Communicating with the excommunicated

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
I don’t remember if this question has been asked… I came across some information about how there was a canonical penalty for talking to an excommunicated person except to aid in their salvation (I think), but later this penalty was taken away by a Pope, though it’s still wrong to support or aid the error of the person. The Pope also kept this rule in regards to those who were specially labelled as the “vitandi”, or those to be avoided (I don’t think this happens today though, or if it did, it’s very rare). I’m not sure if I got all these facts right… if anyone is interested, please check the Summa (for the previous understanding) and the Catholic Encyclopedia (which describes the changes that took place).

Anyway, I was wondering if this is the case in the East? or was it ever?

My other question is - in the East, there are no automatic excommunications. But let’s say someone left the Church - are they excommunicated for that, just by the fact? or no? and regarding the previous question: can those who are still in the Church communicate with them not just to help them come back to the Church but just casually? (by communicate, I just mean talking to them, meeting up, etc).

This might be a little known topic but I’m just wondering cause I was thinking of East/West differences on it.

Thanks!
 
I don’t know the answer but I will let you know in a few weeks 😉
 
I can’t speak for Eastern Catholics, but in Orthodoxy there are automatic excommunications.

I’m not aware of any prohibition on talking to the excommunicated, but I do know St. Paul said we shouldn’t.
 
Nine_Two said:
I can’t speak for Eastern Catholics, but in Orthodoxy there are automatic excommunications.

I’m not aware of any prohibition on talking to the excommunicated, but I do know St. Paul said we shouldn’t.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting, I was always told that in Eastern Catholicism there are no automatic excommunications… according to the current canon law I guess.

What type of automatic excommunications are there for the Orthodox? is it the same as in the Roman Catholic Church?

thanks for the reply
 
I came across this about Eastern Orthodoxy from Wikipedia:

Eastern Orthodox churches

In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

when you said automatic excommunication, did you mean exclusion of a member from the Eucharist, or automatic expulsion, after which you need to formally be received back?

and regarding what St Paul said, which one was he talking about? (regarding talking to the excommunicated)

just trying to understand all the Eastern views 🙂

if anyone has the Eastern Catholic position please do share!
 
Monica4316 said:
I came across this about Eastern Orthodoxy from Wikipedia:

Eastern Orthodox churches

In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

when you said automatic excommunication, did you mean exclusion of a member from the Eucharist, or automatic expulsion, after which you need to formally be received back?

and regarding what St Paul said, which one was he talking about? (regarding talking to the excommunicated)

just trying to understand all the Eastern views 🙂

if anyone has the Eastern Catholic position please do share!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the ECs are bound by the CCEO today. So there is a more legalistic process on declaring one as excommunicated, pretty similar to the RC. Depends on how faithful to tradition a priest or bishop is, they may in practice do an “Orthodox-style” excommunication without actually calling it an excommunication or putting in the paperwork to make it as such.
 
Constantine, what do you mean as similar to the RCC? My understanding is that there are some differences like no latae sententiae excommunications in the EC. Do you mean the other type?

I don’t think I really understand what an “Orthodox style” excommunication is like, and how to distinguish between the two types described in the Wikipedia quote…
 
Monica4316 said:
Constantine, what do you mean as similar to the RCC? My understanding is that there are some differences like no latae sententiae excommunications in the EC. Do you mean the other type?

I don’t think I really understand what an “Orthodox style” excommunication is like, and how to distinguish between the two types described in the Wikipedia quote…
Click to expand...
I haven’t gone through the CCEO (obviously I don’t like it that much for me to waste me time with it) but since we are goverened by Canons similar to the RC, then there are certain rules in there where one would be automatically excommunicated. I believe for sins like Abortion, we suffer the same penalty. Although I was told in the past that since like Apostasy would need to be proved by Tribunal before one was excommunicated. Not sure if this is a difference in the CCEO and CIC, or that latae sententiae only takes effect when you are pronounced a schismatic or apostate by a tribunal.
 
My understanding is that latae sententiae doesn’t require a tribunal at all, it’s automatic… I also read that the CCEO doesn’t contain latae sententiae excommunications, so none are automatic. Does anyone know for sure?
 
Monica4316 said:
I don’t remember if this question has been asked… I came across some information about how there was a canonical penalty for talking to an excommunicated person except to aid in their salvation (I think),
Click to expand...
This is very strange. Perhaps your source misinterpreted the statement “it is an excommunicable offense to communicate with an excommunicated person” to mean “it is an excommunicable offense to talk to an excommunicated person.” But that is not what it means. To “communicate iwth an excommunicated person” means to share the Eucharist with them,

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
This is very strange. Perhaps your source misinterpreted the statement “it is an excommunicable offense to communicate with an excommunicated person” to mean “it is an excommunicable offense to talk to an excommunicated person.” But that is not what it means. To “communicate iwth an excommunicated person” means to share the Eucharist with them,

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
My original source was the Summa Theologica, then Catholic Encyclopedia… it does seem to mean talking: newadvent.org/summa/5023.htm

Here’s the other source, from Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Minor excommunication is uniformly defined by canonists and by Gregory IX (cap. lix, De sent. exc., lib. V, tit. xxxix) as prohibition from receiving the sacraments, what theologians call the passive use of the sacraments. In order to receive the Eucharist and the other sacraments, those who had incurred this penalty had to be absolved therefrom; as it was not reserved, this could be done by any confessor. Indirectly, however, it entailed other consequences. The canon law (cap. x, De cler. excomm. ministrante, lib. V, tit. xxvii) taught that the priest who celebrates Mass while under the ban of minor excommunication sins grievously; also that he sins similarly in administering the sacraments; and finally, that while he can vote for others, he himself is ineligible to a canonical office. This is readily understood when we remember that the cleric thus excommunicated was presumed to be in the state of grievous sin, and that such a state is an obstacle to the lawful celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments. Minor excommunication was really identical with the state of the penitent of olden times who, prior to his reconciliation, was admitted to public penance. Minor excommunication was incurred by unlawful intercourse with the excommunicated, and in the beginning no exception was made of any class of excommunicated persons. Owing, however, to many inconveniences arising from this condition of things, especially after excommunications had become so numerous, Martin V, by the Constitution “Ad evitanda scandala” (1418), restricted the aforesaid unlawful intercourse to that held with those who were formally named as persons to be shunned and who were therefore known as vitandi (Latin vitare, to avoid), also with those who were notoriously guilty of striking a cleric. But as this twofold category was in modern times greatly reduced, but little attention was paid to minor excommunication, and eventually it ceased to exist after the publication of the Constitution “Apostolicæ Sedis”. The latter declared that all excommunications latæ sententiæ that it did not mention were abolished, and as it was silent concerning minor excommunication (by its nature an excommunication latæ sententiæ of a special kind), canonists concluded that minor excommunication no longer existed. This conclusion was formally ratified by the Holy Office (6 Jan., 1884, ad 4).
(b) Major excommunication, which remains now the only kind in force, is therefore the kind of which we treat below, and to which our definition fully applies. Anathema is a sort of aggravated excommunication, from which, however, it does not differ essentially, but simply in the matter of special solemnities and outward display.”

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Hope that helps 🙂 Minor excommunication seems to be similar to what happens when a person is in mortal sin… maybe it’s what is in the Orthodox church, with automatic excommunication? Is that true? then the other form of excommunication, - am I understanding correctly that it’s not automatic in the East at all?
 
Monica4316 said:
I came across this about Eastern Orthodoxy from Wikipedia:

Eastern Orthodox churches

In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

when you said automatic excommunication, did you mean exclusion of a member from the Eucharist, or automatic expulsion, after which you need to formally be received back?

and regarding what St Paul said, which one was he talking about? (regarding talking to the excommunicated)

just trying to understand all the Eastern views 🙂

if anyone has the Eastern Catholic position please do share!
Click to expand...
Exclusion from the Eucharist is what I was talking about. I don’t believe there are any means of automatic expulsion (which itself is very rare).

I don’t have the verse handy, and I don’t have time to look at it right now, but I’m pretty sure he had a warning about talking with those who had left the Church.
 
Monica4316 said:
My understanding is that latae sententiae doesn’t require a tribunal at all, it’s automatic… I also read that the CCEO doesn’t contain latae sententiae excommunications, so none are automatic. Does anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...
There are no automatic latae sententiae excommunications for eastern Catholics, but there are excommunications ferendae sententiae, which is by a formal process. There is the possibility of major and minor excommunication and also deposition.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication. [Cf. CIC, can. 976; CCEO, can. 725.]
Canon Law

CCEO Canon 1402
  1. Every contrary custom being reprobated, a canonical penalty must be imposed through a penal trial prescribed in cann. 1468-1482, without prejudice to the coercive power of the judge in the instances mentioned expressly in the law.
  2. If, however, in the judgment of the authority spoken of in 3, there are weighty reasons precluding a penal trial, and the proofs of the offense are certain, the offense can be punished by an extra-judicial decree in accordance with cann. 1486 and 1487, as long as it is not a case of a deprivation of office, title, insignia or a suspension for more than one year, demotion to a lower grade, deposition or major excommunication.
  3. Besides the Apostolic See, such a decree can be issued, within the limits of their competence, by the patriarch, major archbishop, eparchial bishop and the major superior of an institute of consecrated life who enjoys ordinary governing power, all others being excluded.
CCEO Canon 1403
  1. Even when it is a case of offenses which carry by law an obligatory penalty, the hierarch can abstain from a penal process, and even abstain totally from imposing penalties, after having heard the promoter of justice, as long as in the judgment of the hierarch the following conditions simultaneously concur: the offender, who has not yet been brought to trial, moved by sincere repentance, has confessed his offense to the hierarch in the external forum, and adequate provision has been made to repair the scandal and the harm.
  2. However, the hierarch cannot do this when it is an offense which carries a penalty whose remission is reserved to a higher authority, until he has received permission from the same authority.
CCEO Canon 1431
  1. Those punished with a minor excommunication are deprived of the reception of the Divine Eucharist. In addition they can be excluded from participation in the Divine Liturgy, and even from entering the church while divine worship is publicly celebrated there.
  2. The sentence or the decree by which this penalty is imposed must determine its extent and, as the case may be, its duration.
CCEO Canon 1434
  1. In addition to all things mentioned in can. 1431, 1, a major excommunication forbids one to receive other sacraments, to administer sacraments and sacramentals, to exercise any offices, ministries and functions, to place acts of governance, which, if they are nonetheless placed, are null by law itself.
  2. One punished with a major excommunication is to be turned away from participating in the Divine Liturgy and in other public celebrations of divine worship.
  3. One punished with a major excommunication is forbidden to make use of privileges previously granted. He cannot validly obtain dignities, offices, ministries, or any other function in the Church or a pension, and he cannot acquire the revenues attached to them. Moreover, he is deprived of active and passive voice.
 
thanks for the replies!

does the person only receive the excommunication if they intend to persist in their error, not while confessing it?
 
Monica4316 said:
My understanding is that latae sententiae doesn’t require a tribunal at all, it’s automatic… I also read that the CCEO doesn’t contain latae sententiae excommunications, so none are automatic. Does anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...
There is provision for latae sententiae in the CCEO, but no offenses are so designated within it to be latae sententiae.
 
St John the Evangelist and Theologian gave a couple guidelines that help me:

2 John 1:9-11 Whosoever revolts and continues not in the doctrine of Christ has not God. He that continues in the doctrine, the same has both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine [such as the excommunicate], receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that says unto him: God speed you, communicates with his wicked works.

God speed - Etymology: Middle English god speid, from the phrase God spede you *God prosper you/] Date: 15th century : a prosperous journey : success

In Christ,
Zekariya*
 
I think we need to recognize a distinction here. Latae sententiae excommunication has two specific concepts in it: (1) the idea of the excommunication being automatic, and (2) the idea that the act for which one is being excommunicated is PUBLIC.

The first idea (of an excommunication being automatic) is contained in the Eastern and Oriental Traditions, but it comes under what the Latins would call OCCULT excommunication. OCCULT excommunictaion is an automatic excommunication as a result of a PRIVATE act. This occurs for personal sins that are considered serious according to the conscience from the Eastern/Oriental perspective (i.e., not according to a defined set of “mortal” or “venial” sins). In such instances, the sinner is expected to not approach the Holy Eucharist until the person’s conscience is clear through participation in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I understand this to be the rule in ALL the Churches - Oriental, Eastern and Western (though I am not Eastern, I wholly disagree with brother Contantine’s past claim that in the Eastern Tradition, there is no rule on the matter and that one can approach the Eucharist despite serious sin on one’s conscience).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Monica4316 said:
what do you mean by the first part?
Click to expand...
The CCEO is, if you’ll pardon the term, “weasel worded.” It specifically allows for penalty that is imposed by the commission of the act itself without need for trial, but there is no offense within the CCEO that isn’t subject to trial.
 
Dear brother Aramis,
Aramis said:
The CCEO is, if you’ll pardon the term, “weasel worded.” It specifically allows for penalty that is imposed by the commission of the act itself without need for trial, but there is no offense within the CCEO that isn’t subject to trial.
Click to expand...
Do you mean PUBLIC offense?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top