A little more than a year ago, I got into a conversation with a Protestant blogger that used the word “anathema” quite often. She had left the Church in her teens (I think it was her teens), and felt that she was therefore placed under the anathema. She kept quoting elements of the Council of Trent and saying that she was anathema because of her belief in Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Et Cetera.
I knew there was something wrong with the way she used the word “anathema.” Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I really didn’t have time to get into it then. I needed to do some research and, one thing and another, I completely forgot about it until recently. It’s taken a while, but I finally found the details.
Point blank: All the Protestants out there can stop worrying (er…if they were worrying). It’s no longer possible to be “anathema”.
Here’s why…
When I first encountered the word myself, it was defined for me as “a despised thing or person”. Many dictionaries use this kind of language, and in modern terms, this is probably legitimate – but only in MODERN terms. When you see the documents of the Council of Trent saying, “let him be anathema”, most Protestants read that as, “let him be a person despise of”, or “let him be a person consigned to damnation.” I even encountered one person that said it was the “Catholic Church saying that someone was sentenced to Hell.” From the Church’s point of view, this isn’t correct and never has been.
The word αναθεμα (anathema) is used in the Bible in both the Old and New Testament. The problem is this: the word itself has changed meanings over the centuries.
Anathema in the Old Testament started out as “a thing set aside.” Something could be set aside for either good or bad reasons. Deuteronomy 7:26 is a perfect example of something being set aside because it’s bad. The Douay translates this passage as: “…Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema.”
In Joshua 7:11 you get the other meaning of anathema, a thing set aside because it’s good. The more modern RSV-CE translates this particular passage as follows: “Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant which I commanded of them; they have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen, and lied, and put them among their stuff.” (The “devoted things” is how this version translates anathema. Also, “Stuff” just seems inappropriate, but such is the wonderful world of Bible translations.)
By St. Paul’s day, the definition of the word has changed. For example, in Galatians 1:9 [Douay], Paul uses the term in this way: “As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” Paul is using the Greek word anathema in much the same way that we modern folks would use the Latin word excommunication. This was true for the first few centuries of Church history – anathema and excommunication are nearly synonymous. As time passed, the meanings did eventually diverge. Excommunication came to mean pretty much what it does now - someone removed from communion.
By the time of the Council of Trent (1545 to 1563), the word anathema had a very different meaning. Anathema had become a severe and ritualized form of excommunication. To be anathematized involved a trial and verdict by a competent ecclesial court, with a solemn invocation by the pope. There was a ritualistic closing of a book, the snuffing of candles, and the preaching of the anathema to those in your homeland. Anathema had become something like a higher form of excommunication, very public and very somber.
It should be noted very clearly that the decision to anathematize someone came from an ecclesiastical court. A sentence was passed down in much the same way they would be in a civil court today. The sentence would then be carried out by the pope. Also, contrary to popular opinion, the anathema was also something that could be lifted. If I’m not mistaken, at least one medieval king was anathematized but walked to Rome to do public penance and have the sentence lifted.
As time wore on after Trent, the anathema became increasingly rare. They became so rare that by the 1983 when the new Code of Canon Law was published, the anathema has gone entirely. Here is a link to the Vatican website with an electronic version of the Code. Feel free to search every page…you won’t find anathema mentioned at all.
Anathema was never automatic. Again, it required an ecclesial court and action by the pope.
Anathema was not something that ever applied to all Protestants. Again, ecclesial court and papal action are required. Modern ecclesial laws only bind those baptized as Catholics or received into the Church (Canon 11). There is also a healthy list of exceptions as to whom such laws might apply to (Canon 1323).
The changes in the use of anathema that took place since Trent do not, in any way, affect the Church relative to once-taught-always-taught. Anathema was a discipline, not an issue of dogma. Disciplines can be, and have been, changed as necessary. Dogma is the thing that can never change.
We can expand on things if anyone has any specific questions, but I think I’ll leave it at this for now.
Leave a comment