W
whatevergirl
Guest
well…they were defrocked…and I think, if someone repents…then God naturally forgives that person…
- Status
P
puzzleannie
Guest
you have it right. excommunication is a discipline, and just as when we discipline our children to purpose is to correct their behavior (and sometimes their attitude) so the discipline of the Church works the same way. Some sins carry with them automatic excommunication, such as obtaining or helping someone else obtain a direct abortion. Some can be lifted by the priest in confession, some are so grave only the bishop can lift the penalty. Yes, excommunication means just what it says, the person places themselves, by their own free will choice, outside the communion or community, and may not partake of the sacrament by which that communion is achieved.I read a thread on here today, speaking about someone being excommunicated…or that she should be excommunicated. Is this a forever thing? Can someone repent of his/her sins, and then be brought back in? If so…why aren’t all sinners excommunicated? Or…is excommunication having to do with not being permitted to partake of the Eucharist?
Please help…I’m always confused when I see this word.Thank you.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
in excommunication the person freely chooses the sin over love of God and communion with Christ and his Church. It is something that flows from the sin, and the penalty is intended to discipline, to correct the sin, and bring the person back into communion.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Keep that in mind when there is a push to have Pedophiles Priests excommunicated. And since a Priest is to know better, the punishment should be more severe, just as it should be more severe in a law enforcement type breaks the law.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
A priest CANNOT lift an excommunication. People: do NOT accept this error.
N
Nino
Guest
N
Nino
Guest
I resent using the term…pedophile priests…when a man in the priesthood committs a horrible crime he is no longer a priest…after all…Benny Arnold became a traitor after the battle of Saratoga…Judas was no longer an apostle of Jesus when he betrayed him…so use the little "…priest’ so and so…our beloved church has been infiltrated by demons posing as ‘priests’ to destroy the innocence of youth and faith in the clergy…as there were some 300 enemy agents in the FDR administration…as revealed in the Verona papers…an agent of satan is just that…so lets not fall into the gnostic-new age trap …say “priest” when an evil was caught abusing one of Gods little ones…amen and amen
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
John, it seems to me that it’s a little more complicated than that, and perhaps it might seem that way to you as well after considering Church law.
The poster only said “Some can be lifted by the priest in confession,” and that is correct. *Some *can in *some *conditions by *some *priests. Others cannot be.
Given the lamentable frequency of voluntary abortion, many diocesan bishops, who possess ordinary power, have given the faculty to remit the penalty of canon 1398 to their priests (see canon 1356 §1). In a particular case, a penitent would have to ask the confessor if he has that faculty. If he does not have it, the confessor would indicate what needs to happen for its remission.
In danger of death, any priest validly and licitly absolves from any kind of censures (c. 976).
Moreover, see canon 1357 §1-3 which concerns the remission of certain censures of excommunication by a confessor, who may “only” be a priest, in the internal sacramental forum, under certain situations.
A person in the sad state of excommunication would be best advised to approach proper Church authority asap for some direction in his or her particular case. The parish priest would normally be the place to start, and could advise the person on what to do, regardless of whether he could remit the penalty or not.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Excellently said !
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
JC, not to be argumentative, but it is our duty as soldiers of Christ to confront error.
Excommunication does NOT have degrees of being anathema. It is like a Mortal Sin going unrepented will surely send the sinner to Hell.
Excoms must ameliorate their separation from the Church by making restitution and disavowing their enmity to the Church and God.
This is far more seriopus than just going to confession…there must be amends BEFORE confession. Priests are empowered to forgive sins…but are not in authority to remove anathema that the Church has decreed. It’s a longer climb back.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
John,
Confronting error about who can remit penalty and under what conditions requires us to read what the law of the Church says in this matter.
I laud your zeal but recommend you take time to clarify your thought by reading the canons which were presented to you and paying close attention to the post above. Zeal is best accompanied with knowledge of a topic.
Your disagreement is not with my post or even PuzzleAnnie’s last post but with those canons. If you can demonstrate that priests can never remit censure by citing Church law, which I take to be your point, then we would all benefit from that.
Please note the difference between “by” and “in” as they appear in the earlier posts. It is not confession that remedies the state of excommunication but the possession of a faculty to remit the penalty on the part of priest in those limited circumstances treated above. The law permits confessors, i.e., on the occasion of hearing confession, to remit censure in those circumstances. It permits this in danger of death. Perhaps canon 976 threw you off since it uses the phrase, “absolves from any kind of censures.” This is a reference that means the remission of censure which is distinct from the forgiveness of sins. The two notions may be related, but they are separate.
So please read what was written with attention to detail and look up those canons: 1356, 1357, and 976. Read them in entirety. Since you wish to be a diligent soldier of the Lord and equipped to confront error, I presume you will do this.
In cases apart from the situations treated in these canons, the remission of censure is regulated by canon 1355. That canon presents the normal authorities who can remit. All I have commented on are those other cases.
I do understand, I think, what you mean by saying that a person needs to make restitution, disavowing enmity to the Church and God, and make amends. This is correct and, I will call your attention to canon 1358 which presents it this way:
§1. Remission of a censure cannot be granted unless the offender has withdrawn from contumacy according to the norm of canon 1347, §2; it cannot be denied, however, to a person who withdraws from contumacy. §2. The person who remits a censure can make provision according to the norm of canon 1348 or can even impose a penance.
Canon 1347 §2 then provides, An offender who has truly repented of the delict and has also made suitable reparation for damages and scandal or at least has seriously promised to do so must be considered to have withdrawn from contumacy.
By way of general information, the term anathema does not exist in the present code. Only people who have known me longer than 30 years ever call me “JC.” Are you one of them? Just don’t call me late for dinner.
Confronting error about who can remit penalty and under what conditions requires us to read what the law of the Church says in this matter.
I laud your zeal but recommend you take time to clarify your thought by reading the canons which were presented to you and paying close attention to the post above. Zeal is best accompanied with knowledge of a topic.
Your disagreement is not with my post or even PuzzleAnnie’s last post but with those canons. If you can demonstrate that priests can never remit censure by citing Church law, which I take to be your point, then we would all benefit from that.
Please note the difference between “by” and “in” as they appear in the earlier posts. It is not confession that remedies the state of excommunication but the possession of a faculty to remit the penalty on the part of priest in those limited circumstances treated above. The law permits confessors, i.e., on the occasion of hearing confession, to remit censure in those circumstances. It permits this in danger of death. Perhaps canon 976 threw you off since it uses the phrase, “absolves from any kind of censures.” This is a reference that means the remission of censure which is distinct from the forgiveness of sins. The two notions may be related, but they are separate.
So please read what was written with attention to detail and look up those canons: 1356, 1357, and 976. Read them in entirety. Since you wish to be a diligent soldier of the Lord and equipped to confront error, I presume you will do this.
In cases apart from the situations treated in these canons, the remission of censure is regulated by canon 1355. That canon presents the normal authorities who can remit. All I have commented on are those other cases.
I do understand, I think, what you mean by saying that a person needs to make restitution, disavowing enmity to the Church and God, and make amends. This is correct and, I will call your attention to canon 1358 which presents it this way:
§1. Remission of a censure cannot be granted unless the offender has withdrawn from contumacy according to the norm of canon 1347, §2; it cannot be denied, however, to a person who withdraws from contumacy. §2. The person who remits a censure can make provision according to the norm of canon 1348 or can even impose a penance.
Canon 1347 §2 then provides, An offender who has truly repented of the delict and has also made suitable reparation for damages and scandal or at least has seriously promised to do so must be considered to have withdrawn from contumacy.
By way of general information, the term anathema does not exist in the present code. Only people who have known me longer than 30 years ever call me “JC.” Are you one of them? Just don’t call me late for dinner.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Like I said the repentant has to remove himself first from the things that warranted excommunication.
And yes, “anathema” is a valid term for one who has enmity for the Church. The word is in the Gospels as well. Even vatican 2 did not expunge that definition. It is a word that even though it strips the violator of his spiritual worth the impact of the word could tend to rattle that person enough to take stock in his actions lest he lose his immortal soul.
Harsh words can sometimes be used in “Tough love.” Calling an excom “anathema” can be a kind of “spiritual shock treatment.” It, in a case like this, would be in charity and also a caveat for fringe Catholics to avoid that path.
And yes, “anathema” is a valid term for one who has enmity for the Church. The word is in the Gospels as well. Even vatican 2 did not expunge that definition. It is a word that even though it strips the violator of his spiritual worth the impact of the word could tend to rattle that person enough to take stock in his actions lest he lose his immortal soul.
Harsh words can sometimes be used in “Tough love.” Calling an excom “anathema” can be a kind of “spiritual shock treatment.” It, in a case like this, would be in charity and also a caveat for fringe Catholics to avoid that path.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
One more thing: “remove himself from contumacy…” To do that the Archdiocese must be the first to be notified. Not a priest in the confessional.
In fact, he needs to be granted permission to go to confession because he has cut himself off completely from the Church.
In fact, he needs to be granted permission to go to confession because he has cut himself off completely from the Church.
- Status