How to remove anathemas

  • Thread starter Thread starter nightrider009
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nightrider009

Guest
Suppose a Catholic does something which puts him under anathema. For example there is a verse in the catechism which says anyone does not submit to the Pope, let him be anathema. Now suppose this Catholic who is under anathema wants to repent. How exactly is the anathema removed?

Can he simply confess the sin to the priest? Or does he have to give some sort of profession of faith? If he had done this sin unknowingly, does he still have to confess it?

Pardon my ignorance.
 
nightrider009 said:
Suppose a Catholic does something which puts him under anathema. For example there is a verse in the catechism which says anyone does not submit to the Pope, let him be anathema. Now suppose this Catholic who is under anathema wants to repent. How exactly is the anathema removed?

Can he simply confess the sin to the priest? Or does he have to give some sort of profession of faith? If he had done this sin unknowingly, does he still have to confess it?

Pardon my ignorance.
Click to expand...
I am unsure whether the anathema you speak of is of the type usually associated with those laid down specifically by Vatican Councils - such as those for example in Trent etc.
 
The Anathema is not a current practice.

And one will not find it in the Catechism…tis not in use as a penalty.

There are still ways to be excommunicated --such as having an abortion etc -which is for for a similar purpose --to get the person to realize the seriousness of the action and bring them back to life in Christ…

(various articles on the main Catholic Answers website on excommunication. And they will go into things like when done in ignorance etc)
 
It must be noted that even though the ceremony of anathematization is no longer used, people can be and still are excommunicated for the same things that would have, in the past, warranted anathema.
 
Anathema in this case would mean that it warrants excommunication. Neither doctrinal nor disciplinary force was removed from these canons in removing a rarely used ceremony by which they were formerly enforced. Remember that Anathema means cut off from us and consecrated to God in a negative sense. This was first applied to excommunicants by St.Paul long before this particular ceremony was in practice.

P.S. If you have not been formally excommunicated then you have not fallen under anathema so you needn’t fear.
 
YoungTradCath said:
It must be noted that even though the ceremony of anathematization is no longer used, people can be and still are excommunicated for the same things that would have, in the past, warranted anathema.
Click to expand...
Anathema meant excommunicated long before it meant some particular formula for excommunication. This is simply an error of conflating definition 1 with definition 2. :rolleyes:
 
Guys, I appreciate your replies, but my question is not about the definition of anathema. I am asking how to have an anathema removed. Are all anathemas removed once we confess? Or is a special ceremony, such as a profession of faith in front of the congregation, needed?
 
nightrider009 said:
Guys, I appreciate your replies, but my question is not about the definition of anathema. I am asking how to have an anathema removed. Are all anathemas removed once we confess? Or is a special ceremony, such as a confession of faith, needed?
Click to expand...
If it is not a latia sententia excommunication you would need to be formally excommunicated for you to be anathematized, and if you have not been then you need only go to confession for the offense that could have been grounds for excommunication even though you were not excommunicated. No worries mate.👍
 
nightrider009 said:
Guys, I appreciate your replies, but my question is not about the definition of anathema. I am asking how to have an anathema removed. Are all anathemas removed once we confess? Or is a special ceremony, such as a profession of faith in front of the congregation, needed?
Click to expand...
That depends. Only bishops and their authorized priests, and the Holy See, can absolve excommunication/anathema. The absolution is, as far as I know, a private act between penitent and bishop/priest.
 
nightrider009 said:
Guys, I appreciate your replies, but my question is not about the definition of anathema. I am asking how to have an anathema removed. Are all anathemas removed once we confess? Or is a special ceremony, such as a profession of faith in front of the congregation, needed?
Click to expand...
Well there cannot be ANY anathemas at this time. * It is not possible*. Nobody today is under the sentence of Anathema.

But there can be excommunications --and such would be removed usually in confession by a Priest given the faculties by the Bishop or with certain rare reserved cases – from the Holy See (from the Pope).
 
Bookcat said:
Well there cannot be ANY anathemas at this time. * It is not possible*.

But there can be excommunications --and such would be removed usually in confession by a Priest given the faculties by the Bishop or with certain rare reserved cases – from the Holy See (from the Pope).
Click to expand...
Not only is this a distinction without a difference; the distinction is flawed to begin with.
 
Bookcat said:
It is a very good one and important. One will not find the use of anathema at this time.

jimmyakin.com/2005/10/anathema_sit.html
Click to expand...
I’d read that long before you posted it. The ceremony came about after the fact of anathema (Synonymous for excommunication when applied to a person.) had been long established, even from the times of the apostles.

I only just googled and skimmed this, but it seems to cover the subject well: ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/anathema-excommunication-and-heresy/
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
I’d read that long before you posted it. The ceremony came about after the fact of anathema (Synonymous for excommunication when applied to a person.) had been long established, even from the times of the apostles.

I only just googled and skimmed this, but it seems to cover the subject well: [ronconte]](http://ronconte])

The writings of Ron Conte are not a source I would recommend

As for an Anathema --as Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers stated the anathema does not exist today.

And the Church does not use this term in Canon Law and the Church does not make anathema and excommunication to be synonymous.

While one can look at the roots of the penalty and the word -for study -such is simply not a term used in the Church in current eccelesiastical practice.

So one cannot “remove anathemas” --for they do not exist. No one is under the penalty of an anathema.

Now excommunications of various sorts do exist. And such can thus be removed.
Click to expand...
 
Bookcat said:
The Anathema is not a current practice.

And one will not find it in the Catechism…tis not in use as a penalty.

There are still ways to be excommunicated --such as having an abortion etc -which is for for a similar purpose --to get the person to realize the seriousness of the action and bring them back to life in Christ…

(various articles on the main Catholic Answers website on excommunication. And they will go into things like when done in ignorance etc)
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the canons of past councils do not apply anymore?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Are you saying that the canons of past councils do not apply anymore?
Click to expand...
I am saying that the penalty of anathema no longer exists.

One is still of course not to-- say —reject the Divinity of Christ or various other matters of the Faith etc…and there can be various consequences to such an action …not limited to the very serious moral result.
 
Bookcat said:
I am saying that the penalty of anathema no longer exists.

One is still of course not to-- say —reject the Divinity of Christ or various other matters of the Faith etc…and there can be various consequences to such an action …not limited to the very serious moral result.
Click to expand...
This is amazing! According to the following link the very first ecumenical council prescribes a specific ceremonial penalty that didn’t exist for another 425 years! :rolleyes: I guess that’s because the holy spirit isn’t bound by time. newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

When the Church uses the term Anathema she is referring to a state of separation from the church which existed long before Pope Zachary put pen to paper in the 8th century to draw up a ceremony that places one in said state. Your only evidence that there is no longer any anathema is the removal of a ceremony from canon law.
 
The word has been used in various ways down through the centuries…as I noted such is good for study etc. But it is not a term used by the Church in the 21st century.

There is no longer “anathemas” imposed…and thus none to remove (the question of the OP)

One will not find any Church Document from the last 20 years-- where an anathema is imposed or spoken of as a possibility. There are none.

There are yes other penalties

but the term “anathema” and the penalty that was involved this term is not used.
 
Bookcat said:
The word has been used in various ways down through the centuries…as I noted such is good for study etc. But it is not a term used by the Church in the 21st century.

There is no longer “anathemas” imposed…and thus none to remove (the question of the OP)

One will not find any Church Document from the last 20 years-- where an anathema is imposed or spoken of as a possibility. There are none.

There are yes other penalties

but the term “anathema” and the penalty that was involved this term is not used.
Click to expand...
So there is NO penalty by which one is completely separated from the sacramental life of the church until such time as one repents? None? Now think real hard on this one. If the answer is no there isn’t, then what the heck is excommunication? If the answer is yes there is, then you are arguing empty semantics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top