehow change a canon of a ecumenical council. This is another source from a catholic "sight", so there shouldn't be a argument here to the validity of the source:

Quote

Papal Infallibility
by Sebastian R. Fama

The issue of Papal Infallibility evokes strong reactions from those who oppose it. This is usually due to a misunderstanding of what the Church means by "Papal Infallibility." The most common misconception is that the Church claims that the pope himself is infallible, that in all things he is incapable of error. This, of course, is not true!

It is a necessity of Christian theology that every person be allowed the exercise of free will. Everyone, the pope included, must be free to accept or reject Christ for himself. If God were to make the pope infallible in the ultimate sense, he would be depriving him of his free will.

Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin. All popes are human and therefore sinners.

Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does--he studies.

Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err when he speaks as a private teacher. As a man he is fallible and capable of error.

Infallibility does not guarantee that a pope will officially teach anything. However, when he does teach he is protected. If he decides to teach the truth, the Holy Spirit allows it. If he decides to teach error, either knowingly or unknowingly, the Holy Spirit will stop him.

Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a pope.

All Christians believe that God used men infallibly in writing Scripture. Why then is it so hard to believe that He would work through men to protect it from corruption? Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His disciples, "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16).

The First Vatican Council taught that three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible:

• The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
• The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
• It must be on a matter of faith or morals.

The first two conditions can be reasonably deduced from Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The acts of binding and loosing in the context of the verse would by necessity be something more than casual remarks. The passage begins with Jesus saying, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" (16:18). The acts of binding or loosing would have to be official and meant for the whole Church.

The third condition stems from the obvious fact that Christian teaching is primarily a matter of faith and morals. Christianity's main objectives have always been getting people to heaven (faith) and teaching them how to live here on earth (morals).

Infallibility is also extended to the college of bishops when they, as a body, teach something in union with the pope. Collegial authority is usually exercised in an ecumenical council just as it was at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29).

http://www.staycatholic.com/papal_infalibillity.htm

When you think about it... the cannon's of the Catholic church don't apply to me, even if they thought it did. They have no authority over me. They never did, they never will.

It's not biblical so that takes the authority away at the get go... and since I am not Catholic and never plan to be, they can write and rewrite canon's all day long, it won't affect my salvation one bit.

They are not God and cannot call anyone damned. It's really just that simple. Which is what is so frustrating about the religion to begin with, they really do think they speak for God, even when it's contrary to the WORD of GOD...

This "anathema" thing has no authority over Catholics either... God judges hearts... and He is the ONLY one who can say someone is going to hell or is damned, like it or not. No Catholic who doesn't agree with the writings on communion will be going to hell for it.

I'd tell even the Pope that. No problem. He isn't damning anyone. He has not that authority... Even Paul didn't damn anyone. He turned someone over to satan that their soul might be saved. Be he never assumed to say they were damned.

That authority is reserved for Jesus Christ alone.

Vatican II stated that the Council of Trent or any other council only applies to catholics ie...to break the catholic rules you first have to be catholic. So if you are not Catholic the rules do not apply to you. So that means the catholic church cannot anathema me even if it wanted to, which it does not.


Harold, can you provide a link or a stated document to this?  I'm trying to follow along as to where the church and the members do stand concerning the rest of us in the body, but I would like to read where they actually say that.

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 19:01:59
Vatican II stated that the Council of Trent or any other council only applies to catholics ie...to break the catholic rules you first have to be catholic. So if you are not Catholic the rules do not apply to you. So that means the catholic church cannot anathema me even if it wanted to, which it does not.

Funny, I was just reading part of the Council of Trent the other day.  Suffice it to say that this "clarification" is very much against the original intent of that Council.

If I were Catholic, I think I'd be worried about the fact that my current administration doesn't think it wrong to virtually dispense with a couple thousand years worth of doctrine.  At the least, it seems to abdicate the traditional Catholic position that it is means by which Christ rules the earth.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 21:36:28

Quote from: Harold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 19:01:59
Vatican II stated that the Council of Trent or any other council only applies to catholics ie...to break the catholic rules you first have to be catholic. So if you are not Catholic the rules do not apply to you. So that means the catholic church cannot anathema me even if it wanted to, which it does not.

Funny, I was just reading part of the Council of Trent the other day.  Suffice it to say that this "clarification" is very much against the original intent of that Council.

If I were Catholic, I think I'd be worried about the fact that my current administration doesn't think it wrong to virtually dispense with a couple thousand years worth of doctrine.  At the least, it seems to abdicate the traditional Catholic position that it is means by which Christ rules the earth.

And that's why I say they've painted themselves into a corner.