Let Him Be An Anathema

[Augustine3]

I was listening to a Catholic/Protestant debate and heard the Protestant say the council of Trent proclaimed all whoever did not believe is things such as Purgatory etc. is anathematised, but later councils (I think it was Vatican 2) removed the anathema. The Catholic said the council of Trent used strong language because of the anger that was going on at the time but now the Church as apologised for such language.

Has the anathema listing in the council of Trent been removed?
If it has been removed isn’t that changing previous teaching, hence a contradiction?

 

[The_Scott]

I was listening to a Catholic/Protestant debate and heard the Protestant say the council of Trent proclaimed all whoever did not believe is things such as Purgatory etc. is anathematised, but later councils (I think it was Vatican 2) removed the anathema. The Catholic said the council of Trent used strong language because of the anger that was going on at the time but now the Church as apologised for such language.

Has the anathema listing in the council of Trent been removed?
If it has been removed isn’t that changing previous teaching, hence a contradiction?

Well, for all intents and purposes, anathema means excommunicated.

You can’t be excommunicated from the Church if you never belonged to her to begin with, correct?

So yes, you can still be excommunicated, as a Catholic, if you refuse to believe in Purgatory, the Real Presence, etc. But you can’t be excommunicated if you have been a life long Protestant. You can’t be kicked out of something you never belonged to. That’d be like kicking me out of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Since I am neither a mother nor female, this penalty would have absolutely no bearing to me.

The anathemas of Trent were geared to those who were Catholic at birth. Remember, the Council of Trent occurred thirty - fifty years after Martin Luther first split. So it is certainly possible that all of Christian Europe was still baptized Catholic.

 

[Augustine3]

Well, for all intents and purposes, anathema means excommunicated.

You can’t be excommunicated from the Church if you never belonged to her to begin with, correct?

So yes, you can still be excommunicated, as a Catholic, if you refuse to believe in Purgatory, the Real Presence, etc. But you can’t be excommunicated if you have been a life long Protestant. You can’t be kicked out of something you never belonged to. That’d be like kicking me out of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Since I am neither a mother nor female, this penalty would have absolutely no bearing to me.

The anathemas of Trent were geared to those who were Catholic at birth. Remember, the Council of Trent occurred thirty - fifty years after Martin Luther first split. So it is certainly possible that all of Christian Europe was still baptized Catholic.

The Protestant asked “If I don’t believe in the Eucharist would I become anathematised?” the Catholic hesitantly answered “yes”. It sounds like the anathema applied to all Christians.

I understand what you’re saying, the pope cannot excommunicate a non-Catholic. It just seems weird the Catholic admitted “yes” and mentioned nothing of it being applied to Catholics only and out of all places this was a debate trying to defend the Catholic faith??

God bless,

 

[porthos11]

I was listening to a Catholic/Protestant debate and heard the Protestant say the council of Trent proclaimed all whoever did not believe is things such as Purgatory etc. is anathematised, but later councils (I think it was Vatican 2) removed the anathema. The Catholic said the council of Trent used strong language because of the anger that was going on at the time but now the Church as apologised for such language.

Has the anathema listing in the council of Trent been removed?
If it has been removed isn’t that changing previous teaching, hence a contradiction?

Anathema is a penalty under Canon Law and is therefore a discipline and may be modified. This is what happened under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. There is no more penalty of anathema. The most severe penalty in the Church today is excommunication.

However, the dogmas so pronounced are unchanging so they are still to be believed on pain of heresy. And heresy is punishable by excommunication under current law.

Protestants, being outside the Church’s legal jurisdiction, cannot be excommunicated.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Dovetailing on porthos’ reply, here is Jimmy Akin’s article Are You Anathema? How About Your Protestant Friend?

See also his links at bottom of article.

 

[Augustine3]

What’s the difference between excommunication and anathema?

God bless,

 

[De_Maria]

What’s the difference between excommunication and anathema?

God bless,

They are the same thing. See this explanation:
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/anathema-excommunication-and-heresy/

 

[De_Maria]

The Protestant asked “If I don’t believe in the Eucharist would I become anathematised?” the Catholic hesitantly answered “yes”. It sounds like the anathema applied to all Christians.

I understand what you’re saying, the pope cannot excommunicate a non-Catholic. It just seems weird the Catholic admitted “yes” and mentioned nothing of it being applied to Catholics only and out of all places this was a debate trying to defend the Catholic faith??

God bless,

The Protestant becomes a member of the Catholic Church by his baptism. He then “anathematizes” or “excommunicates” himself when he denies the infallible Teachings and Authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ChrisCath]

I was reading that anathema (ἀνάθεμα and ἀναθεματίζω) was used by St. Paul who picked it up from the Septuagint.

I can’t give an exact reference however.

 

[Augustine3]

Anathema is a penalty under Canon Law and is therefore a discipline and may be modified. This is what happened under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. There is no more penalty of anathema. The most severe penalty in the Church today is excommunication.

However, the dogmas so pronounced are unchanging so they are still to be believed on pain of heresy. And heresy is punishable by excommunication under current law.

Protestants, being outside the Church’s legal jurisdiction, cannot be excommunicated.

Dr Robert Fastiggi commented saying “if you want to falsify the Catholic church then present a solemn statement by the pope i.e. ex cathedra pronouncing an anathema then later abrogating the anathema” (I’m slightly paraphrasing). If the anathema has indeed been waived then according to Dr Robert the Catholic church is a false church. Here is the youtube link below. He tells us 15mins in the debate.

youtube.com/watch?v=lM_x1FHJZJY

God bless,

 

[thistle]

What’s the difference between excommunication and anathema?

God bless,

Father Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ANATHEMA. Solemn condemnation, of biblical origin, used by the Church to declare that some position or teaching contradicts Catholic faith and doctrine.

“If anyone,” Paul wrote to the Galatians, “preach to you a gospel besides what you have received, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:9). Reflecting the Church’s concern to preserve the integrity of faith, the Fathers anathematized heretics in a variety of terms. Polycarp called Marcion the firstborn of the devil. Ignatius saw in heretics poisonous plants, or animals in human form. Justin (c. 100-65) and Tertullian (160-220) called their teachings an inspiration of the Evil One. Theophilus compared them to barren and rocky islands on which ships were wrecked, and Origen said they were pirates placing lights on cliffs to lure and destroy vessels in search of refuge. These primitive views were later tempered in language, but the implicit attitudes remained and were crystallized in solemn conciliar decrees. The familiar anathema sit (let him be anathema, or excommunicated) appears to have been first applied to heretics at the Council of Elvira (Spain) in 300-6, and became the standard formula in all the general councils of the Church, as against Arius (256-336) at I Nicaea (325), Nestorius at Ephesus (431), Eutyches at Chalcedon (451) and the Iconoclasts at II Nicaea in 787. (Etym. Greek anathema, thing devoted to evil, curse; and accursed thing or person; from anatithenai, to set up, dedicate.)

EXCOMMUNICATION. An ecclesiastical censure by which one is more or less excluded from communion with the faithful. It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with formal solemnities on persons notoriously obstinate to reconciliation. Two basic forms of excommunication are legislated by the Code of Canon Law, namely inflicted penalties (ferendae sententiae) and automatic penalties (latae sententiae). In the first type, a penalty does not bind until after it has been imposed on the guilty party. In the second type, the excommunication is incurred by the very commission of the offense, if the law or precept expressly determines this (Canon 1314). Most excommunications are of the second type. Among others identified by the new Code are the following:

“An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic excommunication” (Canon 1364).
“A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See” (Canon 1367).
“A confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See” (Canon 1388).
“A person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic excommunication” (Canon 1398).
There are three principal effects of this penalty, so that "an excommunicated person is forbidden:

to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the Eucharistic Sacrifice or in any other ceremonies whatsoever of public worship
to celebrate the sacraments and sacramentals and to receive the sacraments
to discharge any ecclesiastical offices, ministries or functions whatsoever, or to place acts of governance"
(Canon 1331).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Dr Robert Fastiggi commented saying “if you want to falsify the Catholic church then present a solemn statement by the pope i.e. ex cathedra pronouncing an anathema then later abrogating the anathema” (I’m slightly paraphrasing). If the anathema has indeed been waived then according to Dr Robert the Catholic church is a false church. Here is the youtube link below. He tells us 15mins in the debate.

This is incorrect because infallibility pertains to teachings of faith or morals, not disciplinary declarations such as an excommunication.

 

[porthos11]

Dr Robert Fastiggi commented saying “if you want to falsify the Catholic church then present a solemn statement by the pope i.e. ex cathedra pronouncing an anathema then later abrogating the anathema” (I’m slightly paraphrasing). If the anathema has indeed been waived then according to Dr Robert the Catholic church is a false church. Here is the youtube link below. He tells us 15mins in the debate.

youtube.com/watch?v=lM_x1FHJZJY

God bless,

He is wrong. The Church can abrogate the anathema as it is discipline. It cannot abrogate the dogma.

For example:

“If any man says that the Most Holy Eucharist is not truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, let him be anathema.”

The dogma is that the Eucharist is Christ. The penalty for denying this is anathema.

However in 1983, anathema was abrogated. This does not change the fact that it is still dogma that the Eucharist is Christ. The penalty though, is “mere” excommunication as anathema is no longer on the books.

 

[porthos11]

What’s the difference between excommunication and anathema?

God bless,

They are the same thing. See this explanation:
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/anathema-excommunication-and-heresy/

First of all, Ron Conte is not a reliable source and does not accurately represent Church teaching.

In any case, the anathema in the legal sense is a solemn form of excommunication wherein a bishop or Pope presides over a ceremony involving a bell, book and several priests/assistants holding lighted candles. The form of the anathemization is as follows:

“Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

Whereupon all the assistants respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat.” and they cast their lighted candles to the ground. The bell is rung and the book is closed.

Anathema was never automatic whereas excommunication could be.

The main difference between this and excommunication is the creepiness factor.

 

[kalbertone]

Anathema is a penalty under Canon Law and is therefore a discipline and may be modified. This is what happened under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. There is no more penalty of anathema. The most severe penalty in the Church today is excommunication.

However, the dogmas so pronounced are unchanging so they are still to be believed on pain of heresy. And heresy is punishable by excommunication under current law.

Protestants, being outside the Church’s legal jurisdiction, cannot be excommunicated.

Most Conciliar Canons that end with a Anaethaema sit ARE NOT DOGMA. Dogma as we know it today(a infallible teaching) or understand it ,came about in the 1800s as a Divinely revealed object of belief to be held with divine catholic faith.According to Vatican 1 (which adopted the term) it must be 1-- Of Scripture or part of the post biblical tradition of the church(that is Big T tradition not little t tradition 2–it must be presented as a divinely revealed object of belief 3—this must be done by a solemn judgment or by the universal magisterium. As canon law specifies “No doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless clearly established” Also the final accounting is that it must be RECIEVED by the faithful or as canon law puts it “a common adherence of all of Christ^s faithful”. Reception & the sense of the faithful have always been part of determining infallibilty. Needles to say there a relatively few dogmas

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I was reading that anathema (ἀνάθεμα and ἀναθεματίζω) was used by St. Paul who picked it up from the Septuagint.

I can’t give an exact reference however.

This post isn’t going to be a detailed analysis of the word “anathema,” but I will supply you with some Bible verses for “anathema sit.” St. Paul uses the expression in vv. 8-9 of the first chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians.

ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν παρ’ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. ὡς προειρήκαμεν, καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω, εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ’ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

sed licet nos aut angelus de caelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis anathema sit sicut praediximus et nunc iterum dico si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis anathema sit

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

And also 1 Corinthians 16:22.

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You can see a similar expression being used in the Pentateuch in Deuteronomy 7:26.

nec inferes quippiam ex idolo in domum tuam ne fias anathema sicut et illud est quasi spurcitiam detestaberis et velut inquinamentum ac sordes abominationi habebis quia anathema est

Neither shalt thou bring any thing of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema, like it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema.

It is interesting here because you see kind of a cross between the primary sense of the word and the “let him be anathema” sense.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Anathema is a penalty under Canon Law and is therefore a discipline and may be modified. This is what happened under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. There is no more penalty of anathema. The most severe penalty in the Church today is excommunication.

However, the dogmas so pronounced are unchanging so they are still to be believed on pain of heresy. And heresy is punishable by excommunication under current law.

Protestants, being outside the Church’s legal jurisdiction, cannot be excommunicated.

Protestants can’t be excommunicated, mainly because they are already excommunicated by being Protestants.