Home › Forums › All Things Catholic › luther and trent…
- This topic has 1 reply, 3 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by Anonymous.
March 3, 2010 at 5:33 pm #9640AnonymousInactive
An additional thought that I wanted to post in a separate note, as the last one was running long. [b:5qx9k7gf]Anathemas[/b:5qx9k7gf] Anathema is a dirty word nowadays. With everyone saying, “Can’t we all just get along” we forget what it really means to be anathamatized.
Many of the “Usual Suspects” or Anti-Catholic writers will tell their audience that the Catholic Church has condemned them to hell by Anathamatizing them for their beliefs. They will show them Anathamas against the various protestant beliefs invented in the 15 and 1600’s. Then tell them, “See, the Catholic Church has condemned you to hell for your freedom to believe.” Fortunatly for Catholics and Protestants alike, the persons Anathamatized, are those who first teach the error, and an Anathama is not a statement that they are doomed to hell, but that they are not teaching the truth and are left to God’s mercy.
The reality is quite different. Anathama does not mean, cast into hell, but rather to be cast, or thrown out of the community. To be cast into the outer darkness. It is an old term which predates the Church. We do such things even today, however we call it by different names.
If someone has H1N1 Virus, we isolate or quarentine them. We separate them from the healthy community in order that they do not infect others. This is to protect our bodies that will one day die.
With an Anathama, (which is a last resort) we hope to protect souls, which do not die. If someone teaches a doctrine or moral teaching that is harmful to the soul, the Church needs to protect the rest of the Church. So if someone teaches that Mary the Virgin Mother of Jesus, is herself Divine, and a Goddess, the Church first tries to show the person(s) who are teaching that the error of their teaching. If they remain persistant and try to spread the teaching the Church cannot allow them to continue, and formally tells everyone that the person is not teaching proper doctrine, and is removed from communion with the Church, is cast out as it were. Kind of tricky because it does not releave the person of their obligations to worship God, assist at Mass, or do anything anyone else is obligated to do. But it marks them as someone who is not following the Church, or who’s teachings are in error and need to be disregarded. The Church still prays for their souls, and that they eventually return to doctrinal or moral orthodoxy.
In a way we anathamatize ourselves when we allow ourselves to fall into mortal sin. We lift the anathama when we make a good confession, and return to a life of Grace.March 8, 2010 at 5:46 am #9641AnonymousInactive
very interesting, loved reading it!April 7, 2010 at 7:36 am #9713AnonymousInactive
I did finally get to look up in a set of books at a local Protestant Bookstore I go to from time to time. Peter Schraff, a noted Evangelical Protestant Historian mentions the accusation against the Early Christians to be cannibals in the second volume of his History of the Early Church, on page 88. This is from his 8 volume set. He in Vol 1 and 2 also discusses the fact that in the Early Church there were Fathers who wrote about the Church recognizing the Liturgy as a Sacrifice, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He also brings of the later Protestant ideas about the Eucharist, but does not (in my opinion) give any evidence that those later beliefs were held by the Early Church.
This is an answer to a question on a different thread, but I can’t find the thread. Not being able to find it reminds me that I have to look up the answer to the question on this thread.April 8, 2010 at 12:25 am #9714AnonymousInactive
^^oh this is the one for the Christians being accused of cannibalism, thank you sirApril 8, 2010 at 1:50 am #9717AnonymousInactive
Sorry, mis-spelled the author’s name, it was Phillip Schaff.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.