Christian Forums

I would like to discuss the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Eucharist, with specific attention to their views of those who disagree [Protestants] with their dogma and doctrines concerning their beliefs and practice of the Eucharist. These are the canons of the Eucharist from the Council of Trent under Julius III. These canons are still recognized by the Roman Curia today.

But before we get into this I would like to define the word: Anathema. This word is found in Scripture and thus should only be defined by the Scripture, not by apologists who would seek to soften the blow of what this word really means when used to describe a person. The word in the Greek means "cursed" or "accursed" also meaning "a person or thing doomed to destruction". The word appears transliterated in the KJV only once but is translated to "accursed" four times and only once in Acts 23:14 to say "bind under a great curse", totaling six appearances in the New Testament. Each time it is used to describe a person it is used in complete condemnation.

So with that in mind, lets look at these canons:

QuoteCanon 1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

If a Christian doesn't believe in "Real Presence" then you are anathema. "Real Presence" meaning that the Priest mysteriously transforms through transubstantiation the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus.

QuoteCanon 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and, holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation,[43] let him be anathema.

If you deny that bread and wines literally transforms, you are anathema.

QuoteCanon 3. If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated,[44] let him be anathema.

From my understandings, which admittedly is not perfect; canon 3 affirms that the Eucharist contains the whole Christ before and after division. That every part of the wafers and every sip of the wine contains the complete Christ and is received entirely by every person and not in part.

But if you believe that Jesus is not literally contained in the bread or the wine, you are anathema.

QuoteCanon 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,[45] 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.

This canon directly reveals the whorship of the Eucharist, or the recognition that once the ritual of transubstantiation is complete the Roman Catholic believes that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus before and after the sacrament is taken. Some would try and compromise the unreasonable doctrine of transubstantiation, and confess that Jesus is only present "in usu" or while being taken. But this would result in them being anathema.

This is the reason you will see Catholics putting the wafer into the sunburst and then appear to whorship or "venerate" the wafer. Because according to these doctrines, that wafer has become God through transubstantiation.

QuoteCanon 5. If anyone says that the principal fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result from it,[46] let him be anathema.

So if you believe that partaking in the Eucharist does not grant forgiveness of sins you are anathema.

I always believed that remission [forgiveness] of sins came only though faith in the blood of Jesus Christ and nowhere else. That is what I learned from my Bible, not that doing anything could earn me forgiveness of my sins.

QuoteCanon 6. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only beotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of <latria>,[47] also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.

So if you think it wrong to whorship the Eucharist, you are anathema.

QuoteCanon 7. If anyone says that it is not lawful that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a sacred place, but immediately after consecration must necessarily be distributed among those present,[48] or that it is not lawful that it be carried with honor to the sick, let him be anathema.

This would again reveal the desire to place the wafer in the sunburst, and adore or whorship it as Christ or the only begotten Son of God as canon 6 defines the Eucharist. If you believe that is shouldn't be placed in a "sacred" place and venerated... you guessed it, you are anathema.

QuoteCanon 8. If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really,[49] let him be anathema.

This is my favorite. If you believe that observance of the Lord Supper or the Eucharist is spiritual only you are anathema. This is really getting back to belief in "Real Presence", and if you deny and believe that the Lords table is symbolic or spiritual you are accursed.

QuoteCanon 9. If anyone denies that each and all of Christ's faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have reached the years of discretion, to communicate every year at least at Easter,[50] in accordance with the precept of holy mother Church, let him be anathema.

This I think is sad, since it is so ritualistic and bereft of the Spirit.

Most of us would have a problem with this, since if someones only coming to church on "Easter" [thats another topic], we wouldn't be calling them "Christ's faithful". They would be more like the Holiday Christian, or the Christmas Christian, etc.

QuoteCanon 10. If anyone says that it is not lawful for the priest celebrating to communicate himself,[51] let him be anathema.

Not worth commenting on.

QuoteCanon 11. If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist,[52] let him be anathema.

If you believe that faith in Jesus Christ and his work upon the cross is all that is needed to receive or participate in the Lord Supper or Eucharist, you are anathema.

---

I don't know about you, but after looking over these canons I am throughly cursed by the Roman Church. And when I listen to Catholics tell me that we are both Christians, and that the Pope is my brother I find this hard to believe or understand. Since according to their very doctrines I am not a brother but a curse upon the earth and doomed to damnation in hell.

So I would like to hear what you think about these doctrines, since with all the discussion about the Roman Church I thought that some of these might be important to outline.

That all changed in Vatican II.

Quote from: charlie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 14:27:15
That all changed in Vatican II.

I looked everywhere for a source for this claim, but I found nothing.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 15:04:50

Quote from: charlie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 14:27:15
That all changed in Vatican II.

I looked everywhere for a source for this claim, but I found nothing.

Let me help you out here.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9111chap.asp

This article gives you exerpts from the Vatican II document relevant to your post and explains the Catholic attitude towards non-Catholics.  I doubt you find anything remotely similar to what has been hurled our way by some Protestants.

I noticed your link says nothing about revising the Council of Trent, or that Vatican II changed the results of the Council. Just seems like a bunch of patchwork of passages and quotes to seemingly contradict the decrees of Julius III and the of Council of Trent.

Please provide some substantial [not transubstantial] information that the Council of Trent is not still recognized by the Roman Curia.

Charles...  I think you will find that in the Speech the Pope made this past Sunday... in that paragraph concerning "Pagans" that this is you he is talking about, and me.

While they use the term brother to us, it may not mean the same as we would use it. Since they do not believe that brother means so when discussing Jesus having any, then you can assume that the term "Brother" when used by them does not always mean "Close blood relative" which is what being a believer would make us by the Blood of the Lamb.

I know my sil who is Catholic believes I am a Christian... but does not consider me to be the "Christian" she is due to her being the Catholic one.  And from all that I have seen in words and deeds by many... NOT ALL.. Catholics, this holds true for many of them. And I truely believe that this idea comes from somewhere... their pupits and teachings.

My sil has mentioned more than once that I "COULD" be a "sanctified" Christian and receive the true sacrements of the church if I was a Catholic.  Maybe this is what you are experiencing also...  And yes, while they call us brother, they really mean... "Person who is not catholic brother"... which would be the same as "poor deluded person" or  "person who needs the church" or even... "pitiful non Catholic"..

Just the other day someone told me they would pray I received the true gifts of salvation someday...  I get those underlying messages, LOUD and CLEAR. 

I personally do NOT think that any Catholic thinks that "Christians" are as saved as they... or in the right church, due to us not having that word attached to our walk with Christ. Everything else... is just patronizing. I think they truly believe they are the only ones who have the truth in walking with the LORD.  I mean you can't blame them... They live it, and they have most of them, been saying and believing those things since birth... they are banking on their being right and our being wrong, even for salvation.

But, that could just be me. 

Never once, in aniy mass I have ever attended was even word mentioned about the protestants, take note, NOT ONCE!!! Pagans are referred to as non christians, those that do not believe Christianity is the one true religion, there is no reference to denominations, including the popes speach last Sunday, don't read more into it and construde that it's pointing fingers at non Catholics, for it clearly is not.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 18:07:12
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece

Not only are other churches "not proper churches", but as the OP demonstrates, unless you agree with them regarding transubstantiation, and a host of other things (and this is not just limited to the "Eucharist", by the way), you are "anethema" (doomed to destruction).

You should have read the comment that was stated at the bottom of the page, I'll quote: "We are taught that we do not know what goes on between another person and God in life or death, so we try to represent His love the best we can and leave the judging up to Him"

He's clearly trying to get the Church back to tradition, the tactic he used is wrong, he's a man BTW and all men make mistakes, so I chalk it up to that and disagree with his statement in that regard.  Hey, I dissagreed with his statement that all rock n roll is evil as well, it doesn't mean I'm a bad person, it just means I have a different opinion on the matter because it's a more educated one because I am a musician, he is not.

I have never had a priest tell me anything derrogatory about those of other denominations, this is my experience that I'm sharing with you guys, take it or leave it, I was not raised in the church to be anti-protestant, it was never an issue at all.

If that is true... and I am just asking.. NOT accusing.  That according to what is posted is what they believe about "other" believers... Then if we are the anethema... 

Then, aren't they indeed implying we are "Pagans"... Since "Pagan" means the same as "Heathen"

If we do not belong to the Father by their canons... wouldn't that make us the Heathen or the "Pagan"..  Just wondering....

Quote from: John 1:1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 18:57:10
You should have read the comment that was stated at the bottom of the page, I'll quote: "We are taught that we do not know what goes on between another person and God in life or death, so we try to represent His love the best we can and leave the judging up to Him"

He's clearly trying to get the Church back to tradition, the tactic he used is wrong, he's a man BTW and all men make mistakes, so I chalk it up to that and disagree with his statement in that regard.  Hey, I dissagreed with his statement that all rock n roll is evil as well, it doesn't mean I'm a bad person, it just means I have a different opinion on the matter because it's a more educated one because I am a musician, he is not.

I have never had a priest tell me anything derrogatory about those of other denominations, this is my experience that I'm sharing with you guys, take it or leave it, I was not raised in the church to be anti-protestant, it was never an issue at all.

No one is saying that you are John 1. What we are saying is that by all "WRITTEN" documents of their faith and their canon's... the CHURCH says these things about us. That is what they truly say in these documents.

Are these printed and declared words in these documents pertaining to Catholics... or anyone who doesn't believe that every word of it is true. Like about communion and such.

I will tell you right now... The priest who did my grandfather in laws funeral said these exact words... I have never forgotten them... "We the church believe if you are not Catholic, that you are not worthy to take communion, if you are not, please don't come forward"... leaving those of us who were not catholics sitting in the pews like dogs outside the gate.

Now, what do you take from that?  Just what is being implied here. And no one in that HUGE congregation came up to me or my family or anyone after and said.. "I don't believe you are not worthy to take communion" but left us... hanging.  It was very sad. I had to take my children home and explain it to them.

Believe me.. I did.. WITH THE WORD.  They forced my hand to denounce them as "Brothers" in the LORD that day.  As deluded pious pharisees, and a people who need to see the truth of the word. 

So, John... if you can clear up any at all of what has been posted as "TRUE" documents of the Catholic Chruch.. that would be great.  I'm grateful you personally do not hold to this teaching, but can you clear up why it is taught at all? 

Well, here's the deal, there is radical reform going on in the Catholic church right now, it's a battle between what the priests want to have into place and what the heirarchy want's to instill.  The divide is quite clear in this regard and many priests have branched off to start their own mass done their way, even though the church excommunitated them, they still believe they are Catholic, and to be blunt, they are more Catholic in my book then what is currently fixed.

Personally, I would have stepped right up there during communion, for it is to be shared with all that believe, I doubt you would have been refused.  Some times you must assert yourself, and at the same time, know that the rules and regs are constantly changing, so take it with a grain of salt in those regards.  The priest has little control over these matters and in this case, is spouting orders giving from the higher up's, if you were to take him to the side after service and asked him his personal opinion, I highly suspect he would have told you to step up if you feel called, or worthy because you believe.

If they did refuse you, I'd make a second, third, 4th, etc. trip on your behalf, I'd get some funny looks in the process, but so be it, I'm not luke warm in my faith, that church you attended was, the same as many non catholic denominations I've encountered.

Something to keep in mind, we all here believe the muslem religion is a false one, when the pope declared that publicly, they were in an uproar, it was a mistake for him to declare that due to his position, not because of the message, of which we all know is true, but because of his political weight, so keeping this in mind, you gotta think of him as a man and not all Catholics hang on his every word at all, neither do all priests.  He is no diety, he's just a man, and men make mistakes.

Something else to think about here, when I'm at baptist service, I'm a baptist, when I'm at methodist, I am methodist, lutheren, etc. when you are at mass, just consider yourself a catholic, you have just circumvented their rule there.

Brian,

I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but this thread isn't about your experiences in mass or what you think is currently happening in the Roman Church. I started this topic to discuss the canons of the Eucharist wherein they identify those who disagree with their doctrines as anethema or damned.

So I would like to hear about views on these canons of the Eucharist, not your ambiguous special pleadings.

I am just trying to help, that is all.

Back on topic, there is much you are losing in the translation on all levels, it never states even once specifically, that you must attend service every sunday at a catholic church, what it is saying is that if you don't believe in God, and Christ, and the holy spirit, and you are warming the pews, even if you are there every single sunday, and you participate in physical form and not in spirit, you are kidding yourself.  In a nutshell, that is what it's all about, just spelled in legaleze which makes it difficult to understand, and in your case, totally mistranslated every step of the way.

Brian,

Who is kidding themselves, seriously. If you want to believe that the Roman Church doesn't condemn those who disagree with their doctrine concerning the Eucharist thats fine, but you are deceived. I simply commented on the canon, I am not "translating" anything since both are in English. If the language of the canon is difficult for you to understand thats no crime, but do not accuse my comments of being inaccurate since it only proves your lack of understanding. My comments are not an exaggeration of the contents of this canon.

Quote from: John 1:1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 18:57:10... it just means I have a different opinion on the matter because it's a more educated one because I am a musician, he is not.

You sure about that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXmJryYrG3c

Quote from: John 1:1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 19:48:28
Something else to think about here, when I'm at baptist service, I'm a baptist, when I'm at methodist, I am methodist, lutheren, etc. when you are at mass, just consider yourself a catholic, you have just circumvented their rule there.

Except that this isn't true at all.  Thinking it doesn't make it a reality.  Consider this: if the Catholics are right, then what you've done is actually a dishonor to the Body and Blood of Christ.  They specifically ask people of other churches not to participate in the eucharist.  It's printed in the front of every missal I've seen.  And, if their reasoning were right, I'd actually agree with the restriction (of course, I don't agree with their doctrine, but that's not the point of this particular post).

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 21:31:04They specifically ask people of other churches not to participate in the eucharist.

I would like to see this, since this would be specifically material to this discussion.

Do you remember where you saw this?

I've seen it in every missal I've seen, but yes, I've also seen it online.  I'll find it.

Here you go, this is from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and is exactly the page I've seen in the missals:

QuoteFor Catholics
As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.

For our fellow Christians
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).


For those not receiving Holy Communion
All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.


For non-Christians
We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

This is from the Catechism:

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper ... profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1400)

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 21:31:04

Quote from: John 1:1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 19:48:28
Something else to think about here, when I'm at baptist service, I'm a baptist, when I'm at methodist, I am methodist, lutheren, etc. when you are at mass, just consider yourself a catholic, you have just circumvented their rule there.

Except that this isn't true at all.  Thinking it doesn't make it a reality.  Consider this: if the Catholics are right, then what you've done is actually a dishonor to the Body and Blood of Christ.  They specifically ask people of other churches not to participate in the eucharist.  It's printed in the front of every missal I've seen.  And, if their reasoning were right, I'd actually agree with the restriction (of course, I don't agree with their doctrine, but that's not the point of this particular post).

I agree... when I am in mass for any reason, that does not make me Catholic. I do not impose myself into what they have laid out as their decree...  I do not believe that the wafer becomes ACTUAL flesh, nor do I believe that the wine becomes ACTUAL blood, so it would be a lie for me to even take communion.  By their own documents, if you are not Catholic, you are not of the true church.  But, by their own documents and declaration, it is not accurate to the word of God... 

I've been told by many sincere, caring Catholics... I have only to "become" a Catholic and join the church to participate in the Holy Sacraments... NO.. NO.. NO... I would have to believe what they teach is true, or lie about it... either way, I can't do it.

Someone down the line decided that the Catholic's were the true church to the exclusion of other believers... and whether you believe that this Catholic church is the one Christ started and progressed down the line to today... that belief does not hold water concerning who are true believers by the word of GOD.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton son, that whosoever believeth on Him, shall have everlasting life"... I am one of the whosoever.

"Though your sins be as scarlet, they can be white as snow"... Me.. my sins were as red as scarlet, and now white as snow.

"No man come to the Father except by me"... that is me too... I go to Jesus. I trust in Him. 

THIS is the word of God..  And by the word of God, these documents are proved wrong.

I think I read somewhere... I will look it up... that one can take communion in one of two circumstances if you are not catholic...

If you are dying and request it of priest, and someone from your faith is not there.

Or if you live in a community where there is no one else of your faith... your only option for communion from a priest...

Although, for me.. in either of those circumstances, I would serve myself.  I believe the body of Christ should be serving and celebrating communion in their own homes, with their own families and teaching their children the wonderful fellowship of the LORD.  We are the body of Christ... at all times, in our homes or in a church building.  Serve communion to one another.

Ahhh.. yes, here it is.

"The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances. Canon law explains the parameters: "If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" (CIC 844 ?? 4)."

Quote from: kensington on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 21:47:29I do not believe that the wafer becomes ACTUAL flesh, nor do I believe that the wine becomes ACTUAL blood, so it would be a lie for me to even take communion.  By their own documents, if you are not Catholic, you are not of the true church.

But more than that, because you don't believe the wafer or the wine to be the literal body and blood of Jesus you are accursed of God. The same as those who confess they do not love the Lord Jesus (cf. 1Cr 16:22), or someone who preaches a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:8-9). This very strong language, and something that should not be looked upon lightly.

As another member said here that worse things have been said by Protestants toward Catholics on this very board, I believe anyone would be hard pressed to find a harsher indictment than calling someone "Anathema".

But more than that, because you don't believe the wafer or the wine to be the literal body and blood of Jesus you are accursed of God.

I AM NOT!!  I AM NOT!!  I AM NOT!!    (this is me throwing myself in the floor and tossing a fit!)   

Yeah, I get what you are saying.. this is what their documents declare.  They probably sincerely believe that. They are sincerely WRONG... but, they believe it.

I know my sil had a VERY hard time coming to grips with me as a Christian... Because, I walk what I believe, I speak it, I declare it... I live it.  I was the contradiction to what she had been taught as a Catholic and she had to come to grips with it...  All of my husband's family has.  They are good people, devout in their faith... and then they met me... true believer, not Catholic. 

And there you have it. What do you do?  I think the fasle claims have actually hurt their own people more than it could ever hurt me. I am not damned... and I don't think any of my Catholic family will be surprised when they get to Heaven and find me there. KWIM? 

Except when it comes to discussing "doctrines' and declaration such as these... I have had VERY little problem walking out my faith along side of my Catholic family and friends.  They have learned... many of them, I am more faithful than they, I know the word better than they, I pray more... They call me for prayer.  I love GOD openly.. I never hide it. I am not of the world. They know it.  No Problem.

It's just when "STATEMENTS" are made... we go round... Cause, I am not going to go quietly away while they teach this stuff to unsuspecting peoples. I am going to declare the WORD of the LORD.

Ok, so you don't believe in communion, you are left out of that because you don't believe in it, so what is the point of feeling hurt for not joining in it?  Body of Christ and body of a Church denomination are two different things, don't confuse them, and to be blunt, I could care less about the legalism that you guys are so caught up in, it's politics and nothing more.

I dissagree with you Charles, your interpretation is shotty and twists the words around, if you are happy with that, it's your cause, but you are deceiving yourself, for it's not the truth, just your truth....

Quote from: John 1:1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 22:28:51
Ok, so you don't believe in communion, you are left out of that because you don't believe in it, so what is the point of feeling hurt for not joining in it?  Body of Christ and body of a Church denomination are two different things, don't confuse them, and to be blunt, I could care less about the legalism that you guys are so caught up in, it's politics and nothing more.

I dissagree with you Charles, your interpretation is shotty and twists the words around, if you are happy with that, it's your cause, but you are deceiving yourself, for it's not the truth, just your truth....

Do you have a different interpretation of "anathema", Brian?

anathema

Main Entry:
    anath·e·ma
Pronunciation:
    \ə-ˈna-thə-mə\
Function:
    noun
Etymology:
    Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse, from anatithenai to set up, dedicate, from ana- + tithenai to place, set — more at do
Date:
    1526

1 a: one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b: someone or something intensely disliked or loathed —usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen — S. J. Gould>2 a: a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b: the denunciation of something as accursed c: a vigorous denunciation : curse


James.... this is the only definition I could find that Websters has... 

BTW.. John 1.. Let me be clear, I do not care if I can or cannot take communion with them.  I even said, to do so just because I know I can would be wrong for me.  They are free to believe the communion is what they want.  But, that they think they have the right to call me accursed or damned is hurtful. 

Ken, I am Catholic, I do not call you cursed, that should be good enough, I can't speak for the pope or all Catholics, but at least this one is telling you that you are not cursed and that should be good enough for you, for I am not alone in my understanding.

I'm not even going to bother addressing this debate further, here is the olive branch, take it or trample on it,  it's your call and your's alone for I have fufilled my Christian duty to do so, it is now time for you guys to do your Christian duty to accept it.

Happy Easter

So, you now claim to be a Roman Catholic, but at the same time, you reject the teachings of the Roman Catholic church? My question, then, is why do you claim to be a Roman Catholic?

I interpret it differently then you and perhaps other Catholics as well, leave further questioning at that and call it good, move on and let there be peace.