Mormon Religion

[TheosisM]

OK…but Catholics ALSO consider that anybody, priest or not, Catholic or not, can baptise an infant, as long as the correct intent is present; the ability to perform such things is not restricted to Catholics. Therefore, simply being allowed to do so does not, in and of itself, mean a whole lot as to membership, it seems to me.

I really wasn’t thinking about baptism. The Encyclopedia quote clearly said that priests can still confer valid sacraments except those that require jurisdiction (Confession and Matrimony). That includes Holy Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, and Holy Orders (for bishops). These are all sacraments specific to being a priest or bishop, and an excommunicated priest or bishop still has the power to validly confer these sacraments (though they will be illicit, or unlawful, in most situations).

Also, I’m not sure why you keep mentioning “infant” in relation to baptism. Catholics baptize infants, children and adults.

As to requirements to 'repeat the office…" well, LDS excommunicated people are expected to pray and attend services, too. I notice that Catholic priests are not allowed to excercise their authority as priests in any way that a non-Catholic is not allowed to do, if the situation calls for it.

Sure, LDS excommunicated are expected to pray and attend services, however that is not what I’m talking about. Excommunicated priests are still obligated to pray the Divine Office because they are still priests (and praying the Divine Office is one of the obligations that comes with ordination). Please read the quote again from the canon lawyer. From the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

*“Excommunicants lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty.” *

This is not the same as simply being expected to pray and attend services because it is part of the healing process. This is that the excommunicated person is still a member of the Church, and if they have obligations (which we all do), they are still bound by them, unless exemptions are granted.

An excommunicated priest is not allowed to exercise their authority as priests (i.e. confer the sacraments), but they still have the power to do so. If for some reason they celebrate Mass somewhere, it will still be a valid Mass, meaning that the bread and wine still become the body and blood of Christ. If they Confirm someone, that person will still receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If a bishop ordains someone, they will still be ordained. All of these will be illicit, or unlawful/unauthorized, but they will still be valid, because excommunicated priests in Catholicism still remain priests, and still have the power to do priestly things. In fact, the Catholic encyclopedia states that in certain situations, an excommunicated priest can licitly administer a sacrament.

Now, when an excommunication is lifted in Catholicism, I don’t know how the priesthood situation is handled. However, when a Mormon is rebaptised, he (or she) doesn’t have to go through the Temple AGAIN, nor be ordained to the priesthood AGAIN…those things are simply ‘restored’ to him in a single action. In this manner the return of the Catholic and of the Mormon seem to be similar.

In Catholicism, an excommunicated priest is still a priest. As I mentioned above, an excommunicated priest still has the power to validly confer most of the sacraments (and I’m not talking about baptism) that only a priest or bishop can do. If an excommunicated priest has their excommunication lifted, they do not need to be reordained, because they never ceased being a priest. This is why Catholicism takes schism very seriously, and why such issues as the validity of the sacraments in groups such as the Orthodox Church or SSPX are always issues.

So again, it’s very clear that there is a difference in how we view excommunication. Excommunication in the LDS church causes one to be a non-member. Excommunication in the Catholic Church does not, evidenced by priests still under obligation (by virtue of them still being priests) to recite the Divine Office, and still having the power to confer most of the sacraments. No sacrament needs to be “restored”, because none were undone.

 

[TheosisM]

cont…
The difference does seem to be in the perception of the idea of what ‘membership’ means, and of what baptism actually does.

By the way…a priest who has committed a mortal sin may indeed marry and hear confessions and have those marriages and confessions be valid; it’s an office of the priesthood they hold, not of their personal worthiness, correct?

Yes. Personal worthiness has no bearing on the sacraments in Catholicism.

Yet an EXCOMMUNICATED priest can do nothing that, say, a Presbyterian can’t do, all things being equal. It is that level of participation that makes this what it is.

No. An excommunicated priest still can confer most of the sacraments, because they still have the power to do so. If they do so, it is unlawful. Again, the excommunicated priest is still a priest, and still has the powers of a priest. It is unlawful to exercise that however.

If you look at other threads elsewhere, especially on the sacraments and apostolic succession, you will see the words “valid/invalid” and “licit/illicit”. For your Presbyterian analogy to work, the priest would be conferring invalid sacraments, meaning that he doesn’t have the power to do so. In reality, the priest is conferring valid but illicit sacraments, meaning that he still has the capacity to confer the sacrament, but it is unlawful for him to do so.

…It seems to me, then, that if the results are pretty much the same as far as what one is allowed to DO, and the requirements for reconciliation are pretty much the same, then the deeper theological ideas of what constitutes membership are a different topic.

See above.

Especially since, as far as Catholicism is concerned, pretty much everybody who believes in the Trinity is Christian–and therefore, in some manner, Catholic. Thus the idea of excommunication needs to be narrowed down so that we are comparing apples to apples. After all, when we excommunicate a Mormon, we aren’t kicking THEM out of Christianity altogether, either. We do what you do; they are not allowed to excercise a priesthood authority, nor take communion (the ‘sacrament’) and the resullts are essentially the same.

.

If Mormon excommunication makes them a non-member (and basically “undoes” everything), then that person no longer has priesthood power (if it has to be “restored”). They are not bound by “obligations to the law”, because they are no longer members of the LDS church. In contrast, Catholic excommunication does not release someone from their obligations to the law (unless exemptions are made), and a priest still has the power of the priesthood, yet it is unlawful (in most situations) for them to exercise it. They can still validly perform most sacraments. The excommunicated person is not kicked out of the Catholic Church (as the canon lawyer quoted earlier clearly states).

 

[Stephen168]

A few definition corrections:

It certainly can be argued that not all abortions are murder–if you define abortion as the Catholic church does, that is; the ending of a pregnancy resulting in the birth/appearance of an unviable fetus/dead child.

This is NOT how the Catholic Church defines abortion. It is the intentional killing of a fetus in any way and at any time from the moment of conception. So it is murder every time.

**Mortal sins: ** require knowledge of the gravity of the act, knowledge of the consequences, and deliberate and willing choice.

Close but wrong. In order for a sin to be mortal, it must be a sin of grave matter, committed with full knowledge of the sinner, and committed with deliberate consent of the sinner. It can not be an accident.

The Church thinks more morally than legally.

 

[twopekinguys]

:banghead:

I couldn’t have said it better myself. I find that when it comes to mormonism, it is all about* interpretation, feelings, assumptions, etc*. but when it comes to the Catholic church, it all has to be black and white, I’s dotted and T’s crossed.

I got her to admit that the whole ex-ing over the calendar was inconsistent, She unfortunately is going to pound that square peg into that round hole no matter what.

 

[twopekinguys]

Of course it does, we simply understand this differently than Mormons do. I believe this was discussed already before. LDS believe that one can “undo” ordinances like baptism. Catholics do not believe that. Excommunication in the LDS church makes one a non-member. Excommunication in the Catholic Church does not.

BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!

I think I have said this same thing myself.

 

[twopekinguys]

The list of sins that result in latae sententiae excommunication do not include a small white lie to keep from hurting someone.

It includes: obtaining an abortion, violence against the pope; sacrilege such as throwing away a consecrated host; absolving a person with whom one has sinned against the sixth commandment; consecrating a bishop without authorization; violating the seal of confession; and apostasy, heresy or schism. (from the National Catholic Reporter)
None of the above can be termed to be 'venial."

The results are exactly the same, whether the excommunication is latae sententiae or imposed by a court: “an excommunicated person cannot have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Eucharist of ohter cermonies of public worship; cannot recieve the sacraments; and cannot excrcise any ecclesiastical offices, functions, or acts of governance” (ibid)

So you tell me; what’s the difference? If a latae sententiae excommunication isn’t after all, a ‘real’ excommunication, why do you CALL it an excommunication? If it’s not, after all, an excommunication, why are the results exactly the same, either way? If it’s not, after all, an excommunication, why is the process to get them lifted the same? If it’s not, after all, a ‘real’ excommunication, why bother?

From what I have read (from Catholic sources only, of course) the nature of a venial sin is such that it must not concern a 'grave matter," that it is not committed with full knowledge of its nature, and it is not committed with BOTH deliberate and complete consent. A mortal sin, on the other hand is an act that doesn’t meet any of the above things. That is, a mortal sin is one that is grave, committed in full knowledge that it IS a sin, and is committed deliberately.

Since, according to all the arguments regarding latae sententiae excommunication from YOU guys, one must be fully aware that the act one is committing IS a sin, WILL result in an instant cutting off of oneself from God and the church (excommunication) and must be done deliberately—isn’t that the very definition of ‘mortal sin?’

You realize that every sin possible is not going to be listed in Canon Law right? I mean that is a logical assumption isn’t it.

Personally, I give up. It is clear you are acting like a jail house lawyer, and have no willingness to honestly discuss this.

Maybe another poster can get through to you, because obviously I cannot.

 

[Stephen168]

You realize that every sin possible is not going to be listed in Canon Law right? I mean that is a logical assumption isn’t it.

Personally, I give up. It is clear you are acting like a jail house lawyer, and have no willingness to honestly discuss this.

Maybe another poster can get through to you, because obviously I cannot.

Are you suggesting she may have been less than honest when she posted:

I’m not attempting to teach it, Stephen.

…unless you didn’t know about it yourself?

In fact, do please educate me. I am very willing to learn something new. In fact, I didn’t know about latae sententaie excommunication until a week or so ago.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I couldn’t have said it better myself. I find that when it comes to mormonism, it is all about* interpretation, feelings, assumptions, etc*. but when it comes to the Catholic church, it all has to be black and white, I’s dotted and T’s crossed.

I got her to admit that the whole ex-ing over the calendar was inconsistent, She unfortunately is going to pound that square peg into that round hole no matter what.

I think there is plenty of interpretation, feelings and assumption going on re:Catholicism here. Only, it is from a very mormon POV. ie, the mormon habit of overlaying mormon belief over everything. Ancient mesoamerican civilizations were mormon, so too is Catholic Canon Law.

 

[Marie5890]

I think Diana has this tendency to do exactly what she accuses non-Mormons of doing when it comes to Mormon doctrine.

It gets under her skin when a non-Mormon presents Mormon doctrine in such a way that she knows to be false.

I dont think it she sees she is doing and has done the same thing with Catholic doctrine.

As a non-Catholic she is falsely presenting Catholic doctrine, but I dont think she realizes it. She really thinks she is presenting it accurately, just like non-Mormons think they present Mormon doctrines accurately.

Eventually, hopefully, she will be able to see this. Right now, I dont think she can.

 

[TheosisM]

I think Diana has this tendency to do exactly what she accuses non-Mormons of doing when it comes to Mormon doctrine.

It gets under her skin when a non-Mormon presents Mormon doctrine in such a way that she knows to be false.

I dont think it she sees she is doing and has done the same thing with Catholic doctrine.

As a non-Catholic she is falsely presenting Catholic doctrine, but I dont think she realizes it. She really thinks she is presenting it accurately, just like non-Mormons think they present Mormon doctrines accurately.

Eventually, hopefully, she will be able to see this. Right now, I dont think she can.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with a non-Catholic presenting Catholic doctrine, or a non-anyone presenting that doctrine. The problem is when it is, as you say, falsely presented, and when the member of that religion says that it is, instead of accepting it, you keep going, attempting to present equivalences (such as in this case) when they really aren’t there (because of that misunderstanding of that “other” belief).

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t think there is anything wrong with a non-Catholic presenting Catholic doctrine, or a non-anyone presenting that doctrine. The problem is when it is, as you say, falsely presented, and when the member of that religion says that it is, instead of accepting it, you keep going, attempting to present equivalences (such as in this case) when they really aren’t there (because of that misunderstanding of that “other” belief).

Yes, it goes back to Stephen168 statement, asking what the reasons for excommunication have in common. Diana has applied Mormon belief, that is excommunication is for serious sin. And the Mormon belief that excommunication=loss of membership. This is not Catholic belief, at all.

 

[TheosisM]

Yes, it goes back to Stephen168 statement, asking what the reasons for excommunication have in common. Diana has applied Mormon belief, that is excommunication is for serious sin. And the Mormon belief that excommunication=loss of membership. This is not Catholic belief, at all.

Yes, and I tried to explain that excommunication does not equal loss of membership in Catholicism (or even loss of priesthood), yet she is still trying to rationalize her view of Catholic excommunication, which is simply false.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, and I tried to explain that excommunication does not equal loss of membership in Catholicism (or even loss of priesthood), yet she is still trying to rationalize her view of Catholic excommunication, which is simply false.

, indeed.

 

[Marie5890]

I don’t think there is anything wrong with a non-Catholic presenting Catholic doctrine, or a non-anyone presenting that doctrine. The problem is when it is, as you say, falsely presented, and when the member of that religion says that it is, instead of accepting it, you keep going, attempting to present equivalences (such as in this case) when they really aren’t there (because of that misunderstanding of that “other” belief).

I agree.

 

[RebeccaJ]

OK, so dianaiad, I think to back it up a bit and first provide a view of the Atonement. By Christ’s Atonement we can be forgiven for all sins. There is only one sin defined by Christ as unforgivable, and that is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

So when you look at the list of reasons for Catholic excommunication, it is not a list of sins, as it would be very hypocritical of the Church to teach that Christ died for ALL, yet, not for the person who committed a serious sin. This is not what the Apostles taught us.

The list shows the circumstances of a person in rebellion against Christ’s Church. Heresy being an obvious clue to this. The Church has taught clearly, in many ways, spelled out in the Catechism, in public media, over and over again, for centuries… abortion is a grave sin. If/when a person is excommunicated for abortion, it is not an excommunication because of the sin that was committed, it is for the reason that the person is in obvious rebellion against the Church.

If/when a excommunicated seeks the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it is also a recognition by the Church that the person is no longer in rebellion.

As for the meaning of excommunication, Communion with God in the Holy Eucharist is the source, center and summit of our Catholic faith. To be excluded from this Sacrament is to a devout Catholic, devastating. There isn’t any way to convey this to a person who believes the Eucharist is merely a symbol. But, it is why you will see Catholics ask a ex-Catholic, or a luke-warm Catholic, how it is they would remove themselves from the Body of Christ, which is the whole Church, in communion with God and each other, through Christ and because of Christ, Real and Present, in the Eucharist.

Excommunication being just as the word says…being removed from this Communion. The person is still Catholic, but in a state of rebellion that has removed them from Communion. A very simple, but not a very complete analogy, would be a child being sent to bed without any supper. The child is still a member of the family, but is excluded form the communal event of the evening meal.

 

[twopekinguys]

I agree.

Me too.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, and I tried to explain that excommunication does not equal loss of membership in Catholicism (or even loss of priesthood), yet she is still trying to rationalize her view of Catholic excommunication, which is simply false.

But as I recall from another discussion, there is a procedure for “name removal,” or something equivalent to it, whereby you cease to be a member of the Catholic Church. Is not that so?

 

[Marie5890]

But as I recall from another discussion, there is a procedure for “name removal,” or something equivalent to it, whereby you cease to be a member of the Catholic Church. Is not that so?

From what I understand its similar to the name-removal that people who want to resign from the LDS church do.

A person who no longer wants to be Catholic submits their resignation to the bishop of the diocese. But this isnt excommunication. It’s a resignation and it’s done at the request of the individual, not ecclesial authority…I still dont think it has any effect on having been baptised however. That cant be undone.

Mormons just have to get their head around the idea, however, that excommunication in the Catholic church is NOT the same as excommunication in the LDS church.

It’s not an apple to apples comparison.

Perhaps something that has more of a similar “thought” behind it when it comes to excommunications in both churches is to point out that if, having been excommunicated or resigned from the LDS church, an individual changes their mind, they are re-baptised. However, they dont have to be “re-endowed” or “re-sealed” (assuming they had been prior). Those oridinances are just “restored”. A person doesnt re-do the rites.

 

[KathleenGee]

Apples and oranges…best analogy yet between Mormonism and Catholicism…we misinterpret each other at times…

 

[dianaiad]

Why are you so argumentative? I told you how Catholics view excommunicated Catholics, which is different from how Mormons view excommunicated Mormons. The LDS Handbook of Instructions specifically states “A person who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the Church” (page 109 under “Church Discipline”). This is not how Catholics view excommunication from the Catholic Church. That’s all.

I understand that…and the ‘arguement’ isn’t about insisting that Catholics view excommunication exactly the same way as Mormons do. At least on my end, it is a debate designed to get to a solid agreement between us as to what it DOES mean.

From my perspective, I’m being told that LDS excommunication is this awful thing, and that we have no right to administer it the way we do. I am told that it is uneven and arbitrary…and that the Catholic form of it is not only different, but better and far more rare.

But also from my point of view I don’t see what it is you think excommunication from Catholicism actually DOES mean. I’m getting the impression that it is a ‘throw away term’ that actually means—nothing. After all, I’m being told, an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic, and someone laboring under a mortal sin (but not excommunicated) is JUST as barred from communion. So…what is different about Catholic excommunication, other than being barred from communion? I’m not talking about the special aspects that apply to priests, who are affected in their ability and authority to perform certain sacraments. I’m talking about the average non-priestly Catholic.

Is there a difference? What IS that difference? If there is no difference, why is it specifically applied to certain very specific acts?

So…a Mormon who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the CoJCoLDS, though the entire point of an excommunication is to get him or her BACK. (just as it is the stated purpose of excommunication in Catholicism to get the sinner back…). An excommunicated catholic is still a member of the Catholic church.

You realize that this is irrelevant, right? The discussion was about the difference in application of this excommunication. The fact that we might have different views of what it actually IS matters not; it is the last and final form of discipline for both faiths, and how it is applied is the only issue. Everything else is a red herring.