Excommunication VS Being Denied the Eucharist

[xixxvmcm85]

I wasn’t certain in which sub-forum this thread should go, so if I have indeed misplaced it, please, moderators, move it to the correct one.

I’m having some difficulty in understanding the exact difference between excommunication and one being denied communion.

The way I’ve been taught, is that excommunication and being denied communion brings about the same EFFECT, namely that one is out of communion with the Body of Christ (which is further exhibited in not being able to partake in the sacraments save for the sacrament of reconciliation).

Since I know the EFFECTS are the same, in my logic, it must be the cause that distinguishes them.

So is the difference in cause of excommunication and being denied communion the:

1. Severity of the sin?
2. Persistence of the sin?
3. Scandal of the sin?
4. Effect of the sin on other members of the Body of Christ?
5. More than one of the above?
6. Something else I’ve failed to account for?

Thanks everyone and God Bless!

 

[cameron_lansing]

The effects of excommunication are broader that those involving a denial of communion.

Canon 915 establishes that Holy Communion is to be denied to those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. In the latter case (obstinate persistence . . . ) one may resume reception after repentance and absolution. One remains in communion with the Church and may receive other sacraments (i.e., matrimony as an example) even in this condition of obstinate persistence albeit improperly.

Canon 1331 addresses excommunication and canon 1332 addresses interdict. The effects are more comprehensive, and would include a ban on all the other sacraments (matrimony, e.g.) as well as other spiritual goods of the Church. In this case, the person may not be absolved from sin until the censure is lifted, and this requires access, usually, to a diocesan bishop or even higher authority. However, in certain cases, a confessor may remit the excommunication (see canons 1355-1358 and canon 976) but other recourse must usually be taken in follow up.

I would recommend that you might read these canons at the Vatican website very carefully and then resume with particular follow up questions.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The effects of excommunication are broader that those involving a denial of communion.

Canon 915 establishes that Holy Communion is to be denied to those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. In the latter case (obstinate persistence . . . ) one may resume reception after repentance and absolution. One remains in communion with the Church and may receive other sacraments (i.e., matrimony as an example) even in this condition of obstinate persistence albeit improperly.

Canon 1331 addresses excommunication and canon 1332 addresses interdict. The effects are more comprehensive, and would include a ban on all the other sacraments (matrimony, e.g.) as well as other spiritual goods of the Church. In this case, the person may not be absolved from sin until the censure is lifted, and this requires access, usually, to a diocesan bishop or even higher authority. However, in certain cases, a confessor may remit the excommunication (see canons 1355-1358 and canon 976) but other recourse must usually be taken in follow up.

I would recommend that you might read these canons at the Vatican website very carefully and then resume with particular follow up questions.

Thanks! I’m browsing vatican.va right now per your advice.

 

[Aramis]

In short:

If one is being denied communion over persistent grave error (for example, overt participation in a pro-abortion organization), or having moved in with a significant other to whom one is not yet married as the church reckons marriage… one is still capable of reception of reconciliation from the pastor. I’ve seen it happen. It’s rare.

Most inderdiction and excommunication offenses require one to be absolved by the Bishop and publicly recant and repent one’s errors. Usually, these are reserved for public figures who are obstinate in their errors, and public in their errors as well.

A few excommunication offenses require papal absolution. These are usually sins of Schism.