Bishops authority

[teeboy]

Hello,

The penalty of excommunication includes the prohibition on reception of all Sacraments (and other consequences, too). The denial of Holy Communion is not a penalty and does not necessitate the denial of other Sacraments (although it may well be justified).

It may be likened to a person who is convicted for drunk driving and put in jail. He can’t drive his car–and can’t exercise a lot of other rights–because of the penalty. On the other hand, there is a man who also has problems with drinking but it is his wife who doesn’t give him the keys when he’s had too much to drink.

Dan

The excommunicated may receive the body and blood of Jesus, but he/she is not in communion with Jesus nor Jesus’s church. In other words, there is no grace associated with the sacrament. The bishop does not confer the grace; Jesus confers the grace.

Your analogy is incorrect.

 

[teeboy]

You know we have had if I’m correct Bishops in the past in the middle ages especially excommunicate people and they need indulgences sometimes sold.

At least one deed is necessary for any indulgence of which I am aware.

A trial would need to be held to confer a specific individual excommunication. Both sides would need to present evidence. You folks aren’t making any sense.

 

[billcu1]

At least one deed is necessary for any indulgence of which I am aware.

A trial would need to be held to confer a specific individual excommunication. Both sides would need to present evidence. You folks aren’t making any sense.

Now I know or have always been told that to have an abortion means excomumunication. At least if you are of aware of this. Now am I right? This is to show to the individual the seriousness or their misdeed. I don’t want to sound like I’m harping on abortion, I don’t know of anything else that automatically excommunicates. Am I right on this?

Bill

 

[robertmidwest]

Now I know or have always been told that to have an abortion means excomumunication. At least if you are of aware of this. Now am I right? This is to show to the individual the seriousness or their misdeed. I don’t want to sound like I’m harping on abortion, I don’t know of anything else that automatically excommunicates. Am I right on this?

Bill

Remarriage without annulment? Maybe?

 

[teeboy]

Now I know or have always been told that to have an abortion means excomumunication. At least if you are of aware of this. Now am I right? This is to show to the individual the seriousness or their misdeed. I don’t want to sound like I’m harping on abortion, I don’t know of anything else that automatically excommunicates. Am I right on this?

Bill

Yes, a person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication. See CCC 1464 and CCC 2272 for further detail.

 

[1ke]

Remarriage without annulment? Maybe?

No, this does not result in excommunication under the current code of canon law.

 

[1ke]

Now I know or have always been told that to have an abortion means excomumunication. At least if you are of aware of this. Now am I right? This is to show to the individual the seriousness or their misdeed. I don’t want to sound like I’m harping on abortion, I don’t know of anything else that automatically excommunicates. Am I right on this?

Bill

Canon law contains a list of those things which have automatic excommunication as their penalty.

Excommunication for other things can be imposed by sentence via a trial.

That is the simplest explanation, of course it is more complex than that.

In all cases, these canons are also in effect regarding who may be excommunicated:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM

 

[dans0622]

The excommunicated may receive the body and blood of Jesus, but he/she is not in communion with Jesus nor Jesus’s church. In other words, there is no grace associated with the sacrament. The bishop does not confer the grace; Jesus confers the grace.

Your analogy is incorrect.

Hello,

The analogy “limps” I’m sure, as all do; I still think it conveys an accurate distinction and don’t think it is “incorrect.”

As for your first comment, I refer to canon 1331 §1: “An excommunicated person is forbidden: … 2. to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments…”

Dan

 

[billcu1]

Canon law contains a list of those things which have automatic excommunication as their penalty.

Excommunication for other things can be imposed by sentence via a trial.

That is the simplest explanation, of course it is more complex than that.

In all cases, these canons are also in effect regarding who may be excommunicated:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM

What’s this “magic” age of 16 yo all about. And the talk of age of reason?

Bill

 

[teeboy]

Hello,

The analogy “limps” I’m sure, as all do; I still think it conveys an accurate distinction and don’t think it is “incorrect.”

As for your first comment, I refer to canon 1331 §1: “An excommunicated person is forbidden: … 2. to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments…”

Dan

He/she may be forbidden just as one is forbidden from murder. However, he/she can still perform both acts. However, the consequence of doing so is not advised.

 

[teeboy]

I retract my statement about a bishop being a fool to excommunicate a particular individual. However, a very prudent investigation would need to be made and notice would need to be sent to the affected individual so that he may defend himself in a trial. Bishops do have executive, legislative, and judicial powers, so he must be prudent.

Even under United States Law, Bishops are held to a prudent man standard in certain affairs, especially under the laws of trust; however, that’s a different topic.

 

[Corki]

I retract my statement about a bishop being a fool to excommunicate a particular individual. However, a very prudent investigation would need to be made and notice would need to be sent to the affected individual so that he may defend himself in a trial. Bishops do have executive, legislative, and judicial powers, so he must be prudent.

Even under United States Law, Bishops are held to a prudent man standard in certain affairs, especially under the laws of trust; however, that’s a different topic.

Not necessarily. The investigation doesn’t have to be at the individual level. For example, joining the Masons incurs excommunication. The investigation was done many years ago at the institutional level. It does not need to be repeated for each person, let alone individual notice or a trial executed for each person.

 

[Corki]

Hello,

While the duty to safeguard Holy Communion belongs to the minister, in the usual course of events the bishop of a place would make it known that a certain person is not to be given Communion in his diocese. This removes pressure from parish priests. If it is a matter of someone who is so well-known in his/her obstinate defiance of fundamental, Catholic principles, the head of a Vatican tribunal could not command anyone to deny Communion. He doesn’t have that authority. At the same time, if the wayward Catholic showed up at this bishop’s Mass, he is well within his rights to deny Communion. I hope that makes sense.

Dan

However, if the Bishop was, for example the head of the CDF, he could issue instructions as to how Canon 915 is to implemented. Such an instruction would not be limited to this Bishop’s own Masses.

 

[teeboy]

Not necessarily. The investigation doesn’t have to be at the individual level. For example, joining the Masons incurs excommunication. The investigation was done many years ago at the institutional level. It does not need to be repeated for each person, let alone individual notice or a trial executed for each person.

Certainly. Like we have said, a Catholic may excommunicate himself.