Regarding Anathemas

[Moneybags]

We must still follow ALL the anathemas proclaimed by the Holy Church. They are still part of the magesterium, so we have to know what is anathema. I suggest reading the anathemas from the Council of Trent.

I found this online ( [url="http://lamland.blogspot.com/2007/01/old-school-anathemas.html"]http://lamland.blogspot.com/2007/01/old-sc...-anathemas.html[/url] ):

[quote]After reading Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, a friend and I were discussing anathematization. He located the old formula used on Wikipedia:

"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."

You have to love a Church that not only is able to turn every event into a liturgy, including sending someone to hell, but also makes the sending into hell very visual in its rubrics, excluding them "from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth" and which personally delivers them "to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

Sounds like the Iraqi tribunals.

At a level higher than a major excommunication, "anathema" was imposed by the pope in a specific ceremony described in the Pontificale Romanum. Wearing a purple cope and holding a lighted candle, the pontiff, surrounded by twelve priests, also with lighted candles, pronounced the anathema with the above formula. The priests responded: "Fiat, fiat, fiat" (Let it be done), and all, including the pontiff, cast their lighted candles on the ground.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law abolished all ecclesiastical penalties and made "anathema" synonymous with "excommunication" (canon 2257). The 1983 Code of Canon Law, now in force, has no mention of the word "anathema."[/quote]

[catholic_apologetics]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1197630' date='Feb 17 2007, 01:44 AM']They are contained in the Apostles Creed, Sacraments, Decalogue, and Lord's Prayer, all of which I have studied in the Catechism.
I know full well of the Church:
You are wrong in your definition of formal heretic.

From the Cath. Encyc.:[/quote]

Your quotes are good choices and fully back up what I have said previously. The vast majority of Protestants do not make free choices to be Protestants in having full knowledge that the Catholic Church is that one, true, holy, and catholic Church. While you are reading, could you also post for us what the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council have said about our separated brethren. Since you have already professed your allegiance to Pope Benedict XVI, I know you accept the validity and accuracy of both, and I'm sure your very familiar with the texts.

[Akalyte]

I have another question, why do many catholics today mention Vatican II first? We have 2000 years of Catholic history and tradition, the church was not founded or -re-founded at vatican II it was just a council. In many cases it caused (well the hijacking of it) a giant break with tradition and a chain reaction of heterodoxy..

Edited February 17, 2007 by Akalyte

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1197258' date='Feb 16 2007, 08:07 PM']We do not see a new approach. The approach of Vatican II was the same approach as the 1930 years of Catholicism before it. Protstants have the same sins as their fathers: denying the Dogmata of the Holy Catholic Church.[/quote]

Read my sig, and quit hating so much. I am fully confident in affirming that you know almost nothing about protestantism. And in the same the majority of protestants know nothing about catholicism, and the knowledge they do have is often very polemic.

Akalyte. I agree with you. It wasnt vat II that brought me into the church, it was patristics. But yet, I still find myself guilty of the same thing.

[catholic_apologetics]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1197955' date='Feb 17 2007, 12:48 PM']I have another question, why do many catholics today mention Vatican II first? We have 2000 years of Catholic history and tradition, the church was not founded or -re-founded at vatican II it was just a council. In many cases it caused (well the hijacking of it) a giant break with tradition and a chain reaction of heterodoxy..[/quote]

It is important to remember that the Second Vatican Council did not cause a break with tradition, the reaction and poor implementation of the council caused a break with Tradition. Nothing in the documents of the council calls for a break with tradition, rather this pastoral council demands attention because it was lead and written by the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. It guides us in how we can best serve the Church. You seemed concerned that there is a discontinuity between the Second Vatican Council and the rest of Church history, there really isn't. There are many good books that address the council if you would like to study it and why we turn to the council to answer questions like "How do we approach those who are Christians yet are separated from full visible communion with the Church?" The council has a document which addresses this concern and answers this question for us today, not for 400 years ago.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1197750' date='Feb 17 2007, 10:06 AM']We must still follow ALL the anathemas proclaimed by the Holy Church. They are still part of the magesterium, so we have to know what is anathema. I suggest reading the anathemas from the Council of Trent.[/quote]
The 1917 Code of Canon Law abolished all ecclesiastical penalties and made "anathema" synonymous with "excommunication" (canon 2257). The 1983 Code of Canon Law, now in force, has no mention of the word "anathema."

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1197955' date='Feb 17 2007, 12:48 PM']I have another question, why do many catholics today mention Vatican II first? We have 2000 years of Catholic history and tradition, the church was not founded or -re-founded at vatican II it was just a council. In many cases it caused (well the hijacking of it) a giant break with tradition and a chain reaction of heterodoxy..[/quote]

Well, I'm sure Catholics in the late Middle Ages looked as much to the Council of Trent as today's Catholics look to Vatican II. The fact that we look to it simply means that important and significant pastoral changes were made there. If it were just a ping-pong tournament among the bishops, then we wouldn't care... and Forrest Gump would be Pope.

As for the "breaking" with tradition and chain reaction of heterodoxy... it's not like Catholics have only gained a reputation as Christianity's biggest hypocrites since the 1960s. All the reverence, Mass attendence, and long Confession lines were just a facade covering deeper spiritual issues. That's why our bishops needed to call Vatican II. If everything's going hunkey-dorey, why call a council? Your question suggests that if we could somehow go back to the old days, then many of the Church's and society's problems would be fixed. But we need to be careful about trying to create some kind of heaven on earth... only God will do that. The Church merely serves as a foretaste of what is to come.

Look at it this way... the Church is ugly, but the Bride of Christ is beautiful.

Edited February 17, 2007 by LouisvilleFan

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]The Second Vatican Council[/b]
[b]Lumen Gentium [/b](The Dogmatic Consitution on the Church)
[b]14[/b]. "This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [u]it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation[/u]. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In[u] explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and [b]thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church[/b][/u], for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. [b][u]Whosoever, therefore, [color="#FF0000"]knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary [/color]by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved[/u][/b].

[u]They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, [b]who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops[/b][/u]. [u]The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are [b]profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion[/b][/u]. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart. [u]All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ[/u]. [u]If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, [b]not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged[/b][/u].

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own."
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_council...gentium_en.html[/url][/quote]The Holy Second Vatican Council made a definition in the theology of salvation regarding to the Church that had been argued. Many had argued that being apart of the invisible Church was sufficient for salvation but this definition really starts to challenge this thought process. Notice that instead of saying “believing the Church was made necessary” but it says “knowing”. This reflects proper theology that every human being has the Divine Obligation that cannot be excused to seek Divine Truth and when finding it to maintain it. Thus if a person through a fault of their own refuses to seek Divine Truth or when meeting something in the Catholic Church that could endanger their salvation they then refuse to seek it, they are failing at a Divine Obligation. But this does not mean every single person is at fault for not knowing the Church or that every single person knows of the Church, but simply being born into a community of belief separate from the Holy Church is not sufficient reason to not seek her out...

This although, as if you read further in the document and the Church always taught, that those not fully incorporated into the Church can still be saved but it will be through and by the Holy Church. For the Church is the only instituted founded by Christ for the eternal salvation of souls likewise it only makes sense that He would grant salvation through His Bride, the Holy Church. So their culpability becomes in question.

While some people here have properly spoken Non-Catholics, Non-Christians, and even Non-Believers are committing grave sins by not being apart of the Holy Church professing all that she professes but they are not fully capable for those sins thus we cannot be sure of the gravity of the sins to them. Further, we could most likely presume that many of them are not aware what they are doing is wrong so we could classify their sins as “material” meaning that if they truly knew what they were doing was wrong it would be sinful for them but still objectively it is sinful.

To be a heretic one must know they believe (professing) something formally condemned by the Holy Church, they must refuse to repent of it, and finally they must willingly do this. Further, to be subject to the excommunication they must be aware that it is punishable by automatic accommodation. Schematics and Apostates are put under the same requirements. So it wouldn’t be reasonable to claim that under this Code of Canon Law that all those not apart of the Church are automatically excommunicated.

While this conversation could theologically draw deep into the precepts of the early church fathers and the popes (even Pope John Paul the Second) throwing their hats into the ring explaining this teaching. Sufficient to say that for the common layman this teaching is to remind us the importance of the Church, our need to be apart of the Church, our need to obey her, and moreover that all are saved (with, through, by, and under) if one is aware of it or not. Just as all are saved by Christ if they know it or not…

It is not for us to take this theology and start to judge others but rather it is to reaffirm what is true for we as Catholics are to “hope” for the salvation of every soul and pray for those whom may not be in the best conditions for their eternal salvation. We are not a condemning people but a people of love who are called to preach a gospel of love unto the ends of the earth that the earth full of hate may be shattered into pieces. This love was so great that it overcame persecution and civilization collapse, it is truly the one true Church but we are not called to hate those separated from the Church under any pretext...

[Mr.Cat]

The Second Vatican Council did not diverge from the teachings of the Catholic Church and in fact if you read it the Council Fathers repeatedly call for a strict adherence to the traditions of the Church, both infallible and non-infallible. The problem that many Catholics face today have nothing to do with the Sacred Council.

[Paddington]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1197502' date='Feb 17 2007, 02:39 AM']I am by no means uncatechised: I have read and studied the entirety of [i]The Baltimore Catechism No. 3[/i] and [i]The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X[/i]. I have also read parts of [i]The Catechism of the Council of Trent[/i], [i]The Aquinas Catechism[/i] and [i]The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma[/i].[/quote]

In other words, you are a novice at theology. Just like most of us here.
The only thing that makes you exceptional here is how much of a novice you are at life.
Jesus' ministry started when he was +/- 30 years old.
Listen to your elders more.
BTW, I think you choose great books to read. I wish I would have done that at your age. On that note, I hope you keep on keepin' on.