Christian Forums

There seems to be an idea floating around that Vatican II and subsequent councils somehow annulled the Council of Trent and the canon law that whats established there. I understand why some would like to believe this, because the language of the Council of Trent is very condemning of Protestants and non-catholic Christians. This seems to be the way that most attempt to dismiss the Council of Trent, but this is not the case.

When an ecumenical council gathers and agrees on canon law, these laws become apart of what is known as the Magisterium.

Quote"The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as 'Canons' and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church#Ecumenical_councils

Whereas not every aspect of an ecumenical council is considered infallible, those that are infallible are called 'canons' or 'decrees'.

Quote"The infallible teachings of the ecumenical councils consist of the solemn dogmatic, theological, or moral definitions, as contained in declarations, decrees, doctrines, and condemnations (traditionally expressed in conciliar canons and decrees) of councils consisting of the Pope and the Bishops from all over the Church."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#Extraordinary_.28or_Solemn.29_Magisterium

And since I know that Wikipedia is hardly a source for all truth, I found some sources from Catholics sites that attest to the information above. Although I do appreciate Wikipedia's plain and easy to understand language, I have found some information from other "trustworthy" sites.

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

Notice that "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.", this would include the Council of Trent. Thus rendering the canons established there infallible and they "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."

Quote"Occasionally, the Magisterium issues extraordinary definitions of doctrine. This occurs when the Pope teaches ex cathedra, officially and solemnly defining some truth of the faith. The official and solemn definitions of ecumenical councils (such as the Council of Trent, the First Vatican Council, etc.) are also extraordinary pronouncements."

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/infallibility.html

Notice even here the Council of Trent is given as an example of ecumenical councils and not only still considered official, but considered equal to the Pope teaching ex cathedra.

Quote"A council is recognized as ecumenical once its works are approved by a pope. The pope does not need to attend a council for it to be an ecumenical council. The earliest councils were held in the East, and the reigning popes usually sent legates to represent them. Later these popes approved the decrees of the councils, thereby verifying that they were ecumenical councils.

Some councils, such as Ephesus, have been mainly doctrinal in their work; others, such as Vatican II, have been mainly pastoral. Doctrinal definitions are capable of being promulgated infallibly; pastoral decisions, although binding, are not subject to infallibility."

Trent
1545-1549, 1551-1552, 1562-1563
Popes Paul III, 1534-1549
Julius III, 1550-1555
Pius IV, 1559-1565
Emperors Charles V, 1519-1558
Ferdinand I, 1558-1564

Decisions: Affirmed Catholic doctrines against the errors of the Protestant Reformers; reaffirmed teachings on the role of the Bible and Tradition, grace, sin, justification by faith (but not by "faith alone"), the Mass as a real sacrifice, purgatory, indulgences, jurisdiction of the pope; initiated the Counter-Reformation; reformed the clergy and morals; promoted religious instruction; ordered the establishment of seminaries for the future training of priests.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306ch.asp

Nowhere will you find Catholics claiming the canons established from the Council of Trent are no longer valid because they still are. And someone who demands such a statement is obviously ignorant of ecumenical decrees and canons and once established by the Pope they can no longer be changed. They can only try and redefine the words as you will see in this article:

Quote"The 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.

We find similar confusion about the term among those presenting themselves as intellectuals. In his book The Roman Catholic Controversy, James R. White, in summarizing Trent's canons on the Eucharist, states that, according to the Council, "anyone who denies the truthfulness of any of these proclamations is under the anathema of God" (164).

When I read White's statement to a knowledgeable friend, he busted out laughing. After he quieted down, he suggested that perhaps the statement was calculated to deceive those who didn't know how the term anathema is used, since it is absurd to those who do know. I said, in keeping with charity, we shouldn't infer that this is a case of deliberate deception, but only that it exposes White's ignorance and his determination to criticize without proper research."

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

Later in the article the author claims the canons of Trent are just ecclesiastical law and not included in the Code of Canon Law thus rendering them abolished, but that is just nonsense. Pope John Paul cannot choose to abolish decrees and canons made by Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III, and Pope Pius IV just because he wanted to. This is simply trying to escape the obvious conundrum they have caused themselves.

So this is what I've got, I am not expert or authority. All I am trying to do is research and expose those things that are very misunderstood by Protestants and non-catholics about the Roman Church and their teachings. I welcome all comments and further information that would help us better understand this topic.

Thank you for reading.

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

QuoteThe Sigillion of the Council in Constantinople in 1583

Anathematizing false beliefs about the Dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Holy Communion, unleavened bread, the judgment, Purgatory, the heretical Pope, the Paschalia, and the New Calendar Innovation.

To all the genuine Christian children of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ of the East in Trigovyst and in all places, be grace and peace and mercy from Almighty God.

Not a little distress took possession of that Ark of old, when, storm-tossed, it was borne upon the waters; and if the Lord God, remembering Noe, had not in His good will calmed the water, there would have been no hope of salvation in it. In a like manner with the new Ark of our Church, the heretics have raised up a relentless war against us, and we have deemed it well to leave behind the present tome against them so that with the things written in it you may be able more surely to defend your Orthodoxy. But in order that the document may not be burdensome to simpler people, we have decided to set forth the entire subject to you in simple speech as follows:

From old Rome have come certain persons who learned there to think like Latins; and the bad thing is that from being Byzantines (that is, Greeks) born and bred in our own parts, they not only have changed their faith, but they also battle the Orthodox and true dogmas of the Eastern church which Christ Himself delivered to us. Whereupon, having cut them off as rotten members, we order:

I) Whosoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in an Orthodox manner, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel, although He proceeds from Father and Son in time, let such a one be out of our Church and let him be anathematized.

II) Whosoever does not confess that in the Mystery of Holy communion laymen should commune from two kinds, both of the precious Body and Blood, but says that it is enough to receive only the Body, for the Blood is also there, even though Christ has spoken and has given each one separately, and they do not keep it, let such be anathematized.

III) Whosoever says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystical Last Supper used unleavened bread as do the Hebrews and not leavened bread, that is, raised bread, let him be far from us and under the anathema as one who thinks like a Jew and as one who introduces the doctrines of Appolinarios and of the Armenians into our Church, on which account let him be anathematized a second time.

IV) Whosoever says that when our Christ and God comes to judge He does not come to judge the souls together with the bodies, but comes in order to decide only for the body, anathema to him.

V) Whosoever says that when they die the souls of the Christians who repented in this life but did not do their penance go to Purgatory - which is a Greek myth - where fire and torment purify them, and they think that there is no eternal torment, as did Origen, and give cause by this to sin freely, let such a one have the anathema.

VI) Whosoever says that the Pope is head of the Church and not Christ, and that he has authority to admit into Paradise with his letters, and can forgive as many sins as will be committed by one who with money received an indulgence from him, let such a one have the anathema.

VII) Whosoever does not follow the customs of the Church which the seven Holy Ecumenical Councils have decreed, and the Holy Pascha and calendar which they enacted well for us to follow, but wants to follow the newly-invented Paschalion [method of fixing the date of Pascha] and the new calendar of the atheist astronomers of the Pope; and opposing them, wishes to overthrow and destroy the doctrines and customs of the Church which we have inherited from our Fathers, let any such have the anathema and let him be outside of the Church and the Assembly of the Faithful.

VIII) We exhort all pious and Orthodox Christians: remain in those things which you learned and in which you were born and bred, and when the times and circumstances call for it, shed your very blood in order both to keep the Faith given us by our Fathers and to keep your confession. Beware of such people and take care, that our Lord Jesus Christ help you. May the blessing of our humility be with you all. Amen.

The 1583rd year from the birth of the God-man, Indiction 12, November 20th.

Jeremias, of Constantinople Sylvester, of Alexandria Sophronios, of Jerusalem (and the rest of the Bishops of the Synod who were present)

Taken from http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9401&L=orthodox&F=&S=&P=8124

Very interesting.  It seems that the RCC reaction to the Protestant Reformation movement drove an even further wedge between the RCC and the EOC.

I see also that the Eastern Orthodox were apparently against using unleavened bread in communion:

QuoteIII) Whosoever says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystical Last Supper used unleavened bread as do the Hebrews and not leavened bread, that is, raised bread, let him be far from us and under the anathema as one who thinks like a Jew and as one who introduces the doctrines of Appolinarios and of the Armenians into our Church, on which account let him be anathematized a second time.

What a royal mess it all is...

Looks like thats another whole series of topics to post on "Canon's of the Eastern Orthodox"...

Quote from: DCR on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 14:23:57
Very interesting.  It seems that the RCC reaction to the Protestant Reformation movement drove an even further wedge between the RCC and the EOC.

I see also that the Eastern Orthodox were apparently against using unleavened bread in communion:

QuoteIII) Whosoever says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystical Last Supper used unleavened bread as do the Hebrews and not leavened bread, that is, raised bread, let him be far from us and under the anathema as one who thinks like a Jew and as one who introduces the doctrines of Appolinarios and of the Armenians into our Church, on which account let him be anathematized a second time.

What a royal mess it all is...

Yeah the unleavened bread thing earns us a double anathema.  Please note however, I posted only for historical interest, not to take sides in any ongoing arguments.

It's the same thing so, so many groups have done.  It's a more formal, more flowery way of saying, "We're right, you're wrong, and that means you're hellbound." 

Unleavened bread...EOC
Justification by faith alone...RCC
Synergism or works of merit...Reformed groups
IM...CofC (a)
and on and on and on

What all this tells me is that some have more elaborate schemes, rituals, and hierarchies, but in the end they are no different from all the rest.  And unfortunately that includes the tendency to bully those with whom you disagree with threats of damnation.

Agree or be damned.  Is this the understanding of the Body of Christ we were supposed to have come to?

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 21:13:08Is this the understanding of the Body of Christ we were supposed to have come to?

I don't believe that is what Christ intended. (cf. Jhn 17:21)

Gosh... Charles.. you are a fount of information for those of us who have been persecuted by Catholics wielding Catholicism at us.  Where did you come from? 

I'm just glad he's here.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 21:13:08
It's the same thing so, so many groups have done.  It's a more formal, more flowery way of saying, "We're right, you're wrong, and that means you're hellbound." 

Unleavened bread...EOC
Justification by faith alone...RCC
Synergism or works of merit...Reformed groups
IM...CofC (a)
and on and on and on

What all this tells me is that some have more elaborate schemes, rituals, and hierarchies, but in the end they are no different from all the rest.  And unfortunately that includes the tendency to bully those with whom you disagree with threats of damnation.

Agree or be damned.  Is this the understanding of the Body of Christ we were supposed to have come to?

This is a point well taken, probly not, but it is a fact.

FTL

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 13:19:55
There seems to be an idea floating around that Vatican II and subsequent councils somehow annulled the Council of Trent and the canon law that whats established there. I understand why some would like to believe this, because the language of the Council of Trent is very condemning of Protestants and non-catholic Christians. This seems to be the way that most attempt to dismiss the Council of Trent, but this is not the case.

Right and wrong.  Vatican II did not overturn the doctrinal pronouncements of the Council of Trent.  However, you assume that the Tridentine edicts were aimed at Protestants and non-Catholics.  How can this be when no true Protestants, in the modern sense, existed at the time of Trent?  You cannot punish individuals who do not belong to the Church.  How can you excommunicate a Christian who does not belong to the Church to begin with.  You are absolutely ignoring the historical context in which the Tridentine edicts were issued.  Trent sent a message to those Catholics who wanted to stay in the Church and those that wanted to leave.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 13:19:55
Later in the article the author claims the canons of Trent are just ecclesiastical law and not included in the Code of Canon Law thus rendering them abolished, but that is just nonsense. Pope John Paul cannot choose to abolish decrees and canons made by Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III, and Pope Pius IV just because he wanted to. This is simply trying to escape the obvious conundrum they have caused themselves.

How is this nonsense?  Canon law IS ecclesiastical law and the penalities are subject to change.  The Code of Canon law exists in a separate document outside of the ecumenical decrees.

Consider our own legal system.  We have laws, which could parallel doctrinal prounouncements (except they don't change).  Penalties are attached to those laws.  Penalties may change and often do...they are called sentencing guidelines.  They can change and often do.  I will take this a step further...do you think that the laws of the United States are applicable to those living in Russia?  I think you get the point.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 13:19:55
So this is what I've got, I am not expert or authority. All I am trying to do is research and expose those things that are very misunderstood by Protestants and non-catholics about the Roman Church and their teachings. I welcome all comments and further information that would help us better understand this topic.

You are correct on this point...you are not expert or authority on the matter.  And yes, they are misunderstood by Protestants and non-Catholics.  I hope that I have cleared up some things.

Quote from: broach972 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 - 09:04:23

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 13:19:55
There seems to be an idea floating around that Vatican II and subsequent councils somehow annulled the Council of Trent and the canon law that whats established there. I understand why some would like to believe this, because the language of the Council of Trent is very condemning of Protestants and non-catholic Christians. This seems to be the way that most attempt to dismiss the Council of Trent, but this is not the case.

Right and wrong.  Vatican II did not overturn the doctrinal pronouncements of the Council of Trent.  However, you assume that the Tridentine edicts were aimed at Protestants and non-Catholics.  How can this be when no true Protestants, in the modern sense, existed at the time of Trent?  You cannot punish individuals who do not belong to the Church.  How can you excommunicate a Christian who does not belong to the Church to begin with.  You are absolutely ignoring the historical context in which the Tridentine edicts were issued.  Trent sent a message to those Catholics who wanted to stay in the Church and those that wanted to leave.

So in effect what you are saying is that the Council of Trent was sending a message to the catholics that were considering leaving that if they joined the reformers they would be considered anathema, but that the reformers themselves are not anathema? This seems to make very little sense and only seems like an attempt to apologetically limit decrees of Trent that are limitless in scope when examined.

Besides we are not talking about punishment or excommunication, that always seems to be the red herring that gets thrown out there. We are talking about the doctrinal pronouncements of the Council of Trent, not the sentences that followed. It wasn't until 1917 Code of Canon Law that excommunication was considered the same anathema, for the previous 300 years being anathema was punishable by excommunication and/or death; so the two are very different.

Looking at what was said so some as they were being excommunicated also is very telling to if being anathema was just limited to catholics or all those outside of the roman church:

"Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

So it would only stand to reason that such a declaration of "we separate him from the society of all Christians" would mean that the roman church consummates the body of all Christians. And that those outside of the roman church are "condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels". So this whole roman church as the one true church belief has effectively placed all those outside of the roman church by reason of such canons as set forth in ecumenical councils such as Trent, are condemned to hell. Unless of course they "do penance and satisfy the Church"... (Not by doing penance and satisfy God.)

Quote from: broach972 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 - 09:04:23

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 13:19:55
Later in the article the author claims the canons of Trent are just ecclesiastical law and not included in the Code of Canon Law thus rendering them abolished, but that is just nonsense. Pope John Paul cannot choose to abolish decrees and canons made by Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III, and Pope Pius IV just because he wanted to. This is simply trying to escape the obvious conundrum they have caused themselves.

How is this nonsense?  Canon law IS ecclesiastical law and the penalities are subject to change.  The Code of Canon law exists in a separate document outside of the ecumenical decrees.

Consider our own legal system.  We have laws, which could parallel doctrinal prounouncements (except they don't change).  Penalties are attached to those laws.  Penalties may change and often do...they are called sentencing guidelines.  They can change and often do.  I will take this a step further...do you think that the laws of the United States are applicable to those living in Russia?  I think you get the point.

Again we are not talking about the penalties attached to the doctrinal pronouncements, as you are so often trying to suggest. We are just talking about the pronouncements from the Council of Trent and fact that they are still accepted as catholic dogma.

Quote from: broach972 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 - 09:04:23

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 13:19:55
So this is what I've got, I am not expert or authority. All I am trying to do is research and expose those things that are very misunderstood by Protestants and non-catholics about the Roman Church and their teachings. I welcome all comments and further information that would help us better understand this topic.

You are correct on this point...you are not expert or authority on the matter.  And yes, they are misunderstood by Protestants and non-Catholics.  I hope that I have cleared up some things.

I believe that you neither qualify as an expert or authority, since I don't believe almost going to law school or becoming a history teacher makes someone a catholic theologian or an authority on their doctrines anymore than anybody else who can read them. So I consider you no different than me.

But thank you for your efforts.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 10:22:06

I believe that you neither qualify as an expert or authority, since I don't believe almost going to law school or becoming a history teacher makes someone a catholic theologian or an authority on their doctrines anymore than anybody else who can read them. So I consider you no different than me.

But thank you for your efforts.

Well, you and I are different in one respect...I AM Catholic and you are not.  I would think that I would know more or have some idea of what the Church teaches in this regard, especially considering I am a convert to the faith and have spent the past 10 years studying the faith.  I do have a degree in history and teach it for a living.  I think that would give me an edge.  Yes Charles, you and I are very much different.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 12:56:56

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 10:22:06

I believe that you neither qualify as an expert or authority, since I don't believe almost going to law school or becoming a history teacher makes someone a catholic theologian or an authority on their doctrines anymore than anybody else who can read them. So I consider you no different than me.

But thank you for your efforts.

Well, you and I are different in one respect...I AM Catholic and you are not.  I would think that I would know more or have some idea of what the Church teaches in this regard, especially considering I am a convert to the faith and have spent the past 10 years studying the faith.  I do have a degree in history and teach it for a living.  I think that would give me an edge.  Yes Charles, you and I are very much different.

Broach,

Would I need to be a Mormon to understand what the Mormons teach? Or do I need to be a Jehovah's Witness convert for 10 years studying their faith to understand it? The edge you believe you posses is because you believe being a catholic makes you an authority. I don't think you are anymore of an authority on these topics than anyone else is simply based on your affiliation with catholicism or because of your vocation, if you are you have failed to demonstrate to me why.

But why ignore the replies of my post to strive over whether you're an authority or not, why not discuss some of the points I made in reply to you and prove it?

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 13:39:50
But why ignore the replies of my post to strive over whether you're an authority or not, why not discuss some of the points I made in reply to you and prove it?

I am not ignoring your posts.  I am just getting tired of saying the same things over and over again.  No use in arguing with a brick wall.  When I have responded, I have met your arguments head on, actually destroying some in the process...case in point.

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

I just tend to say the same things over and over again.  You are determined to hold on to your beliefs, no matter how misguided or wrong they are.  There is nothing I can do about this.  I do not claim to be an authority, and there are those who certainly know more than I, such as Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Dave Armstrong, Karl Keating, etc.  However, as a Catholic, I DO know what the Church teaches and will truthfully explain and present it the best way I know how.

As always, been a pleasure Charles.

Quote from: Dennis on Tue Mar 25, 2008 - 14:09:11
Just for historical reference, here is the Eastern Church'scrack at "anathemas."  From the date, it may have been a responce to the Council of Trent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My tuppence, anyhow.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:32:04When I have responded, I have met your arguments head on, actually destroying some in the process...case in point.

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

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

Case in point.

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

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

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 15:42:11

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 14:32:04When I have responded, I have met your arguments head on, actually destroying some in the process...case in point.

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

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

Case in point.

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

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

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

Quote from: Charles Sloan
Broach,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that this is the gist of it.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 16:21:22
You just supported my argument with this statement.  You even admit that the penalty has been abolished.  Yes, the doctrinal pronouncement still stands.  Let me say this...the doctrine is the specific teaching or belief.  The penalty is not the same as the doctrinal pronouncement.  I have been saying this time and time again.  I cannot make this even more clearer.

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

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

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 16:21:22
Why do John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy all disagree with my claims?  I would imagine that they are as anti-Catholic and misinformed as as you are.

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

Is it possible that you are full of hot air?

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 16:21:22
I am not trying to obfuscate what they say.  They are the doctrines of the Church.  Still in effect today.  The doctrines pertaining to the Eucharist are the same as they were at Trent.  Period.

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

I'm glad you at least admit this much.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 16:21:22
Ummm...first, Luther was a Catholic.  Yes, he was excommunicated, which means cut off from the Sacraments, but he did not cease being "Catholic" and accountable for his actions.  He could have very well made amends and come back into the fold if he desired.  Pope Pius XII condemned the "opinions" and teachings of Luther.  Why wouldn't he?  Did you expect him to say that Luther was right?  Catholics reject the teachings of Luther.  I think this is a given.

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

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

Charles:

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

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

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

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 18:02:06
Charles:

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

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

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

I have been trying to figure this out as well.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 18:02:06
Charles:

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

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

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

CDHealy,

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

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

Charles:

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

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

But maybe you can clarify.

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

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

Am I still missing something?

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

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

This was all I have been driving at.

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

But here's where your argument founders again.

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

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

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

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

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

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