A reader writes:
Recently I came a cross a web site that claimed that an anathema applies to anyone who affirms an doctrine that is contrary to the kind of anathema issued by Vatican I (that is, the kind that says, “If anyone says X, let him be anathema”).
The same site said that one of the anathemas of Vatican I made a powerful argument against sedevacantists who say that Pius XII was the last valid pope because Vatican I said that St. Peter will have successors to the end of time.
What do you make of these claims?
The claim that anathemas apply to those who contradict the canons of an ecumenical council, whether Vatican I or one of the other councils, is a common and understandable misunderstanding. We haven’t done a very good job about educating people on what the term “anathema” means in this context, and an awful lot of people are under an innocent misimpression.
To put the matter concisely: The term “anathema,” as used in conciliar and canon law documents, refers to a type of excommunication. In particular (as in the 1917 Code of Canon Law), it referred to a type of excommunication that the bishop performed using a special ceremony. This ceremony involved (among other things) the ringing of a bell, the closing of a book, and the snuffing of a candle. Hence the phrase “bell, book, and candle” (that’s where it comes from; it has nothing to do with witchcraft). These collectively symbolized that the ecclesiastical court had made its ruling against the offender and would not reconsider until he repents. There was then another special ritual of reconciliation for the lifting of the anathema.
(BTW, the image is a painting of the excommunication of Robert the Pious of France. That’s not a giant, smoldering cigarette pointing accusingly at him on the floor but the snuffed candle that the bishop’s entourage—seen leaving by the door—has just yanked off its accompanying candle holder.)
Like other excommunications, anathemas didn’t do anything to a person’s soul. It didn’t make him “damned by God” or anything like that. The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power. An anathema was a formal way of signaling him that he had done something gravely wrong, that he had endangered his own soul, and that he needed to repent. Anathemas, like other excommunications, were thus medicinal penalties, designed to promote healing and reconciliation.
Also like (many) excommunications, anathemas were not automatic. Just because someone, somewhere, uttered a heresy, this did not cause the relevant bishop to drop whatever he was doing and automatically perform the ceremony like a puppet on strings. Instead, if someone committed an ecclesiastical crime that was potentially subject to an anathema the matter had to be reported, investigated, judged, and only after that would the ceremony happen—if it did.
Also also like other excommunications, they applied to people who were (or had been) in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no point excommunicating somebody from the Catholic Church who had never been part of the Catholic Church, and so people who had never been Catholics were not anathematized, no matter what they said or did. (This comes as quite a surprise to many in the Protestant community, where it is often—unfortunately—claimed that the Catholic Church anathematizes them for their beliefs. Not so. It may disagree with some of their beliefs; it may hope and pray that they adopt the fullness of the faith as found in the Catholic Church; but it does not anathematize them.)
Over time the penalty of anathema became administered only rarely, and eventually it was judged that the extra ceremony was no longer needed. As a result, the 1983 Code of Canon Law abolished the penalty of anathema, and so it no longer exists under Church law.
This means that nobody today is anathema in the sense that the term is used by councils and canon law documents. Excommunication still exists as a penalty, and some excommunications are even automatic, but the special, ceremonial form of excommunication known as anathema does not.
This does not mean that the canons of the ecumenical councils have lost doctrinal force. They haven’t. Whatever doctrinal force they had prior to the 1983 Code, they still have, and so if a particular canon defined something as a heresy then it still is.
Furthermore, heresy still carries a penalty of excommunication, but a number of conditions have to be fulfilled for the penalty to apply (especially if it is to apply automatically—but that’s a subject for another post).
As to the Vatican I vs. sedevacantism (or a certain type of sedevacantism) argument, I’ll interact with that in my next post.
In the meantime . . .
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
This is probably just me being a silly Protestant, but I was confused by the line “The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power.”
What (in Catholic theology, of course) DOES the stuff about “whatever you bind/loose on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven” mean?
It refers to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), at least in part, and that would have a bearing on excommunication.
The Apostles were given the power to bind and loose, and were told that their decisions would be recognized in Heaven. So if they forgave someone his sins, then God would be doing the forgiving.
In the case of excommunication, as I understand it, if a person confesses whatever it was that got them excommunicated, then the the excommunication would be lifted.
Good post, Jimmy. I get this question from time to time, too. I mention that Felix Cappello wrote in regard to “anathema” under 1917 CIC 2257 § 2, that “Hodie rarissime, imo fere nunquam excommunicatio cum his sollemnitatibus infligitur.” Felix Cappello, Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Censuris iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici, 4th ed., (Marietti, 1950) 130, n. 140. And Germanus-Joseph Pellegrini, Jus Ecclesiae Poenale, in 3 vols., (D’Auria, 1962-1967) III: 156, stated “In hodierna praxi Ecclesiae solemne anathema . . . est res ad historiam pertinens et hodie prorsus absoleta.” In short, anathema was virtually extinct under the 1917 Code, and is simply gone from the 1983.
Tim,
JP is correct, but I would add a couple of clarifications.
First, the reason for Jimmy’s statement that you quote is, itself, to clarify the point that any liturgical action which declares someone (or allows someone to remain declared) in a state of grave sin does not thereby make the person a sinner—the person did that by their own sinful actions, and the anathema/excommunication is a response to that sin.
In the rare case where an anathema/excomm. has been incorrectly determined (and remember that the decisions of a liturgical body by itself are not part of what Catholics believe to be the infallibility of the papacy, so of course this is possible and has happened in the past), an actual sin is not “forced” on a person, just because some bishop made a mistake.
Second, the binding and loosing through the means of the sacrament of penance is not the priest or bishop himself personally forgiving sins. It is that priest or bishop acting “in persona Christi”, in the person of Christ. But it also takes the repentance of the sinner for forgiveness to apply.
Again, remember that infallibility does not extend to priests or bishops (beyond the bishop of Rome, and only in certain specific cases). If a person confesses but secretly doesn’t think they did anything wrong or has no contrition at all, the priest may say the words of absolution, but that doesn’t mean God has absolved someone of their sins due to a “clerical error”, as it were. Catholics don’t believe that priests use magic words or incantations, or that our sacramentals are some kind of “magic talisman”. No man can force God to do anything.
There’s much, much more clarification that could be made on confession, binding and loosing, sacramentals, infallibility, and many other things I’ve brought up here. So if anything seems under-explained, and you want to understand what Catholic believe, please consider looking it up in the Catholic Catechism.
God bless!
When the Canons of the Council of Trent say “If anyone says X, let him be anathema,” they do not mean:
“If any one says X, let us perform the solemn type of excommunication that the bishop performed using a special ceremony.”
If that were the case, Tridentine bishops would have been busy on every day of the week snuffing candles while Europe was boiling with Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists (who had been previously baptized Catholics).
An anathema does not necessarily require a liturgical act to validate it. If that were the case then the canons of Trent and Vatican I would be void after the 1917 Code.
Even today, if a Catholic *formally* and *knowingly* believes and/or teachers an anathematized statement (e.g. “there are not seven sacraments”), he is anathema. He cannot receive Holy Communion and he has fallen from the state of grace. Heresy is a mortal sin and the term “anathema” still expresses this reality.
Canon law cannot retroactively change the *meaning* of an infallible Ecumenical Council such as Trent or Vatican I.
I’m not disagreeing with Jimmy Akin or Dr. Ed Peters, I just want to clarify that anathema is not *strictly* a canonical term or confirmed by a liturgical rite.
ad Jesum per Mariam,
Taylor Marshall
PS: Incidentally, Saint Paul was the first to use the term “anathema” and for him it meant damned or cursed. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8–9).
These doctrines are complex, and rightfully so. That’s why we have doctors of the Church and other learned spiritual advisors, because society is too complex for simplistic Protestant solutions. I appreciate the explanation, but I have always been humble enough (or lazy enough) to let the Church decide such things. When I run into people (like some Pius X folks) who feel educated enough to decide what’s best for the Church, I first pity them and then remind them about St. Thomas More. It’s fine to speculate and make declarations, but we must never turn our back on the Pope.
You should mention that Robert II the Pious of France repented his sins and died in full communion with the Church. And he ended up being the great-great-great-great-great-grandfather of Saint Louis of France, the greatest King in history… ;-)
Pope Pius XII pray for us.
Mr. Akin, I have found you to be a lucid writer and seemingly well-informed and faithful in matters Catholic. Request: some exposition by you, or a reference where I can learn more about the central mystery of our Faith, the Most Holy Trinity. Big task of course but a worthy one.
Obliged,
Yan
I’m waiting for someone to write a definitive biography of Pope Pius XII.
Dear Mr. Akins. That was smashing. Clear and concise and I loved the bell book candle reference
@ Yan
Here’s a great video here explaining the concept of the Holy Trinity if you’re interested:
http://www.realcatholictv.com/documents/vort-2010-09-08.php
The article explains more for me what happened to a Catholic bishop whose name is Malingo. He was excommunicated by Blessed John Paul after being married in a group ceremony presided over by the “Reverend” Moon. Malingo called for views considered unorthodox by the Vatican and other conservative Christians, but I think now his excommunication has since been lifted. It was confusing to keep up with what was happening in his case because he seemed to be the poster child of bad Catholic beliefs. It seems like, as the article mentions, the idea of excommunication is always to work towards restoration of Catholics, even in his case. Interesting to know if a person is not Catholic, they are not excommunicated, and that there is no such thing as anathema anymore. This article is valuable reading.
A good example of a Protestant misinterpreting the term anathema can be seen in this video. It involves a debate between a Catholic and a Protestant about the Pope’s visit to the United Kingdom in September 2010.
http://www.vimeo.com/15305970
The Protestant translates ‘anathema’ as ‘accursed’ and alleges that “excommunication means that you go to hell – it’s a mortal sin”.
You can find this at 12.04 in the video.
Canon Law yet another creation by the Romanists. Only the Bible is binding and no Protestant cares what Roman Canon Law declares. A truly meaningless discussion built upon the syncretism of melding not just norms of the New Testament, parts of the Old Testament, Roman, Visigothic, Saxon, and Celtic legal traditions. This is why the Roman Canon Law, just like Muslim Law finds itself irrelevant in the 21st century. Read the Bible and forsake the traditions of me so that you avoid the condemnation of God. Catholics have poisoned Christianity with the traditions of men.
@ Carnuba
Make sure you give thanks for the Catholic Church which gave you the Bible you hold in such exclusive esteem.
JP,
The greatest fiction is that Catholics gave us the Bible. Read any secular or Protestant guide to church history and you will see that Catholics DID NOT give us the Bible. So keep drinking the kool-aid of your man made traditions and join your Muslims brethren in eternal separation from God. God is a jealous God and does not tolerate the traditions of men or the syncretism of Catholicism.
@ Carnuba
There are actually Protestant writings which give accurate accounts of Bible origins. One must always be alert to the possibility of bias in writings.
JP,
Exactly, maybe your Catholic sources are not as objective as you think. Go to primary sources and you will see that Catholics did not give us the Bible. Those that refuse to study primary sources are forced to listen to the lies produced by Catholic revisionists.
Both Secular, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox accuse the Roman Catholic Church of historical revisionism. Catholic Answers knows that people don’t do their homework so they can easily spin their doctrines of revisionism unimpeded.
I just want to know why there is a humongous cigarette on the floor in the picture.
Ohhh reallly? Catholics did not give us the Bible… given that every Christian was Catholic for the first several hundred years of Christianity I’d love to hear more of this amazing discovery that transcends logic, sir. Please, details.
Carnuba
The primary sources are Catholic.
The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God, to not go beyond the written Word, so that we might not make mistakes in what is true. Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of it’s non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works of righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God’s Word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire.
Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn’t, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.
Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.
@ Carnuba…where to begin.
The Hebrew Scriptures of course came from the Jews, but they were not compiled into the “testament” that we have now. That was done by the Church.
As for Church tradition…do not confuse non-scriptural with anti-scriptural. There are in fact scripture verses that support every single Catholic teaching, although they many not support YOUR chosen interpretation of that teaching. It would be far beyond the scope of this blog combox to reply to each and every one. I will say that scripture itself tells us that Jesus did things that were not recorded in the Bible. I am certain, being a good Jewish boy,revering his mother was one of those things. Scripture also tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth…so what is the issue? Also, you nicely refer to the “Christian Church”...well I really shouldn’t have to remind you that up until Martin Luther did his dirty deed, the Christian Church was the Catholic Church…history does not show us anything else. Jesus founded only one Church. How many “churches” are now claiming to be Christian? Which one do you belong to? Unless you’re Catholic, your church was started by a man with a birth certificate.
JP,
The Coptic Church split from Catholic in 4th century. Eastern Orthodox split from Roman Catholic in 11th century. Orthodox do not recognize Pope and consider Roman Catholicism completely fraudulent. Even RCC Scholars will tell you that there was no formal Papacy until the 6th century. This is why the Orthodox consider the Papacy an invention started by a man with a birth certificate.
Bottom line: Catholics are in a Christian cult filled with the traditions of paganism, occultism, superstition, and wafer-godism.
Dear Mr. Carnuba
Shall I now I see the error of my ways. and repent from this “old cult” that has refreshed my soul, brought undeservedly to me the love of Christ, the sacrifice of Christ, the knowledge of Christ, the hope of Christ, the joy of Christ, the life of Chirst, the words of Christ, the example of Christ, the glory of the resurrection of Christ, the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Christ, learn of the blessed assurance of my own salvation should I but cooperate of my own free will and action, repent of my sins in Christ, receive His absolution in the Holy Name of Christ, because you, my dear, say that I should? What part of the the way, the truth and the life would you deny me because I am Catholic? Possibly I should forget Christian charity entirely and call you a silly old bear. Pooh.
I’ll make a lovely little bouquet of prayer for you, and for those whom you love and hold dear, and then, what could you possibly have against me and my brothers and sisters in Christ in this church?
The answers today are contradictory, double-tongued and confusing.
This situation is not unique to this web site as it is occurring at other “Catholic” sites, also.
As I review them all it becomes clearer as to what our Lady was alluding to in these waning times.
“chaos will reign…..................”
The final show will be interesting.
Have any “catholic” politians been excommunicated, either automatically or formally?
Carnuba, just a few bits of scripture for thought…
John 20:
30 There were many other signs that Jesus worked in the sight of the disciples, but they are not recorded in this book.
31 These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name.
And John 21:
25 There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written.
In other words, the Gospel is not INTENDED to be a comprehensive record of all that Jesus taught his disciples, they were written to introduce him to the new members of the Church. The rest was left to his followers to share with us in tradition.
The Council of Trent said in the VII session in canon IV, “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema (excommunicated).” http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html
Protestants would be so anathema if canon law effected them.
This true catholic faith OUTSIDE OF WHICH NONE CAN BE SAVED, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of GOD, in all it’ completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me GOD and these holy gospels of GOD. Was this an infallible statement directed towards Catholics or to anyone outside the R. C. C. Does this hold true today or is it past history overridden by later bulls? Are Protestants inside or outside the church? If they are seperated does that mean they are outside or partially inside? If they are outside are they damned to hell if they don’t come inside? What does the term seperated actually mean? Must I believe all catholic doctrine to be inside or can I believe some of it and remain outside?
It’s not the church that saves or that is important. It is only Jesus that saves - His death on Calvary, and His Resurrection - God the Father is satisfied with Jesus’ one perfect offering for our sin. So a person (Catholic, non-Catholic) is either “in Christ” or not in Christ. He/she is either “abiding in Jesus, the one true Vine” or not abiding in Jesus.
If we confess with our lips that Jesus is the Son of God that died for our sins, and we believe in our hearts the Father raised Him from the dead, for our sin, we are saved. That is eternal life. We are saved for good works and we will have a hunger to know more about God, and a desire to please/serve God, after we receive saving faith.
By not confessing that (agreeing to it) we reject it, and we are not saved, and we will be “outside” of Christ, and separated from Truth. Truth has a Face. Jesus is the Truth, and the Way and the Life. No one goes to the Father, except through Jesus. We are saved by God’s grace through our faith.
When in doubt, sincerely ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Himself to you, and the best place to find God is in His Word - the New Testament. Start with the Gospel of John, and then read Acts of the Apostles & Romans and the rest of the New Testament Epistle letters. Your eyes will open, and Jesus will reveal Himself more and more. Get your own missal to use at Mass on Sunday, and make notes in it. Even the Psalms are wonderful, for opening eyes to God’s Truth.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.