Excommunciations to begin in October?

  • Thread starter Thread starter malcolm_davies
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
maklavan:
I have nothing against this,provided that the parishioners give their consent. Frankly, I cannot see it working with the youth. If they find the all-inclusive Mass in the vernacular boring I cannot see them being thrilled by Latin.
Click to expand...
Since when is parisionerā€™s consent needed by the Church in matters of Church Discipline? The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not a democracy.
 
you cannot inflict a totall alien language on a congregation that has no awarenessof its meaning,and is not used to hanging around as spectators. It would be like attending a service conducted by visiting martians. Not a matter of church discipline but of common sense.
 
40.png
muledog:
Hmmm. You ask someone else for ā€œproofā€ of an unsubstantiated claim, and then you make a totally unsubstantiated claim yourself!

I, too, am curious as to who you are speaking of. While there may be persons in the Vatican who are sympathetic to Archbishop LeFebvre, I donā€™t know of anyone there who would uphold some of his more ā€œoutrageousā€ statements regarding the Sacred Liturgy.

In Manibus Dei,
  • Mike M.
Click to expand...
Sigh
manifestly the original statement was an analogy. i would not name names in any case, as the law of slander and detraction precludes this.
 
40.png
CatholicNerd:
Does this mean that weā€™ll finally be able to burn the heretical works of Marty Haugen and company?! 0_0 Eeeeee!
Click to expand...
ā€œLet us build a house where love can grow and all can safely liveā€¦ā€ Ugh- I hate that song. We donā€™t need to build that house- we already have the Church! ā€”KCT
 
okay, i have a question. ppl can be let back in the Church through confession, right? so, how does the EM know to let that person have communion without the priest violating the oath of silence?
 
40.png
holyspirit1985:
okay, i have a question. ppl can be let back in the Church through confession, right? so, how does the EM know to let that person have communion without the priest violating the oath of silence?
Click to expand...
What is said in a confessional is bound by Oath, not the reception of the Sacrament itself.

If asked, a priest may say in public that a particlar person came to him for that Sacrament.
 
If asked, a priest may say in public that a particlar person came to him for that Sacrament.
Click to expand...
The whole issue raises questions. Something has to be known by the public when a person is publicly excluded from Eucharist. With excommunication though, the matter need not be publicly known. And it is appropriate to recall that correction, reprimand, and warning are preferred by the Church over the imposition of censures, such as excommunication. The law of the Church is never to be read as a sledge hammer. While juridic in nature, it is governed by laws of charity and merciful application according to the apostolic constitution by which John Paul promulgated it.

Published experts in canon do speak of cases in which such a revelation might present a case of the *indirect violation * of the seal. This is a ā€œa risk that something revealed about a confession could lead another person to recognize the identity of the penitent and his sin.ā€ Such an indirect violation is now treated as among the graver delicts reserved to CDF (See John Paul II, Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, Norms concerning the more grave delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: ā€œArticle 3, 3Āŗ the direct and indirect violation of the sacramental seal, mentioned in can. 1388, Ā§ 1, of the Code of Canon Law[24] and in can. 1456, Ā§ 1, of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.ā€)

The seal of the Sacrament of Confession stands on its own according to Church law, and does not depend on an oath of silence on the part of anyone. The law, drawing from Tradition, considers the seal inviolate for the priest.

Confessors have ways to counsel penitents or those absolved of censure about how they can begin receiving again, when Communion has been denied publicly, that do not involve the danger of revelation. The absolved person may be instructed to begin receiving from the confessor. The absolved person may him or herself tell the priest celebrating Mass beforehand and privately that things have been resolved, since the seal is binding on the confessor and not the penitent.

At least in the case of the divorce/remarried with no annulment, we read from the Declaration of the Congregation for Legislative Texts, "On Communion for Divorced and Remarried Persons, " 24 June 2000, n. 3: ā€œThe discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.ā€

From this I would draw the conclusion that the priest might give some communication to an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion that communion is not to be denied to X, while not mentioning that a person confessed to him in the Sacrament.

It is a delicate matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top