FLINGING ANATHEMAS

There is a big push today in the Catholic Church for ecumenism.  According to the Oxford dictionary of English, ecumenism is “the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world’s Christian churches.”  In fact, not only are they interested in uniting with Christian denominations, but with those in other world religions, as well.  So, how would this unity with other religions affect the groups involved?  Would they each be able to keep their respective beliefs or would they have to change their doctrines in order to unify?

A Schoolyard Story

There were several elementary school kids playing a game together on the schoolyard.  One of them was older, bigger and stronger than all the others.  Although all the kids knew the rules of the game, the big kid was cheating.  Not only was it quite obvious that the big kid was cheating, but his cheating was getting worse and worse.  But no one dared to point out his dishonesty, since they were afraid of him and didn’t want to be kicked out of the game.  Finally, a few of the other kids had enough!  They must face this cheating giant and confront his dishonesty.  

The group was relieved that someone finally spoke up.  But after their protest (which humiliated him) the big kid not only continued cheating, but he began to create ridiculous new rules for the game to his advantage, while all the others were harshly treated when they didn’t give in to his unfair demands and his new rules.  He was showing his true colors by demonstrating his childishness.  In any case, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

An Analogy

The story above is an analogy (although not perfect) of something that actually happened in history.  The Catholic Church was a large and powerful force in the 1500’s.  She had no equal in the religious world.  Not only was she corrupt, but the corruption kept increasing.  It seemed that no one dared to point out her corruption, lest they be kicked out of the church (excommunicated), and therefore, be unable to partake of her sacraments and lose “access to Heaven.”  Finally, a few men (later known as reformers) had had enough of this corrupt giant.  They were going to confront the Catholic Church concerning her unbiblical teachings and her corruption, thus starting the Protestant Reformation.  The people were relieved that someone finally spoke up and this movement caused many to leave the Catholic Church after hearing biblical truth.

But the Catholic Church didn’t take this lying down.  After the reformers’ protest, which humiliated and angered the Church, she began to persecute the reformers and made ridiculous and unscriptural demands on these “protesters.”  The Catholic Church didn’t want to play by the biblical rules, so she started the “Counter Reformation” and established the Council of Trent in 1545.  In this council, she issued multiple “anathemas” (formal curses) to those who refused to play by the Church’s rules, thus demonstrating her childishness and her unwillingness to abide by Scripture.  Again, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

“Let Him be Anathema!”

But what exactly were these anathemas with which the Catholic Church was threatening these protesters?  According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, an anathema is:

“A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.”

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is:

“A ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.”

According to the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, an anathema from the Church is declaring the gravest, most serious, form of excommunication possible within the Catholic Church… an excommunication which eternally condemns the person to Hell… unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction.

The word “anathema” is used 150 times in the Council of Trent (including a couple of times using the variant, “anathematize”).  The anathemas of the Council of Trent pertain to, and protected, teachings like the canon (list of Bible books) of the Catholic Bible, veneration of saints, relics and “sacred images,” indulgences, the Catholic priesthood, the Mass, the Eucharist, sacraments, the Catholic view of justification (salvation), and original sin.  Interestingly, they seemed to focus their anathemas on those who were against these mostly Catholic ideas, desiring to maintain their unbiblical teachings and (through the power of anathema) force people into accepting them.

Catholics will tell us today that these anathemas were intended only for Catholics, since it is an excommunication (they can’t excommunicate non-members), but in practice it is obvious that the anathemas were directed toward the protesters and their biblical arguments.

But what about the unity that we mentioned at the beginning of the article, and this desire in the Catholic Church for “peace” and “cooperation” with other religions?  How can any group enjoy peace while having anathemas hanging over their heads?  How can all these different religions cooperate if they don’t even believe in these teachings?

Catholics will sometimes tell us that all these anathemas were canceled in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  So, does this mean that there are no more anathemas?  You mean to tell me that these anathemas were all just a big mistake, after all?  Do they not count today?  If this is the case, this change in policy is little comfort for those profoundly affected by these anathemas in the past.  What about those who refused to comply and ended up persecuted or killed?  Would an apology hundreds of years later help them?  Because of this “change” in 1983, are those who perished because of these anathemas now released from Hell? 

The Catholic Church likes to brag that it has not changed its doctrine for 2000 years.  But if these “infallibly pronounced” anathemas are wrong or somehow unacceptable now, they must have also been wrong back then!  So much for an “infallible” church.  I pray that Catholics will see and understand this deception.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church has been flinging anathemas for a long time now.  If they really are considered to be in force today by the Church, it is irrelevant because many, if not most, of the Council of Trent’s anathemas were not even biblical to start with, therefore, were never binding.  If they are considered to be no longer in force today, then the Catholic Church’s supposed “infallibility” has been exposed as fraudulent.  Either way, she has a problem.

Worst of all, it is ironic that the Catholic Church anathematizes HERSELF by preaching a false gospel, according to Galatians 1:8-9.

Welcome

Welcome to Answering Catholic Claims. This blog exists to share Truth with both Catholics and non-Catholics, alike. It is not intended to make fun of, harass, or humiliate Catholics. I just want to give Catholics some food for thought. I want them to consider the claims of the Catholic Church and to compare those claims with the words of Scripture. The purpose of this blog is mainly to confront certain arguments put forth by Catholics on a variety of issues, and to demonstrate that these arguments are weak, invalid, unbiblical, or they contradict Scripture. For the record, I will point out that the Catholic Church does have some truth in some of its teachings, but it falls far short of having the “fullness of truth” that it so often claims to have. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. With that in mind, let us begin to evaluate some of these claims.


FINAL AUTHORITY

The first topic (and one of the most foundational ones) that we will discuss is the issue of authority. Catholics look to a combination of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium as their final authority, while most Protestants believe in “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible Alone). But what do Catholics think of Sola Scriptura? This concept is very often misunderstood and misrepresented by most Catholics (and some Protestants, as well). When we say “Bible Alone,” we do not mean that we cannot use other sources of information to help us along in our Christian walk. Neither does it mean that the Bible contains every bit of spiritual information that exists. It is not an exhaustive encyclopedia containing every word that God, the Father, or Jesus Christ, the Son, has ever spoken, nor does it tell us of every single event in Church history. Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are no other authorities, or that the writings of the church fathers are useless. It does not mean that all tradition is bad, or that the Holy Spirit cannot deal with our hearts by other means, as well. It also does not mean that something has to be specifically mentioned in the Bible to be true, or that a person can wrecklessly interpret the Bible any way he wants to.

Ok, so what does Sola Scriptura mean then? Here is a simple definition:

It means that the Bible is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the
church today.

That’s it. It is a simple concept. The Scriptures are therefore the ultimate authority for the Christian, since there is nothing above, or equal to, their authority. All other sources, teachings, tradition, “revelation,” etc., are subject to this ultimate authority. We must test all of these and determine if they line up with God’s Word (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1; Matthew 15:1-9; Acts 17:11). If any teaching does not line up with the Scriptures, it cannot be binding on the Christian.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A SELF-REFUTING CONCEPT, SINCE IT IS NOT BIBLICAL, THAT IS, IT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE

Let us now turn to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. There we find the apostle Paul telling Timothy:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [NASB]

This passage, to me, seems to be pretty simple and straightforward, but there are a number of Catholic objections to this verse, as to whether it proves Sola Scriptura, and I will address some of them now.

Objection #1- “Paul says all Scripture, not ONLY Scripture, is inspired. And anyway, he says that it is merely ‘profitable / useful’. ‘Profitable’ does not mean sufficient.”

Answer – It is true that the word “only” is not used in this verse, but the impact of the phrase “for every good work” in the next verse seems to be ignored by those using this type of logic. If Scripture equips us for every good work, then by definition, it is sufficient as a Rule of Faith.

Let me use an analogy. If you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for every mechanic’s job that you could possibly run into, would that toolbox be sufficient? Yes, it would. Do you need another toolbox for foreign cars or pick-up trucks? No, not if the one he gave you equips you for every mechanic’s job.

In the same way, Scripture is our “toolbox” which equips us for every good work. Since this is true, there is no other source needed today TO FUNCTION AS AN INFALIBLE RULE OF FAITH. By definition, Scripture is all that is needed.

Objection #2 – “It is the ‘man of God’ which is described as adequate, not the Scriptures.”

Answer – The “teacher” is always greater than the student. Is that which is infallible and which teaches and equips us, LESS THAN the one that it is teaching? Absolutely not. If the “man of God” becomes adequate through the teaching of Scripture, how much more adequate is the Word of God?

Objection #3 – “Paul is not only speaking of Scripture in this context, but he is also speaking of Sacred Tradition which was handed down to Timothy when he says, ‘You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them’ (verse 14). So, we need Tradition also.”

Answer – First, no external “tradition” is named or identified in the context here. Secondly, can anyone say exactly what it was that Timothy had learned from Paul? To say that Paul was speaking of some “Catholic Tradition” is just begging the question. And even if he WAS speaking of some kind of external traditions, Paul definitely shifts gears in the very next verse (15), and he starts focusing on and speaking specifically of Scripture through to the end of the chapter.

Objection #4 – “Paul could not have meant Sola Scriptura here, since he was speaking of the only Scripture that was available at that time: the Old Testament. If Sola Scriptura applied here, wouldn’t we have to say that the Old Testament is all we need?

Answer – It is probably true that very little of the New Testament was written when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, but verse 16 says “All Scripture”, not all Scripture given to us “up until this point.”

As an example, if a Catholic stated that all official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are true, would anyone think that he was trying to say that only those official pronouncements which were given up to the present were true, but future ones may be false? Of course not. “All official pronouncements” means all official pronouncements, and “All Scripture” means just that… ALL Scripture… not just the Scriptures which happened to be available at the time.

Objection #5 – “There are other things besides Scripture that can make us ‘perfect and entire’, ‘lacking in nothing’, like patience (James 1:4). Or, we can exercise purity to make us ‘ready for any good work’ (2 Timothy 2:21), and good deeds are also said to be ‘profitable’ for us (Titus 3:8). So, Scripture is not the only thing that we need.”

Answer – The context in these verses is NOT the establishing of a Rule of Faith, as 2 Timothy chapter 3 is. But the context in the above verses is about sanctification, or the APPLICATION of that Rule, i.e., actually LIVING by its principles. For example, you can have a Bible sitting on your coffee table gathering dust, but if you don’t APPLY yourself to it, it won’t do you any good. Just as failing to apply the principles of Catholicism will make you a less-than-ideal Catholic. A Rule of Faith is a critically important guide, but it is not expected to do the work for you.

In 2 Timothy chapter 3, Paul is giving instructions on what to do when difficult times will come (verse 1), when men (even those in the church) will be boastful, arrogant, unholy, etc. (verses 2-5), opposing the truth (verse 8), and deceiving and being deceived (verse 13). Paul is showing us where to turn in these times of deception and uncertainty… to our Rule of Faith, which will be an anchor to keep us from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine… to the Word of God, that which is inspired (which means “God-breathed”– verse 16). If this Rule of Faith (Scripture) is the only thing that is ever called “God-breathed” in the New Testament, and it gives us doctrine / teaching, corrects us, trains us in the way of righteousness, and equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK, then what else do we need as a Rule of Faith?

Thus, we see that these Catholic arguments do not hold water, and that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, a biblical concept. We will tackle another Catholic claim next time. Comments, questions, and objections are welcome.

In His Name,
Russell