46 replies to this topic

[timwho]

Lectori Salutem,
Can anyone explain to me the relationship between the Roman Church and the various sects of Protestant Churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

From what I understand many of the core doctrines of protestantism have been declared anathema in the Council of Trent (exampli gratia, sola gratia, sola fide). Does that imply that I (as a professing Reformed) am lost? Or further still, since I believe in credobaptism which is even declared anathema by the Westminster Confession of Faith, a protestant confession, further subject to eternal loss.

Yes, I am aware that 838 in the catechism refers to this (as seen form the forum guidelines) but it also says "properly baptized", which, but the the doctrines of baptism also explained in the catechism, credobaptism is not. Would the statement of partial communion only extend to such ecclesial communities as the Anglican communion, the Lutheran Church, and the Methodist church which have somewhat more similar structures and doctrines to the Roman church than do many churches of Reformed tradition esp. those that have taken up some baptist doctrines.

Please forgive me if this is overly broad, I'm jobless in this summer between university and have devoted a significant amount of time to exploring church history. I'm sure i can come up with more questions, but i have made an effort to limit the scope of my questions about the catholic church to the relationship of protestantism to the Roman Church and not questions of my questions on doctrine.

Sincerely,
Timothy H.

[Lil Red]

though i will leave answering your questions to the more learned people on the boards, i just wanted to say welcome to phatmass!

[MissyP89]

Might I suggest posting this in the Q&A board as well? You'll get all kinds of responses from varied people here in the Debate Table. However, by posting in Q&A, the responses you receive will come only from our Church Scholars, who are clergy and those with theology degrees.

Welcome aboard!

[timwho]

yes, but i figure according to the forum guidelines it would end up here anyway and I find that forums usually find it in bad taste to go around posting the same thing in five different places

[Archaeology cat]

I was raised Southern Baptist, which of course practices credobaptism, and my baptism was considered valid by the Church. It was still a Trinitatian baptism in water, with the intention of doing what the Church does, even if I now believe their understanding of that is flawed. So simply being baptised by a congregation that practices credobaptism isn't an impediment, as far as I'm aware. After all, it was long ago resolved that baptism by heretical grops was still valid (Iwant to say Augustine discussed that). And this is also true because it is truly Jesus who baptises, acting through the minister. http://www.ewtn.com/...gy/mormbap1.htm

God bless!

[timwho]

Ah I was just reading about that, a conflict between north african christians and rome in the . . . 4th? century regarding the validity of baptism in places not part of the episcopal church. Thanks.

The first part of the question regarding (essentially) the effects of doctrines called anathema on the eternal life or loss of a soul still remains unanswered though.

Would it be permissible add questions to this thread as previous questions are answered, I feel as if making a new thread for every question would lead me to flooding the forum xD

[USAirwaysIHS]

I smell an Anglican.

Spoiler

I mean this in the most complimentary way.

[Lil Red]

Would it be permissible add questions to this thread as previous questions are answered, I feel as if making a new thread for every question would lead me to flooding the forum xD

go for it. i just wouldn't want you to feel overwhelmed with responses.

Edited by Lil Red, 25 June 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[timwho]

I smell an Anglican.

Spoiler

I mean this in the most complimentary way.

ah but i'm not xD random independent church.
Now I was raised in a fundamentalist elem/middle school but i've also grown disenchanted with that line of thought.

^the one who, as a child, would assert that catholics are among the unsaved, can now see some of the merits of Catholic theology, and I am indeed finding that it is a wonderfully deep theology. We all see through a glass, darkly anyway.

Edited by Timothy J. Hutama, 25 June 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[USAirwaysIHS]

Interesting. Most of the time, "Roman" comes from Anglicans and Papist comes from non-denoms.

[timwho]

Interesting. Most of the time, "Roman" comes from Anglicans and Papist comes from non-denoms.

I call it Roman because I have some Coptic friends, and my questions isn't referring to the church headed by the pope of alexandria. Its a matter of accuracy more than anything else.

[Papist]

It is not that simple. It is not as simple as Catholicism compared to Protestantism b/c there are differences[some big] within the Protestant churches.

[timwho]

The big differences you speak of stem from a few basic differences from what I understand of the reformation. The protestant theology generally stems from the solas of protestantism. Take sola fide, in relation to justification:

The Council of Trent, Canon 9 on Justification
“If any one says, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such way as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
since this is a central part of just about every protestant theology, it would stand to reason that basically all protestants are "anathema."

My understanding of anathema is eternal damnation (eternal loss). What then is "partial communion" with ecclesial communities? Since my understanding of anathema is damnation, then it should also stand to reason that any "communion" at all should not exist, but to say it doesn't would be to also ignore the statements in the catechism (which I assume derives from Vatican II).

[MIkolbe]

This might assist the understanding of anathema...

http://archive.catho...00/0004chap.asp

Here are some useful quotes from the above linked article.
:

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.

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.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

Jesus "Be baptised and believe and you will be saved." "anyone whom speaks in my name can eventually do no evil." "anyone whom eats of my flesh and drinks of my blood will have life." "you will be measured by the rod you measure with." "i too have other flocks." "he that hates his brother shall be condemned." "love one another as i have loved you."

Thats all i have to quote. I am a kind of sola scriptora christian member of the holy catholic church, and sacred tradition is a part of the holy gospels when Jesus states words to this effect(and all my jesus quotes are words to this effect because i have partial braindamage and is hard to remember exactly.) "not everything i do will be recorded in these accounts." Something like that anyhow, but that verse is enough to convince me that there are some things that are not in scripture that are gospel, possibly grace before meals is an example. Maybe somone can scratch up the verse and give exactly what it states. And i also believe that sacred tradition is an ongoing work of the holy spirit, but not that previous worls of the holy spirit are un-holy for the spirit is holy.

edit: P.s. sometimes i think it's a matter of how saved you hope to be or are willing to be. But than scripture kinda hints to me that ultimately it is only GOD whom can get me into heaven, the 1st commandment "love the lord your GOD with all your mind,heart,body and soul." and that loving and being open to be loved by GOD allows us to love thy neighbour as thyself. Of course we still need prayer,meditation,and good works in word and deed. But the number 1 podium is loving GOD that we may also love our neighbour, and the rest flows from that.

Edited by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye, 25 June 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[timwho]

oh hmm, that's interesting, always nice to know the depths of mischaracterization taught by those that don't bother learning xD. Now I can move on to more questions. . .

On justification:
Well half my interest in catholic theology comes form a new pastor coming into my church and having is first message on the magnificence of monergism, which I disagreed with. . . which brings my inquiry to the catholic doctrine of justification


The primary contention of Protestantism with catholicism is that of justification as put forth by Luther and Calvin. That being said, being in a Reformed church, my pastors and friends tend to follow in the footsteps of calvin in declaring the total depravity of the human soul and its inability to turn towards God hence the teaching of monergism. From what I understand, my beliefs regarding justification are closer to that of the synergism of Catholic theology

The catechism states "Moved by grace, man turns towards God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high." 2019 which echoes the synergism of the joint work of both God and man in the act of justification.

I wish to ask how the Catholic church refutes the the doctrine of total depravity when protestant justification of the theology seems pretty resolute (http://www.reformed....oofs/index.html VI, 2). Or is it that the doctrine is also affirmed? 2027 than says "no one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion." Which necessitates an explanation of "merit" because according to protestant theology such "merit," as I understand it is impossible.

An explanation of merit is found in the joint statement on justification: http://www.vatican.v...aration_en.html
but I find it lacking in that it doesn't explain to me where the criticism of "by faith alone, without works" come from by protestants. It would appear to me that both sides do affirm that salvation is by faith alone? Is this a misunderstanding on luther's part at the start of the reformation, or mine in understanding catholic theology? It would appear to be mine because of the above statement on justification from the council of trent.

I'm sorry if i'm overly confusing my thoughts aren't that coherent at 2 am xD.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

i simply will quote holy scripture to the best of my abilities of present. Jesus "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." This scripture teaches me that all souls from the beggining desire a relationship with GOD but through the sins of the flesh this desire is clouded,true charity is reduced which can be regained through repentance and amends in word and deed. To my understand this does not make the flesh evil just weaker than the life of the spirit. Does this make our will stronger than that of GOD, that without our will GOD is somewhat weakened? No i don't believe so! Though jesus does require the willingness of the created to administer grace, though at times he probably does step in through the intercession of a saint or the moanings and groanings of ones soul for a relationship with the creator. The holy bible clearly states the soul groans on our behalf, is that equal for all peoples? Yes i believe so! For all souls are created in the image and likeness of GOD. And again scripture states we will be judged by every word and deed, though it doesn't say we are saved by word and deed, just like jesus says "repetative prayer won't get you into heaven." not that we can't pray repetatively/daily for the same thing and not that we can't pray in the ejaculatory form like repeating a verse over and over again for 5 or 10 minutes whatever the time. I believe jesus is saying that only GOD ultimately can get us into heaven. And jesus states himself that the 2 most important commandments are love the lord your god with all you mind heart body and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself, and that all else flows from these. But in the end good words and deeds are defenitely a part of the redemtive mission and can not be frowned upon in any manner. But than this is all just my discernment and i know little of sacred tradition of the holy catholic church, though i respect it as part of the redemtive mission of christ. Most of it is open to interpretation to a degree for any practising member of the holy roman catholic church unless the pope exercises his rite to infalibility with the grace of the holy spirit as a matter of faith and morals and no ifs buts or maybes on the matter.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

i think we all do anethemas or whatever there called at times, jesus states the tounge is a double edged sword that can be used to bless or to curse, but if casting another into ghenna which happens in scripture i will give the prophet daniel as an example, in waiting for judgement so to speak and not the eternal damnation, than obviously the law courts of heaven,the angels and saints and GOD himself are the final judge as to whether the person remains under that state of judgement and seperation from grace. But than this is all just my opinion and i have no theological degree and nore am i of any standing in the holy roman catholic church except that of the layity.

[Groo the Wanderer]

table is best understood with gin and tonic....

[MIkolbe]

i think there is a bit of defintional anxiety as it comes to the word 'merit'. As we all know, words can change meanings throughout the years..In the 1800's saying, "I'm gay", meant something totally different than it does today. With this in mind, we have to 'transport' back to what the medieval and renaissance Church meant by that term. Hans Urs Von Balthasar was a 20th century theologian. In his words, the best modern equivalent for "merit" is "fruitfulness." In a nutshell, it is how we participate in God's life.

The Council says that "the gifts of God are also the good merits of him justified." Is this saying "Salvation means God does half and we do half?" No. It is saying something far more radical. It is saying that God does it all and we do it all. Following Paul (who urged the Philippians to "work our your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose"), the Council asserts that the fruit borne by the believer is real fruit which is really and truly given by God and therefore really and truly a part of the believer's life. Instead of seeing salvation as "snow on a dunghill" (a mere legal decree of righteousness which gets us to heaven yet which leaves us unchanged in our inner being), the Council sees salvation as a process which really changes us in our inner being and conforms us to the image of Christ.

Essentially, Trent is saying that grace, incarnate in us, has real, tangible and eternal effects on us and our relationship with God according to our cooperation with it. Like the Parable of the Sower, the seed of the word bears fruit depending on the kind of reception we give it. If we freely respond to grace and do good, this changes us and makes us able to respond to more grace (which God, who is still prior) seeks to give. (Repeat steps 1 and 2 as necessary till sinner is perfected and glorified.) We do indeed bear fruit for eternal life. We are indeed rewarded for what we do. Yet it is all the work of grace.

Here is a really good article on what the Church means by 'merit'. This guy says it a whole lot better than me.. LOL...and I ended up copying and pasting his better parts... but here is the article... http://www.mark-shea.com/merit.html