Sunday, January 14, 2007

The Catholic Understanding of the "Anathemas" of Trent and Excommunication

Uploaded on 20 May 2003 by Dave Armstrong, incorporating earlier portions from 1996 and 1998.

* * * * *

The vivid Greek term anathema, meaning "accursed," is directed by the Council of Trent and other Catholic ecumenical councils primarily towards doctrines, rather than persons, based on the ancient practice in the Church of condemning heretical teachings -- a procedure itself derived biblically from passages such as Galatians 1:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22 (the latter has anathema both in Greek and in many English versions). There is nothing improper whatsoever in defining correct doctrine and rejecting contrary notions. St. Paul does this constantly. The Catholic Church, however, makes no presumption as to the eternal destiny of any individual whatsoever (not even Martin Luther, whom many Protestants might suspect was on our "damned" list).

Most emphatically: neither anathema nor excommunication means "proclaimed damned (by the Church)," as many Protestants mistakenly suppose. The more literal meanings are "out of the Church" (in the sense of divergence from its doctrines) or "out of communion" (with the sacraments and the Christian fellowship of believers). Excommunication is perfectly in accord with Pauline practices and teachings as expounded in, e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 1:19-20, 2 Timothy 2:14-19, 4:14-15, as well as our Lord's express injunction in Matthew 18:15-18.

I received the following critique of the above, to which I responded:

I feel that your emphatic claim that "anathema" does not mean "proclaimed damned" has not been demonstrated to be correct.

A friendly challenge! I love it! :-)

Since your web site gives me a helpful link to the Catholic encyclopedia, I tried looking up this word, and it says there, among other things, that "anathema" means that a person is declared to be "condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate". So I'm not persuaded that the Protestants are terribly mistaken in how they interpret the "anathemas" issued by the Council of Trent.

I should read that, but I think there may be a loophole out of this dilemma you pose.

Here is the passage that I found ...
The key phrase here which qualifies the whole thing is "so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church." In other words, the pronouncement is conditional on whether the person submits to the Church or not. Since we hold that no one can be saved outside the Church, a deliberate disobedience against it would render one unsaved. Others not formally members of the Catholic Church can be saved in their sincerity and ignorance, whether or not they are conscious that the Church was crucial in the process.

So perhaps one can say that the above is a conditional pronouncement that a person will end up in hell if they (continue to) fight against the Church and do not resist temptations of evil and Satan. This is essentially no different than a Protestant saying "a person will not be saved if they do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior," or the Bible stating that "fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God." None of these examples are definitive, prophetic, absolute statements of any given person's eternal destiny, but rather, statements of theology, of what will happen, given the fulfillment of certain conditions.

The Church does not pronounce definitively on any individual's eternal destiny. This is true of Judas and even a person like Hitler. Note, too, the all-important clause, "that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." Precisely as was the case with Paul, the Church hopes for every person to be saved, and applies penances in order to attain that end. So the point of the anathemas is not condemnation per se, but a sanction which will hopefully cause the person to realize the seriousness and peril of their situation. This is all very biblical and Pauline, as I pointed out.

The primary point I was making in my paper was to say that the Church has neither the intrinsic power to condemn anyone to hell (that is God's prerogative), nor the knowledge of who is there or not (except for that which it claims in the case of canonized saints). It does however, have the power to exclude people from communion with itself, for the purpose of ultimately reclaiming their souls. A deliberate and obstinate refusal to submit to the Church in such circumstances constitutes a serious, grave, mortal sin, which -- if unrepented of -- self-condemns one to hell by its very nature.

Now, Dave, I don't want to be ornery about this point, but I feel that the distinction which you are proposing is a pretty subtle one.

:-) You are very "particular" - but I guess that can be a good thing. Indeed my argument is somewhat subtle, but I don't think it sinks to the level of a "distinction without a difference." And I regard it as logically no different than the biblical and Protestant analogies I tried to draw. Your task -- as I see it -- is to demonstrate how my analogies are incorrect and inapplicable.

The point which I was trying to make in my earlier message is simply this:
1. Let's say we have a Protestant Christian, who sincerely believes that sola fides is a doctrine taught by the Scriptures. Let's say that this individual reads Canon 9 of the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification. He would probably feel that this decree means that in the eyes of the Catholic Church, he is regarded as being eternally separated from Christ, if he teaches and proclaims this doctrine which the Council is condemning.

But then, that gets back to the root issue of the meaning of anathema, does it not? We have lost the art of determining (and caring about) definite meanings of words, especially in the etymological sense. This is a clear case of that. One word is commonly taken to mean something that it doesn't mean (though I grant that it is somewhat similar to the meaning casually given it).

2. If this hypothetical person then read and accepted the remarks which you set out on your web page, he might conclude, "oh, I see it now, the 'anathema' doesn't mean anything about the state of my soul -- the anathema only means that the Catholic Church disagrees with my doctrine."

Well, that wouldn't be true, either. I think there is a middle course, as I have laid out (and as St. Paul himself exercises). The Catholic Church is misunderstood about everything under the sun. Why should this issue be any different? It does require a bit of reflection in the first place.

3. But if this person didn't take the time to research this matter further, as I have done, and to seek this further clarification from you, he might not find out that the true position of the BiblicalCatholic website is that the anathema does, indeed, address the matter of the eternal destiny of his soul, such that his first impression in #1 above was closer to the truth than was his revised impression in #2.

Well, you prove my last point. Like most of Catholic doctrine, a little "research" must be done, and our theology is extremely interwoven, so that this issue gets into matters of culpability, ecclesiology, Latin etymology, the nature of heresy and schism, obedience, sacramentalism, authority, even Tradition itself.

In a nutshell, Trent (in the historical context of a revolt against Catholic teaching and authority) understandably emphasized Catholic teachings and condemned divergences from it, just as councils had always done with what they considered false teaching. Vatican II had a pastoral and ecumenical emphasis, so it stressed commonalities with other Christians and even other religions. Both are valid concerns and truths.

Even John Calvin acknowledged the validity of Catholic baptism (while taking a very low view -- with Luther -- of the Catholic institutional Church), and the Catholic Church has always accepted trinitarian baptism as entrance into the saving graces of Christ and regeneration, whether from Donatist or Protestants. So (as is so often the case) there is a certain two-sided truth here, as opposed to a false dichotomy (ecumenism vs. dogma, etc.). I see no need at all to separate the two.

The following material and documentation was added on 19 may 2003, as a result of further challenges on a public bulletin board, 16-18 May 2003 (in blue):

1) Ever read the canons of Trent-- the ones that say, "Whoever says [insert Protestant teaching] is accursed?" What do you think anathema means? (Hint: it doesn't mean "sub-optimal!")
2) This is the definition of the ecclesial usage from the Oxford English Dictionary:
2. The formal act, or formula, of consigning to damnation. a. The curse of God. b. The great curse of the church, cutting off a person from the communion of the church visible, and formally handing him over to Satan; or denouncing any doctrine or practice as damnable. Hence c. Any denunciation or imprecation of divine wrath against alleged impiety, heresy, etc. d. A curse or imprecation generally.
It means "damned," not simply "wrong."
3) How do you square two things? How do you square the ecumenical statements of Vatican II with the canons of Trent, specifically those canons that decree that one who teaches Protestant doctrines is anathema. (As I pointed out a few days ago, anathema has a specific theological meaning; it means "consigned to damnation."). Can one who is damned be a Christian brother?
4) The canons of Trent say that PEOPLE are condemned, not that teachings are. They take the form, "Whoever says ... let him be anathema."
5) Anathema in its medieval eccleiastical usage means damned. It's a Greek word, and in Greek it does not mean "out of the church or comunion," as you assert. You are simply mistaken here . . . I have supplied the exact entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. If you would like, I can suuply the entry for the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon. I recognize that these dictionaries are not the final word in canon law usage, but it would be nice to some something authoritative to support your claim about the meaning of "anathema" in Trent.
6) Do you know any basis for the claim that Trent's canons are directed at the then-current Protestants?
7) 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 I 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.
8) On another point, note that every council from Nicea to Vatican I phrased their canons in the form "If anyone says ... let him be anathema." I doubt that the condemnations of all these canons were directed only at the councils' contemporaries.

Here is the information I have found on this question, from various sources:

1) Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985 ed., Micropaedia, Volume 1, "Anathema," 373:
Old Testament descriptions of religious wars call both the enemy and their besieged city anathema inasmuch as they were destined for destruction. In New Testament usage a different meaning developed. St. Paul used the word anathema to signify a curse and the forced expulsion of one from the community of Christians . . . In the 6th century anathemas came to mean the severest form of excommunication that formally separated a heretic completely from the Christian Church and condemned his doctrines.
2) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1956, 5 volumes, Volume 1, "Anathema," 130:
Whereas in the Greek Fathers anathema -- as herem in rabbinic Hebrew -- came to denote excommunication from society, in the NT the word has its full force.
3) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, one-volume abridgement, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 57:
Paul uses the term for the object of a curse . . . Handing over to God's judicial wrath is the idea in 1 Cor. 16:22 (cf. Gal. 1:8; Rom. 9:3).
4) The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, "Anathema," 35:
The ecclesiastical sense of excommunication is an extension, not an example, of biblical usage, though it is not impossible that synagogue practice gave some early colouring to it.
5) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F.L. Cross, 2nd ed. by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, New York: Oxford University Press, 1983, "Anathema," 50:
St. Paul uses the word to denote separation from the Christian community inflicted for sins such as preaching a gospel other than his (Gal. 1.8 f.) or for not loving the Lord (1 Cor. 16.22), whereas in other passages it simply means malediction (e.g. 1 Cor. 12.3).
In the post-Apostolic Church the earliest recorded instance of anathematizing offenders is at the Council of Elvira (c. 306). It soon became the regular procedure against heretics. . . . From the 5th cent. anathematization began to be distinguished from excommunication. Gratian explained that the latter involved only exclusion from the Sacraments and worship, whereas the former was complete separation from the Body of the faithful (Decretum, Bk. ii, can. 106), a distinction which was closely akin to Gregory IX's distinction of 'Major' and 'Minor' Excommunication. In practice, the distinction lost its meaning, apart from the solemn ceremony which is used for anathemas.
6) The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974, "Anathema," 39:
The NT use of the word implies exclusion, being banned, rather than complete extinction (Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 16:22, lect. vid.; Gal. 1:8f.; cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; Acts 23:14). The early church expanded the biblical meaning to make it synonymous with excommunication . . . From the sixth century onward, anathematizing (as complete banning from the church) is distinguished from excommunication (as exclusion from worship and the sacraments).
And now on to specifically Catholic sources, for more verification of precisely how the term is understood by Catholics and the Catholic Church:
7) Bertrand L. Conway, The Question Box, New York: The Paulist Press, 1929 [33 years before Vatican II began], 205:
Neither excommunication nor anathemas imply the Church's condemning anyone to hell. That is the prerogative of God alone. Excommunication is a Church law, excluding a notorious sinner from the communion of the faithful (Canons 2257-2267). Its purpose is to warn the sinner of the danger he runs of incurring eternal ruin, unless he repent of his sin. The "delivering of the sinner to Satan," which we find in the Roman Pontifical, is based on the words of St. Paul, who delivered the incestuous sinner to Satan, "that his spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 5:5; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20).
. . . When St. Paul said "let him be anathema" who preaches an heretical gospel (Gal. 1:8), he did not condemn the heretic to hell, but stigmatized the willful teacher of false doctrines as a rebel against the Gospel of Christ. The Church, in the anathemas which accompany the canons of her Councils, merely imitates the example of the Apostle.

8) In my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (end of chapter 8 on penance), I noted the instance of St. Paul imposing discipline (penance or "binding") on a sinner (cited by Conway above) and then "loosing" the penalty (an indulgence) later on. This is similar to the purpose and goal of the anathemas or excommunication:
1 Corinthians 5:3-5 / 2 Corinthians 2:6-8,10-11 [RSV]
9) Karl Keating, What Catholics Really Believe: Setting the Record Straight: 52 Answers to Common Misperceptions About the Catholic Faith, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992; reprinted in 1995, #5: "The Catholic Church sends people to hell by excommuniucating them" (pp. 17-18):
Excommunication is a Church penalty which excludes a notorious sinner or someone grossly disobedient from the communion of the faithful. It doesn't mean the person ceases to be a Christian. its purpose is to warn the individual that he risks losing his soul unless he repents.
10) George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960 (two years before Vatican II began), 2 volumes, vol. 2, 707-708:
. . . the melancholy possibility must be envisaged of those who may have "cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority" (MCC, 21). In other words, the Church, as being a perfectly constituted society, has the right for grave reasons of excluding from membership. She may pass sentence of, or lay down conditions which involve, excommunication. This carries with it the deprivation of rights and privileges enjoyed by those in communion with the faithful (C.I.C., can. 2257-2267). But such a juridical penalty does not wholly nullify membership of the Church, still less does it necessarily imply the final condemnation before God of the excommunicated person.
11) John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1980, "Anathema," 24, and "Excommunication," 200:
An ecclesiastical censure by which one is more or less excluded from communion with the faithful. It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with formal solemnities on persons notoriously obstinate to reconciliation . . . In general, the effects of excommunication affect the person's right to receive the sacraments, or Christian burial, until the individual repents and is reconciled with the Church . . . (Etym. Latin ex=, from + communicare, to communicate: excommunicatio, exclusion from a community.)
12) Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, edited in English by James Canon Bastible, translated by Patrick Lynch, Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1955; reprnted in 1974 from the 1952 German edition [10 years before Vatican II began], "Membership of the Church," 311:
Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. However, this does not prevent them from belonging spiritually to the Church, by their desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae) and through this, achieving justification and salvation.
According to the more probable opinion, represented by St. Bellarmine and most modern theologians . . . secret apostates and heretics remain members of the Church, because the loss of membership in the Church, just as much as its acquisition, on account of the visibility of the Church, can only result from external legally ascertainable facts.
Schismatics, as well as those who, in good faith, fundamentally reject the Church authority, or who dissociate themslelves from the commonwealth of the faithful subject to her. Schismatics in good faith (material) like heretics in good faith, can, by a desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae), belong spiritually to the Church, and through this achieve justification and salvation.
. . . Excommunicati tolerati, according to the opinion almost generally held today, which is confirmed by CIC 2266, remain members of the Church, even after the promulgation of the juridical judgment and even if they are deprived of many spiritual benefits . . .
As the baptismal character which effects incorporation in the Church is indestructible, the baptised person, in spite of his ceasing to be a member of the Church, cannot cut himself off so completely from the Church, that every bond with the Church is dissolved. The obligations arising from the reception of Baptism remain, even when the use of the rights connected with it are withdrawn by way of punishment. Thus the Church claims jurisdiction over baptised persons who are separated from her.
14) Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, 1907 [65 years before Vatican II began], "Anathema."
(Gr. anathema -- literally, placed on high, suspended, set aside).
In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. In the Epistle to the Romans (ix, 3) he says: "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh", i.e. "I should wish to be separated and rejected of Christ, if by that means I would procure the salvation of my brethren." And again, using the word in the same sense, he says (Gal. i, 9): "If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." But he who is separated from God is united to the devil, which explains why St. Paul, instead of anathematizing, sometimes delivers a person over to Satan (I Tim., i, 20; I Cor., v, 5). Anathema signifies also to be overwhelmed with maledictions, as in I Cor., xvi, 22: "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicaea to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.
Transcribed by W.S. French, Jr.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I
Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright Â© 2003 by Kevin Knight
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
15) Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, 1909 [63 years before Vatican II began], "Excommunication."
Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter
Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V
Copyright 1909 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright 2003 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
16) Dialogue on Anathema and Excommunication (Gary Hoge)
. . . the Church has consistently taught (long before Vatican II) that formal membership in the Churh is a normative requirement (meaning that exceptions can be made) and that a merely implicit submission, in good faith, is sufficient. One is implicitly subject to the authority of the pope when one is in some way joined to the Church, even if not formally. Vatican II taught, "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium 15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838). That is how, in the Catholic view, you can be saved. Because you are really and truly a Christian, you are already in communion with us, though imperfectly. That's why we call you a "separated brother," not an infidel.
. . . the Reformers were excommunicated and anathematized, and they died unreconciled. But the Catholic Church has never declared that they (or anyone else for that matter) were not saved. She simply does not know. Further, the anathemas directed against the founders of a heresy do not apply to their subsequent followers (again, provided that they are in good faith). As time passes, and heresies become established, and people are born and raised in them, formal heresy among its members becomes less and less likely.
. . . I have a friendly challenge for you. As you know, there are countless millions of people in heaven, and sadly, there are probably many more in hell. Now, the Catholic Church has definitively declared that certain people are in heaven (the "canonized" saints). Please name one person that the Church has declared is in hell. If you're right, and the Church prior to Vatican II felt she had the authority to cast someone into hell, or at least the authority to judge that a given individual was in hell, then it should be very easy for you to find at least one person whom the Church has definitively declared to be in hell.
17) Kevin Orlin Johnson, Why Do Catholics Do That? A Guide to the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church, New York: Ballantine Books, 1994, 52:
But we should note at this point that the Church has never condemned anybody, never said solemnly that so-and-so is in Hell. She can't, because that would be contrary to her mission. No Christian can, in fact, because we're supposed to judge as we would be judged. The Church can excommunicate somebody, and always has (1 Cor 5:9-12, for instance), but that's different. It means announcing publicly that this person has acted so scandalously that he cannot receive the sacraments; this allows -- even calls for -- reconciliation. And even if the person dies excommunicated, the Church prays God to forgive him.
18) Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863 [99 years before Vatican II began]:
19) Jimmy Akin, "Justification by Faith Alone."
Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to the idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone), but fewer are aware that Catholics also do not have to condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood . . . Whether a Catholic will condemn the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).

However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.
. . . A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.
. . . if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which "works by charity" then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.
So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is notused so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it is used "so as to understandthat nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.
The Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than other confusing formulas. While this formula can be given a perfectly orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.
. . . The historic meaning of the terms "believe" and "faith," which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren't paying attention, and antinomianism results.
. . . I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants . . .
. . . The phrase "faith alone" (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)"
Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below), the phrase "faith alone" is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase "faith alone" to the use of that phrase in the Bible.
Further dialogue with another Protestant (words in red):

I recognize that modern Catholicism now understands it to be fairly detached from the question of one's salvific status.

It's not a matter of "now," as you make out. Part of my point was to show that this is not largely an innovation of Vatican II, as you seem to believe. Nor is it any reversal. It is a development. One need only look at how St. Thomas Aquinas viewed the matter of "salvation 'outside' the Church." St. Robert Bellarmine (mentioned in the excerpt from Ludwig Ott above) is 16th century, and Aquinas is 13th century. This is nothing new, it has only been more developed. Ecumenism has undergone rapid development in the 20th century, especially since World War II and Vatican II. But it is not a contradiction of older teaching (only of emphases and style, one might say).

I'd imagine that Catholics still might say it's harder for someone to be saved while anathematized than while in full communion with the sacramental life of Church.

Sacraments aid in attaining salvation, yes. One is in a less spiritually-thriving place if excommunicate or anathematized than the contrary state.

I'm also unconvinced that the views in the passages you provided were common until the last century or two.

They were not as "common," but they were there, and a solid aspect of Catholic theology. They were less-developed than they are now. Ecumenism is both biblical (e.g., the Roman centurion and passages such as Romans 2:12-16) and patristic (e.g., St. Augustine's opinion that Donatist baptism was valid).

I realize the emerged more gradually, as opposed to springing fully formed from the head of Vatican II, but I think they were pretty rare in the first three centuries after the Reformation.

Ecumenical expressions were much more rare then, I agree.

So far I haven't seen anything that leads me to question my current position, that an "anathema" at the time of Trent was understood as a response to the threat of Protestantism with the understanding that Protestant teachers were potentially jeopardizing the souls of themselves and their followers.

That is true as well, but it is a different proposition from damning Protestants en masse, as even a Protestant scholar like R.C. Sproul (who should know better) believes, or implying that they are entirely removed from the Church, even in a spiritual sense. They are not, and that is because of baptism, and baptismal regeneration: a notion which goes all the way back to the beginning of Christianity.

If Catholics are now going to admit that they may have had this impression based on a misunderstanding of Protestant doctrinal distinctives, then I think this is a wonderful development. But that does mean, in my mind, admitting that Trent was partly based on widespread misconceptions that have only recently been appreciated, and that should still enjoin Catholics to be more tolerant of the same sort of misconceptions about Protestant views of Catholicism.

Yes, I agree. Note that the Tridentine anathemas are still true and binding from a Catholic perspective. But in some cases what they condemned were not orthodox (confessional) Lutheran or Calvinist beliefs. This is the issue being discussed among scholars. As Fr. Neuhaus pointed out, this was perfectly understandable due to the doctrinal and ecclesiological confusion of that period, and the fact that even Lutheran confessions contradicted Martin Luther in some key aspects, such as double predestination and free will.

Philip Melanchthon (Luther's successor) adopted free will, and the Lutheran confessions followed his lead, rather than Luther's position in his book, The Bondage of the Will. Trent may condemn, e.g., antinomianism. Virtually all Protestant bodies do so as well, so that the mistake would be to equate "orthodox Protestantism" with antinomianism. But Trent simply condemned propositions, not entire bodies like the Lutherans. This is part of its genius, I think.


phatcatholic said...

This post just helped me tremendously in a current debate I am in. The hours you put in so that we don't have to! I am very thankful for it.

Dave Armstrong said...

Well, I have the time to do so (which is what drives my anti-Catholic critics nuts) and I love it. Glad you found the piece to be of some help.