Are baptized Protestants, who were never Cathoic, under automatic excommunication?

[vern_humphrey]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard that if someone is excommunicate, they can’t die in a state of grace. And if not in a state of grace, heaven is impossible, right?

So if Protestants are automatically excommunicated, would this mean a Protestant can’t be saved?

This may also be of broader interest because there are a couple other threads going over whether Protestants are Christian, can go to Heaven, etc. Maybe I’ll post it there too, but it seemed most relevant here.

Zirconia

The Church does not have the power to say if a person is saved or condemned, since even a total heathen may desire baptism or forgiveness at the moment of death.

But a person who has committed grevious sins and not sought absolution is indeed in danger of being condemned.

 

[allischalmers]

No… but honest people would.

So Protestant are not honest ?

Proud to be Baptist
allischalmer

 

[vern_humphrey]

So Protestant are not honest ?

Proud to be Baptist
allischalmer

When one posts an uncharitable and offensive remark like this:

to answer to question with another question, do you think that Protestants really care?

Proud to be Baptist
allischalmers

sometimes other people will reply in kind.

 

[allischalmers]

When one posts an uncharitable and offensive remark like this:

sometimes other people will reply in kind.

 

[allischalmers]

I replyed to the title of this thread with a legitimate question. Do Protestants really care what the Catholic church thinks it has the authorty to do or not do. I do not think that was an uncharitable or offensive question.

Church Militant replyed with "honest people would’. To imply that Protestant are not honest That Mr. vern humphery is what was uncharitable and offensive.

Proud to be Baptist
allischlmers

 

[vern_humphrey]

I replyed to the title of this thread with a legitimate question. Do Protestants really care what the Catholic church thinks it has the authorty to do or not do. I do not think that was an uncharitable or offensive question.

The title of the thread is, “Are baptized Protestants, who were never Cathoic, under automatic excommunication?” Not “Do Protestants care?”

If you don’t care, why are you on a Catholic forum?

Church Militant replyed with "honest people would’. To imply that Protestant are not honest That Mr. vern humphery is what was uncharitable and offensive.

Proud to be Baptist
allischlmers

Actually, Mr. Allis Chamers, the remark was intened to show the contradiction between getting on a Catholic forumn and then saying something like “Do Protestants care?”

It’s kind of a contradiction in terms, isn’t it? If you don’t care, why are you here?

 

[pnewton]

to answer to question with another question, do you think that Protestants really care?

Proud to be Baptist
allischalmers

I didn’t find this at all uncharitable or offensive, but rather insightcul and to the point. Why would a non-Catholic care about Catholic canon law? I don’t give a fig about Canandian law and that isn’t because I do not like Canada or Canadians.

By the way, here is a link to the current Code of Canon Law. All earlier versions are rendered moot by the most current version.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

I think on a cursory glance that technically it excommunication might apply, but I can not imagine an instance that it would, at least not often.

BTW - “Proud to be Baptist”, I am happy for my conversion, but am also very proud of my Baptist heritage. Most of what I learned about God, including to love Him, I learned in my first three decades as a Baptist. I also learned to seek the truth as an absolute, which is why I converted.

We should play nice and treat our non-Catholic guests with respect.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I didn’t find this at all uncharitable or offensive, but rather insightcul and to the point. Why would a non-Catholic care about Catholic canon law? I don’t give a fig about Canandian law and that isn’t because I do not like Canada or Canadians.

Do you go up to Canada and deliberately get involved in debates over Canadian law, so you can tell them you don’t give a fig about their law?

Do you go on Canadian legal websites to tell them you don’t give a fig?

When one goes into someone else’s country, someone else’s home, or onto someone else’s website, that changes how one should behave.

 

[pnewton]

Do you go up to Canada and deliberately get involved in debates over Canadian law, so you can tell them you don’t give a fig about their law?

Do you go on Canadian legal websites to tell them you don’t give a fig?
.

No, but it sounds like fun!

I still think his point is valid. What difference does it make if Protestants don’t acknowledge it? If Canadians thought I aought to abide by Canadian law, I might make a similar point to them.

BTW - I officially apologize to all Canadians for involving them in a protracted analogy. This thread in no way is intended as a reflection of my view or that of Catholic Answers toward Canada, Maple Leafs or ice hockey.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, but it sounds like fun!

And you’ll stand in front of the Judgement Seat and say, “It’s all Vern’s fault!! He put me up to it!”

Are you sure we’re not related? I have a cousin who used to play that trick all the time.

I still think his point is valid. What difference does it make if Protestants don’t acknowledge it? If Canadians thought I aought to abide by Canadian law, I might make a similar point to them.

A different matter than going on a Canadian law site to tell them!!

BTW - I officially apologize to all Canadians for involving them in a protracted analogy. This thread in no way is intended as a reflection of my view or that of Catholic Answers toward Canada, Maple Leafs or ice hockey.

What about the Red Green Show? My oldest daughter (who has a really wierd sense of humor) sent me a 100-hour set of Red Green DVDs for Christmas.

 

[Genesis315]

This is not some new teaching that they are not automatically anathemtized. Not all who are apparently out of communion with the Catholic Church are charged with the crimes of heresy and schism:

From the Catchism of Pius X (1910):
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

From a Doctrinal Catechism (1846):
biblelight.net/keenan.htm

Q. Do Catholics charge all that are apparently out of their communion with the crimes of heresy and schism, and consequently exclude them from salvation

A. No; all baptized children who die before they sin mortally, and before they embrace and believe error, are members of the true Church. Again, all those sincere people belong to the soul of the Church, who, being baptized, and believing the great fundamental truths of Christianity, and who are prevented from believing it in all its details, not by carelessness, nor temporal interest, nor human respect, nor the spirit of obstinacy, nor by malice, but simply because they never doubted, and never had sufficient means of knowing the truth, which they would embrace at once, and with gladness, could they only discover it,*—*all these, we say, belong to the soul of the Church, and will be saved, if they lead good lives and do not violate God’s law.

Q. What do you mean by the soul of the Church?
A. All those belong to the body of the Church who are openly professing Catholics; to the soul of the Church belong all such as I have above described, who, being baptized, and believing the fundamental truths of religion, are living separate from the body of the Church, not by any fault of their own, but purely by not having sufficient means to lead them into a knowledge of the whole truth.

 

[pnewton]

This is not some new teaching that they are not automatically anathemtized. Not all who are apparently out of communion with the Catholic Church are charged with the crimes of heresy and schism:

New teaching is the only one relevant one in this situation. I clearly remember the canon lawyer on CALive said that each new Code of Canon Law replaces the pre-existing one. The penalty of excommunication is a canonical penalty and subject to changes in canon law.

The penalty of anathema is no longer valid as it is not a part of current canon law.

 

[vern_humphrey]

New teaching is the only one relevant one in this situation. I clearly remember the canon lawyer on CALive said that each new Code of Canon Law replaces the pre-existing one. The penalty of excommunication is a canonical penalty and subject to changes in canon law.

The penalty of anathema is no longer valid as it is not a part of current canon law.

Correct. But as I said earlier, the answer to the original question, “Are baptized Protestants, who were never Cathoic, under automatic excommunication?” is “yes.”

Protestants cannot licitly receive communion in the Catholic Church. That, by definition, is excommunication.

There are some rare exceptions – for example when Bill Clinton attended a Catholic mass in Africa and stepped up to take communion, it was pointed out that if he had asked ahead of time, the Bishop had the power to grant it. If he had asked.

 

[pnewton]

Protestants cannot licitly receive communion in the Catholic Church. That, by definition, is excommunication.

On the other hand, a Protestant does not need absolution from the Bishop, only a priest, to be able to join the church and receive communion. I know that some excommunications may be absolved by a priest, but most require a bishop.

Also, aren’t there a limiited number of circumstances where a Protestant can recieve communion.

 

[Steven_Merten]

By the way, here is a link to the current Code of Canon Law. All earlier versions are rendered moot by the most current version.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

I think on a cursory glance that technically it excommunication might apply, but I can not imagine an instance that it would, at least not often.

Hello pnewton,

Thank you greatly for this information.

Have you found any source which lists the Church Cannons which Pope John Paul II’s 1983 Catechism of the Catholic Church now expells as moot and void? Especially those cancelled Church Cannons which relate to Catholic Church automatic excommunication of Protestants who were never Catholic.

You are right. Here is what I found in your link.

CODE OF CANON LAW

TITLE II.
PENAL LAW AND PENAL PRECEPT (Cann. 1313 - 1320)
Can. 1313 §1. If a law is changed after a delict has been committed, the law more favorable to the accused is to be applied.

§2. If a later law abolishes a law or at least the penalty, the penalty immediately ceases.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4V.HTM

 

[pnewton]

Hello pnewton,

Thank you greatly for this information.

Have you found any source which lists the Church Cannons which Pope John Paul II’s 1983 Catechism of the Catholic Church now expells as moot and void? Especially those cancelled Church Cannons which relate to Catholic Church automatic excommunication of Protestants who were never Catholic.

I actually spent about thirty minutes reading so far and haven’t found it yet. I did find that the people who were subject to to excommunication, beside catholics, were baptized heretics and schismatics. Realize this is “subject to” only. The indexing system is unwieldy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

On the other hand, a Protestant does not need absolution from the Bishop, only a priest, to be able to join the church and receive communion. I know that some excommunications may be absolved by a priest, but most require a bishop.

A Protestant who has announced his intention to join the Catholic Church (and has gone through RCIA) has renounced his Protestantism and is to be treated like any other Catholic.

Also, aren’t there a limiited number of circumstances where a Protestant can recieve communion.

That’s what I just posted – and pointed ouit when Bill Clinton stepped up for Communion at a Catholic church in Africe, if he’d asked ahead of time the Bishop could (and almost certainly) would have made an exception for him.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s recap:

From the Catechism:

1400 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."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. 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."240

1401 **When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.**241

From Canon Law:

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

(my emphasis)

Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, except in very limited circumstances.

But let us distinguish between heresy and heretics. Protestantism is a heresy. But the Church recognizes that persons raised within the Protestant tradition cannot be personally charged with heresy. Therefore such persons face no impedement to being admitted to the Catholic faith if they ask for it.

In other words, Protestants cannot receive Communion in the Catholic Church not because of their own, personal sins, but because they are members of a church not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[pnewton]

Then, if they an individual Protestant is not considered a heretic, then the section I read in the 1983 CCL on who can be excommunicated should not apply, and they can no longer be excommunicated.

Where’s a canon lawyer when you need one?

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello All,

Is a Catholic who has an abortion, and therefore under automatic excommunication, punished with the same restrictions that a Protestant, who was never Catholic, is placed under by the Church?

Is it that Protestants, who were never Catholic, suffer the same restrictions as an automatically excommunicated Catholic, but they are not, or no longer, termed excommunicated?

Code of Cannon Law

PENALTIES AND OTHER PUNISHMENTS (Cann. 1331 - 1340)
CHAPTER I.
CENSURES
Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:
1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;
2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.
§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:
1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;
2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;
3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;
4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;
5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.
Can. 1332 The prohibitions mentioned in ⇒ can. 1331, §1, nn. 1 and 2 bind an interdicted person. If the interdict has been imposed or declared, however, the prescript of ⇒ can. 1331, §2, n. 1 must be observed.
Can. 1333 §1. Suspension, which can affect only clerics, prohibits:
1/ either all or some acts of the power of orders;
2/ either all or some acts of the power of governance;
3/ the exercise of either all or some of the rights or functions attached to an office.
§2. A law or precept can establish that a suspended person cannot place acts of governance validly after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence.
§3. A prohibition never affects:
1/ the offices or the power of governance which are not under the power of the superior who establishes the penalty;
2/ the right of residence which the offender may have by reason of office;
3/ the right to administer goods which may pertain to the office of the person suspended if the penalty is latae sententiae.
§4. A suspension prohibiting a person from receiving benefits, a stipend, pensions, or any other such thing entails the obligation of making restitution for whatever has been received illegitimately, even if in good faith.
Can. 1334 §1. Within the limits established by the preceding canon, either the law or precept itself or the sentence or decree which imposes the penalty defines the extent of a suspension.
§2. A law, but not a precept, can establish a latae sententiae suspension without additional determination or limitation; such a penalty has all the eVects listed in ⇒ can. 1333, §1.
Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

Quoted from: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM