On Twitter we have “#followfriday”; why not “#anathemasiturday”

From His Hermeuenticalness.  I think we should consider this.

Having just worked out what #followfriday is on Twitter (and indeed having posted my first #FF tweet) I thought it would be good to have an hashtag for an "Anathema Saturday" post. Mulier Fortis pointed out to me that it would be better to have #anathemasiturday and so this is what I propose. (It could be shortened in Twitter to #AS)

#anathemasiturday would be useful for flagging particular doctrines that have been condemned solemnly in General Council just to make sure that everyone knows that if you do in fact hold the doctrine, the Catholic Church has solemnly repudiated it. Before anyone submits silly comments, nobody is suggesting thumbscrews or boiling in oil, [Wellllll…..] just the recognition that certain doctrinal positions are simply not Catholic.

So here is my first #anathemasiturday choice:

If any one says, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; anathema sit.

Twitter(Council of Trent. Session XXII. On the Sacrifice of the Mass. Canon 2)

So if you say that Christ did not ordain men to the priesthood, you are proposing a doctrine that has been formally and definitively anathematised by a General Council of the Catholic Church.

An older expression would be to say that it is heresy. That is not a popular word nowadays so let us content ourselves by saying instead that an organisation which promotes that view cannot honestly claim the title "Catholic" as though its view were something that could be held by a person in communion with the Holy See.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to On Twitter we have “#followfriday”; why not “#anathemasiturday”

  1. Lisa Graas says:

    Ha! I love this idea!! Unfortunately, that is too long for Twitter, Father, but you can use Twitlonger.com to tweet something that long……and I just did. See this link. http://tinyurl.com/3aeesqn

  2. I have absolutely no problem with calling this “heresy”…”apostacy” even.
    But that’s just me.
    I’m a cranky Irish priest (American, by the way)…whatever.

  3. Father!

    Here’s one I think is very important, especially given your recent post on large Hosts…..

    >>>Can. 4. If anyone says that after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but are there only in usu, while being taken and not before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain, let him be anathema. <<

    a friend of mine at Fort Lewis, WA recently attended mass at the main chapel there. The priest, who might have been a ‘substitute’, finished Mass without cleansing his fingers and then non-chalantly dusted them off on his vestments.

    Sometimes, when offering Mass under austere conditions, soldiers witness priests who forgo purifying their fingers…..but they also see priests who carefully lick their fingers in the absence of water.

    k.c.

  4. Roguejim says:

    “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

  5. Jerry says:

    Siturday? Is that the day before or sfter Standurday? :)

  6. JARay says:

    I get the “Anathema sit” part but why the “urday” after?
    Actually, I prefer to call such people “heretics”

  7. chironomo says:

    Of course, there are those who will simply counter with “It’s not necessary to believe every proclamation of every Council to be Catholic”. I’ve heard this said more than once recently…

  8. PostCatholic says:

    …I’d had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was: “That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

  9. Dave N. says:

    Actually, I think “heresy” has been very much overused–to the point that for some it has come to mean “everything I disagree with.” But such a project could help people understand what heresy really is.

    I would also be willing to campaign for the end of word “nowadays.” :)

  10. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Taking up from kneeling catholic’s citation, with an eye to St. Thomas ST III Q. 76 art. 5 and 6, would it be heretical to say Totus Christus is “moveably present”, “locally”, “as in a place”?

  11. The-Monk says:

    Be careful on issuing too many anathemasiturdays, Father, or be careful before summarily doing so!

    For example, “So if you say that Christ did not ordain men to the priesthood, you are proposing a doctrine that has been formally and definitively anathematised by a General Council of the Catholic Church.” This statement differs ever so slightly but quite significantly from what you quote Trent teaching: “If any one says…Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood.”

    The problem here is with the phrase in your statement “did not ordain.” The verb “to ordain” does not necessarily mean, as is commonly understood among Catholics, the formal ritual associated with the sacrament of priesthood. More than likely, the verb denotes “intention,” that is, “to ordain that….” Christ certainly did ordain that the apostles be instituted priests to carry on his salvific mission through the institution of the Eucharist where his Body and Blood would be truly present, as Trent indicates. But, it is not likely, as your statment could be read to imply, that Christ begat or participated in ordaining the apostles through the ritual laying on of hands, for example.

    Perhaps I am going to be anathemasundaed?

  12. Well, Christ washed the apostles’ feet, which was an act of the Chief Priest to the other priests; and He bestowed powers upon them verbally. If God acts as if something is so, it becomes so; so yeah, they were ordained by sacramental act as well as fact.

    Re: nowadays, it’s a mid-14th century expression that became all one word by the 15th century. Hard to kill off, nowadays.

  13. I’m not trying to “disrail” this thread…and Fr. Z., you probably have seen this; but speaking of complete insanity (maybe NOT heresy…well, maybe heresy), the sublime Fr. McB has a “doozy” for “Labor Day”… could you please address this Fr. Z.? Once again, total b.s.
    http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/labor-day-church-should-embody-social-teachings?nocache=1#comment-144873

  14. robtbrown says:

    The problem here is with the phrase in your statement “did not ordain.” The verb “to ordain” does not necessarily mean, as is commonly understood among Catholics, the formal ritual associated with the sacrament of priesthood. More than likely, the verb denotes “intention,” that is, “to ordain that….” Christ certainly did ordain that the apostles be instituted priests to carry on his salvific mission through the institution of the Eucharist where his Body and Blood would be truly present, as Trent indicates. But, it is not likely, as your statment could be read to imply, that Christ begat or participated in ordaining the apostles through the ritual laying on of hands, for example.
    Comment by The-Monk

    I agree that to say that the institution of the Sacraments by Christ does not necessarily refer to Him demonstrating them–non exhibendo, sed promittendo is St Thomas’ famous phrase.

    Your conclusion, however, that it is unlikely that Christ actually employed the ritual of laying on hands makes no sense. Although it is true that we find no account in Scripture of Christ demonstrating such a ritual, it does not follow that none took place. The Fourth Gospel says that everything that Christ said and did is not to be found in Scripture.

  15. robtbrown: As mentioned before, please be concise when quoting.

  16. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Excuse me if this is sailing beyond the horizon of the topic!

    But, at the risk of seeming ‘hooked on casuistry’, I was wondering what “flagging” might or might not occur, if someone said that, wishing to avoid artolatry, and, e.g., in uncertainty of the validity of a consecration or of whether one had taken place (yet), he was not convinced of the substantial absence of “the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ […] in the […] sacrament” (Canon 4), but also not convinced of the substantial presence (yet), and therefore simultaneously offered a conditional latria, and also an unconditonal latria regarding the omnipresence of Totus Chrsitus as God the Son with respect to it?

  17. robtbrown says:

    robtbrown: As mentioned before, please be concise when quoting.
    Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

    I actually gave some thought to editing the text but I didn’t see what I could remove.

  18. robtbrown says:

    Venerator Sti Lot,

    The presumption is always that the mass is valid. Invalidity should not be considered unless invalid form or invalid matter is obvious.

  19. robtbrown says:

    If I might make another point, there are two priests in this town (neither associated with the aforementioned Host waving incident of my cousin’s wife) who have extracted the word “sacrifice” from the Orate fratres. Both say something like: May our gifts be acceptable . . .

    Of course, the point of the original text is that the gifts are not acceptable–thus the necessity for the double consecration. IMHO, such a change is an egregious error, but it would certainly not invalidate the mass.