Anathema and Excommunication

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rand_Al_Thor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rand_Al_Thor

Guest
Peace be with you!

Can anyone give me a good definition of how exactly these two terms differ? A detailed definition anathema would be appreciated. Thanks!

In Christ,
Rand
 
Anathema is the formal excommunication ceremony no longer performed by the Church. Excommunication effects the same results, but without such a ceremony. In the Anathema, a person was given a curse basically detailing what they were not allowed to do and how they are seperated from the bosom of Mary and all that.

Excommunication mean that they cannot hold a church office or participate in any of the sacraments.

Really quick, these are meant to urge repentance, not damn the people.

This may be a bit sketchy, so someone please correct me if I am wrong.

~ Ian
 
Anathema:

Something to be despised, hated, cursed, execrated. The word was used of a thing that was horrible and/or horrifying. The thing or person anathematized was marked for expulsion, destrucyion, ruin. (Deut 7, 1 Kings 15:9-23) Anyone who spared an anathematized thing became himself anathema; however destruction was not always total. (Num 31:18, Josue 6:17) In the NT, anathema no longer implied death, but the loss of some or all goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. (Rom 9:3, Gal 1:9) This seperation from the faithful and from holy things implied the union with the devil chosen by the offender. The church took the term at an early date to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the elect in the sense of an excommunication. The purpose of the censure was to vindicate justice, deter others from crime, shock the offender with a sense of the magnitude of his sin, and finally bring him to repentence.

Excommunication.

I have a long drawn-out definition for this, but suffice it to say that excommunication is imposed when a person commits certain sins, knowing full well that the sin is excommunicatable, such as hearing confession when not a priest, profaning the Eucharist, etc. A person who is excommunicated must gain absolution not only for the sin but also for the excommunication. In some cases, absolving the excommunication can only be done by a Bishop or the pope. Usually when a priest is the confessor, he must obtain from his deisgnated superior the faculties to absolve the penitent.

In short, Anathema is something intolerable to the faith, Excommunication is the (hopefully temporary) exclusion of a sinner from communion with the faithful.

Thal59
 
Anathema did not always imply something bad. In biblical and apostolic times, anathema could also refer simply to something separated from the rest, as in the Holy things of God from common things.

Eventually anathema only came to imply something bad, and something REALLY bad, worse than excommunication, which is merely separation from the community. Anathema is consignment to the evil one (St. Paul did as much in one of his letters).

Both were intended to be disciplinary, and not permanent, purposing to turn the sinner back to repentance.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Rand,

In the context of condemnations, we have seen that many councils,up to Vatican II, defined a doctrine by saying, "If anyone denies that etc… let him be anathema. This is to signify that anyone denying such a truth, knowing that it is taugh by the Church, puts himself outside of the Church. It has however no legal ramifications. If he repents,accepts the doctrine and confesses to a priest, he will be once more the Church’s and God’s friend.

Excommunication is a legal concept. It is defined by canon law.For certain offenses, excommunication is automatic; for others, it is imposed by ecclesiastical authority. It can be lifted following certain procedures. In all cases, there are legal procedures to be followed.

Verbum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top