As I explained, “anathema” has a specific technical meaning in canon law. The secular dictionary definition isn’t going to give you that. Because it is a penalty under church law, like all such penalties, it doesn’t apply to non- Catholics. That doesn’t change the fact that some of what the reformers taught is heretical. But you can’t argue the fate of non-Catholics in Catholic teaching based on a penalty clause which is no longer in force, and never applied to them in the first place.
RE: That doesnt change the fact that some of what the reformers taught is heretical.
so, not recognizing the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff of the Church is heretical...
As for heresy, what else is heresy that the reformers taught? Can you cite one example?
I cited one of them already — not recognizing the Pope as the Primate of the church.
RE: But you cant argue the fate of non-Catholics in Catholic teaching based on a penalty clause which is no longer in force, and never applied to them in the first place.
I find this to be quite strange and hard to conceive. Why would anathema merely apply to Luther or Calvin and not to his followers who believe the same “heretical” ( your words ) doctrine they do? These are people who call themselves “Christian” as well.
For instance, there are thousands upon thousand of people in the world who were baptized in the Roman Catholic Church as infants who after growing up, decided, upon reflection and discussions with non-Catholic Christians, that they are convinced that Martin Luther and John Calvin are right.
Surely, these thousands of non-Catholics are anathema according to Vatican I. That is, if the technical meaning is having been Catholic, you now embrace doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church (as per Vatican I ) calls anathema.
Yet, Vatican II calls them separated brothers.
The only convincing explanation for me is Vatican II superceded Vatican I.