Excommunication and Salvation

[Gorgias]

Only actual mortal sin deprives the baptized person of the state of grace. A person might commit an objective mortal sin, but without sufficient knowledge or deliberation to make the sin actual.

Your notion of ‘actual’ sin seems to be a novel invention; I haven’t run across it in my studies.

In fact, there’s no such thing as “objective mortal sin.” There’s ‘grave sin’, which exists objectively. There’s also “mortal sin,” which takes into account subjective considerations. However, there’s not “objective mortal sin” which is also not “actual mortal sin” – as best as I can tell, you’re attempting to describe the distinction between “[objectively] grave sin” and “mortal sin”.

A Bishop has the authority to excommunicate. It is not true that the Holy See must approve the excommunication for it to be effective.

At the time Joan of Arc was alive, that was, in fact, the case (according to Brother JR, whom I cited).

Canon Law explicitly allows the sin to be forgiven by a priest who does not have faculties to life the excommunication, provided that the penitent seeks a priest or bishop who can life the excommunication within a reasonable period of time: Canon 1357. This applies to “undeclared latae sententiae” excommunications, which includes almost all excommunications for abortion.

However, recourse to this canon can only be made when “it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision.” In other words, it is not meant to be invoked as a general case (unless you’re attempting to assert that all find it ‘burdensome to remain in the state of grave sin’, which would require substantiation).

The claim that “the penalty must be lifted first” is not a teaching of the Church, nor an absolute requirement of Canon law.

Not absolute, but normative.

Typically, the person repents and returns to the state of grace immediately with perfect contrition.

LOL! Really? Do you really want to assert that those in mortal sin – especially those in mortal sin who are under latae sentatiae excommunication – ‘typically’ have perfect contrition? I’d love to see the attempt to substantiate this assertion.

Then the person goes to confession and the sin is forgiven at the same time as the penalty is lifted.

If the confessor’s ordinary has delegated the authority to lift the excommunication.

Sometimes the person goes to confession for the sin to be forgiven first, and later (e.g. Canon 1357) obtains formal lifting of the penalty from a pastor or bishop.

Not ‘pastor’ – unless the pastor has been granted the authority to lift the penalty.

And, again, you’re asserting that those who make recourse to c. 1357 then personally go to their bishop to have the penalty lifted. I’m thinking that those cases are far more rare than you seem to think they are…

 

[Gorgias]

Then Canon 1335 also allows an excommunicated person, prior to the lifting of the sanction, to receive sacraments, if the excommunication is undeclared latae sententiae.

No, it doesn’t – you’re misreading the canon.
Canon 1335 applies to a cleric who is under censure, who would otherwise be unable to provide a sacrament, sacramental, or act of governance to a member of the lay faithful; it does not apply to a member of the lay faithful who is under censure. For a discussion of this canon, please refer to the New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law (Beal, Coriden, and Green), p. 1553.

 

[Ron_Conte]

No, it doesn’t – you’re misreading the canon.
Canon 1335 applies to a cleric who is under censure, who would otherwise be unable to provide a sacrament, sacramental, or act of governance to a member of the lay faithful; it does not apply to a member of the lay faithful who is under censure. For a discussion of this canon, please refer to the New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law (Beal, Coriden, and Green), p. 1553.

I stand corrected on that point. Canon 1335 does apply only to clerics, not the lay faithful.

However, Canon 1357 applies to the laity, and permits confessing to a priest who lacks the specific faculty to lift the excommunication.

"Can. 1357 §1. Without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 508 and 976, a confessor can remit in the internal sacramental forum an undeclared latae sententiae censure of excommunication or interdict if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision.

§2. In granting the remission, the confessor is to impose on the penitent, under the penalty of reincidence, the obligation of making recourse within a month to the competent superior or to a priest endowed with the faculty and the obligation of obeying his mandates; in the meantime he is to impose a suitable penance and, insofar as it is demanded, reparation of any scandal and damage; however, recourse can also be made through the confessor, without mention of the name."

 

[frangiuliano115]

No, it doesn’t – you’re misreading the canon.
Canon 1335 applies to a cleric who is under censure, who would otherwise be unable to provide a sacrament, sacramental, or act of governance to a member of the lay faithful; it does not apply to a member of the lay faithful who is under censure. For a discussion of this canon, please refer to the New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law (Beal, Coriden, and Green), p. 1553.

Gorgias,

I’ve been looking for you and even posted in a different thread.

Wanted to thank you for the instructions on how to answer to each individual quote. It was easy once I understood that it was a command.

Thanks!