Can Protestants be excommunicated?

[cstudent]

Cstudent,

The concrete evidence which you seek is rather straightforward, and the matter has two bases from which it can be approached.

Censures are ecclesiastical laws of a disciplinary nature. Canon 11, which you cited, provides that " Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it." We would then read canon 751 regarding heresy, schism, and apostasy as well as Book VI on Sanctions in the Church in that context.

Canon 6 of the present code abrogated the former code of 1917, with added attention to “any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code.”

Non Catholics are bound are bound to ecclesiastical law only when the code says so explicitly or implicitly. This is true in regard, for example, when they marry Catholics, or seek certain sacraments under the particular conditions mentioned in canon 844, or seek sacramentals, or administer ecclesiastical goods of the Church, or seek incorporation into the Church by baptism catechumens) or the profession of faith (candidates for reception into communion with the Church), or present infants for baptism, etc. Sometimes being Catholic is required for certain offices, such as baptismal sponsor (with due exception for the Eastern Orthodox), or for being a bishop of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, the Church does not assert ecclesiastical jurisdiction over non Catholics.

I’m right with you.

Can. 751 “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith”

In other words- anyone who has been baptized (including Protestants) are guilty of heresy if they obstinately deby or doubt truths which are to be believe by divine and Catholic faith (as opposed to [truths] of any other faith).

In other words the baptized must not knowingly deny truths which are to be held by Catholics.

In any case, it’s common knowledge that a Protestant can be guilty of heresy.

Then we go to Can 1311 “The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful [anyone who has been baptized] with penal sanctions.”

Then to Can. 1312 §1. The following are penal sanctions in the Church: 1/ medicinal penalties, or censures, which are listed in ⇒ cann. 1331-1333.

Which directs us to Canon 1331 “Excommunication”.

In addition Canon 1364 specifies excommunication latae *sententiae *for heretics.

Can. 1364 §1. “Without prejudice to the prescript of Can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.” vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM

Honestly, I don’t see how this could be any more clear and it perfectly coincides with the principle of excommunication of Protestants in 1917.

I would imagine that all that has changed from 1917 is that currently a Protestestant must knowing deny a Catholic truth to be excommunicated latae sententiae. Where in the past he was excommunicated ipso facto by simply holding the heretical belief whether he knew what he was doing or not.

John

 

[rwoehmke]

Well I suppose Canon Law and all that are just fine, but now lets put our feet on the ground and ask what the Church hopes to accomplish by excommunication. Is it not to be a means to call someone in error back into communion with the body? I hardly think as a practical matter that any protestant or other non-Catholic who is excommunicated by the Catholic Church is going to give it a second thought. So we have a nice legal theory that in such an application remains about as meaningful as pie in the sky. Not that it is not an interesting topic.

Its like the foolishness of governments that pass laws that are impossible to enforce. It only breeds contempt for law. Now if we lived in an Islamic State the Sharia Laws can be enforced by the state. The news has contained a number of examples in recent years, many of which raise a world wide howl of dismay that anyone would do such a thing in this civilized world. So shall we erect the stake and gather the faggots? Match anyone?

 

[Milliardo]

Not as defined by the Church.

No, not now, since we use the term “separated brethren” to emphasize on what unites us rather than what divides us. However, the Church still sees Protestants as under heresy, and AFAIK the Church has not yet revoked that, only that she has not used it as often as before. Again, the emphasis now is to find a resolution to the division, thus we see Protestants as our separated brethren than see them as under heresy.

 

[Victory5]

They are “Separated brothers and sisters in Christ” not “Excommunicated”.

Brother Rich PLEASE----they may not be formally excomunicated, and they maybe be called seperated brethern, but --they are clearly not in our One true Apostolic Church—and are in grave danger-----please im tired of you all kissing and hugging–EVERY SINGLE PROTESTANT SHOULD BE CONVERTED TO THE ONE TRUE CHURCH-=----THE CATHOLIC CHURCH–UNDER THE HOLY ROMAN PONTIFF------IF NOT THEIR SOULS MAY VERY WELL PERISH!!!

 

[Victory5]

PIUSXII SAYS----41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

 

[Victory5]

That quote is from his encycliocal --mystici corpois–#41------------

 

[Atemi]

Can Protestants be excommunicated?

By the Roman Catholic Church?

The answer is yes according to their claim…but how do you excommunicate someone who is already excommunicated?

…

 

[Atemi]

Brother Rich PLEASE----they may not be formally excomunicated, and they maybe be called seperated brethern, but --they are clearly not in our One true Apostolic Church—and are in grave danger-----please im tired of you all kissing and hugging–EVERY SINGLE PROTESTANT SHOULD BE CONVERTED TO THE ONE TRUE CHURCH-=----THE CATHOLIC CHURCH–UNDER THE HOLY ROMAN PONTIFF------IF NOT THEIR SOULS MAY VERY WELL PERISH!!!

Catholic teaching on this today is so utterly convoluted that well catechised, faithful Catholics cannot help but disagree.

…

 

[cameron_lansing]

CStudent,

The proper interpretation of Church law involves a number of factors and a casual reading of particular canons can be misleading unless the principles of canon 17 are applied (Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel passages, if there are such, to the purpose and the circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.)

Let me attempt to be clearer and to refocus your attention to canon 11 as you reflect on your question. Parts of all the elements of canon 17 will be used, but not all will be apparent. I need to be brief, with the Midwestern ice storm and this being Sunday.

True, the 1917 code appeared to assert that baptized non Catholics were subject to the ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church. But the revised code clarified that they are not, and that is accomplished by means of canon 11.

This canon is significant since it appears in Book I, General Norms. These norms apply to the entire code as the underlying means for interpreting and applying the other canons. They give a context for them, and in that context, we would then look at canon 754 and Book V, Sanctions in the Church. They tell us in part that those laws apply to those who are Catholic by baptism or by a profession of faith.

It is true that Book III often uses the term “Christian faithful” in discussing the teaching office in Book III (in which canon 751 appears) and in discussing the rights and obligations of the People of God in Book II. It is true that the Church asserts the right in canon 1311 to apply penal sanctions to members of the Christian faithful.

But here we need to have a proper understanding of the particular notion of “Christian faithful.” It means “Catholics,” according to the Code Commission (Communicationes 12 [1984] 43-44) which prepared the code for the approval of the Supreme Pontiff. This background is important since it gives us access to the mind of the legislator (see canon 17). This means that canon 1311 is speaking about Catholics by using that term.

Finally, think too what the censure of excommunication means and does in canon 1311. What is the purpose of the law? What does it do? It deprives someone of certain spiritual goods (e.g. sacraments) and forbids the exercise of certain powers and functions in the Church. Non Catholics do not possess rights to the sacraments of the Church (unless conceded to them by a law by way of exception, such as in the conditions of canon 844, or another provision). Here, for example, baptized non Catholics cannot be Catholic priests or deacons, so they could not have any ministerial participation in the Eucharist to begin with, so excommunication, even apart from canon 11, would be irrelevant to them.

Since baptized non Catholics are not in full communion with the Catholic Church to begin with, the infliction of excommunication would not be capable of adding any other deprivation or prohibition that does not exist.

“In other words- anyone who has been baptized (including Protestants) are guilty of heresy if they obstinately delay or doubt truths which are to be believe by divine and Catholic faith (as opposed to [truths] of any other faith).”

Terms like heresy have meanings in different senses in different disciplines. Baptized non Catholics may be guilty of formal and material heresy (moral theology) but they are not guilty of the delict of heresy (the legal order). A delict is an offense for which an ecclesiastical law imposes a penalty. But since non Catholics do not fall under canon 11, they cannot commit the delict and the penalty which is attached to it by ecclesiastical law.

 

[Victory5]

Catholic teaching on this today is so utterly convoluted that well catechised, faithful Catholics cannot help but disagree.

…

Catholic teaching today is the same as it was before—however, today’s documents use “nicer language”-----read them carefully --they never contradict previous teaching—THEY CANT —TEACHING (DOGMATIC THAT IS) CAN NEVER CHANGE!!! IT CAN DEVELOP BUT NOT CHANGE-------

 

[Atemi]

Catholic teaching today is the same as it was before—however, today’s documents use “nicer language”

I tend to agree, but that only serves to confuse good Catholics.

Why muddle up something so important to understand?

read them carefully --they never contradict previous teaching—THEY CANT —TEACHING (DOGMATIC THAT IS) CAN NEVER CHANGE!!! IT CAN DEVELOP BUT NOT CHANGE

I understand that is the claim…but this is lost even on Catholics as this thread testifies.

…

 

[cstudent]

John,

Thank you sincerely for responding.

proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel passages, if there are such, to the purpose and the circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Why is it necessary for it to be this way?

True, the 1917 code appeared to assert that baptized non Catholics were subject to the ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church. But the revised code clarified that they are not, and that is accomplished by means of canon 11.

If what you say here is true- both the definition of “ecclesiastical” and “Christian (Christ’s) Faithful” would have been altered to exclude nonCatholics. I am doubtful here because I see no reason for the change. I do not know why the Catholic Church would relinquish jurisdiction over some group of Christians.

This canon is significant since it appears in Book I, General Norms. These norms apply to the entire code as the underlying means for interpreting and applying the other canons. They give a context for them, and in that context, we would then look at canon 754 and Book V, Sanctions in the Church. They tell us in part that those laws apply to those who are Catholic by baptism or by a profession of faith.

Canon 11 includes those who have been baptized Catholic and those who have been received into the Church.

Canon 204 indicates that the “Christian faithful” are incorporated in Christ through baptism.

Christian baptism alone, must then be the “profession of faith” you are referring to (see CCC 1271 below).

But here we need to have a proper understanding of the particular notion of “Christian faithful.” It means “Catholics,” according to the Code Commission which prepared the code for the approval of the Supreme Pontiff. This background is important since it gives us access to the mind of the legislator (see canon 17). This means that canon 1311 is speaking about Catholics by using that term.

I’m not sure what Communicationes 12 [1984] 43-44 indicates, but I believe it does not indicate that “Christian faithful” in this Code means only Catholics. If that were the case it would conflict with Canon 204 (and probably others).

Also it would make certain other Canons nonsensical. For example Canons 825 and 844 differentiate between Catholics and Christs faithful. If they were the same there would be no reason to differentiate between the two.

Can. 825 §2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can …

In other words- Catholic members of the larger group of baptized Christians, in collaboration with Protestants can…

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone [as opposed to other members of the Christian faithful], who likewise receive them …

The Christian faithful is therefore a group that includes Catholics- not simply Catholics.

Finally, think too what the censure of excommunication means and does in canon 1311. What is the purpose of the law? What does it do? It deprives someone of certain spiritual goods (e.g. sacraments) and forbids the exercise of certain powers and functions in the Church. Non Catholics do not possess rights to the sacraments of the Church (unless conceded to them by a law by way of exception, such as in the conditions of canon 844, or another provision). Here, for example, baptized non Catholics cannot be Catholic priests or deacons, so they could not have any ministerial participation in the Eucharist to begin with, so excommunication, even apart from canon 11, would be irrelevant to them.

Since baptized non Catholics are not in full communion with the Catholic Church to begin with, the infliction of excommunication would not be capable of adding any other deprivation or prohibition that does not exist.

Baptized non Catholics are in [imperfect] communion with the Church per CCC 1271. Infliction of excommunication woulld therefore deprive non Catholics of that minor and imperfect communion they did have by means of Protestant baptism.

CCC 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, …

I’ll check Communicationes 12 [1984] 43-44 which may hold the key to understanding this.

Thank you,
John

 

[kleary]

They are “Separated brothers and sisters in Christ” not “Excommunicated”.

That is wrong. Trent declared them all to be heretics. Anyone who follows the anathema’s decreed by Trent, in matters of faith or morals is excommunicated ipso-facto.

They are indeed excommunicated ipso-facto. There is no need for the Church to do a formal excommunication on a Protestant.

Now go ahead and try and tell us “Vatican II changed all that” bro. Try and tell us Vatican II overturned Trent…even the Protestants themselves, at least those who are “smart” agree with me that Vatican II CHANGED NOTHING- we still believe the same things declared by Trent- and one of them is the excommunication ipro-facto of anyone following the Protestant heresies.

Ken

 

[cstudent]

That is wrong. Trent declared them all to be heretics. Anyone who follows the anathema’s decreed by Trent, in matters of faith or morals is excommunicated ipso-facto.

They are indeed excommunicated ipso-facto. There is no need for the Church to do a formal excommunication on a Protestant.

Now go ahead and try and tell us “Vatican II changed all that” bro. Try and tell us Vatican II overturned Trent…even the Protestants themselves, at least those who are “smart” agree with me that Vatican II CHANGED NOTHING- we still believe the same things declared by Trent- and one of them is the excommunication ipro-facto of anyone following the Protestant heresies.

Ken

Ken,

Would you agree that the rhetoric toward Protestants softened a bit, and that terminology regarding heretic/heresy (i.e. material, formal, etc) was altered and finessed and that some differentiation was made regarding Protestants who knowingly held heretical beliefs vs. those who didn’t - even though the gravity of the Protestants’ situation remained essentially the same?

For what any of that is really worth. I suppose it sounds friendlier

John

 

[cameron_lansing]

Cstudent,

Some thoughts as you continue to research and reflect on your question so that as a Protestant, you can better understand the Catholic Church. Two sequential posts are given for that purpose.

In a theological sense, “Christian faithful” can mean all the baptized for us But in the application of Church law, it does not. Perhaps this distinction between the theological and the juridic order should be more clearly kept in mind. The difference of context and a reading according to the “whole” is vital.

It is understood commonly that Christian faithful, apart from those theological canons such as 204, refers to the baptized who are in full communion with the Catholic Church. You intend to look up the reference I gave you, and that’s fine.

You might also consider that paragraph 2 of 204 gives the context for reading the first paragraph, “§2. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.”

Canon 205 gives further context that “Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.”

An unbaptized person may become baptized Catholic, or an already baptized person join the Church by profession of faith, and would then obtain liability to ecclesiastical law in canon 11. Until then, they are not subject to ecclesiastical governance, they do not possess the ordinary rights to the Catholic sacrament, and have not shared in our profession of faith.

Being joined to the Church, after all, is a two way street. The Church does not impose its ecclesiastical law, with those exceptions noted earlier, on those who are not joined to it. Thus it does not make them liable to penal sanctions, which are merely ecclesiastical laws. It cannot remove what they do not possess in the Catholic Church, but it does acknowledge the ecclesiastical laws and disciplines of their own bodies, provided as in every case, that these are not contrary to divine law.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Cstudent,

Concluding thoughts.

“Why is it necessary for it to be this way?” The legislator, i.e., the Supreme Pontiff, taking cognizance of approved traditions for the interpretation of Church law, has specified it. This is how he wants the law interpreted so that it accurately reflects his will, and as the legislator possessing supreme authority in the Church, he is competent to impose this. Since we are not the Supreme Pontiff, we must use laws and the method of interpreting them which he lays down. Canon 11 tells us who he binds to merely ecclesiastical law, and canon 17 tells us how to read the laws of the Church. Both are general norms applicable throughout the code.

“I am doubtful here because I see no reason for the change. I do not know why the Catholic Church would relinquish jurisdiction over some group of Christians.” Although you indicate that you are a Protestant, perhaps a careful study of Vatican II is proper for you. It is clear that the Church no longer asserts the ecclesiastical power of governance over non Catholics whether baptized (and chrismated) as members of Orthodox Churches or members of other ecclesiastical communities. The second Vatican Council acknowledged that non Catholic Christians "have an ecclesial reality of their own and are bound to the laws of their own church or ecclesiastical community " [New CLSA commentary on c. 204, footnoting LG 7, OE 5, UR 3,8,15,16]. I recommend that you consult those conciliar references and probably read the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, available on the internet. Explore how has the self understanding of the Church relative to other Christian Churches and ecclesiastical communities been expressed or clarified by the Council.

Moreover, the recent instruction on marriage cases, Dignitas connubi, confirms this in articles 4 and 2 (4,2: (“in regard to the form of celebration of marriage, the Church recognizes any form prescribed or accepted in the Church or ecclesial community to which the parties belonged at the time of the marriage, provided that, if at least one party is a member of a non-Catholic Eastern Church, the marriage was celebrated with a sacred rite.”)

Now, if we were to maintain that baptized non Catholics are bound to Catholic ecclesiastical law, they would be bound to the Catholic form of marriage. Most baptized non Catholics do not marry before a Catholic priest or deacon. If this is the case, maintaining that position results in the inescapable conclusion that their marriages are invalid for lack of form. The Church does not hold this position. Unless there is an impediment of divine law (a prior valid marriage or close blood relationship), we accept the marriages of Protestants as being valid as long as they are observed in accord with any of their religious laws and the civil law.

Now, if we maintain that baptized non Catholics are bound to Catholic ecclesiastical law, Orthodox priests would need faculties from Catholic canon law or Catholic ordinaries in order to give valid sacramental absolution. Since they do not obtain such, that position results in the inescapable conclusion all their confessions are invalid. The Church does not hold this position. In certain cases, we even permit Catholics to confess to them or even receive Communion from them or be anointed by them (c. 844).

“Also it would make certain other Canons nonsensical.” It simply means that the norms for interpretation must be correctly applied and that those who interpret Church law in real life situations must have the training and credentials to do so. Those who study or ponder it must do so diligently and learn to think cum sentire ecclesia.

“Infliction of excommunication would therefore deprive non Catholics of that minor and imperfect communion they did have by means of Protestant baptism.” Be aware that logically, what is said of baptized Protestants here must be said of members of the non Catholic Churches of the East (e.g.,Orthodox).

Reread the effects of excommunication in canon 1331: “§1. An excommunicated person is forbidden: 1º to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever; 2º to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments…”

So arguendo, what would be changed by an excommunication of an Orthodox or Protestant or Reform or Anglican or Baptist Christian who had been baptized, etc.? Has anyone heard of the Church excommunicating any baptized non Catholics since 1983? The Catholic Church does not bother with matters of excommunication for the John Shelby Spongs of the Episcopal Church. Why is that, Cstudent? Suppose it had? What in canon 1331 would have changed anything? What would be removed from him that he did not already not have?

So good luck in your study. Perhaps this is God’s way of inviting you into the Catholic Church.

God bless you.

 

[cstudent]

John,

Thank you immensely for responding. For some unknown reason I am absolutely consumed with understanding this.

Can 844 states “Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful….” Isn’t it reasonable to presume then, that there are members of Christ’s faithful other than catholic members (i.e. Protestant members)?

Some thoughts as you continue to research and reflect on your question so that as a Protestant, you can better understand the Catholic Church. Two sequential posts are given for that purpose.

In a theological sense, “Christian faithful” can mean all the baptized for us But in the application of Church law, it does not. Perhaps this distinction between the theological and the juridic order should be more clearly kept in mind. The difference of context and a reading according to the “whole” is vital.

It is understood commonly that Christian faithful, apart from those theological canons such as 204, refers to the baptized who are in full communion with the Catholic Church. You intend to look up the reference I gave you, and that’s fine.

Christian (Christ’s) faithful per Encyclopedia 1917 were simply those who were baptized Christian. Where is it indicated that this “common” understanding has changed? I did check for the reference and could not find it. Where is it evidenced in Canon Law that the “Christian faithful” are not simply those who are baptized Christian as indicated in Can 204? If there is a Canon to define Christian faithful theologically – shouldn’t I expect to find one defining Christian faithful juridically?

An unbaptized person may become baptized Catholic, or an already baptized person join the Church by profession of faith, and would then obtain liability to ecclesiastical law in canon 11. Until then, they are not subject to ecclesiastical governance; they do not possess the ordinary rights to the Catholic sacrament, and have not shared in our profession of faith.

Where is it indicated that “profession of faith” is necessary to “join” the Church and thereby be liable? Canon 204 indicates that only baptism is necessary. Also, CCC 1267 indicates the same- that “Baptism incorporates us into the Church.” Canon 11 requires that one is received into the Church- how can one be “incorporated” into the Church, yet not be “received” into Her?

Being joined to the Church, after all, is a two way street. The Church does not impose its ecclesiastical law, with those exceptions noted earlier, on those who are not joined to it. Thus it does not make them liable to penal sanctions, which are merely ecclesiastical laws. It cannot remove what they do not possess in the Catholic Church, but it does acknowledge the ecclesiastical laws and disciplines of their own bodies, provided as in every case, that these are not contrary to divine law.

Protestant ministers are presently condemned, anathematized, excommunicated by the Church for teaching heresy not addressed in the Joint Declaration. How is it that they are joined to the Church and therefore liable to sanction yet other Protestants are not? Also, CCC 1271 indicates that Protestant are in communion with the Church, although imperfectly. I would suggest that imperfect communion is what can be removed by excommunication.

Bless You Also,
John

 

[cameron_lansing]

For some unknown reason I am absolutely consumed with understanding this. . . .
Protestant ministers are presently condemned, anathematized, excommunicated by the Church for teaching heresy not addressed in the Joint Declaration. How is it that they are joined to the Church and therefore liable to sanction yet other Protestants are not? . . .

CStudent,

This is perhaps the fuel of your fire. The Catholic Church does no such thing, and that is the point I have attempted to clarify for you. You have likely run into people who have, without any credentials or training in the law of the Catholic Church, asserted such or who have asserted that it should be done. When was the last time you actually heard of this happening? It was far before Vatican II, I will assure you. It is not the case today. (There have also been several Joint Declarations so I do not know which one you mean, but that is irrelevant. The Catholic Church just does not do that to Protestant ministers, and I have no idea who gave you that impression.)

As to your continuing questions or expansions into other areas, I will refer you back first to a very much closer rereading of what I have already posted. The present code of canon law is very much the “child” of the Second Vatican Council, and a fairly comprehensive understanding of that council and the traditions behind it are needed to understand the code. So more will be needed.

In light of that, it will be of greater advantage to you to speak with a Catholic priest in your area, and he can refer you to a canonist or theologian in the diocese who will be able to assist you more than I through this forum. Many of the side issues that you raise are worth consideration and discussion, but there are limits on what I can do here. I have attempted only to give you a steer in the right direction. You really need to be in personal rather than internet dialogue about this to address your concerns more properly.

So good luck and God bless you in this endeavor. I do suspect it may be part of a far more important journey for you, and I will pray so.

 

[Cling2Cross]

They can be excommunicated in their own churches - those that actually practice Matthew 18.

 

[cstudent]

Originally Posted by cstudent:
For some unknown reason I am absolutely consumed with understanding this. . . .
Protestant ministers are presently condemned, anathematized, excommunicated by the Church for teaching heresy not addressed in the Joint Declaration. How is it that they are joined to the Church and therefore liable to sanction yet other Protestants are not? . . .

Reply by C Lansing:

CStudent,

This is perhaps the fuel of your fire. The Catholic Church does no such thing, and that is the point I have attempted to clarify for you. You have likely run into people who have, without any credentials or training in the law of the Catholic Church, asserted such or who have asserted that it should be done. When was the last time you actually heard of this happening? It was far before Vatican II, I will assure you. It is not the case today. (There have also been several Joint Declarations so I do not know which one you mean, but that is irrelevant. The Catholic Church just does not do that to Protestant ministers, and I have no idea who gave you that impression.)

As to your continuing questions or expansions into other areas, I will refer you back first to a very much closer rereading of what I have already posted. The present code of canon law is very much the “child” of the Second Vatican Council, and a fairly comprehensive understanding of that council and the traditions behind it are needed to understand the code. So more will be needed.

In light of that, it will be of greater advantage to you to speak with a Catholic priest in your area, and he can refer you to a canonist or theologian in the diocese who will be able to assist you more than I through this forum. Many of the side issues that you raise are worth consideration and discussion, but there are limits on what I can do here. I have attempted only to give you a steer in the right direction. You really need to be in personal rather than internet dialogue about this to address your concerns more properly.

So good luck and God bless you in this endeavor. I do suspect it may be part of a far more important journey for you, and I will pray so.

From JD: “From the Reformation perspective, justification was the crux of all the disputes. Doctrinal condemnations were put forward both in the Lutheran Confessions[3] and by the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent. These condemnations are still valid today and thus have a church-dividing effect.” vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

The Church must do nothing to condemn Protestant pastors. It is done ipso facto. The condemnations were originally called anathema which is a combination of excommunication and curse per Catholic Encyclopedia (for those who are interested and upset when sources are not listed).

If I am in fact wrong about this please accept my apology and I will ask a moderator to remove the inaccuracies in my posts.

Bless You,
John