Catholic Canons of the Eucharist

[Harold]

Broach help me out here.

I have stated that the Council of Trent as church doctrine is still in tact, but has no authority over anyone that is not Catholic.

I, as a Christian, am not condemned of anything unless the official church brings charges against me. Since I am not Catholic, and not under the authority of the Catholic church, they could not charge me with anything.

The penalty of anathema excommunication is no longer in the official Catholic law.

FTL

[broach972]

Broach help me out here.

I have stated that the Council of Trent as church doctrine is still in tact, but has no authority over anyone that is not Catholic.

I, as a Christian, am not condemned of anything unless the official church brings charges against me. Since I am not Catholic, and not under the authority of the Catholic church, they could not charge me with anything.

The penalty of anathema excommunication is no longer in the official Catholic law.

FTL

Bingo!!  Nice use of logic.  Well done.

The doctrines of Trent stand...no doubt.  The penalty attached to those doctrines do not.  They are not the same thing.

[broach972]

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:

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

and

Everything 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...".

Charles, I cannot make it any clearer than I already have.  I have read the article and understand it quite clear.  It isn't that difficult to understand and anyone with a little knowledge of history and canon law can fit the pieces together.  There is obviously something you are not connecting with that prevents from understanding what Akin and I have tried to convey.  I think that you are having a difficult time distinguishing between actual doctrine and penalties subscribed under Canon law.  They are not the same thing.  I think this is where the disconnect lies.  Jimmy Akin is a well respected individual within Catholic circles and well versed in Catholic theology.

Yes, the doctrines of Trent still apply today.  Some of them are cornerstones of the Catholic faith--they were 1500 years prior to the Reformation.  That was the purpose of Trent--to reaffirm Catholic doctrines threatened by the Reformation.

If you wish to continue to be misinformed, then there is nothing that I can do about it.  It is obvious you are completely ignoring the historical context of Trent.  The reason it starts with "If anyone..." is because everyone was Catholic prior to the Reformation.  Let me repeat this...everyone prior to the Reformation in Western Europe was Catholic.  Even Luther was Catholic.

I would strongly suggest you look at Harold's post.  He isn't even Catholic and he gets the gist of it.

Charles, it has been a pleasure.  No smokescreens are there.  Lumen Gentium is pretty clear.  I came close to going to law school before becoming a teacher.  Perhaps this is why it is so clear to me.  Continue to study and research...it will come to you eventually.

[Ek Pyros]

[quot=broach972]By the way, I am proud of the fact that you are looking at the Catechism...very important.[/quote]The Catechism is important because?...

[Charles Sloan]

Charles, I cannot make it any clearer than I already have.  I have read the article and understand it quite clear.  It isn't that difficult to understand and anyone with a little knowledge of history and canon law can fit the pieces together.  There is obviously something you are not connecting with that prevents from understanding what Akin and I have tried to convey.  I think that you are having a difficult time distinguishing between actual doctrine and penalties subscribed under Canon law.  They are not the same thing.  I think this is where the disconnect lies.  Jimmy Akin is a well respected individual within Catholic circles and well versed in Catholic theology.

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.

Yes, the doctrines of Trent still apply today.  Some of them are cornerstones of the Catholic faith--they were 1500 years prior to the Reformation.  That was the purpose of Trent--to reaffirm Catholic doctrines threatened by the Reformation.

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

If you wish to continue to be misinformed, then there is nothing that I can do about it.  It is obvious you are completely ignoring the historical context of Trent.  The reason it starts with "If anyone..." is because everyone was Catholic prior to the Reformation.  Let me repeat this...everyone prior to the Reformation in Western Europe was Catholic.  Even Luther was Catholic.

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.

I would strongly suggest you look at Harold's post.  He isn't even Catholic and he gets the gist of it.

I'm not sure what you have going with Harold, or why Harold suddenly became a catholic apologist when he admittedly doesn't care about your doctrines and doesn't agree with what you teach. Forgive me if I desire a more reliable source of information than someone who simply agrees with you to argue with me.

Charles, it has been a pleasure.  No smokescreens are there.  Lumen Gentium is pretty clear.  I came close to going to law school before becoming a teacher.  Perhaps this is why it is so clear to me.  Continue to study and research...it will come to you eventually.

So because you went to law school, you are smart and anyone that disagrees with you is dumb. And anyone who doesn't agree needs to keep studying until they do, regardless if the results of their study refutes all your claims. You cannot refrain from puffing yourself up and putting others down just to make yourself look right, can you?

But in your mind Harold, whereas he admits he doesn't agree with your beliefs, teachings, doctrines, etc. He's right because he agrees with you.

That pretty much settles the argument for me.

[broach972]

That pretty much settles the argument for me.

Yep...it was settled for me quite some time ago...

As always, been a pleasure...

[Harold]

Forgive me if I desire a more reliable source of information than someone who simply agrees with you to argue with me.

Maybe I don't care for witch hunts, in Salem or, on GCM.

That would include cursing Christians as "anathema"
Since according to their very doctrines I am not a brother but a curse upon the earth and doomed to damnation in hell

.

As I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this thread, the penalty may be gone but even Jimmy Akin admits the doctrinal definition still remains.

If the anathema (The Cursing Part) has been set aside then the teaching remains but no one is cursing anyone.

"condemned the new and false opinion of Luther" as anathema with the Mediator Dei in 1947

Now which comes first 1947 or 1983?

Kensington not one of my statements is incorrect that I can find, but feel free to point them out if I did.

FTL