I’m not sure how your church would have dealt with heresy in the the fourth and fifth century. Being Universalist, probably not at all.
As you know, those were different times, long before the separation of church and state and quite serious and violent times for Catholics against heretics and Protestants against Catholics.
As for anathema, I think you will criticize the Church if it changed and criticize the Church it if it didn’t change. No difference there.
I believe “separation from” or excommunication is the proper definition of anathema.
Thanks for your reply.
WOW! Do YOU ever not understand Unitarian Universalists! Back in the day they'd run 'em over with their Subaru Foresters AFTER they criticized them for not having hemp underwear.
It was really vicious.
As for anathema, I think you will criticize the Church if it changed and criticize the Church it if it didn’t change. No difference there.
Not at all. My criticism hinges on the change in the import of the meaning of "anathema" and retroactivly applying your new definition when, clearly, it meant something entirely different.
I believe “separation from” or excommunication is the proper definition of anathema.
Current definition - yes!
What was meant when the Council Of Trent declare multiple Anathema's?
For example:
FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."