Let Him Be Anathema

[Dave]

How does one respond to the claim that Protestants aren't Christians in light of the "let him be anathema" statements at Trent which dealt with Protestant beliefs? The below quote is an excerpt from an e-mail from him.

[quote]The canons of Trent say that PEOPLE are condemned, not that teachings are. They take the form, "Whoever says ... let him be anathema."

Do you know any basis for the claim that Trent's canons are directed at the then-current Protestants?

Expressions like, "we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate" seem to me to be something more than merely exclusion from fellowship. I also think they are on par with statements that someone is non-Christian. The passage quoted and the rest of the paragraph do indicate that repentance is possible, but most people think that repentance is possible for non-Christians, too.[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Dave' post='1208809' date='Mar 5 2007, 09:37 PM']How does one respond to the claim that Protestants aren't Christians in light of the "let him be anathema" statements at Trent which dealt with Protestant beliefs? The below quote is an excerpt from an e-mail from him.[/quote]
Simple, the Council Fathers assumed the condition that Protestants were committing heresy by leaving the faith, not that they were being born that way and not knowing any better. That condition becomes an important part of the context of the statement. To take the statement's literal appearance out of the context is to be fundamentalist. Protestant fundamentalists take the literalist approach to Scripture; Radical traditionalists take the literalist approach to Tradition. They're both fundamentalists.

[Franimus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1208829' date='Mar 5 2007, 10:12 PM']Radical traditionalists take the literalist approach to Tradition.[/quote]
Wow. You just explained so much to me right there.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1208829' date='Mar 5 2007, 08:12 PM']Simple, the Council Fathers assumed the condition that Protestants were committing heresy by leaving the faith, not that they were being born that way and not knowing any better. That condition becomes an important part of the context of the statement. To take the statement's literal appearance out of the context is to be fundamentalist. Protestant fundamentalists take the literalist approach to Scripture; Radical traditionalists take the literalist approach to Tradition. They're both fundamentalists.[/quote]

Trads who accept the Holy Father are not fundamentalists.

And yes, though I'd never thought of it, it does seem reasonable to state that becuase Protestants are anathematized they are not Christian.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1209516' date='Mar 6 2007, 11:40 PM']Trads who accept the Holy Father are not fundamentalists.[/quote]
You cannot claim to accept the Holy Father if you reject his teachings. One of the Holy Father's teachings is that those who, through no fault of their own, are lacking orthodox faith, are still Christian. Radical traditionalists, who almost uniformly reject this, are fundamentalists when it comes to Tradition.

There are two fountains of Divine Revelation. One is Scripture, one is Tradition. Fundamentalists remove either from context. Those removing Scripture from context are Protestant Fundamentalists. Those removing Tradition from context are Radical Traditionalist Fundamentalists.

Radical Traditionalism has so attacked the Church that I have seen Protestant Fundamentalists quote Radical Traditionalist Fundamentalists out of context in order to prove that Catholicism is wrong. The thing is that in that case, Protestant Fundamentalists are right inasmuch as they say that Radical Traditionalist Fundamentalists are wrong. That means that Radical Traditionalist Fundamentalists have, by their false teachings, kept Protestant Fundamentalists from seeing the truth of the authentic teaching of Christ through the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Micah

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1209573' date='Mar 6 2007, 10:31 PM']You cannot claim to accept the Holy Father if you reject his teachings. One of the Holy Father's teachings is that those who, through no fault of their own, are lacking orthodox faith, are still Christian. Radical traditionalists, who almost uniformly reject this, are fundamentalists when it comes to Tradition.

There are two fountains of Divine Revelation. One is Scripture, one is Tradition. Fundamentalists remove either from context. Those removing Scripture from context are Protestant Fundamentalists. Those removing Tradition from context are Radical Traditionalist Fundamentalists.

Radical Traditionalism has so attacked the Church that I have seen Protestant Fundamentalists quote Radical Traditionalist Fundamentalists out of context in order to prove that Catholicism is wrong. The thing is that in that case, Protestant Fundamentalists are right inasmuch as they say that Radical Traditionalist Fundamentalists are wrong. That means that Radical Traditionalist Fundamentalists have, by their false teachings, kept Protestant Fundamentalists from seeing the truth of the authentic teaching of Christ through the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Micah[/quote]

The Pope teaches that "If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation."

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1209583' date='Mar 7 2007, 12:36 AM']The Pope teaches that "If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation."[/quote]
Yes, very good.

However, you still remove it from its contextual circumstances by saying (unrealistically) that most Protestants aren't ignorant. You use that position to criticize the pope. I admit that your particular position could be worse, but you are still opposed to the Holy Father.

By the way, I want to name my next dog "Anathema" so I can say, "Anathema sit!"

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1209679' date='Mar 7 2007, 06:38 AM']Yes, very good.

However, you still remove it from its contextual circumstances by saying (unrealistically) that most Protestants aren't ignorant. You use that position to criticize the pope. I admit that your particular position could be worse, but you are still opposed to the Holy Father.

By the way, I want to name my next dog "Anathema" so I can say, "Anathema sit!"[/quote]



But back on subject... no I'm not criticizing the Pope, and I do not think the Pope in an authoritative document has ever stated that most Protestants are invincibly ignorant. Maybe there is one: try to prove me wrong.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1209988' date='Mar 7 2007, 06:47 PM']

But back on subject... no I'm not criticizing the Pope, and I do not think the Pope in an authoritative document has ever stated that most Protestants are invincibly ignorant. Maybe there is one: try to prove me wrong.[/quote]
I never said that the pope had said so in an authoritative document, but it is a criticism of the pope when one is angry because he dines with "heretics" and even encourages them as Christians, and he often does this because he believes them to be invincibly ignorant. When a person condemns the Vicar of Christ for dining with sinners, it really makes one wonder.