Excommunicable Offenses From the Past

  • Thread starter Thread starter via.crucis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

via.crucis

Guest
I was wondering if excommunicable offenses from the past are still excommunicable. What makes them not be excommunicable today if not? Are some of the offenses from the past still retained as excommunicable? Or has there been a complete revision of what is excommunicable?

Thanks.
 
I don’t see how this can be answered in a vacuum. Do you have something specific in mind?
 
Understood.

For example, it used to be excommunicable to partake in theatrical dancing.
 
Excommunication is a penalty from the Church assigned to certain actions. The Church can change the rules and laws regarding these medicinal punishments. So if something is not defined as an excomminicable offence, then it is not. That is determined by the 1983 Code of Canon Law which is the Code in effect now.
 
acanonlawyer said:
I’d be fascinated to read more about that…
Click to expand...
I too was interested to see the context. I did some quick Googling and found what is perhaps the canon to which the OP is referring: a local diocesan synod in Lyons in 1566 which decreed as excommunicable dancing (including with masks and other accoutrements typical of the theatre) in churches and cemeteries.

Sounds a bit like the 16th century had problems with their own version of a clown Mass!
 
Canvas said:
So if something is not defined as an excomminicable offence, then it is not. That is determined by the 1983 Code of Canon Law which is the Code in effect now.
Click to expand...
Just to follow up on this. Catholic answers gives a very good explanation of exactly this regarding the Anathema statements from the Council of Trent.


From this article…
Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law . This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, “When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code” (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.
Click to expand...
 
Canvas said:
Excommunication is a penalty from the Church assigned to certain actions. The Church can change the rules and laws regarding these medicinal punishments. So if something is not defined as an excomminicable offence, then it is not. That is determined by the 1983 Code of Canon Law which is the Code in effect now.
Click to expand...
The only addition/clarification I would add to this fine answer is that not every crime that is punishable by an excommunication (in the entire (Latin) Church) is in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Some were instituted after 1983.

With the upcoming revision to that portion of the Code, perhaps all the current, universally applicable, crimes that warrant excommunication will be in there. I think they will be. But, as you say, this changes over time. So, it will probably end up being outdated before too long.

Dan
 
I read missing mass three Sundays in a row was automatic excommunication.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Canon 80 of the Council of Trullo. I’ve seen it referenced by EO & EC’s.
CANON LXXX.

IF any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are enumerated in the list of the clergy, or a layman, has no very grave necessity nor difficult business so as to keep him from church for a very long time, but being in town does not go to church on three consecutive Sundays–three weeks–if he is a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXX.

If anyone without the constraint of necessity leaves his church for three Lord’s days, he shall be deprived of communion.

This is a renewal of canon xi. of Sardica (xiv. according to the numbering of Dionysins Exiguus.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I was going to try and find it. Ahhh. Let me see… look above my post. Ah ha! There it is!
Thank you for posting. I was going to need to search who knows how long to find it myself. Been a while since I had read it.
Dominus vobiscum
 
via.crucis said:
I was wondering if excommunicable offenses from the past are still excommunicable. What makes them not be excommunicable today if not? Are some of the offenses from the past still retained as excommunicable? Or has there been a complete revision of what is excommunicable?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
No, unless a bishop has reserved for such an excommunication, but dance may be sinful. Many dances have been created specifically to provoke sensuality, inappropriate for those not married.
 
Agnus-Dei said:
I was going to try and find it. Ahhh. Let me see… look above my post. Ah ha! There it is!
Thank you for posting. I was going to need to search who knows how long to find it myself. Been a while since I had read it.
Dominus vobiscum
Click to expand...
If I’m reading this correctly, the official excommunication was for CLERGY and members of the minor orders & perhaps Religious.

I think it’s mentioning that the average layman would be in a state of mortal sin and not able to receive the sacraments until he/she was absolved.
 
The “let him be cut off” part verses “being deposed” for a cleric was what had my attention.
Different thing so I don’t respond twice:
2Sam6: 14 And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.
Ugh, wearing a priestly garment, AND dancing in the lord’s presence, how rude!
Wonder if he was excommunicated. 🙂
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
Some dances are very graceful and beautiful – and some people have been gifted with a special talent for dancing. Ballet comes to mind. They would also have to have a good ear for music. God wants us to use our talents, not hide them. He also wants us to use them in a virtuous manner and for a good purpose. My point is, not all dancing is sinful.
 
I was trying to be more silly than serious. The vision of him “dancing with all his might” wearing an ephod is humorous for me. The contrast. Like the video of the priest, in cassock, dancing in the pep-rally to music from star wars.
Dominus vobiscum.
Skip to 1:40 if you like

 
Last edited:
The fasting rules and rules against eating meat on certain days have also changed. The Church has the prerogative to change them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top