A
averagejoe84
Guest
I think you mean yank rather than wank, at least I hope so…
- Status
W
why_me
Guest
One person involved in the show began a rant against the mormon founder Joseph Smith on the Mclaughlin Group. He was also a part of the McLaughlin Group. The show Big Love is biased beyond belief.
youtube.com/watch?v=czrBUp4vW50
W
why_me
Guest
I think you mean yank rather than wank, at least I hope so…
That was good.
A
aspirant
Guest
Biased, certainly, I agree. This does not change the fact that many elements are well researched.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I didn’t get the whole salmon/crab leg thing in the season opener. lol.
T
TheosisM
Guest
HA i know, I started watching it online, then fell asleep. I’m about to rewatch it. I re-watched “Outer Darkness” last night as well, and laughed when one of the church officials responded to a statement by asking “and how did this come to pass?”
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
HA i know, I started watching it online, then fell asleep. I’m about to rewatch it. I re-watched “Outer Darkness” last night as well, and laughed when one of the church officials responded to a statement by asking “and how did this come to pass?”
A
aquabatix
Guest
One thing that the season opener got me wondering though was how does the LDS (and/or the FLDS (and splinter sects)) choose a new prophet when the current one dies? Is it a natural succession for the 2nd in command?
T
TheosisM
Guest
the most senior member of the quorum of twelve apostles becomes the next president.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ok…I did a bit of googling myself, and a couple of places say that the 'New Catholic Encyclopedia" is online in a few libraries—but not, I take it, for the general public? Does anyone have access to the new edition, and if so, does it mention any changes to the article on excommunication?I agree.
I believe that the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent’s website is the “old” one, which was published in the early 1900s (there is a more recent “New Catholic Encyclopedia”). Since the Wikipedia author states that this change occurred because of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, I wouldn’t expect it to cover it. But, from some quick googling, it seems as if (don’t quote me though!) the distinction between toleratus and vitandus still exists, but vitandus is extremely rare, and any references to excommunicated people and what they should and shouldn’t be doing seem to refer to toleratus as the “norm” of excommunicated people.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Post #58 only confirms my point, Stephen. No Catholic HAS to take communion, and no Catholic HAS to go to confession, right? However, if a Catholic wants heaven and loves Christ, he will do what he believes Christ wants him to do. that means the confessional and communion; repentance and the recieving of grace. No Catholic HAS to do this, of course, but if he or she prefers to remain sinful and unrepentant, heaven is generally not considered to be the ultimate destination.
The statement from Christ, His words, are “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15 (KJV) The Douay-Rheims modernizes 'ye" to ‘you,’ but changes nothing else. Young’s Literal Translation puts it “If ye love me, my commands keep.”
A little later in the same chapter, He says “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” (v.21)
…and who 'makes it" to heaven, do you think? You can’t expect that those who hate Him would be welcome there–nor would they feel that comfortable in the presence of their enemy. So those who refuse to keep His commandments out of hate, dislike or disdain aren’t going there. We know, also, God’s opinion is of those who are indifferent…who don’t obey because they hate, but simply because they have better things to do, or will ‘get to it later,’ or…??? Well, Revelation 3:15 covers that one. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
That’s pretty strong language, aimed at someone who says he believes, but who (for instance) will, given the choice between the Superbowl and Mass, watch the Superbowl–or someone who figures that he doesn’t have the time today to wait for a turn in the confessional…but will ‘make up for it’ next week–or who, having been given a penance to perform, stops half way through because of boredom or an interuption, promising that he will get 'right back to it…" and never does. This isn’t so bad, is it? You don’t, after all, HAVE to.
Well, true. You don’t have to. YOu don’t have to go to heaven, either. When you begin college, you don’t HAVE to take the core classes and then specialty classes…but if you want that diploma, you WILL.
You don’t HAVE to tithe (be charitable to the church and your fellow man) go to confession, take communion or obey God’s commandments as you believe them to be…but if you want what He has promised you, you WILL–because you love Christ, and that’s what you believe He wants. You want to do these things.
And Mormons do not HAVE to pay tithing, obey the Word of Wisdom and go to the Temple, but if we want what we believe God has promised us, we WILL do these things, because we love Christ, and that’s what we believe He wants. We want to do these things.
For both Catholic and Mormon the concept of free will is rather important. Neither belief system buys into the ‘puppet master’ theory of human behavior; there is no ‘have to’ the way you want to claim, for either of us–and we both have the same understanding of act/consequences, motive/results. If we love Christ, we keep His commandments. Not because we HAVE to, but because we WANT to.
Your dislike of what WE believe God asks of us doesn’t change things. You don’t HAVE to, and we don’t HAVE to. No constraints. No grand Puppeteer pulling strings. But if we love God, and we want the blessings He has promised us, then we will do as He asks.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Ah well, depends. The RLDS (now Community of Christ): the current leader designates their successor. For more than a hundred years it was required to be a direct decsedent of Smith, but, they ran out of eligible male descendants.
“The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)”. All male members (priesthood holders) choose their first presidency by electing them from their quorom of twelve.
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” (Strangites). (Not to be confused with the followers of Brigham Young who call themselves “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”). The Strangites believe their prophet must be designated by the ministry of angels. Today, they have no prophet/president, which they call King. They also believe their apostles must be ordained by their King. Since they do not have one, they do not at this time have any apostles.
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Brighamites):The qurom of 12 apostles elects the prophet/president from the group of 12 + the two surviving counselors. This person then chooses two counselors. Any one of the 14 men can be elected, but it has become tradition, or a practice, to choose the senior member from the quorum of 12.
(Incidentally, the different manner of succession for each group reflects each group’s origin, from the succession crisis that occurred at the death of Joseph Smith.)
The original Short Creek, AZ (fictionalized in Big Love as Juniper Creek) fundamentalist community was lead by a prophet who designated a successor. This community split from the LDS (Brighamite) when Brigham Young declared that the LDS church would no longer practice polygamy.The Fundemental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is what remains of the original Short Creek community, which spans multiple states, Mexico and Canada - The current leader designates a successor. With their current leader Warren Jeffs in jail, it is not known who their leader is at this time.
Many groups have split from this group, and/or the original Short Creek group. Usually self-designated male leaders claiming the gift of prophecy. It becomes a mish-mash of self-designation, designating successors, more split-offs, etc.
Big Love portrays this in the many groups that are around, including Bill who has gone and fired up his own church.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well I searched the canon law at the Vatican website and couldn’t find the word vitandus in it at all. It was a long tedious search for the word and I kept getting distracted and reading about things that caught my interest and even things that made my eyes glaze over
As to the restrictions on those who are excommunicated this is what it says about those who are excommunicated:
As to my quotes they were from Articlesbase EWTN and Wiki respectively, it seems everyone is swapping paragraphs, very circular as Dianaiad noted. But still I found nothing in the current canon law that differentiated between vitandus and toleratus although there are a number of other distinctions made when it comes to excommunication.
The way I read the New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia left me thinking that even those who were excommunicated vitandus could still attend Mass just not participate in it. It seems that the lines I bolded in the current canon law were conflated in the CE’s explanation.
I have noted the paragraph swapping; it’s frustrating, especially since it is difficult to identify the primary source. The sources you have given are non-Catholic all–in the sense that there is no official Catholic link or formal approval by Catholicism for them. You know me; that always rings an alarm bell in my head.
So what I did is to go to that 1983 Code of Canon Law, and see if I could find anything there. Dang it, it reads like a congressional bill.
What I did note, however, is the complete absence of the term 'vitandus…" and for that matter, I couldn’t see where it mentioned anything about what the consequences were for a lay Catholic who encured the penalty of excommunication, whether “latae sententae” or formal. I’m sure it’s there, but someone else is going to have to find it; my eyes are crossing.
What I DID find was interesting; murder does not encure an automatic excommunication. In fact, from what I could tell, murder isn’t a bad enough sin to justify a formal excommunication hearing, either. Such a sin is left for secular authorities to punish. Here: it’s a very short chapter; in Title VI “Offensed against Human life and Liberty” we read the following:
Canon 1397 One who commits murder, or who by force or by fraud abducts, imprisons, mutilates or gravely wounds a person, is to be punished, acording to the gravity of the offence, with the deprevations an prohibitions mentioned in Canon 1336. In the case of the murder of one of those person mentioned in Canon 1370, the offencer is punished with the penalties there prescribed.
Canon 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
That’s it for Title VI.
Now Canon1336 does not prescribe excommunication, as such–that is, while the penalties there include a prohibition against living somewhere (the equivalent of a restraining order) and being fired from any office or job held, the removal of any honors, a ‘penal transfer’ or getting kicked out of the priesthood (if the murderer/abductor whatever happens to be a priest), but there is nothing there about excommunication as such; one is still allowed to take communion and participate as a full lay member of the church.
…unless of course the victim is one of those mentioned in 1370–and that involves a whole lot more hurt. THAT results in a latae sententiae excommunication. 1370 talks about attacks against the Pope or a Bishop.
I also read in the Code of Canon Law about a specific penalty assessed against those without whose aid an abortion could not be completed, but I can’t remember whether that was a latae sententiae excommunication or a 'just penalty–" and now I can’t find it again. Someone with a better eye?
Diana
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, we HAVE graduated to two piecers. That should solve that problem.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I don’t watch it…it’s a ‘premium channel’ and I don’t get any of those. To be fair, I wouldn’t watch it anyway because I only have one TV and can’t afford to replace it if I break it. From what I have heard about the show, they have a small problem with research.
D
dianaiad
Guest
You have a point regarding the Catholic Encyclopedia. So, I went to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which seems to be the most current applicable set of laws regarding this. Given what I see, y’all use it MORE than we do, by quite some considerable amount. The only difference is that so many of your excommunications are latae sententaie. We don’t have that concept at all.It was published in 1907 and has been out of print for many, many, many years. It “still indicates” because it’s an out-of-date collection of books that never changes. In fact, it was entirely replaced in 1967 with a New Catholic Encyclopedia that’s since undergone revisions too.
Yes, though if I’m not mistaken it is used much less frequently among Catholics.
…are you telling me that it is possible that a Catholic woman, anywhere at all, does NOT know that procuring one is an excommunicatable offense?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Any person who has committed a mortal sin, and has not sought reconciliation for this sin, should not receive communion.
As for the legalese of the Code of Canon Law, all are applied individually. ie, if you are Catholic and confess you had an abortion, excommunication is not an automatic, rubber stamp kind of thing. The bishop works with each person individually.
There are clergy trained as Canonical lawyers, I wouldn’t even pretend to go there.
D
dianaiad
Guest
That has been tradition, yes. It will probably remain that way, too. The idea behind it is that any of the Twelve is qualified to be the prophet and President of the church, so we may as well go with seniority as not.
However, though things cast in tradition are sometimes cast in a harder mold than concrete, they are NOT cast in scripture–which means that there could come a time when some other method of choosing the president might happen. We are open to revelation on this.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Rebecca, the latae sententaei excommunication is instant; that’s the whole idea behind it. Any further, formal excommunication is only a recognition of what already exists; that is, as soon as someone commits the sin for which a latae sententaei excommunication is the penalty, then that excommunication happens. For instance; a woman who has had an abortion is excommunicated as soon as that abortion is concluded. Nobody has to do anything to her, or declare that she is excommunicated; she simply is.
The same thing goes for someone who physically attacks the Pope or a Bishop, or who desecrates the Host, or who commits heresy.
According to what I have learned, what happens after that isn’t about deciding whether someone will be excommunicated; that’s a done deal. What happens after that is about figuring out what must be done to have that excommunication lifted.
If one is truly repentant, evidently, (at least in the case of abortion) that excommunication can be lifted in the confessional–but it can only be LIFTED by a priest; her excommunication was not formally imposed by an eclesiastical court or authority.
A
aspirant
Guest
Like any book with a valid copyright, it is available to the public, but only if you pay for it, get it from a library, borrow it from a friend, etc.
The 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia didn’t just update articles, it replaced them entirely. And there have been new editions of the NCE since 1967.
There have been many changes to canon law since 1907. New Codes were issued in 1917 and 1983, and they were not just minor revisions.
- Status