What is "Anathema"

[tdgesq]

I don’t care who judges what. All I did was post the fact that that excommunication condemns the recipient to Hellfire.

You should care, because you are missing a very important distinction. The judgment is handed down based upon the current evidence that the ecclesiastical body has of the accused’s immediate state of sinfulness. The penalty that ensues - eternal damnation - is an obvious consequence of that sinfulness. However, nothing at all is said about the accused’s future state of sinfulness. Future repentance will completely change the prior judgment. In fact, the whole point of an anathema is to accomplish exactly that: “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.” You are wrong that an anathema condemns the recipient to eternal damnation.

And you are wrong for other reasons as well. The sinner condemns himself. The Church only judges and then declares what is already the state of the accused. It does not impose a sentence. It states what God’s sentence will be if the accused does not repent. A far cry from your contention " that excommunication condemns the recipient to Hellfire."

I agree with you. Why would you post something that I agree with?

Perhaps because he remembered your original objection that modern Catholics have somehow watered down the original understanding of an anathema.

In any event, it is the RCC that pronounces anathemas and excommunicates. That is all that is relevant.

It’s only relevant if you understand what the Church teaches about anathema and excommunication. Btw, many Evangelical and other non-Catholic churches exercise the power of excommunication in the name of the authority that Paul preached to the Corinthians.

 

[Atemi]

I don’t care who judges what. All I did was post the fact that that excommunication condemns the recipient to Hellfire.

You should care, because you are missing a very important distinction. The judgment is handed down based upon the current evidence that the ecclesiastical body has of the accused’s immediate state of sinfulness. The penalty that ensues - eternal damnation - is an obvious consequence of that sinfulness. However, nothing at all is said about the accused’s future state of sinfulness. Future repentance will completely change the prior judgment. In fact, the whole point of an anathema is to accomplish exactly that: “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.” You are wrong that an anathema condemns the recipient to eternal damnation.

I agree that the RCC teaches all this.

Again, I am being shown what I already readily understand.

Yes, of course I understand that the RCC teaches that everyone they thus anathematize must come crawling back to the RCC and admit the errors of their ways…then they can avoid damnation.

This is nothing new.

I am assuming we who are anathematized are not going to crawl back with our tails between our legs to say sorry to your church.

And you are wrong for other reasons as well. The sinner condemns himself. The Church only judges and then declares what is already the state of the accused. It does not impose a sentence. It states what God’s sentence will be if the accused does not repent. A far cry from your contention " that excommunication condemns the recipient to Hellfire."

Again, I already totally understand that your church leaders determine who among the rest of us are “sinners” (the anathematized or excommunicated).

I don’t give that estimation any credence, of course, but I am fully aware that that is what your church teaches.

**I agree with you. Why would you post something that I agree with? **

Perhaps because he remembered your original objection that modern Catholics have somehow watered down the original understanding of an anathema.

But I hear it all the time.

I will be discussing the issue and inevitably the Catholic will say “Anathema only means that you are kicked out from the Catholic Church and cannot go to Mass.” They almost always say that it has nothing to do with someone’s salvation or place with God.

Totally inaccurate…but that is what many are taught now days. I guess to be more “ecumenical” and such.

Even the other Catholic poster up this thread (Mijoy) was seeking a “better choice of word” than anathema.

The whole reason someone would do this is to specifically soften the image of what the RCC has historically taught regarding this worst kind of excommunication from the Body of Christ itself.

In any event, it is the RCC that pronounces anathemas and excommunicates. That is all that is relevant.

It’s only relevant if you understand what the Church teaches about anathema and excommunication.

Agreed.

I am glad to see some Catholics here that do not deny this up and down like I experience quite often.

Btw, many Evangelical and other non-Catholic churches exercise the power of excommunication in the name of the authority that Paul preached to the Corinthians.

Of course.

They use it in the same fashion as it was employed then, not as the RCC has practiced in her history, IMO.

Proper ex-communication cannot remove anyone from the Body of Christ, only from the contact and support from others in that Body. It is designed to remove wanton sin from the congregation.

…

 

[jemfinch]

I took nothing out of context. I simply quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Misquoted, actually. You said that the Church “condemned” a person via an anathema, when the rite of anathema specifically says, “we judge him condemned.” There’s a difference, but you don’t seem willing to recognize that difference.

Irrelevant.

I don’t care who judges what. All I did was post the fact that that excommunication condemns the recipient to Hellfire.

Excommunication judges a person condemned. It does not condemn a person. If you can’t understand the difference, then you should stop proclaiming that this is something you understand.

I agree with you. Why would you post something that I agree with?

Because your posts here have not been ones of agreement. If you agree with me now, you’ve changed your stance since the beginning of this thread, and I want to emphasize that my responses are not “out of the blue” but in response to your initial disagreement.

In any event, it is the RCC that pronounces anathemas and excommunicates. That is all that is relevant.

And thank God it does!

He asked if excommunication was a “better choice of word” rather than anathema.

It probably is, since so many Protestants have a preconceived notion of what an “anathema” is.

Do you think we feel better if the anathema or excommunication applies to us corporately, but not personally?

Unless you can refer us to the actual rite or ceremony by which you or your church were anathemized, you should stop saying that an anathema applies to you. You’re under penalty of anathema based on the canons of any number of councils, but those penalties must actually be levied to take effect. They’re not latae sentitiae excommunications, as far as I know.

We must also keep in mind that the anathemas are directed at individuals “If anyone…anathema.”

We must also keep in mind that until the rite of anathema is actually performed, you’re not actual anathemized. The canons of the Council of Trent are exactly that: canons, laws which must be applied to a person in order to take effect.

Ignoring the portions of your most recent post that are simply blatant attempts to send this thread offtopic, I will respond to this:

Proper ex-communication cannot remove anyone from the Body of Christ, only from the contact and support from others in that Body.

Paul had an exercised the power and authority to declare a person severed from Christ in Galatians 5 when he said, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” An anathema is the same exact sort of declaration.

Jeremy

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree that the RCC teaches all this.

Again, I am being shown what I already readily understand.

Yes, of course I understand that the RCC teaches that everyone they thus anathematize must come crawling back to the RCC and admit the errors of their ways…then they can avoid damnation.

This is nothing new.

I am assuming we who are anathematized are not going to crawl back with our tails between our legs to say sorry to your church.

Again, I already totally understand that your church leaders determine who among the rest of us are “sinners” (the anathematized or excommunicated).

I don’t give that estimation any credence, of course, but I am fully aware that that is what your church teaches.

But I hear it all the time.

I will be discussing the issue and inevitably the Catholic will say “Anathema only means that you are kicked out from the Catholic Church and cannot go to Mass.” They almost always say that it has nothing to do with someone’s salvation or place with God.

Totally inaccurate…but that is what many are taught now days. I guess to be more “ecumenical” and such.

Even the other Catholic poster up this thread (Mijoy) was seeking a “better choice of word” than anathema.

The whole reason someone would do this is to specifically soften the image of what the RCC has historically taught regarding this worst kind of excommunication from the Body of Christ itself.

Agreed.

I am glad to see some Catholics here that do not deny this up and down like I experience quite often.

Of course.

They use it in the same fashion as it was employed then, not as the RCC has practiced in her history, IMO.

Proper ex-communication cannot remove anyone from the Body of Christ, only from the contact and support from others in that Body. It is designed to remove wanton sin from the congregation.

…

It is really true that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

If you had more understanding of the faith you have abandoned, you might still be Catholic. If you had less, then you wouldn’t be attempting to speak so authoritatively on matters about which you are so ill-prepared in post after post and thread after thread.

Sadly, you probably have a great time at your local faith assembly telling anyone who will listen to your stem-winders about the horrors of the Whore of Babylon and how lucky you are to have been delivered from “Romanism”. Unfortunately, your misinformation only perpetuates the distortions and divisions that have resulted from the Protestant Rebellion in the minds of those who see you as an authority on the Church but in fact are simply more ignorant than you are.

Similar satisfaction and success eludes your here, however, for this audience can see that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“We all can see.”

“We” doesn’t seem to be many. The rest of us have seen what “anathema” means as quoted in Catholic theology texts dating before you were born, so your claims remain unconvincing.

You still haven’t supported your claim that it was “watered down” understanding in the “modern era,” as we have given the same understanding which the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia provides.

What has changed since 1909, is that anathema as a kind of excommunication is no longer a canonical penalty according to the code of canon law, as it was so rarely used.

But I do get a chuckle when ex-Catholics claim in-depth expertise in Catholicism merely because they grew up Catholic.

 

[Church_Militant]

But I do get a chuckle when ex-Catholics claim in-depth expertise in Catholicism merely because they grew up Catholic.

Yeah. I was such an expert that I had the sense to challenge a guy who alleged that we worshipped Mary and I had the integrity to look into it for myself and then I looked more carefully at the rest of Catholic teaching versus what I had been taught by the Southern Baptists and the Assembly of God as well as Jack Chick, Watchman Nee, Billy Graham, and a host of others…

End result: Reconversion to the Catholic faith.
[SIGN]Glory Be To God![/SIGN]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mijoy2,

According to Pope St. Pius X, with regard to “the internal disposition of the soul, …God alone is judge.” (St. Pius X, *Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), *no. 3). In attempting to understand the authentic meaning of “anathema” and “excommunication” one ought to keep this underlying context in mind.

It is admitted by *A Protestant Dictionary *(1904), “an anathematized person denoted…[in] later patristic and ecclesiastical use of the word 'excommunicated;” [Charles H.H. Wright, DD., MA., PhD., and Charles Neil, MA., editors, *A Protestant Dictionary, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904), p. 20]. That’s pretty much what Catholicism states.

Consequently, to better understand whether one is truly condemned to hell (which only God can do since that involves a judgment of the internal disposition of soul), you should note what the Catholic Church understands about excommunication, and the possibility of “unjust excommunication.” This is important to understand in distinguishing between one truly condemned to hell and one who might be canonically judged to be condemned by the external forum of the Church.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909)

Excommunication is said to** be unjust when, though valid, it is **wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty…a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, **a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. **However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved.

It should be clear from the above sources that one judged by the external forum of the Church as “anathema” or “excommunicated” may still be joined to the Church in the eyes of God.

 

[Mijoy2]

Mijoy2,

According to Pope St. Pius X, with regard to “the internal disposition of the soul, …God alone is judge.” (St. Pius X, *Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), *no. 3). In attempting to understand the authentic meaning of “anathema” and “excommunication” one ought to keep this underlying context in mind.

It is admitted by *A Protestant Dictionary *(1904), “an anathematized person denoted…[in] later patristic and ecclesiastical use of the word 'excommunicated;” [Charles H.H. Wright, DD., MA., PhD., and Charles Neil, MA., editors, *A Protestant Dictionary,

(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904), p. 20]. That’s pretty much what Catholicism states.

Consequently, to better understand whether one is truly condemned to hell (which only God can do since that involves a judgment of the internal disposition of soul), you should note what the Catholic Church understands about excommunication, and the possibility of “unjust excommunication.” This is important to understand in distinguishing between one truly condemned to hell and one who might be canonically judged to be condemned by the external forum of the Church.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909)

It should be clear from the above sources that one judged by the external forum of the Church as “anathema” or “excommunicated” may still be joined to the Church in the eyes of God.

Thank you I appreciate this effort. Speaking as a Catholic I’m still having some difficulty. It almost sounds as if we are saying;

The Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit to infallibility (when the teaching is under proper context), if in error, then nevermind.

If we falsely (or mistakenly) ex-communicate an innocent Catholic, God excuses our mistake. Maybe the answer is the doctrine is not in error but the deployment of the doctrine may be in error.

What is meant by:

"…we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

This seems to conflict with the Churches teaching that the Body and the Soul will both either be united with God or damned. The quote implies that the body will potenially belong to Satan and soul to God which, of course, is not the case. Can someone help clarify this?

 

[tdgesq]

I agree that the RCC teaches all this.

Again, I am being shown what I already readily understand.

Yes, of course I understand that the RCC teaches that everyone they thus anathematize must come crawling back to the RCC and admit the errors of their ways…then they can avoid damnation.

Again, not accurate. The one under anathema needs only to repent to avoid damnation. It is true that without formally satisfying the Church of repentance the one under anathema will still be denied the sacraments and fellowship of the Church. The Church is obviously in no position to lift this penalty unless the person has made a satisfactory demonstration of repentence. Non-Catholic Protestant churches demand the same thing before allowing the excommunicated member back into the fold.

am assuming we who are anathematized are not going to crawl back with our tails between our legs to say sorry to your church.

Please name one person living today who is under an anathema. I’m not asking about excommunication, just anathema. I don’t know of a single person who is, so I’m not sure to whom you are referring here.

Again, I already totally understand that your church leaders determine who among the rest of us are “sinners” (the anathematized or excommunicated).

So do many non-Catholic Christian churches. How could they excommunicate a member without making a judgment that the accused is in serious sin that is damaging to himself and the rest of the Body of Christ? Seriously. This same judgment is made by other Christian churches as well.

I don’t give that estimation any credence, of course, but I am fully aware that that is what your church teaches.

Then be fair and don’t give any credence to the other Christian churches that make the same judgment.

The whole reason someone would do this is to specifically soften the image of what the RCC has historically taught regarding this worst kind of excommunication from the Body of Christ itself.

I propose another reason. Catholics are extremely sensitive about the word “anathema” because it has been so widely misunderstood and there is so much misinformation floating around about it. For this reason the word has lost nearly all of it’s usefulness. The mere mention of it inevitably sets off a firestorm, making it nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion about whatever the real issue may be.

Proper ex-communication cannot remove anyone from the Body of Christ, only from the contact and support from others in that Body. It is designed to remove wanton sin from the congregation.

You mean remove them from the other members of the Body of Christ? Yes it is designed for that, but also to cause the excluded member to turn from his sin in repentance. I don’t think you realize how close you are to being in substantial agreement with what the Catholic Church teaches about excommunication.

 

[tdgesq]

Thank you I appreciate this effort. Speaking as a Catholic I’m still having some difficulty. It almost sounds as if we are saying;

The Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit to infallibility (when the teaching is under proper context), if in error, then nevermind.

Infallibility applies to those doctrines expressed in an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff ex cathedra. It does not necessarily apply to an ecclesiastical decision-making body that judges a particular person to be under anathema.

If we falsely (or mistakenly) ex-communicate an innocent Catholic, God excuses our mistake. Maybe the answer is the doctrine is not in error but the deployment of the doctrine may be in error.

If I’m understanding you, then I believe you are correct. The doctrine of excommunication is not in error, but those who apply it to a particular person could be. If an innocent error is made though, I have a difficult to time in seeing how it could be sin. Especially since what is demanded of the person to be accepted back into the Church is so easy to fulfill.

What is meant by:

"…we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

This seems to conflict with the Churches teaching that the Body and the Soul will both either be united with God or damned. The quote implies that the body will potenially belong to Satan and soul to God which, of course, is not the case. Can someone help clarify this?

Understand first that in the eyes of the Church the person is already in the clutches of Satan, including his soul. What the Church does is declare what is already true about the person in hope that he will see the error of his ways and repent. The Church withdraws all of its protections (the sacraments, etc.), in effect turning the person’s body over to the evil one. I don’t believe the Church is saying anything about the person’s body belonging to Satan from now until eternity, like it’s Satan’s personal property or something. The person’s body is being turned over for the mortification of the flesh so that he will recognize his error and turn away.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit to infallibility (when the teaching is under proper context), if in error, then nevermind.

The Church does not error in her dogmatic teachings, but she may err in judging a person fully guilty of a crime worthy of excommunicaiton.

You are misunderstanding the dogma of infalliblity. The Church has never taught the she is infallible in her tribunal judgements. She teaches infallibly in her dogmas, but since she cannot without error know the internal disposition of one’s soul. For instance, a person can truly be professing heresy, but do so out of ignorance. Is that person excommunicated? No. It takes obstinant denial of Church dogmas to be excommunicated. Which means that the subjective elements of mortal sin must also be present, which are: 1) full advertence and 2) perfect consent. These subjective elements are not infallibly proved in the external forum, because they depend upon perfect understanding of the internal disposition of a person’s soul, which ONLY God can judge.

Excommunication is a punishment for crime. The Church has a right to judge in the external forum, for the common good of the ecclesial society. However, it is not infallible in her ecclesial judgment. In her attempt to act prudently, in accord with the common good, she may indeed judge a man guilty of a crime and worthy of excommunication, but do so unjustly. This does not touch upon the doctrine of infallibility.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…If we falsely (or mistakenly) ex-communicate an innocent Catholic, God excuses our mistake.

Mistakes made in good faith are certainly excused. However, insofar as there may have been malice or some other lack of virtue in one’s judgment, they will certainly be held accountable by God. Nothing I’ve said should have given you any other impression. Please read it again more carefully.

What I was talking about above has nothing to do with the culpability of the ecclesial judge who erred, in fact, it did not even mention it. But what I stated does describe the continued state of grace of an unjustly excommunicated member of the Church and their continued communion with the Church in God’s eyes. It also described the responsibility of that member to obey the law, even if unjustly convicted of a crime.

For instance, a child is bound to honor and obey their father and mother. Why? Because they are infallible? NO. Because their authority over the child is Divinely established. Let’s say a father, exercising their God-given authority, judged his son to have broken a window. He evaluates all the evidence, but makes a judgment (although an imperfect one) regarding the guilt of the son. He concludes the son is guilty and he punishes him with one week of hard labor to make up for the damages. Let’s say the son didn’t really do it. Is the son then justified in refusing to obey his fathers punishment? No. He might disagree with the justice of the matter, but he is still commanded by God to obey his father precisely because it was a legitimate exercise of his God-given authority, even when exercised contrary to true justice.

Think about civil society. Are our criminal judges infallible? NO. If they erroneously convict a person of a crime and place them in jail, does the unjustly but legally convicted citizen have a legitmate right to refuse to submit to the lawful punishment? We expect them to go to jail whether they agree with the judges decision or not, right?

By faithfully submitting to lawful but erroneous judgment of authority, one merits greater reward in the eyes of God.

This does not mean the parents are not going to be held accountable for their error, nor does it mean that a criminal judge is not held accountable for their mistake. The same is true of the Church. It does mean that the common good of society benefits from the rule of law, even when at times the judges may err in their convictions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…
What is meant by:

"…we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

This seems to conflict with the Churches teaching that the Body and the Soul will both either be united with God or damned. The quote implies that the body will potenially belong to Satan and soul to God which, of course, is not the case. Can someone help clarify this?

You have totally misunderstood this passage. This does not say that his body is sent to hell but his soul may be saved. I encourage you to read the entire article and not simply form your understanding from excerpts. See here: Catholic Encyclopedia - Anathema The Church can NOT send someone to hell. If this is what you think, then you haven’t been paying attention to the Catholic responses on this forum, but have been duped by the ex-Catholic instead.

Satan is not confined to hell. Satan wanders about the world for the ruin of souls. Thus, handing someone over to Satan does not connote that they were sent to hell. They may indeed end up in hell, but only if they remain finally impenitent in their crime.

"We deliver him…" means he is excommunicated. Thus, he is barred from receiving the grace of the Holy Sacraments of the Church, and as such, he said to be given over to Satan IN THIS LIFE ON EARTH until he repents of his crime. It says in essence that excommunication is a censure meant to bring about the criminal’s repentence, and until he repents he will be handed over to Satan (ie., cutoff from the Church). This censure is intended to save his soul (and body).

I have a defiant teenager, so I understand the potential of having to “cuttof” someone in order to bring about their repentence. If my teenager were to totally disregard my authority while still iving in my house, then I would have no other choice than to give him the boot. Perhaps living on his own instead of living upon the “good graces” of his Dad may serve to educate him (through suffering or “mortification”), on to better appreciate the benefits of those graces.