Anathema to me?

[*Paul*]

I mean I just don't think God is that legalistic, I think he is a fair judge and he will judge us according to our hearts.

Do you want to be judged according to your heart RLTW? That thought terrifies me. Our hearts are deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Out of our hearts comes forth our wickedness. evil thoughts, blasphemies, adulteries, lies etc. If God judges me according to my heart I will be justly damned. My only chance is that His blood was shed for me this is my one hope and my one plea.

I can tell you love God and you love Jesus, God won't reject anyone who loves him, at least I hope.

“If ye love me keep my commandments” Jesus said. This is the proof of our love. At some point even as a Christian I have broken many of God’s commandments. I have not loved Him as I ought to have, sometimes (perhaps many times) I have put my self and my own desires first thus showing that I do not love Him perfectly according to this rule. I love Him in an emotional way more than anything, when I think of what Jesus did for me I just want to embrace Him and never let Him go, no one could ever show me the love and forgiveness that He has. But I haven’t kept His commandments, I do try to, my inner man delights in them and I adore them as righteous and divine. But He says if ye love Me keep them, He doesn’t say try to keep them or do your best and I’ll just let the rest go, He commands we keep them and to suggest that He will just accept my best efforts and that will be enough is to compromise His holiness and righteousness. No I cannot put my hope in the fact hat I love Jesus because I just can’t love Him as I ought to or to put it another way give Him the love that is due to Him whilst I am in this body, I groan with the creation waiting for the redemption of my body.
This is why Jesus’ appearing is my blessed hope for when he appears I shall appear with Him and shall be like Him for I shall see Him as He is. Then this corruptuion shall have put on incorruption, the death in me will have been swallowed up in victory, finally free from this corpse in a resurrection body to serve Him, love Him and know Him perfectly without sin dwelling in me. O happy day. Come LORD Jesus.

I agree, it is good to be reminded of the importance of what it is we are discussing. Thank you for helping me to better understand your position, and for also forcing me to better understand my own because of your very good questions.

Teach us to number our days Solomon said (I think) and it is better to go to the house of mourning than the house of mirth. It is better to spend our very short time here on earth in the pursuit of God and the pursuit of pleasing Him don’t you think? The world has so many distractions that can send us into a stupor and distract us from our purpose in life. That thought reminds me of Christian from the pilgrims progress when He reaches Vanity fair. What a book that is. Have you read it? It makes a brilliant bible study too. I absolutely highly recommend it.

Here is an exerpt:

Then I saw in my dream, that when they were got out of the wilderness, they presently saw a town before them, and the name of that town is Vanity; and at the town there is a fair kept, called Vanity Fair. It is kept all the year long. It beareth the name of Vanity Fair, because the town where it is kept is lighter than vanity, Psa. 62:9; and also because all that is there sold, or that cometh thither, is vanity; as is the saying of the wise, “All that cometh is vanity.” Eccl. 11:8; see also 1:2-14; 2:11-17; Isa. 40:17.
This fair is no new-erected business but a thing of ancient standing. I will show you the original of it.
Almost five thousand years ago there were pilgrims walking to the Celestial City, as these two honest persons are: and Beelzebub, Apollyon, and Legion, with their companions, perceiving by the path that the pilgrims made, that their way to the city lay through this town of Vanity, they contrived here to set up a fair; a fair wherein should be sold all sorts of vanity, and that it should last all the year long. Therefore, at this fair are all such merchandise sold as houses, lands, trades, places, honors, preferments, titles, countries, kingdoms, lusts, pleasures; and delights of all sorts, as harlots, wives, husbands, children, masters, servants, lives, blood, bodies, souls, silver, gold, pearls, precious stones, and what not.
And moreover, at this fair there is at all times to be seen jugglings, cheats, games, plays, fools, apes, knaves, and rogues, and that of every kind.
Here are to be seen, too, and that for nothing, thefts, murders, adulteries, false-swearers, and that of a blood-red color.
And, as in other fairs of less moment, there are the several rows and streets under their proper names, where such and such wares are vended; so here, likewise, you have the proper places, rows, streets, (namely, countries and kingdoms,) where the wares of this fair are soonest to be found. Here is the Britain Row, the French Row, the Italian Row, the Spanish Row, the German Row, where several sorts of vanities are to be sold. But, as in other fairs, some one commodity is as the chief of all the fair; so the ware of Rome and her merchandise is greatly promoted in this fair; only our English nation, with some others, have taken a dislike thereat.
Now, as I said, the way to the Celestial City lies just through this town, where this lusty fair is kept; and he that will go to the city, and yet not go through this town, “must needs go out of the world.” 1 Cor. 4:10. The Prince of princes himself, when here, went through this town to his own country, and that upon a fair-day too; yea, and, as I think, it was Beelzebub, the chief lord of this fair, that invited him to buy of his vanities, yea, would have made him lord of the fair, would he but have done him reverence as he went through the town. Yea, because he was such a person of honor, Beelzebub had him from street to street, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a little time, that he might, if possible, allure that blessed One to cheapen and buy some of his vanities; but he had no mind to the merchandise, and therefore left the town, without laying out so much as one farthing upon these vanities. Matt. 4:8,9; Luke 4:5-7. This fair, therefore, is an ancient thing, of long standing, and a very great fair.
Now, these pilgrims, as I said, must needs go through this fair. Well, so they did; but behold, even as they entered into the fair, all the people in the fair were moved; and the town itself, as it were, in a hubbub about them, and that for several reasons: for,
First, The Pilgrims were clothed with such kind of raiment as was diverse from the raiment of any that traded in that fair. The people, therefore, of the fair made a great gazing upon them: some said they were fools; 1 Cor. 4:9,10; some, they were bedlams; and some, they were outlandish men.
Secondly, And as they wondered at their apparel, so they did likewise at their speech; for few could understand what they said. They naturally spoke the language of Canaan; but they that kept the fair were the men of this world: so that from one end of the fair to the other, they seemed barbarians each to the other. 1 Cor. 2:7,8.
Thirdly, But that which did not a little amuse the merchandisers was, that these pilgrims set very light by all their wares. They cared not so much as to look upon them; and if they called upon them to buy, they would put their fingers in their ears, and cry, “Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity,” Psa. 119:37, and look upward, signifying that their trade and traffic was in heaven. Phil. 3: 20,21.

 

[*Paul*]

Paul, I'd like to help. Could you be so kind as to give me a link or reference as to where you got this from? We catholics have libraries of documents and it can be time consuming if we don't have any reference.

Pope John's Opening Speech to the Council​

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v2.html

But this is the one I was thinking of:

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH - LUMEN GENTIUM Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964

51. This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death- and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,[20] of the Council of Florence,[21] and of the Council of Trent.[22] At the same time, in keeping with its pastoral preoccupations, this council urges all concerned to remove or correct any abuses, excesses or defects which may have crept in here or there, and so restore all things that Christ and God be more fully praised.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v3.html

 

[Bishka]

*Waves*

Paul this is a DIR forum.

 

[*Paul*]

It appears that Victor and I have a different understanding of what anathema means. I will admit that I am not well versed on the subject and so I am not sure which of us is right. I will look into it more if I can to gain a better understanding of the whole thing.

Well I read something similar to what Victor wrote on Catholic answers but couldn't find the article the second time I wanted to read it. I was always of the opinion that these anathemas were to any one. As it says "if anyone says...let him be anathema". It seems strange not to qualify the individuals intended. But then on the other hand you can't excommunicate a non member can you.

 

[*Paul*]

*Waves*

Paul this is a DIR forum.

I know Becky , i'm not debating anyone here. I am quite enjoying this discussion. I was hoping to learn about anathemas but we RLTW and I got sidetracked.

 

[Bishka]

I know Becky , i'm not debating anyone here. I am quite enjoying this discussion. I was hoping to learn about anathemas but we RLTW and I got sidetracked.

Understandable. Just reminding

 

[Quiddity]

But this is the one I was thinking of:
​

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH - LUMEN GENTIUM Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964

51. This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death- and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,[20] of the Council of Florence,[21] and of the Council of Trent.[22] At the same time, in keeping with its pastoral preoccupations, this council urges all concerned to remove or correct any abuses, excesses or defects which may have crept in here or there, and so restore all things that Christ and God be more fully praised.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v3.html

Thanks Paul...
At what is it exactly do you understand this is saying?

 

[*Paul*]

Dear Roman Catholic friends who are familiar with Trent,

Who would accumulate more anathemas from Trent?

1. A Christian with a Reformed (staunch Calvinist) theology

Or

2. A Christian with a semi-Pelagius theology?

This is not a trick question but an insider's debate between two dear protestant brothers, united as one in Christ. Please help us out here. - BT

Semi pelagius ?Knockout Bible truth, you don't view me as an arminian do you? I think you have closer catholic roots than I do because of Augustine. :liturgy:

 

[*Paul*]

Thanks Paul...
At what is it exactly do you understand this is saying?

Hmm, lets have a look more closely:

51. This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death- and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,[20] of the Council of Florence,[21] and of the Council of Trent.[22]

I assume it is acknowledging the previous councils as worthy of veneration and the historic catholic faith and in light of that re-proposes the decrees made at these councils and what has been held throughout history again.

At the same time, in keeping with its pastoral preoccupations, this council urges all concerned to remove or correct any abuses, excesses or defects which may have crept in here or there, and so restore all things that Christ and God be more fully praised.

I am confused by this, is it talking about excesses and defects from these councils?

Am i missing something here Victor?

 

[Quiddity]

No problemo.....you know I'm always up for being corrected. You and I share a passion for truth even if it means we are the ones that are wrong. So I don't anticipate us starting a debate about it. Lord knows, I've been wrong more then once.

Runlikethewind and Athanasius, if time permits I'd like to know you both of you find my post in line to the Church, as it relates to anathema [post# 9]. It is important to me (as I'm sure it is to both of you) that I express 100% raw catholic teaching.

 

[*Paul*]

:rainbow1: I'd love a definitive answer too. :rainbow1:

 

[athanasius]

Neither……as anathemas is for those within the confines of the Catholic Church. If you aren’t Catholic, you can’t be anathematized. Keep in mind that anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "ex-communion-icated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.

Since I assume, rightly so, (based on other posts of yours on the forum) that you are a Sola Scripturist (Bible Alone) I know a scripture is crucial. This is where we get it from:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed {anathema}. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed {anathema}. (Gal 1:8-9)

By the way, the statements made in Trent are PG13 compared to what Luther had to say about the Pope, Bishops, and Catholic Church. They make Trent look like Christmas cards compared to what he said:

"The Pope and the Cardinals . . . since they are blasphemers, their tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks, and nailed to the gallows!" (92:94/35)

"It were better that every bishop were murdered . . . than that one soul should be destroyed . . . what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed ...." (122:377/36)

"If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition . . . The word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal . . ." (109:41/37)

Truth be told, there was plenty of emotions and statements made that could have been dealt with much better on both sides. That doesn’t void out the fact that there is some real disagreements and some truths spoken on both sides.

You are Correct about the ananthamas! Only a person within the visible realm of the Catholic church to begin with can be excommunicated(Anathama). Good points! We see Protestants as separated bretheren nowadays(As the Catechism mentions) because most of them are born into the faith they have and have not come fromthe visible or formal union with the Catholic church.

 

[Quiddity]

You are Correct about the ananthamas! Only a person within the visible realm of the Catholic church to begin with can be excommunicated(Anathama). Good points! We see Protestants as separated bretheren nowadays(As the Catechism mentions) because most of them are born into the faith they have and have not come fromthe visible or formal union with the Catholic church.

Cool beans! Thanks.

 

[athanasius]

Cool beans! Thanks.

Seems our Good friend Paul is falling in to the same error as Jack chick. catholic answers has a article written refuting Chicks false ideas about the church. Here is what they had to say on anathamas

Anathema

"Like many, Chick does not understand what the term anathema means. He thinks that it means "damned as a heretic."[41] Elsewhere he uses "damned as a heretic" in place of the word anathema.[42]

But this is not what the term means. In Catholic documents the term refers to a kind of excommunication. By the time of the Council of Trent (which Chick faults for using it), it referred to an excommunication done with a special ceremony. Thus when Trent says things like "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," it means that the person can be excommunicated with the ceremony. It also did not apply to Protestants since they were not part of the Catholic Church. Only someone who is part of the Catholic Church can be excommunicated from it.

The purpose of excommunication is not to damn a person but to bring him to repentance—the same principle Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2:5–10.

Further, though ordinary excommunication still exists, the ceremonial form of excommunication (anathema) does not exist. The 1983 Code of Canon Law ended the penalty. Thus, while one can still be excommunicated for holding beliefs against the Catholic faith, one cannot be anathematized."

Source http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p5.asp

 

[Runlikethewind]

The Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon S.J. ( I have found this to be a good resource) defines anathema and excommunication as:

Anathema: Solemn condemnation...used by the Church to declare that some position or teaching contradicts Catholic faith and doctrine

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. Some are vitandi (to be avoided) and others are tolerati (tolerated). No one is vitandi unless that person has been publicly excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and it is expressly stated that the person is “to be avoided”. Anyone who lays violent hands on the Pope is automatically vitandi. In general, the effects of excommunication affect the person’s right to receive the sacraments, or Christian burial, until the individual repents and is reconciled with the Church. In order for an excommunication to take effect, the person must be objectively guilty of the crime charged.

Neither……as anathemas is for those within the confines of the Catholic Church. If you aren’t Catholic, you can’t be anathematized. Keep in mind that anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "ex-communion-icated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.

I think that anathema and excommunication are closely related and in some cases interchangeable terms. I think that there is two things going on in the use of the term in official Church documents when the say “let him be anathema”. First I think that anathema/excommunication has the form of being an official censure or punishment by the Church. In this regard I believe that you are mostly right here Victor. One cannot be punished or excommunicated if one was never in communion. But I also think that the term is being used to sort of set the boundaries of Catholic belief. In this context I would say that the term applies to everyone, “if you do not accept this belief expressed by the Church you are not a member of the Church you are anathema, cut off ”. In this context I don’t think it represents an official Church censure since that implies the need for some kind of ecclesiastical trial and/or official statement from the Holy See which I don’t think we do anymore.

So I think that we may have both been right in our posts (me on #2 you on #9) given different contexts of the word. As an official censure of the Church, as a punishment that prevents a person from receiving the sacraments, etc, your assessment seems more accurate. As a condemnation of a position of teaching that is contrary to the faith, which applies to everyone, I believe my assessment is more accurate. I think our confusion may stem from the fact that anathema as a word and in its relation to excommunication has evolved over time and it meant different things in different contexts.

I guess an analogy would be like a rule book that said certain actions will result in a penalty of 5 points in a game (the anathemas in the council documents) then there is the actual penalization during the game of the 5 points for breaking the rule stipulated in the rule book (the official ceremonial excommunication).

Then again I wrote this all before I saw that athanasius had responded. But I figured I would post this anyway since I wrote it and I may benefit from some constructive criticism.

 

[*Paul*]

Seems our Good friend Paul is falling in to the same error as Jack chick. catholic answers has a article written refuting Chicks false ideas about the church. Here is what they had to say on anathamas

Anathema

"Like many, Chick does not understand what the term anathema means. He thinks that it means "damned as a heretic."[41] Elsewhere he uses "damned as a heretic" in place of the word anathema.[42]

But this is not what the term means. In Catholic documents the term refers to a kind of excommunication. By the time of the Council of Trent (which Chick faults for using it), it referred to an excommunication done with a special ceremony. Thus when Trent says things like "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," it means that the person can be excommunicated with the ceremony. It also did not apply to Protestants since they were not part of the Catholic Church. Only someone who is part of the Catholic Church can be excommunicated from it.

The purpose of excommunication is not to damn a person but to bring him to repentance—the same principle Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2:5–10.

Further, though ordinary excommunication still exists, the ceremonial form of excommunication (anathema) does not exist. The 1983 Code of Canon Law ended the penalty. Thus, while one can still be excommunicated for holding beliefs against the Catholic faith, one cannot be anathematized."

Source http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p5.asp

It was this article which I then lost that prompted my question, until that point I viewed an anthema as a pronounciation of someone as a heretic, any person who did not agree with those doctrines. I was going to start a real good thread on it when I thought to myself, *Paul* those catholics have some pretty clever answers these days, better check you understand this one right before you look foolish again.

Lo and behold, I didn't so I thought I would see if this was the common interpretation or understanding of this amongst catholics by posting the question to see if it was just clever apologetics by catholic answers or whoever it was.

 

[*Paul*]

The Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon S.J. ( I have found this to be a good resource) defines anathema and excommunication as:

Anathema: Solemn condemnation...used by the Church to declare that some position or teaching contradicts Catholic faith and doctrine

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. Some are vitandi (to be avoided) and others are tolerati (tolerated). No one is vitandi unless that person has been publicly excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and it is expressly stated that the person is “to be avoided”. Anyone who lays violent hands on the Pope is automatically vitandi. In general, the effects of excommunication affect the person’s right to receive the sacraments, or Christian burial, until the individual repents and is reconciled with the Church. In order for an excommunication to take effect, the person must be objectively guilty of the crime charged.




I think that anathema and excommunication are closely related and in some cases interchangeable terms. I think that there is two things going on in the use of the term in official Church documents when the say “let him be anathema”. First I think that anathema/excommunication has the form of being an official censure or punishment by the Church. In this regard I believe that you are mostly right here Victor. One cannot be punished or excommunicated if one was never in communion. But I also think that the term is being used to sort of set the boundaries of Catholic belief. In this context I would say that the term applies to everyone, “if you do not accept this belief expressed by the Church you are not a member of the Church you are anathema, cut off ”. In this context I don’t think it represents an official Church censure since that implies the need for some kind of ecclesiastical trial and/or official statement from the Holy See which I don’t think we do anymore.

So I think that we may have both been right in our posts (me on #2 you on #9) given different contexts of the word. As an official censure of the Church, as a punishment that prevents a person from receiving the sacraments, etc, your assessment seems more accurate. As a condemnation of a position of teaching that is contrary to the faith, which applies to everyone, I believe my assessment is more accurate. I think our confusion may stem from the fact that anathema as a word and in its relation to excommunication has evolved over time and it meant different things in different contexts.

I guess an analogy would be like a rule book that said certain actions will result in a penalty of 5 points in a game (the anathemas in the council documents) then there is the actual penalization during the game of the 5 points for breaking the rule stipulated in the rule book (the official ceremonial excommunication).

Then again I wrote this all before I saw that athanasius had responded. But I figured I would post this anyway since I wrote it and I may benefit from some constructive criticism.

and now i'm confused again, what does the magisterium teach?

 

[Quiddity]

and now i'm confused again, what does the magisterium teach?

Paul, you can run with my first post as the Church's position. Runlikethewind I think is saying something very similar, but in a different way. I assure you that if we had the time we'd resolve our little differences.