Protestant/catholic Relationship

[timwho]

[i]Lectori Salutem,[/i]
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 ([i]exampli gratia, sola gratia, sola fide[/i]). 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/library/theology/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

[Vincent Vega]

I smell an Anglican.
[spoiler]I mean this in the most complimentary way.[/spoiler]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340666747' post='2448822']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[/quote]

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

Edited June 25, 2012 by Lil Red

[timwho]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1340666951' post='2448824']
I smell an Anglican.
[spoiler]I mean this in the most complimentary way.[/spoiler]
[/quote]

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 June 25, 2012 by Timothy J. Hutama

[Vincent Vega]

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

[timwho]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1340667290' post='2448829']
Interesting. Most of the time, "Roman" comes from Anglicans and Papist comes from non-denoms.
[/quote]

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 [i]solas[/i] of protestantism. Take [i]sola fide[/i], 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...

[url="http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp"]http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp[/url]

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

[quote][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]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:[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]1. [/size][/font][/color][i]An anathema sentenced a person to hell[/i][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]. This is not the case. Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God’s alone, and the Church cannot exercise it.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]2. [/size][/font][/color][i]An anathema was a sure sign that a person would go to hell[/i][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]. 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.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]5. [/size][/font][/color][i]Anathemas took effect automatically[/i][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]. While the Church does have penalties that take effect automatically (latae sententiae), the penalty of anathema was not one of them. [/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]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. [/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]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.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]6. [/size][/font][/color][i]Anathemas applied to all Protestants[/i][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]. 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.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]7. [/size][/font][/color][i]Anathemas are still in place today[/i][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3]. 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 [/size][/font][/color][i]Code of Canon Law[/i][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][size=3] came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

[Tab'le De'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 June 26, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye