Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Nov 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Anathema was a punishment (excommunication), not a theological classification. One may be...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Anathema was a punishment (excommunication), not a theological classification. One may be excommunicated either for heresy or severe diciplinary violations.

--hide--


I am familiar with the concept of anathema. Most Latin Rite Catholics do not seem to be, however. Anathema is not merely an excommunication. If it were, it would make no sense in a single list of Canons of an Ecumenical Council to vary between the use of the term; it would stand to reason that they would use solely the word anathema or solely the word excommunicate...nor would some rites of exclusion call a person "excommunicate and anathema." The Church is not known for being redundant in that fashion.

Also, such statements as "heresy is to be anathematised" (as is found in the First Council of Constantinople) would make no sense if anathema were equal to excommunication.

So, I am interested how something or someone can be anathema in one age, but not in another.

Nov 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:So, I am interested how something or someone can be anathema in one age, but not in another.
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

So, I am interested how something or someone can be anathema in one age, but not in another.

--hide--

Because discipline and liturgical practice are subject to change over time. Neither the tone of voice in which the words of the consecration are spoken nor the language used for the Mass are part of the deposit of Faith, and thus may be changed regardless of how severe the penalty for violating the discipline was in the past.

Nov 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Because discipline and liturgical practice are subject to change over time. Neither the t...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Because discipline and liturgical practice are subject to change over time. Neither the tone of voice in which the words of the consecration are spoken nor the language used for the Mass are part of the deposit of Faith, and thus may be changed regardless of how severe the penalty for violating the discipline was in the past.

--hide--

Are you speaking absolutely here? or only generally?

I ask because I have a hard time believing that we can throw out all of what are, to the best of my observations, traditional disciplines or practices in time.

See, if what you're saying is true, then it would be quite all right to get rid of unleavened bread as the matter for confecting the Eucharist in the Latin Rite and go with leavened bread, or get rid of the admixture of water to the wine which is matter for confecting the Eucharist, or the Sign of the Cross, or the use of sacramentals.

What you're opposing, as far as I can see, is any notion of articles of Catholic faith (as opposed to articles of divine and Catholic faith which belong to the divine deposit sealed on the death of the Apostle St. John) being binding absolutely upon the faithful, transmitted through tradition and seen manifestly in discipline or practice.

I claim that what was anathema at the time of the Council of Trent is anathema now, just as the things which were anathema at the First Nicene Council or when St. Paul wrote his Epistles are anathema now. I am not claiming that the difference between the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass makes one anathema. However, if one were to CONDEMN the practice of speaking parts of the Canon of the Mass and the consecration formula in a low tone...one would be anathema, just the same as if one were to say that the Church owes us (i.e., ought) to have the Mass offered in the vulgar tongue ONLY, or that water ought not be mixed with the wine offered in the chalice.

Nov 11th 2012 new
The Church has numerous forms of the Mass, and the use or non-usage of leavened bread in the Latin Church is a matter of discipline not dogma. The Eastern Catholic Churches followed different customs even before Trent.

Actually, the Latin Church used leavened bread for the Eucharist the same as the Eastern Churches until the 7th-8th centuries.

Our Byzantine Church uses leavened bread exclusively for the Eucharist and do it under both species by intinction.

The Church tolerates the practice of the Armenians (both Catholic and Orthodox) to NOT mix water and wine.

The customs of the Latin Church of the 16th century are not dogma.
Posts 11 - 14 of 14