Christian Forums

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:31:33It is very easy to become angry, especially when people are constantly questioning your faith and misrepresenting the Catholic faith.  

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  To be sure, there are a number of things... regarding doctrine and practices... that I am not comfortable with, with regard to the Catholic Church.  Perhaps, that can be discussed here in a calm and loving manner.

However, and this is one of my pet peeves out here... I hope that I will never be found guilty of intentionally misrepresenting the Catholic Church or anyone else.  This sometimes happens.  Though, sometimes, it isn't necessarily intentional.  A lot of folks may have simply had certain things misrepresented to them, and so this is what they believe.

I have some sympathy for this since I can identify with being misrepresented... or having your faith or church affiliation misrepresented.

broach972,

You provide nothing but your assertions and opinions, without any support or evidence that your claims are true. This has become the common tenor of the thread when I have provided vast amounts of evidence that these edicts are still recognized by the roman church, and I have even provided support from the catholic catechism and the vatican.

Not only that but you claimed yourself that the canons of Trent cursed those who disagreed with it.

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

So you even admit that these canons condemned people as anathema.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:49:35
broach972,

You provide nothing but your assertions and opinions, without any support or evidence that your claims are true. This has become the common tenor of the thread when I have provided vast amounts of evidence that these edicts are still recognized by the roman church, and I have even provided support from the catholic catechism and the vatican.

Not only that but you claimed yourself that the canons of Trent cursed those who disagreed with it.

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

So you even agreed that these canons condemned people as anathema.

Well, Charles, I just began really posting and I am reading through the material now.  I will respond as quickly as I can.

As far as my statement is concerned, I was under the impression that you read that provision to mean that even Catholics describe the practice of adoration as idolatry.  I was simply saying this was not the case.  Adoration is not idolatry.

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:56:36

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:49:35
broach972,

You provide nothing but your assertions and opinions, without any support or evidence that your claims are true. This has become the common tenor of the thread when I have provided vast amounts of evidence that these edicts are still recognized by the roman church, and I have even provided support from the catholic catechism and the vatican.

Not only that but you claimed yourself that the canons of Trent cursed those who disagreed with it.

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

So you even agreed that these canons condemned people as anathema.

Well, Charles, I just began really posting and I am reading through the material now.  I will respond as quickly as I can.

As far as my statement is concerned, I was under the impression that you read that provision to mean that even Catholics describe the practice of adoration as idolatry.  I was simply saying this was not the case.  Adoration is not idolatry.

So if I consider that this practice is idolatry, then I would be anathema.

How can you call me a brother in Christ and a Christian if I am anathema?

Quote from: DCR on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:45:46

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:31:33It is very easy to become angry, especially when people are constantly questioning your faith and misrepresenting the Catholic faith.  

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  To be sure, there are a number of things... regarding doctrine and practices... that I am not comfortable with, with regard to the Catholic Church.  Perhaps, that can be discussed here in a calm and loving manner.

However, and this is one of my pet peeves out here... I hope that I will never be found guilty of intentionally misrepresenting the Catholic Church or anyone else.  This sometimes happens.  Though, sometimes, it isn't necessarily intentional.  A lot of folks may have simply had certain things misrepresented to them, and so this is what they believe.

I have some sympathy for this since I can identify with being misrepresented... or having your faith or church affiliation misrepresented.

DCR, I agree with your statement 100%.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 15:00:26

So if I consider that this practice is idolatry, then I would be anathema.

How can you call me a brother in Christ and a Christian if I am anathema?

Actually, you would not be anathema.

And yes, you are a brother in Christ.

Boggles the mind doesn't it?

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 15:17:55

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 15:00:26

So if I consider that this practice is idolatry, then I would be anathema.

How can you call me a brother in Christ and a Christian if I am anathema?

Actually, you would not be anathema.

And yes, you are a brother in Christ.

Boggles the mind doesn't it?

What boggles the mind is that an infallible ecumenical council declares all protestant anathema, and now you are claiming that this is no longer the case without any support from the roman church doctrine, magisterium, catechism, or any other document they would claim to be authoritative. Much to the contrary, I have found a great deal of documentation that I have shared that shows your claims are in error, and the church does still hold to these precepts.

So if you could show some evidences other than your claims I would appreciate it.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:44:43

Protestants may actually register as members of a parish church without being Catholic. 

And why is it exactly that we would want to do this?

There are a variety of reasons for this:
1. Catholics may have a spouse who has not converted to the Catholic faith.
2. There may be some non-Catholics who may want to learn more about the faith and perhaps are thinking about converting.
3. Some Protestants join because they appreciate the solemnity and beauty of the Mass and prefer that style of worship.

These are some of the reasons...I would imagine that there could be other reasons.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:44:43
You know, it's very telling what you said... Because at my church, Catholics can come, they can join, they can participate in ministries, they can join in the worship, participate in services, go up for prayer, be blessed AND receive communion.

Why would this be "telling?"  I never said this.  I said that non-Catholics can join any parish church, participate in the variety of charities or ministries available, can participate in the Mass, and be blessed by the Priest during the Eucharist processional.  The only restriction is that non-Catholics cannot partake of the Eucharist.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:44:43
And I have been defending my beliefs against the rails of Catholics since the day I got saved.

Well, that can explain alot.  I am sorry for your situation.  I would imagine that there are pushy Catholics in the world, as well as pushy Protestants.  

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:44:43
And your friend... CC... came here on the attack. He came here to convert.  His name stated his mission.  I understand those who found offense in that. Because I did.  I am a born again, spirit filled believer, a child of the living God. And when someone comes at me with that "not good enough" Christian junk... I get up for it. Which is what he did.

First, I knew CC only through the forum and that was certainly during a short period of time.  Second, most of his posts dealt with explaining and ultimately defending what the Catholic Church teaches.  I doubt that he was on a mission to convert.  He never conveyed that to me.  Third, I thought his name was cool...I wish I had thought of it.  Fourth, I think that you have dished out enough of your own brand of "not good enough" Christian junk.  You might want to put those stones away.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:44:43
He didn't want to discuss Christ... He wanted to discuss Mary as Queen. ...  And got offended when others didn't receive her that way. 

This is not exactly a fair assessment considering he wasn't here for very long.  He posted much while he was here and that was one subject.  I am sure that if he was allowed to stay, we would have heard much from him.  It is truly a shame.  He was quite well-versed in Catholic doctrine and articulate.  He was certainly holding his own.  I think a particular member went on "hiatus" out of frustration and quickly returned once CC was banned.  I think he got offended for a variety of reasons.  I can relate to his frustration.  Unfortunately, that frustration got the best of him.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 15:39:07
What boggles the mind is that an infallible ecumenical council declares all protestant anathema, and now you are claiming that this is no longer the case without any support from the roman church doctrine, magisterium, catechism, or any other document they would claim to be authoritative. Much to the contrary, I have found a great deal of documentation that I have shared that shows your claims are in error, and the church does still hold to these precepts.

So if you could show some evidences other than your claims I would appreciate it.

Charles, much of what you have stated is correct.  The things you have cited from the Catechism is absolutely dead on.  By the way, I am proud of the fact that you are looking at the Catechism...very important.  However, there is a major mistake in one of your assumptions, which is key to understanding the Council of Trent and the Tridentine edicts.  Even if I were not a Catholic, it would be obvious to me.  And there is actually a document that supports my claim as well, not to mention other resources.  There are many angles an individual can approach to refute your position.

I have wondered what the purpose of this thread is?  I think that you are trying to prove that Catholics (or the Catholic Church) hate you as much as you hate Catholics and the Catholic Church.  You certainly don't consider Catholics to be Christians and you consider the Catholic Church unChristian.  But Catholics and the Catholic Church would not think the same of you.

I could very well state my case and provide that evidence.  However, you will simply reject it because you are never wrong.  I do not think that there is one thing that I can say or one piece of evidence that I can submit that will make you change your mind.  This could be a learning experience for you.  You may actually come to the answer that you are looking for on your own without my help.  Charles, I believe wholeheartedly that you are a very intelligent person.  Harold has already given you bits and pieces to work with.  I am going to let you stew over this and come back to you at a later time.  Remember Charles, context is everything and the answer to your question is very simple.

broach972,

You're kidding me right, you have a number of ways to refute me but you aren't going to?

Sound like a bluff to me.

Quote from: charlie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 14:27:15
That all changed in Vatican II.

Not quite...but you are close.  It didn't change the Tridentine edicts, but Vatican II did clarify a few things though.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 15:04:50

Quote from: charlie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 14:27:15
That all changed in Vatican II.

I looked everywhere for a source for this claim, but I found nothing.

Look harder.  The source you seek is connected to Vatican II.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 16:10:33
I noticed your link says nothing about revising the Council of Trent, or that Vatican II changed the results of the Council. Just seems like a bunch of patchwork of passages and quotes to seemingly contradict the decrees of Julius III and the of Council of Trent.

Please provide some substantial [not transubstantial] information that the Council of Trent is not still recognized by the Roman Curia.

No contradictions in Vatican II.  Vatican II did not "overturn" the Tridentine edicts.  As I have stated before, context is everything.  You don't have to be a die-hard Catholic to see where this will lead you.

Quote from: kensington on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 18:57:36
If that is true... and I am just asking.. NOT accusing.  That according to what is posted is what they believe about "other" believers... Then if we are the anethema... 

Then, aren't they indeed implying we are "Pagans"... Since "Pagan" means the same as "Heathen"

If we do not belong to the Father by their canons... wouldn't that make us the Heathen or the "Pagan"..  Just wondering....

The Catholic Church does not believe or teach that non-Catholic Christians are "pagans."

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 15:01:41

Quote from: DCR on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:45:46

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 14:31:33It is very easy to become angry, especially when people are constantly questioning your faith and misrepresenting the Catholic faith.  

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  To be sure, there are a number of things... regarding doctrine and practices... that I am not comfortable with, with regard to the Catholic Church.  Perhaps, that can be discussed here in a calm and loving manner.

However, and this is one of my pet peeves out here... I hope that I will never be found guilty of intentionally misrepresenting the Catholic Church or anyone else.  This sometimes happens.  Though, sometimes, it isn't necessarily intentional.  A lot of folks may have simply had certain things misrepresented to them, and so this is what they believe.

I have some sympathy for this since I can identify with being misrepresented... or having your faith or church affiliation misrepresented.

DCR, I agree with your statement 100%.

Yes, I am well aware of being misrepresented. It causes anger, and more problems.

I'm with both of you on this one.

Broach forgive my bad representation of the C C POV.

FTL

I am sure that if he was allowed to stay, we would have heard much from him.

Like more threats on people when they didn't give in to his "discussion" ... and where have I told someone that their Christianity was not "Good enough" to be sanctified?   "Good enough" for the sacrements"...   Where? 

Where have I ever told someone that "my church"  or religion was the true church? Show me that. 

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 18:19:38

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 16:10:33
I noticed your link says nothing about revising the Council of Trent, or that Vatican II changed the results of the Council. Just seems like a bunch of patchwork of passages and quotes to seemingly contradict the decrees of Julius III and the of Council of Trent.

Please provide some substantial [not transubstantial] information that the Council of Trent is not still recognized by the Roman Curia.

No contradictions in Vatican II.  Vatican II did not "overturn" the Tridentine edicts.

Of course they did not "overturn", or "nullify" them.

That has been the unsubstantiated contention (misrepresentation) of some who have posted on this thread, however.

Even so, the original premise of this thread is still oustanding... And any actual evidence to the contrary is yet forthcoming.

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 18:17:30

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 15:04:50

Quote from: charlie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 14:27:15
That all changed in Vatican II.

I looked everywhere for a source for this claim, but I found nothing.

Look harder.  The source you seek is connected to Vatican II.

Why don't you just post the information? That is, if you have it...

Quote from: kensington on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 19:05:49

I will tell you right now... The priest who did my grandfather in laws funeral said these exact words... I have never forgotten them... "We the church believe if you are not Catholic, that you are not worthy to take communion, if you are not, please don't come forward"... leaving those of us who were not catholics sitting in the pews like dogs outside the gate.

The restriction of not allowing non-Catholics to partake of the Eucharist during Mass is not met to be an insult.  I attended a Catholic Church a year and a half before becoming Catholic.  I could not partake in communion during that time but understood why it had to that way.  If you truly understood the sacrament, then you would easily understand why this restriction is necessary.  Granted, the priest should have had more tact.

You know... Harold and broach... it's a shame you do this. You come in and try to shame Charles, and refute what he says and ACTUALLY posted documents on the dogma... and yet neither of you actually post any "REAL" .... documents that refute him. 

You just banter and argue and repost, with NO concrete of backing anything up with documents. And then... you say "Look it up"... you both have. But, if you really cared what was being said or documented about these truths... you would indeed post PROOF.

That is what Charles has done. He has posted the actual documents and statements that are documented by the Church.

Rather than play hide and seek, why not just prove him wrong? 

Show the ACTUAL documented statements by the Catholic church that says these canons are refuted and nullified.  Or just stop.

PROOF.... it's in the proof.  You just typing day in and day out, that it's not true... DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING.

Nothing.  But, it is very telling, again. 

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 18:45:18
You know... Harold and broach... it's a shame you do this. You come in and try to shame Charles, and refute what he says and ACTUALLY posted documents on the dogma... and yet neither of you actually post any "REAL" .... documents that refute him. 

You just banter and argue and repost, with NO concrete of backing anything up with documents. And then... you say "Look it up"... you both have. But, if you really cared what was being said or documented about these truths... you would indeed post PROOF.

That is what Charles has done. He has posted the actual documents and statements that are documented by the Church.

Rather than play hide and seek, why not just prove him wrong? 

Show the ACTUAL documented statements by the Catholic church that says these canons are refuted and nullified.  Or just stop.

PROOF.... it's in the proof.  You just typing day in and day out, that it's not true... DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING.

Nothing.  But, it is very telling, again. 

The issue isn't whether these canons have been nullified.  The Tridentine edicts have not been voided or nullified.  The doctrines issued by the Council are very much in effect.  The issue is what are these edicts stating.  According to Charles, the Tridentine edicts have resulted in the condemnation of Protestants in general.  Based on Charles' reading of the Tridentine edicts, Charles contends that the Catholic Church regards Protestants as "cursed" individuals damned to hell for not believing in the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Would you say that this is the basic premise for Charles' argument?

Quote from: James Rondon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 18:40:46

Even so, the original premise of this thread is still oustanding... And any actual evidence to the contrary is yet forthcoming.

I am still trying to figure out exactly what the original premise is.

What is the point of contention in all of the posts I have read?

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 18:17:30

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 15:04:50

Quote from: charlie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 14:27:15
That all changed in Vatican II.

I looked everywhere for a source for this claim, but I found nothing.

Look harder.  The source you seek is connected to Vatican II.

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 18:19:38

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 16:10:33
I noticed your link says nothing about revising the Council of Trent, or that Vatican II changed the results of the Council. Just seems like a bunch of patchwork of passages and quotes to seemingly contradict the decrees of Julius III and the of Council of Trent.

Please provide some substantial [not transubstantial] information that the Council of Trent is not still recognized by the Roman Curia.

No contradictions in Vatican II.  Vatican II did not "overturn" the Tridentine edicts.  As I have stated before, context is everything.  You don't have to be a die-hard Catholic to see where this will lead you.

More of the same, shifting the burden of proof and substanceless claims.

So I must be the one to prove your arguments, since you obviously cannot prove them yourself.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 19:51:07

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 18:17:30

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 15:04:50

Quote from: charlie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 14:27:15
That all changed in Vatican II.

I looked everywhere for a source for this claim, but I found nothing.

Look harder.  The source you seek is connected to Vatican II.

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 18:19:38

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 16:10:33
I noticed your link says nothing about revising the Council of Trent, or that Vatican II changed the results of the Council. Just seems like a bunch of patchwork of passages and quotes to seemingly contradict the decrees of Julius III and the of Council of Trent.

Please provide some substantial [not transubstantial] information that the Council of Trent is not still recognized by the Roman Curia.

No contradictions in Vatican II.  Vatican II did not "overturn" the Tridentine edicts.  As I have stated before, context is everything.  You don't have to be a die-hard Catholic to see where this will lead you.

More of the same, shifting the burden of proof and substanceless claims.

So I must be the one to prove your arguments, since you obviously cannot prove them yourself.

I am trying to figure out what the main issue is in this thread.  What is it am I trying to prove?  What is the argument?  I am not the one who started this thread.  You are the one who started this thread.  What is your point of contention?

Let's start over shall we.

The doctrinal pronouncements of the Council of Trent have not been overturned.  They are very much the doctrines of the Church today.  The reason for the council was to reaffirm what the Church has always known and believed for the past 2000 years.  Doctrines established by ecumenical councils are rarely overturned.  That is why the doctrines of the Church have stood for 2000 years.

Now that I have established this...what is the argument that you are trying to make based on this information?  In other words, what is your issue with the Tridentine edicts?  Granted, you may not agree with the doctrines which came out of the council...that is a given.  But what else bugs you?

Now that I have established this...what is the argument that you are trying to make based on this information?  In other words, what is your issue with the Tridentine edicts?  Granted, you may not agree with the doctrines which came out of the council...that is a given.  But what else bugs you?

First of all, you just established that everything Harold has argued is voided of truth. And, you have just established that the Catholic church has infact decreed and not set aside that the rest of us are "anathema" in the eyes of your religion...

Which is in fact the basis of this thread.   

We are not attacking the people who are Catholic, but the doctrines stated that says we are the "damned"...  for not being Catholic and for not "Believing" the same.  I know Harold keeps saying that these statements do not pertain to non Catholics, but that is not true...  I have been doing some searching. And the wording is simple...  It includes anyone who is not faithful to the written dogma of the Catholic Church, both Catholic and non catholics... they really do believe that ANYONE who does not receive the communion as they do, is anathema...  That is why they have that rule not to share communion with those of us who don't believe the same.  Because they believe it is a "damned" situation.  They believe that the way we receive is a "damned" situation also.

If there are actual stated documents of proof to the contrary in your Catholic dogma... please post them. Don't send me to find them for you. If you are going to claim that the things we have posted here are not truth... prove it.  Our belief is in the proof of the statements that we have read here... that are statements of the church. Thanks.

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 20:22:03
Let's start over shall we.

The doctrinal pronouncements of the Council of Trent have not been overturned.  They are very much the doctrines of the Church today.  The reason for the council was to reaffirm what the Church has always known and believed for the past 2000 years.  Doctrines established by ecumenical councils are rarely overturned.  That is why the doctrines of the Church have stood for 2000 years.

Now that I have established this...what is the argument that you are trying to make based on this information?  In other words, what is your issue with the Tridentine edicts?  Granted, you may not agree with the doctrines which came out of the council...that is a given.  But what else bugs you?

Nope that is just what I was trying to establish.

Again thank you for clearing this up and validating my point after pages of pointless and frustrating quibbling.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 21:25:26

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 20:22:03
Let's start over shall we.

The doctrinal pronouncements of the Council of Trent have not been overturned.  They are very much the doctrines of the Church today.  The reason for the council was to reaffirm what the Church has always known and believed for the past 2000 years.  Doctrines established by ecumenical councils are rarely overturned.  That is why the doctrines of the Church have stood for 2000 years.

Now that I have established this...what is the argument that you are trying to make based on this information?  In other words, what is your issue with the Tridentine edicts?  Granted, you may not agree with the doctrines which came out of the council...that is a given.  But what else bugs you?

Nope that is just what I was trying to establish.

Again thank you for clearing this up and validating my point after pages of pointless and frustrating quibbling.

No problem...anytime.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 21:24:34
First of all, you just established that everything Harold has argued is voided of truth. And, you have just established that the Catholic church has infact decreed and not set aside that the rest of us are "anathema" in the eyes of your religion...

Which is in fact the basis of this thread.   

We are not attacking the people who are Catholic, but the doctrines stated that says we are the "damned"...  for not being Catholic and for not "Believing" the same.  I know Harold keeps saying that these statements do not pertain to non Catholics, but that is not true...  I have been doing some searching. And the wording is simple...  It includes anyone who is not faithful to the written dogma of the Catholic Church, both Catholic and non catholics... they really do believe that ANYONE who does not receive the communion as they do, is anathema...  That is why they have that rule not to share communion with those of us who don't believe the same.  Because they believe it is a "damned" situation.  They believe that the way we receive is a "damned" situation also.

Well, now we get to the central issue.  You are absolutely wrong in your assessment.  I was thinking that this is what Charles was getting at.  All he wanted was confirmation that the doctrinal pronouncements of the Tridentine edicts were still in effect, which they are.  Harold is right on some points.  He isn't Catholic, so I don't expect him to hit every mark.  However, he has done a good job in providing the bits and pieces one needs to put this issue in context.  Since I AM a Catholic, I will explain why you are wrong.  It isn't that difficult to do.  One must know something about Canon law, Church doctrine, and history, which I do.  So, let's begin shall we.

I have never established or stated that the Tridentine edicts "established that the Catholic church has infact decreed and not set aside that the rest of us are "anathema" in the eyes of your religion..."  The Catholic Church made no such pronouncement in the first place.  I hate to burst your bubble but the Tridentine edicts were not issued for the sake of current Protesants.  The Tridentine edicts do not establish that non-Catholics are "anathema".  Why is this?  The Tridentine edicts were addressing those Catholics that were clearly rejecting the teachings of the Church during the Reformation.  Historical context is everything.

The majority of Christians were Catholic prior to the Reformation.  You are ignoring the historical context in which the edicts were issued.  The sole purpose of the Council of Trent was to reaffirm the doctrines of the faith, which had stood 1500 years prior to the Reformation.  It was a doctrinal ecumenical council.  However, there are two parts to each canon, a doctrinal pronouncement and a "punishment or penalty," this is where the term "anathema" comes into play.

At the time of the Council of Trent, everyone in Western Europe who was Christian was in fact a Catholic.  No other denominations dominated the religious landscape of Western Europe.  The Council in issuing those edicts reminded the faithful of what the doctrines of the Church were and what the penalty was for refusing to acknowledge the truth of those doctrines.  Catholics were leaving the Church to join Protestant movements, in effect cutting themselves off from the sacraments and thus putting their soul in jeopardy.  These were people who understood what the Church taught, embraced what the Church taught, and frankly turned their backs and headed in a different directions.  Basically what the Council of Trent was saying was "You guys should know better and you know what the potential consequences are for forsaking the Catholic faith."  Anyone who is Catholic knows the seriousness of either being denied the sacraments or forsaking them altogether.  Since many Catholics left during the Reformation, I doubt that could have cared less one way or the other.

I sent a link early on the thread that explains what anathema means within the Catholic Church.  You can find the article at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp.
I will provide a quote that sums it up quiet nicely:

Quote from: Jimmy Akin
Later in Church history, this exclusion to provoke repentance received the name "excommunication." Originally, the Church did not differentiate between excommunication and anathema, which is why ecumenical councils have traditionally constructed their dogmatic canons using the formula "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," meaning that anyone teaching the condemned proposition is to be anathematized or cut off from Christian society.

Among ecumenical councils, this usage began with the first—I Nicea (A.D. 325)—which applied the formula to those denying the divinity of Christ. Since then the formula has been used by all ecumenical councils that have issued dogmatic canons. (Since Vatican II did not issue any dogmatic canons, it never used the term anathema).

Over time, a distinction came to be made between excommunication and anathema. The precise nature of the distinction varied but eventually became fixed. By the time of Gregory IX (1370–1378), the term anathema was used to describe a major excommunication that was performed with a solemn pontifical ceremony. This customarily involved the ringing of a bell, the closing of a book, and the snuffing out of candles, collectively signifying that the highest ecclesiastical court had spoken and would not reconsider the matter until the individual gave evidence of repentance.

Such solemnities have been rare in Church history. They remained on the books, however, as late as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided that, "Excommunication . . . is called anathema especially when it is imposed with the solemnities that are described in the Roman Pontifical" (CIC [1917] 2257 §§ 1–2).

Yet 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.

While doctrinal pronouncements are not subject to change, the penalites under canon law are subject to change and have evolved over time.  A careful examination of this term also shows that it can only apply to Catholics.  How can the Church excommunicate a Christian who does not belong to the Church?  It simply does not make sense.  If you want "proof."  I am providing a link to the current Code of Canon Law which supports the above statements in the article:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

The article also points out a variety of errors most non-Catholics make about the term that I think are very relevant.  Jimmy Akin is quite an expert in Catholic theology and doctrine.

Quote from: Jimmy Akin
With this as background, the absurdity of the things said by anti-Catholics about the anathemas pronounced by Trent and other councils is plain. A number of errors are nearly ubiquitous in anti-Catholic writings:

1. An anathema sentenced a person to hell. This is not the case. Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God's alone, and the Church cannot exercise it.

2. An anathema was a sure sign that a person would go to hell. Again, not true. Anathemas were only warranted by very grave sins, but there was no reason why the offender could not repent, and those who repent aren't damned.

3. An anathema was a sure sign that a person was not in a state of grace. This is not true for two reasons: (a) The person may have repented since the time the anathema was issued, and (b) the person may not have been in a state of mortal sin at the time the anathema was issued.

Anathemas—like penalties imposed under civil law—rest on the judgment of the court, which must make its decision based on the evidence presented. It cannot directly examine the conscience of the individual in question. Thus, while anathemas were imposed on account of gravely sinful behavior, this was not a guarantee that it was mortally sinful. For a grave sin to become mortal, it must be performed with the requisite knowledge and consent, and while an offender might have given every appearance of these conditions, they might not be there in reality—e.g., through a hidden cognitive or volitional impediment.

4. Anathemas were meant to harm the offender. No. Anathemas were simply a major excommunication performed with a special papal ceremony, and, like all excommunications, their intent was medicinal, not punitive. The goal was to protect the Christian community from the spread of evil doctrines or behaviors and to prompt the individual to recognize the nature of his actions. While being deprived of the fellowship of the Church is not pleasant, this does not change the fact that the fundamental orientation of excommunications and anathemas is medicinal, not punitive.

5. Anathemas took effect automatically. While the Church does have penalties that take effect automatically (latae sententiae), the penalty of anathema was not one of them.

This should be obvious from the fact that a special pontifical ceremony had to be performed as part of the anathema. Obviously, the mere fact that someone utters a heresy in some part of the world does not cause the pope to suddenly stop what he is doing and perform a specific ritual concerning this person.

The anathemas of Trent and other councils were like most penalties of civil law, which only take effect through the judicial process. If the civil law prescribes imprisonment for a particular offense, those who commit it do not suddenly appear in jail. Likewise, when ecclesiastical law prescribed an anathema for a particular offense, those who committed it had to wait until the judicial process was complete before the anathema took effect.

6. 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.

The removal of such penalities does not change the infallible nature of the doctrines pronounced at the Council of Trent.  As Jimmy Akin notes:

Quote from: Jimmy Akin
Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º), though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).

Mr. Akin even provided citations so that you can look it up yourself.

The rules governing who can partake of the Eucharist has nothing to with whether a person is "damned" or not.  This is simply ridiculous.  Even Catholics cannot partake of communion under certain circumstances.  Anyone who truly understood the nature of the Eucharist and what is means to Catholics would know why this is the case.

In any denomination, actions have consequences.  Catholics are aware of what the doctrines and teachings of the Church are.  No such document states that Protestants are automatically "damned" for what they believe in.  Ironically, you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.  The Tridetine edicts clearly do not support this notion.

Well, I cannot get any clearer than this.  If you have any questions, I will certainly entertain them.

I hate to burst your bubble

I'm sorry... what bubble is that?   I must have missed the part where we got out the bubbles.   Or were you just being condescending? 

You know you have eluded numerous times to the rudeness of the protestants to the Catholics, and then, you come right out with that. Good job.  You are no different than any of the other "religious" people you claim to defend.  I should have known better.

I have been told to offer proof that the Catholic Church does in fact accept Protestants as our Christian brethren...it is obvious that some of you did not look hard enough.  Please note the following...

From Vatican II...

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Quote from: Lumen Gentium
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

WOW!! Well, I think I have proved my case and made my point.  It's great to be back.
Here is the link if you want to read the document in its entirety...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Thank you for your time...

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 23:37:39
I hate to burst your bubble

I'm sorry... what bubble is that?   I must have missed the part where we got out the bubbles.   Or were you just being condescending? 

You know you have eluded numerous times to the rudeness of the protestants to the Catholics, and then, you come right out with that. Good job.  You are no different than any of the other "religious" people you claim to defend.  I should have known better.

Kensington, you disappoint me.  I was expecting a massive counterargument.  I wasn't trying to be rude or condescending.  Do you have any other comments about my post?  Do you have any questions?  I am just setting some things straight.  I was challenged to submit an argument proving some assertions wrong, and I have accomplished this.  I would be more than glad to answer any questions you may have.

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 23:42:28

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 23:37:39
I hate to burst your bubble

I'm sorry... what bubble is that?   I must have missed the part where we got out the bubbles.   Or were you just being condescending? 

You know you have eluded numerous times to the rudeness of the protestants to the Catholics, and then, you come right out with that. Good job.  You are no different than any of the other "religious" people you claim to defend.  I should have known better.

Kensington, you disappoint me.  I was expecting a massive counterargument.  I wasn't trying to be rude or condescending.  Do you have any other comments about my post?  Do you have any questions?  I am just setting some things straight.  I was challenged to submit an argument proving some assertions wrong, and I have accomplished this.  I would be more than glad to answer any questions you may have.

Hmmm... IF you were sincerely trying to help me rather than just prove me wrong... why are you disappointed?  You were expecting some big argument?  To what end?  '

I know how I have been treated, and I know what people(Catholics) have said to me concerning the communion and all the sacrements... I konw what I know. 

Yes, I asked you to prove what you claim in regards to the original posted documents, I did indeed. Because those were the documents in question, and if you had a problem with them being true, you are the one who should have posted the rebuttal.. not me.

What took you so long?  Why not just post that John Paul remark to begin with?  However, it would be really nice if you could show it to all the masses of Catholics who missed it. If it be true, they sure have no idea of it. They don't walk it, speak it or believe it. Peace.

BTW... can you as a Catholic explain to me or show me how him making this statement nullifies the cannon? 

Is that how it works... A Pope can make a statement in a speech and it sets aside the original canon and dogma of the church? 

But, if you are going to condescend to me, don't bother... I'll remain blissfully ignorant. 

You see, I agree with Harold, for the Catholic dogma has NO authority over me. I am strickly here to support my protestant brothers and sisters and to gain knowledge to "enlighten" my Catholic family and friends who need it.  I appreciate all help... from protestants and Catholics alike.

I'll be noting for them what John Paul said... and I am equally excited to see how they explain that away!

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 23:51:43

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 23:42:28

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 23:37:39
I hate to burst your bubble

I'm sorry... what bubble is that?   I must have missed the part where we got out the bubbles.   Or were you just being condescending? 

You know you have eluded numerous times to the rudeness of the protestants to the Catholics, and then, you come right out with that. Good job.  You are no different than any of the other "religious" people you claim to defend.  I should have known better.

Kensington, you disappoint me.  I was expecting a massive counterargument.  I wasn't trying to be rude or condescending.  Do you have any other comments about my post?  Do you have any questions?  I am just setting some things straight.  I was challenged to submit an argument proving some assertions wrong, and I have accomplished this.  I would be more than glad to answer any questions you may have.

Hmmm... IF you were sincerely trying to help me rather than just prove me wrong... why are you disappointed?  You were expecting some big argument?  To what end?  '

I know how I have been treated, and I know what people(Catholics) have said to me concerning the communion and all the sacrements... I konw what I know. 

Yes, I asked you to prove what you claim in regards to the original posted documents, I did indeed. Because those were the documents in question, and if you had a problem with them being true, you are the one who should have posted the rebuttal.. not me.

What took you so long?  Why not just post that John Paul remark to begin with?  However, it would be really nice if you could show it to all the masses of Catholics who missed it. If it be true, they sure have no idea of it. They don't walk it, speak it or believe it. Peace.

Always a pleasure Kensington...God bless.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 28, 2008 - 23:55:50
BTW... can you as a Catholic explain to me or show me how him making this statement nullifies the cannon? 

Is that how it works... A Pope can make a statement in a speech and it sets aside the original canon and dogma of the church? 

But, if you are going to condescend to me, don't bother... I'll remain blissfully ignorant. 

You see, I agree with Harold, for the Catholic dogma has NO authority over me. I am strickly here to support my protestant brothers and sisters and to gain knowledge to "enlighten" my Catholic family and friends who need it.  I appreciate all help... from protestants and Catholics alike.

I'll be noting for them what John Paul said... and I am equally excited to see how they explain that away!

Kensington, I commend you for opening your mind to new ideas and perspectives.  All I want to do is educate and correct mistakes where they are present.  I am not here to convert but present what the Church truly teaches.  I will be more than glad to answer your question.

The statement from Vatican II did not nullify the Tridentine edicts.  The Tridentine edicts only applied to Catholics who had decided to reject the Church during the Reformation.  Remember what I said, the doctrinal pronouncements still hold true today.  The doctrines of the Church never changed.  What changed was the penalty that was assigned under Canon law for Catholics who rejected the doctrines that were affirmed by Trent.  Canon law can change and has over time.

The Pope cannot just wake up one morning and decide to change the doctrines of the Church.  It just doesn't work that way.  Remember, the doctrines of the Church have not changed for 2000 years.  Doctrines may have been clarified and defined over time but the doctrines of the faith have stood for 2000 years.

broach972,

Firstly I would like to recommend you either read, or re-read this thread since the arguments concerning Jimmy Akin's article have already been answered. Jimmy is not a church authority nor is his articles infallible dogma according to the roman church. This guys article on anathema has become the Alamo for the catholics and catholic defenders alike, which I find humorous that a non-catholic like me can muster much more catholic doctrine from more crediable sources (like the catechism, vatican, etc.) to support my case.

Besides, no ones arguing if the penalty for being anathema was removed. My topic was exposing that the roman church still considers those anathema or cursed for disagreing with the canons set forth in Trent. Even Jimmy Akins agrees that the doctrinal decree is in place today:

QuoteToday, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains.

and

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

This sinks the doublespeak of Lumen Gentium.

These are from the very article you quoted broach, are you even reading it? Not to mention I have already posted this response some pages back, so we are just going in circles because of denial of the facts, the decrees of an ecumenical council cannot be overturned.

And for the idea that the canons only apply to catholics or a big smokescreen. The language in every canon starts with "If anyone..." not "If any catholic...".