When you hunt around for explanations of the Council of Trent’s anathemas on various Roman Catholic websites, you find a recurring assertion that the church cannot damn anyone to hell, only God can do that. The anathemas as such only apply to Protestant doctrines, not to Protestants themselves.
Like other excommunications, anathemas didn’t do anything to a person’s soul. It didn’t make him “damned by God” or anything like that. The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power. An anathema was a formal way of signaling him that he had done something gravely wrong, that he had endangered his own soul, and that he needed to repent. Anathemas, like other excommunications, were thus medicinal penalties, designed to promote healing and reconciliation.
Love the Protestant, hate Protestantism, I guess.
This explanation is odd for a couple reasons. First, if Protestants are not anathematized by Trent, is it not the case that Protestants are still schismatics, which is not a good condition for the soul since schism is a mortal sin?
Sins against Faith: 2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith”9 as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him. 2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith: Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness. 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Some apologists will also tell us that we are under obligation to go to Mass if we want to go to heaven.
We may be spared Trent’s condemnations, but the very idea of no salvation outside the church and Rome’s claim that it has the power to dispense grace takes Protestants from the Council’s frying pan into Rome’s fire.
The other odd aspect of this distinction between Rome’s authority and God’s when it comes the fate of souls is that the papacy does apparently have the power to canonize saints. This implies that the church can determine who is in heaven. It even has access to a treasury of merits to liberate souls from purgatory with indulgences.
Now maybe such limits on Rome’s power truly exist. But why does it seem like a case of public relations where Roman Catholic apologists are uncomfortable with hell and try to distance themselves from anathemas but not so much with heaven and the process of canonization? Have Rome’s apologists been reading Rob Bell?
277 Comments
Darryl, everything that comes to mind about that possibility seems……….uncharitable. Now, if I pull that nonsense with my wife, it’s: ” Let me tell you a few things about you that YOU don’t know.” ‘cept it’s more a look than an utterance, funny, I swear I hear it just the same.
The flip side of charity is humility. If the Roman Catholic Church showed more of the latter, perhaps Protestants and Secularists would show more of the former.
With some of this stuff I think Bryan is a smart guy who has been dealt a bad hand and he’s playing it the best he can. Just as nagging doubts about the “Protestant paradigm” eventually got the best of him (and, more recently, Stellman), perhaps we have created some nagging doubts that will do the same eventually with his Catholic paradigm. These things don’t happen overnight, though. There’s a time to make arguments and a time to be gracious.
Keeping the familial analogy going, is Bryan’s love and logic angle the ecclesiastical version of a mother lording it over and exasperating her children, or a husband his wife and kids? It’s hard to see how an authoritarian system naturally gets around this inevitability.
Bryan, but you never said that the rules of logic and straw men needed to exist in the context of charity. That’s certainly not what they teach in logic classes. You look at the terms, propositions, and deductions. Which is always what you do when you interact with me. But you don’t read what I write charitably. If you did, then you’d agree with me.
Why not stick to your claim that you have logic on your side (even though it’s logic that flies by faith)?
Sean, maybe Bryan belongs to one of those patriarchal post-Federal Vision Roman Catholic parishes.
I got one of those down the street literally. Just not Roman Catholic………yet.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548464_10150247902514964_783564693_n.jpg
Darryl,
Pretty close to the same cap even. Just more modern. Probably a Vat II accommodation that Bryan rescued from the “lost generation”.
Darryl,
In the context of formal logic alone, that’s true. But the role of virtue and charity in communication is something we teach in the trivium and in ethics.
True.
Logical fallacies are not deficiencies in charity on the part of the reader, but if you find that I am repeatedly either misunderstanding you or misconstruing your position, then it may be the case that I’m reading what you are saying without sufficient charity. Logic without love is powerless, but love without logic is vacuous. So both must be held together.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by the glorious magisterium, with the pope as its apex, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he rules the worlds…
Is this not what CTC is suggesting? An adulteration of scripture if there ever was one.
Exactly B, the Magisterium is the College of (Performative) Apostles.
There is a one to one correspondence between Jesus = Apostles = Roman Bishop(s).
Likewise the Roman church can be shoehorned into WCF 1:4&5
IV. The authority of the Magisterium, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any paradigm, or Churchman; but wholly upon the Magisterium (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it’s all about the Word of the Magisterium.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Pope and Tradition to a high and reverent esteem of the Magisterium. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of its doctrine, the majesty of its overbearing style, the unanimous consent of all the parts of its papal bulls, the kaleido-scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to the Magisterium), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation from purgatory, the many other incomparable, but fully compatible excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are ad hoc arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Magisterium: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Tradition bearing witness by and with the Sacrament in our hearts.
As to whether Bryan will performatively do justice in examining, as he puts it: “how the Catholic paradigm. . . makes sense of all the available historical, biblical, patristic, and philosophical data, in relation to the other available paradigms”, is, in our fallible opinion, a foregone conclusion.
After all, he has also told us that Sola Scriptura amounts to drawing a target around the arrow after you shot it.
As if Romanists can put William Tell to shame and never miss shooting themselves at the very same time they skewer protestantism. Go figure.
But never forget Rome is infallible, because Rome says so.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Church which He founded must also be Divine and the repository and guardian of His teaching. Indeed, we can truly say that for every truth of Christianity which we believe Christ Himself is our testimony, and we believe in Him because the Divinity He claimed rests upon… the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Pius X..”
From this week’s “Wall Street Journal”:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578303982099253060.html
When Picking a Pope Was a Perilous Affair – For Much of Church history, the Selection of a New Pope Meant Corruption and Conflict
By Eamon Duffy
The conclave that assembles at the Vatican on March 15 will be the first for six centuries to elect a pope while his predecessor is alive. With 118 names to choose from and no obvious front-runner (as yet), the outcome is impossible to predict. But we can be sure that the pope will be chosen from the cardinals themselves.
For much of the Church’s history, not even that much has been certain. The cardinals didn’t become the normal papal electors until the mid-11th century, and the first formal conclave wasn’t held until 1241. The word “conclave” itself means “with a key,” a reference to the policy of locking the dithering cardinals up in squalid conditions to focus their minds and encourage a speedy outcome.
For more than a thousand years, however, the papal electors were the whole clergy and people of Rome. As a result, most of the early popes were celebrities from local aristocratic families, often career administrators among the deacons of Rome, the clerical rank responsible for most papal business.
In these early elections, priests were seldom chosen, and bishops of other dioceses hardly ever, since a bishop was thought to be “married” to his see for life. Papal elections might be sudden or protracted, and election by “acclamation” wasn’t uncommon. A likely candidate might be seized by the crowd during the previous pope’s funeral and rushed off to church to be consecrated.
Unsurprisingly, corruption and conflict were common features of papal appointments. Rival claimants brought confusion over who was the “real” and who the “antipope.” But negotiated solutions could produce unpleasant surprises.
In 686, Rome was deadlocked over the choice of a pope, the clergy promoting their own man, the local militia insisting on another. The standoff was resolved by the election of an elderly nonentity, Pope Conon, a Sicilian priest whose father had been a famous general, so he was acceptable to both sides. He proved to be a disaster, dimwitted and ineffective, and too old and ill for even routine duties.
But the popes weren’t always elected. Ninth- and 10th-century Rome was run by Mafia-style noble families, who appointed the popes from their own kindred. The notorious Marozia Theophylact appointed three popes, including John XI (931-935), her bastard son by her lover Pope Sergius III. Her legitimate son, Prince Alberic II, appointed five popes, including his bastard son Octavian, “elected” Pope John XII in 955 at the age of 18, dead of a stroke at the age of 27, from his exertions, it was claimed, in the bed of a married woman.
The popes appointed by the German Holy Roman Emperor Henry III in the early 11th century were equally unconventional but far more edifying. Determined to purge the corruptions of Rome, Henry personally appointed four outstanding popes, reformers to a man, all of them Germans. The greatest of them, St. Leo IX (1049-1054), arrived in Rome as a barefoot pilgrim and was the first pope to travel widely through Europe, stirring local bishops to tackle corruption and undertake renewal.
Henry III’s German popes ended the tradition that the Bishop of Rome had to be a local man, and medieval conclaves chose popes from the small but international College of Cardinals. Exceptions to this rule were seldom a success.
The most notorious case was St. Celestine V (1294), an 85-year-old hermit and visionary from Naples chosen in the hope that an “angelic Pope” would free the papacy from its financial and political entanglements. But the old man was hopelessly incompetent and easily swayed by forceful politicians. After only six months, he was badgered into resigning by Cardinal Benedetto Caetani, who succeeded him as Boniface VIII and promptly imprisoned him.
The experiment of electing a non-cardinal was tried again in 1378. After a run of seven French popes based in Avignon, the Roman mob demanded an Italian. Sixteen terrified cardinals obliged by electing Urban VI. A distinguished administrator as Archbishop of Bari, Urban VI was unhinged by his elevation. Aggressively paranoid, he alienated all supporters and appears to have murdered five of his cardinals. The French cardinals elected a rival pope, who returned to Avignon, starting a schism that would last a generation.
Catholics like to think of Papal elections as the work of the Holy Spirit. History suggests a more complicated picture, with no guarantee of a godly outcome. The cardinals in March will need information and common sense, at least as much as divine inspiration. We must hope they prepare themselves well, and don’t try too hard to surprise.
Mr. Duffy is professor of the history of Christianity at the University of Cambridge and the author of “Saints and Sinners,” a history of the papacy.
Erik, you beat me to Duffy. Thanks.
Bryan,
I wish you well with your publication. May God guide you in all truth.
Now, you said,
This response indicates that you are still not properly understanding the argument.
There is obviously no circularity involved in arguing from, say, evidence to God’s existence.
Nor would there be circularity if the term “unity” were clearly defined in a neutral fashion, and the historical evidence were then used to show that the Catholic Church in fact has that unity.
But now, what is the unity that is evidenced for the Catholic Church? It is clearly not that the Catholic Church is unified with all Christians. Nor that the Catholic church has continued throughout history without divisions. The normal senses of the word “unity” do not apply.
No, the unity of the Catholic Church is defined by the Church as unity under the teaching of the chair of Peter. This is the unity that is claimed to be demonstrated by the historical evidence.
You said as much to Brandon.
There is obviously circularity involved in first, defining the term “unity” to have a particular meaning favorable to the Church — namely, submission to the pope — and then showing that the Catholic church uniquely has that unity. Accepting this claim would be resting on a fallacy, since one must first grant that the Church has the authority to define what unity means (unity under the Bishop of Rome), before one can accept that the historical evidence shows the enduring unity of the Church.
In fact, the circularity we are talking about is a formal fallacy that you are probably familiar with. It is the No True Scotsman fallacy, which the Wiki gives a nice description of:
I would suggest that you have been operating in exactly this manner. I presented the Catholic claims to authority (which are clearly the Catholic claims, since they come from the catechism). I showed that those claims cannot be sustained without appeal to Catholic teaching.
Your response was to assert that those are not the Catholic claims to authority that are warranted by the MoC.
Alright, I asked, then what are the Catholic claims to authority that are warranted by the MoC? This was the “question-mode” you said you desired.
No response to that question.
Your defense to my argument lacks any sort of specific description of what the Catholic claims to authority are that are different from the ones I listed from an official source of Catholic teaching.
If the discussion can advance, there must be some detail on the table that clearly indicates what the Catholic claims to authority are, and that clearly indicates how the MoC substantiate those claims.
Until then, I maintain that your defense is a No True Scotsman fallacy. The “strawman” assertions have not provided the clear, objective rule needed to actually refute my argument.
Grace and peace,
Jeff
Logic doesn’t need charity? The principle of charity was a very early concept that we discussed in logic class (taught by an atheist prof!); it is essential to understand the other person without uselessly nitpicking.
Doesn’t this sound familiar? “Say you’re arguing with someone and there is a flaw in their reasoning, but you also know that their argument could be reformulated to avoid that flaw. If you attack their argument as is, you’ll either win a hollow victory with an argument that you know is faulty or you’ll just prolong the debate as your opponent makes the obvious adjustment. It’s the kind of thing you do when you’re more interested in scoring cheap debating points than actually advancing the sum total of human understanding.”
http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2009/10/20/the_principle_of_charity_2/
Eamon Duffy? Hmm.
Sounds performatively Irish, which is also probably fully compatible with the No True Scotsman paradigm, if not the shanty Irish for which a seven course meal means a sixpack and a potato.
Obviously not the kind or type that belongs to the exclusive CtC set, the more respectable lace curtain variety of Romanism contra Ephesians 5:13:
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Or Titus 1:16:
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
IOW not all the sinners that became pope were saints. Rather they were ‘aints however faint the CtC testimony and obscured view of history from behind those genteel curtains.
Joel:
There’s an ambiguity afoot. The principle of “charity” in philosophy means that you make every effort to read your opponent correctly and to address the substance of his argument and not peripheral issues. This we all hope to achieve.
The “charity” Bryan refers to has to do with his ad-hominem contention that I am being blinded or confused by antipathy towards the RC Church. That is, he believes I lack charity in the Biblical sense of the term. Besides being untrue, the ad hominem is not particularly helpful in resolving the issue between us.
From my side of the table, my arguments are clear and cogent, and his own position is confused.
Or put another way: “Charity” in philosophy need not be motivated by love. It might simply be motivated by a desire to be well-regarded, to be known as a purveyor of good arguments.
Actual charity, from the heart, wants the best for one’s opponents.
Jeff,
Once again, your claim mistakenly presupposes that if the Church authoritatively defines the doctrine concerning the Church’s unity, then this unity can be discovered only by first relying on the Church’s authority. But this unity can be discovered by reason alone, just as God’s existence can be discovered by reason alone. So the circularity charge is based on a straw man.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan’s comment reminds me of a Confederate soldier sneaking back onto the Gettysburg battlefield a week after the fighting has ended, dismounting from his horse, waving his sword in the air, getting back on his horse, declaring victory, and riding away.
Bryan, but reason alone can discover the circularity of your argument (see, no charity needed), so it must be circular.
Why is it always with you “heads, I have reason, tails, you use the wrong paradigm.” This game is fixed.
Bryan: Once again, your claim mistakenly presupposes that if the Church authoritatively defines the doctrine concerning the Church’s unity, then this unity can be discovered only by first relying on the Church’s authority.
Show where I make this presupposition. Once again, you are misreading the argument.
Bryan,
My comment above is probably too brusque to be helpful. Here’s what I’m saying: I did not say and do not believe that, once defined, “unity” can only be discovered by relying on the Church. If you re-read my argument more carefully, it does not say what you said I said.
Instead, I said that it is circular to accept the Church’s non-neutral definition of “unity” as the correct — you said ‘authoritative’, so we could go with that — definition of unity. The circularity occurs, as it almost always does, in the definition of terms.
And in fact, you’ve made my point in spades by admitting that the Church’s argument begins by ‘authoritatively defining’ the doctrine concerning unity. If that’s our starting point for the investigation, then we have relied on the authority of the Church at the very beginning.
Again: If you want to show (rather than merely assert) that my argument is a straw man, then you will have to lay out the Catholic claims to authority so that we can all see whether or not they are the same as (1) – (5).
The only hint you have provided is that the Church defines the unity of the Church as “communion with the bishop of Rome”, which is simply (1) repackaged.
So far, there has been assertion without demonstration. We’re on seven “straw-mans”, and I hope the count can stabilize there.
Jeff,
I agree that *if* that were the starting point of the investigation, that would be relying on the authority of the Church at the very beginning. However, the argument from the motives of credibility does not begin with the Church “authoritatively defining” any doctrine, let alone a doctrine concerning unity. The motives of credibility do not depend on the authority of the Church, or on her authoritative definitions concerning the Church’s unity. To claim otherwise is, once again, to set up a straw man.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, no one who does not accept the authority of Rome finds the motives of credibility reasonable. You have made up a world of reason and artificially separated it from the claims of Rome.
The more you explain, the more fideistic you sound.
Bryan,
You’re certainly entitled to begin your investigation whereever you like.
So where would you like to begin? What are the claims to authority that can be warranted by the motives of credibility?
Darryl,
Instead of falling into the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, you should state which of the motives of credibility you think are not reasonable, and explain why you think them to be unreasonable.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, this one is not credible apart from faith: “The Church which He founded must also be Divine and the repository and guardian of His teaching.”