"Let him be anathama" - Council of Trent

[Tridentinum]

Are the anathematizations still in effect today but under a different form, seeing as the canonical penalty of ‘Anathema’ was dis-continued under the new 1983 Code of Canon Law? In light of the new Code of Canon Law, should the anathematizations now be interpreted as simply excommunications, because the penalty ‘anathema’ was a form of excommunication?

 

[ProVobis]

Are the anathematizations still in effect today but under a different form, seeing as the canonical penalty of ‘Anathema’ was dis-continued under the new 1983 Code of Canon Law? In light of the new Code of Canon Law, should the anathematizations now be interpreted as simply excommunications, because the penalty ‘anathema’ was a form of excommunication?

I think you answered your own question. There is no canonical penalty against something which doesn’t go against Canon Law. The Council of Trent issued general doctrinal statements which are binding in that sense forever, whether there are individual canonical penalties or not attached to them.

 

[Tridentinum]

I think you answered your own question. There is no canonical penalty against something which doesn’t go against Canon Law. The Council of Trent issued general doctrinal statements which are binding in that sense forever, whether there are individual canonical penalties or not attached to them.

Well, were the canonical penalties of rejecting those statements fully removed, or is it still excommunication, just not in the form of ‘anathema’?

 

[ProVobis]

Well, were the canonical penalties of rejecting those statements fully removed, or is it still excommunication, just not in the form of ‘anathema’?

I may be wrong here but “anathema sit” is geared more along the lines of the prevention of heresy against the stated doctrine. So then the question becomes does preaching such heresy constitute an excommunicable offense against the current Canon Law. My guess is that this decision would be left to the Pope and he would impose whatever penalties are in the best interest of the Church.

I’d love to read other comments on this.

 

[Tridentinum]

I may be wrong here but “anathema sit” is geared more along the lines of the prevention of heresy against the stated doctrine. So then the question becomes does preaching such heresy constitute an excommunicable offense against the current Canon Law. My guess is that this decision would be left to the Pope and he would impose whatever penalties are in the best interest of the Church.

I’d love to read other comments on this.

Oh? It was my understanding that it was aimed at formal heretics who were teaching the stated Doctrines. I never really thought of it that way.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh? It was my understanding that it was aimed at formal heretics who were teaching the stated Doctrines. I never really thought of it that way.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have them, for example, ban microphones, especially using them during the Canon which is supposed to be silent, but it doesn’t seem like threatening excommunication these days will achieve any desired effect.

 

[MarkThompson]

Are the anathematizations still in effect today but under a different form, seeing as the canonical penalty of ‘Anathema’ was dis-continued under the new 1983 Code of Canon Law? In light of the new Code of Canon Law, should the anathematizations now be interpreted as simply excommunications, because the penalty ‘anathema’ was a form of excommunication?

Even at the time of Trent, anathema was regarded as an excommunication. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

 

[Tridentinum]

Even at the time of Trent, anathema was regarded as an excommunication. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

Yeah I understand that, but what I am wondering is, did the new Canon Law when put in effect abolish a penalty altogether from holding those various beliefs or did the penalty move down to the next highest form, from ‘anathema’ to simple, modern day ‘excommunication’?

 

[MarkThompson]

Yeah I understand that, but what I am wondering is, did the new Canon Law when put in effect abolish a penalty altogether from holding those various beliefs or did the penalty move down to the next highest form, from ‘anathema’ to simple, modern day ‘excommunication’?

There were not really different “forms” even under the 1917 Code of Canon Law. That code stated:
Can 2257 §1. Excommunicatio est censura qua quis excluditur a communione fidelium cum effectibus qui in canonibus, qui sequuntur, enumerantur, quique separari nequeunt.
§2. Dicitur quoque anathema, praesertim si cum sollemnitatibus infligatur quae in Pontificali Romano describuntur.
Which I translate:
Can 2257 §1. Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the effects which are enumerated in the following canons, which are inseverable.
§2. It is also called anathema, chiefly if it is imposed with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical.
That is the only mention of the word “anathema” in the entire 1917 Code. Thus anathema was not a separate, special level of excommunication with extra-severe effects, it was simply another name for excommunication, generally applied in cases where somebody cared enough to go through the formalities prescribed in the ritual books.

 

[PJM]

=Tridentinum;8784910]Are the anathematizations still in effect today but under a different form, seeing as the canonical penalty of ‘Anathema’ was dis-continued under the new 1983 Code of Canon Law? In light of the new Code of Canon Law, should the anathematizations now be interpreted as simply excommunications, because the penalty ‘anathema’ was a form of excommunication?

YES they are.

WHY?

Because defined doctrine [especailly from an Ecumental Council], like the Pope’s declairationsa are too Infallible. A Defined Doctine can never be voided.

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

Can. 750 §2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

 

[Monica4316]

I think you answered your own question. There is no canonical penalty against something which doesn’t go against Canon Law. The Council of Trent issued general doctrinal statements which are binding in that sense forever, whether there are individual canonical penalties or not attached to them.

what if you accidently speak against one of these doctrines, through ignorance of its existence?

 

[ProVobis]

what if you accidently speak against one of these doctrines, through ignorance of its existence?

No need to be ignorant any more.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.html

The “anathema sit” canons don’t start until Session VI.

 

[Tridentinum]

what if you accidently speak against one of these doctrines, through ignorance of its existence?

Hi Monica,

The anathemas are pointed at formal heretics, Catholics who deliberately preach heresy after being corrected/informed of the correct teaching. For example, if a priest after the Council of Trent read ‘Canon 1 on Justification’

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

and then decided to preach exactly what the Canon condemned, then he has committed the sin of Heresy.

Believing a heresy because of ignorance of the truth, but then correcting yourself once you are informed of the truth, is not the sin of Heresy.

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

One can never incur an excommunication by accident or unknowingly

One who knowingly, willingly and obstinately preaches heresy incurs and excommunication. One who simply preaches or teaches in error does not, they are of course required to change their tune once they are aware of their error.

 

[JReducation]

Yeah I understand that, but what I am wondering is, did the new Canon Law when put in effect abolish a penalty altogether from holding those various beliefs or did the penalty move down to the next highest form, from ‘anathema’ to simple, modern day ‘excommunication’?

Anathema is just a word. The effects are the same as excommunication. The word is no longer commonly used. Excommunication is. However, the new code of 1983 limits excommunication to very specific offenses and to any that the pope declares, which are not covered by the Code. As I always say, pope have excommunicated people because they didn’t like the color of their toothbrush. They have that much power. There are other penalties that can be imposed by the local bishop, which are not in the Code itself, but are in other legal documents.

We have to remember that the Code of Canon Law is like the Constitution. Just as the Constitution does not cover every possible situation or contain every possible law, neither does the Code of Canon Law. Just as we have laws that are in other books and other legal documents, state constitutions, local ordinances, etc, so too does the Church. So, just as we the average citizen does not know every law in the books, that’s why we need lawyers, because they know where to find the law, so too it is in the Catholic Church.

There seems to be an almost excessive preoccupation with law among lay Catholics these days. While it is certainly good to be informed in both civil and ecclesial law, the concern with legal details that don’t have any impact on my daily life can be a distraction rather than an education. We must be careful not to fall into distractions over things that are not relevant to our spiritual journey.

For example, I’m a religious and I serve in formation work. I certainly need to know all of the ins and outs of ecclesial law governing religious life if I’m going to form future brothers, priests and secular Franciscans. On the flip side, I’m not a diocesan priest or a bishop. The laws the govern the relationship between the diocesan priest and the bishop are not important to me, because they don’t affect me. I read through them a few times when I was a student and put them aside. When someone wants to know something, I can tell them where to find it or I can go to a shelf and pull a book. But it’s not something that I ever think about, because it’s not part of my life.

If I became so concerned about the laws, policies and protocols that govern diocesan priests that I come up with a different question every week, I would have to ask myself if it’s just curiosity or if it’s a distraction in my life.

While we want to cultivate interior discipline, we must be prudent in doing so to avoid inadvertently cultivating hypervigilance and distractions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tridentinum]

Anathema is just a word. The effects are the same as excommunication. The word is no longer commonly used. Excommunication is. However, the new code of 1983 limits excommunication to very specific offenses and to any that the pope declares, which are not covered by the Code. As I always say, pope have excommunicated people because they didn’t like the color of their toothbrush. They have that much power. There are other penalties that can be imposed by the local bishop, which are not in the Code itself, but are in other legal documents.

We have to remember that the Code of Canon Law is like the Constitution. Just as the Constitution does not cover every possible situation or contain every possible law, neither does the Code of Canon Law. Just as we have laws that are in other books and other legal documents, state constitutions, local ordinances, etc, so too does the Church. So, just as we the average citizen does not know every law in the books, that’s why we need lawyers, because they know where to find the law, so too it is in the Catholic Church.

There seems to be an almost excessive preoccupation with law among lay Catholics these days. While it is certainly good to be informed in both civil and ecclesial law, the concern with legal details that don’t have any impact on my daily life can be a distraction rather than an education. We must be careful not to fall into distractions over things that are not relevant to our spiritual journey.

For example, I’m a religious and I serve in formation work. I certainly need to know all of the ins and outs of ecclesial law governing religious life if I’m going to form future brothers, priests and secular Franciscans. On the flip side, I’m not a diocesan priest or a bishop. The laws the govern the relationship between the diocesan priest and the bishop are not important to me, because they don’t affect me. I read through them a few times when I was a student and put them aside. When someone wants to know something, I can tell them where to find it or I can go to a shelf and pull a book. But it’s not something that I ever think about, because it’s not part of my life.

If I became so concerned about the laws, policies and protocols that govern diocesan priests that I come up with a different question every week, I would have to ask myself if it’s just curiosity or if it’s a distraction in my life.

While we want to cultivate interior discipline, we must be prudent in doing so to avoid inadvertently cultivating hypervigilance and distractions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Dear Br. JR,

Thanks for the big informative response, it answered all my questions!