Monday, November 12, 2007

Evangelicals, Catholics, and Trent

Justin Taylor has linked to an interesting interview over at the White Horse Inn (Confusion Over Trent"). Michael Horton interviews the Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis over the doctrine of justification and the Council of Trent. Like any honest and well informed Catholic Sungenis confirms that anyone who knowingly affirms the doctrine of justification by faith alone is anathema (damned). So much for "Evangelicals and Catholics Together."

4 comments:

the-rooster said...

The meaning of the word anathema, does it always mean "Damned" or does it mean "excommunicated"? I know that Catholics do not believe that sola scripture protestants are damned.

Todd Pruitt said...

There is no difference in Rome's mind between being excommunicated and damned. If one is excommunicated, one is damned. Also, the official position of Rome, whether many Catholics know it or not, is that anyone who affirms sola Scriptura IS anathema. This is why Luther was excommunicated.

We The People said...

Uh, no offense, but Todd Pruitt knows not of what he speaks on this one.

1) There is a manifestly huge difference between being excommunicated and damned. Namely, to be damned is forever, and to be excommunicated, as in St Paul, is for the saving of the sinner. I.e., the purpose of excommunication is precisely the reconciliation of the sinner.

2) Sungenis is an anti-semitic cook.

3) Anathema was a canonical penalty, and a particularly difficult one to incur. Like speeding, one does not incur it just by "breaking the law". One incurs it by being brought before a tribunal in Rome. Like, no more than 10 people have ever incurred it. So few in fact, that it was removed from the books in the revision of the code of canon law in 1983.

4) However, anathemas are still regarded as triggering an infallible teaching, the denial of which (by Catholics, to whom the code applies) constitutes heresy.

More here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

We The People said...

I meant "kook", not "cook". He may cook too, but that's not what I meant :)