Mormon Religion

[dianaiad]

Catholic/Christian…same thing to us, you know?

No. It’s not. CAtholics seem to believe that one can be a Christian without being Catholic, remember?

buzz incorrect conclusion. A excommunicated Catholic certainly can attend Mass. They cannot go up for communion, or participate in the liturgy in a ministerial manner (such a lector).

sources please

Of course. Here you go: The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, and New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 63,

geez Diana, how much are you going to make up. Do you really believe anyone can police who you pray for???

I make up nothing, Rebecca…and ALL my information comes from pro-Catholic sources. All of it.

Let’s put it this way…they can pray for whomever they want, but evidently nobody will be listening.

BIG WHATEVER.

blah blah blah

Now THERE are a couple of intelligent, erudite and telling rejoinders. I am utterly awestruck at the rhetorical skill involved in both! :clapping:

I’m sure you believe this…perhaps you should read what Joseph Smith had to say about anyone he ever had excommunicated. Vilified, to this day.

There you go, having to go back a couple of hundred years to find something to criticize today’s church for. Given your responses when someone criticizes the Catholic church for the racism she showed far more recently than that, don’t you think you are using a bit of a double standard here? I’m just asking, mind you.

Perhaps you should read your own teaching manuals, and list for us here how it is a person comes to a point where they are excommunicated from the mormon church.

Well, lessee…
According to this article, , one can be disciplined (up to and including excommunication) for the following:

"The First Presidency has instructed that disciplinary councils must be held in cases of murder, incest, or apostasy. A disciplinary council must also be held when a prominent Church leader commits a serious transgression, when the transgressor is a predator who may be a threat to other persons, when the person shows a pattern of repeated serious transgressions, when a serious transgression is widely known, and when the transgressor is guilty of serious deceptive practices and false representations or other terms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.

Disciplinary councils may also be convened to consider a member’s standing in the Church following serious transgression such as abortion, transsexual operation, attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, intentionally inflicting serious physical injuries on others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, child abuse (sexual or physical), spouse abuse, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, or false swearing."

There is no concept of an automatic excommunication; all excommunications, disfellowshipings (…ments? whatever.) are formal.

Mormons are not disfellowshiped or excommunicated for failing to pay tithing, failing to obey the Word of Wisdom, not attending church or telling the Home/Visiting teachers to flake off.

I guess that about covers it.

 

[TheosisM]

I read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Excommunication. I am wondering where it states or implies that an excommunicated Catholic will remain Christian, but “most certainly will NOT remain Catholic”. As RebeccaJ said, for Catholics, Catholic=Christian, therefore the Encyclopedia article cannot be making any valid distinction between Catholics and Christians as it relates to excommunication of a Catholic (i.e. making them Christian but not Catholic). The very statement “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” precludes this. The person may not be a practicing Catholic, but they are still a validly baptized Catholic, and neither the Church nor the Encyclopedia makes a statement that an excommunicated Catholic is regarded as Christian (because of their baptism) but not Catholic.

Where does the article state that excommunicated Catholics cannot pray for Catholics in good standing?? What I do see is that for both Catholics and Mormons (source: Handbook of Instructions), excommunicated members are excluded from public prayers.

Excommunicated Catholics in general can attend church (and we must note that in Catholicism, there are multiple liturgies besides the Mass for a Catholic to participate in). The article does state that a “vitandus” should not be present at the divine services.

As far as ecclesiastical burial, the article continues to make a distinction between “toleratus” and “vitandus”, and states that “toleratus” may be buried in consecrated ground. I’m trying to understand why Mormons would bury an excommunicated person in consecrated ground (when that person is now a non-member, and therefore doesn’t enjoy any privileges of church membership).

 

[RebeccaJ]

No. It’s not. CAtholics seem to believe that one can be a Christian without being Catholic, remember?

Indeed, but that is not what the old encyclopedia is saying. That is your mormon interpretation.

Of course. Here you go: The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, and New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 63,

I make up nothing, Rebecca…and ALL my information comes from pro-Catholic sources. All of it.

Yes, you interpret it, just as you do our scriptures. Erroneously.

Let’s put it this way…they can pray for whomever they want, but evidently nobody will be listening.

No Catholic believes this and the Church does not teach it. You should really stop interpreting.

There you go, having to go back a couple of hundred years to find something to criticize today’s church for. Given your responses when someone criticizes the Catholic church for the racism she showed far more recently than that, don’t you think you are using a bit of a double standard here? I’m just asking, mind you.

Fine. Read any FARMS review of any book written by a former mormon. Southernton, Quinn, Brody, Beck, etc. all are recent. All address to some extent the content of their publications, all go on a crusade to show the author is of poor character, in some fashion.

Well, lessee…
According to this article, , one can be disciplined (up to and including excommunication) for the following:

I didnt say, “what is a mormon excommunicated for?”

 

[zaffiroborant]

I read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Excommunication. I am wondering where it states or implies that an excommunicated Catholic will remain Christian, but “most certainly will NOT remain Catholic”. As RebeccaJ said, for Catholics, Catholic=Christian, therefore the Encyclopedia article cannot be making any valid distinction between Catholics and Christians as it relates to excommunication of a Catholic (i.e. making them Christian but not Catholic). The very statement “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” precludes this. The person may not be a practicing Catholic, but they are still a validly baptized Catholic, and neither the Church nor the Encyclopedia makes a statement that an excommunicated Catholic is regarded as Christian (because of their baptism) but not Catholic.

Where does the article state that excommunicated Catholics cannot pray for Catholics in good standing?? What I do see is that for both Catholics and Mormons (source: Handbook of Instructions), excommunicated members are excluded from public prayers.

Excommunicated Catholics in general can attend church (and we must note that in Catholicism, there are multiple liturgies besides the Mass for a Catholic to participate in). The article does state that a “vitandus” should not be present at the divine services.

As far as ecclesiastical burial, the article continues to make a distinction between “toleratus” and “vitandus”, and states that “toleratus” may be buried in consecrated ground. I’m trying to understand why Mormons would bury an excommunicated person in consecrated ground (when that person is now a non-member, and therefore doesn’t enjoy any privileges of church membership).

Everything I see says that they not only can, but are obligated to attend Mass, just like everyone else.

Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication: vitandus (shunned, literally “to be avoided”, where the person had to be avoided by other Catholics), and toleratus (tolerated, which permitted Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicant). This distinction no longer applies today, and excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). Indeed, the excommunicant is encouraged to retain some relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.

The penalty of excommunication carries with it the prohibition of receiving the sacraments, while not excusing from obligations such as Sunday and Holy Day Mass, Easter Duty etc…

Excommunicated persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity (for instance, as a reader if a lay person, or as a deacon or priest if a clergyman) and from receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments, but are normally not barred from attending these (for instance, an excommunicated person may not receive Communion, but would not be barred from attending Mass). Certain other rights and privileges are revoked, such as holding ecclesiastical office.

 

[dianaiad]

Indeed, but that is not what the old encyclopedia is saying. That is your mormon interpretation.

Yes, you interpret it, just as you do our scriptures. Erroneously.

No Catholic believes this and the Church does not teach it. You should really stop interpreting.

Fine. Read any FARMS review of any book written by a former mormon. Southernton, Quinn, Brody, Beck, etc. all are recent. All address to some extent the content of their publications, all go on a crusade to show the author is of poor character, in some fashion.

I didnt say, “what is a mormon excommunicated for?”

Then what DID you ask?

A Mormon chooses one of those actions, and either voluntarily submits to church discipline, or is brought to a church court. The finding is made and enforced. If the member uses that discipline for what it was designed for, in a few months or so, s/he comes back.

I don’t quite get the question.

 

[dianaiad]

Everything I see says that they not only can, but are obligated to attend Mass, just like everyone else.

You are quite right. I missed that. It is only the ‘vitandi’ that is barred from attending services.

 

[TheosisM]

You are quite right. I missed that. It is only the ‘vitandi’ that is barred from attending services.

Even more precisely, the distinction between “vitandi” and “tolerati” no longer applies today, and “excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass”.

 

[penguinchicky]

Even more precisely, the distinction between “vitandi” and “tolerati” no longer applies today, and “excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass”.

So if someone is excommunicated you can still attened mass but not have communion … how does this sit for when you have died? Do you still go to heaven?

 

[dianaiad]

Even more precisely, the distinction between “vitandi” and “tolerati” no longer applies today, and “excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass”.

It does not?

Can you point me to information that confirms that…I mean, to when that changed? The Catholic Encyclopedia still indicates that there is a difference between the two that is still honored. I’d like to know when, and how, that evolved.

I’m learning a lot here about the similarities and differences between the way Catholics and Mormons view excommunication. So far, it looks like:

Both belief systems (at least officially) view excommunication as a discipline–a tool for repentance. The idea is to prod the wandering one back to the 'straight and narrow path," not to kick 'em to the curb.

Catholics have a concept of automatic excommunication that Mormons do not.

For CAtholics, excommunication is both more informal–and easier to reverse–than the Mormon version. An LDS excommunication is very serious, very formal—and coming back from one is an equally serious and formal process.

For a Catholic, because of the permanent nature of baptism, one can never BE completely excommunicated in the way that a Mormon is. In fact, I think that a Catholic excommunication is probably more akin to an LDS disfellowshipping.

The whole thing goes back, I think, to the idea that, to a Catholic, the baptism is absolute, permanent, and not alterable–no matter what.

 

[TheosisM]

It does not?

Can you point me to information that confirms that…I mean, to when that changed? The Catholic Encyclopedia still indicates that there is a difference between the two that is still honored. I’d like to know when, and how, that evolved.

I’m learning a lot here about the similarities and differences between the way Catholics and Mormons view excommunication. So far, it looks like:

Both belief systems (at least officially) view excommunication as a discipline–a tool for repentance. The idea is to prod the wandering one back to the 'straight and narrow path," not to kick 'em to the curb.

Catholics have a concept of automatic excommunication that Mormons do not.

For CAtholics, excommunication is both more informal–and easier to reverse–than the Mormon version. An LDS excommunication is very serious, very formal—and coming back from one is an equally serious and formal process.

For a Catholic, because of the permanent nature of baptism, one can never BE completely excommunicated in the way that a Mormon is. In fact, I think that a Catholic excommunication is probably more akin to an LDS disfellowshipping.

The whole thing goes back, I think, to the idea that, to a Catholic, the baptism is absolute, permanent, and not alterable–no matter what.

I was referring to Zaff’s post which has a quote that states that the distinction between vitandus and toleratus no longer applies today, post the 1983 Code of Canon Law. A google of his quote actually points to wikipedia, haha. Now, the wikipedia quote does reference the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, however all the Commentary states is that excommunicated persons lose rights such as the right to the sacraments, however they are still bound to the obligations of the law (i.e. going to church on Sundays and Holy Days, observing fasts, etc). So, while I am wary of my previous statement now that I googled the quote in question, I do agree with Zaff that what I consistently see is an encouragement (or even requirement) of excommunicated persons to attend church, follow the calendar, the fasts, etc.

 

[dianaiad]

I was referring to Zaff’s post which has a quote that states that the distinction between vitandus and toleratus no longer applies today, post the 1983 Code of Canon Law. A google of his quote actually points to wikipedia, haha. Now, the wikipedia quote does reference the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, however all the Commentary states is that excommunicated persons lose rights such as the right to the sacraments, however they are still bound to the obligations of the law (i.e. going to church on Sundays and Holy Days, observing fasts, etc). So, while I am wary of my previous statement now that I googled the quote in question, I do agree with Zaff that what I consistently see is an encouragement (or even requirement) of excommunicated persons to attend church, follow the calendar, the fasts, etc.

I ended up with the Catholic encyclopedia “New Advent,” which gave me the information I have.

I happen to LOVE Wikipedia, but only as a place to begin; what you do with it is check out the endnotes…the sources that the wiki author used, and confirm information by going to the sources. That can send you on a really circular merry go round chase, but sometimes you actually get something useful.

This particular question, I think, needs to be bumped up to an expert.

 

[TheosisM]

So if someone is excommunicated you can still attened mass but not have communion … how does this sit for when you have died? Do you still go to heaven?

I’m not sure what you mean by “still go to Heaven”, since Catholics do not believe in “once saved, always saved”. I think this also depends on what someone was excommunicated for, whether they were trying to repent and be reconciled with God and His Church, etc. An excommunicated person’s salvation is clearly endangered (since they were part of Christ’s Church and knowingly did something to place them outside of full communion), however we cannot judge and say that that person will certainly go to Hell or Heaven (though I’m sure that we may assume that certain cases are more clear cut than others).

 

[TheosisM]

I ended up with the Catholic encyclopedia “New Advent,” which gave me the information I have.

I happen to LOVE Wikipedia, but only as a place to begin; what you do with it is check out the endnotes…the sources that the wiki author used, and confirm information by going to the sources. That can send you on a really circular merry go round chase, but sometimes you actually get something useful.

This particular question, I think, needs to be bumped up to an expert.

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.

 

[Stephen168]

Am I wrong? Please correct me if I am.

Yes, you are wrong. Post #58 starts to address why.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

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:

CENSURES

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/** to have any ministerial participation** in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;

2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;

3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;

4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;

5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.

Can. 1332 The prohibitions mentioned in ⇒ can. 1331, §1, nn. 1 and 2 bind an interdicted person. If the interdict has been imposed or declared, however, the prescript of ⇒ can. 1331, §2, n. 1 must be observed.

Can. 1333 §1. Suspension, which can affect only clerics, prohibits:

1/ either all or some acts of the power of orders;

2/ either all or some acts of the power of governance;

3/ the exercise of either all or some of the rights or functions attached to an office.

§2. A law or precept can establish that a suspended person cannot place acts of governance validly after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence.

§3. A prohibition never affects:

1/ the offices or the power of governance which are not under the power of the superior who establishes the penalty;

2/ the right of residence which the offender may have by reason of office;

3/ the right to administer goods which may pertain to the office of the person suspended if the penalty is latae sententiae.

§4. A suspension prohibiting a person from receiving benefits, a stipend, pensions, or any other such thing entails the obligation of making restitution for whatever has been received illegitimately, even if in good faith.

Can. 1334 §1. Within the limits established by the preceding canon, either the law or precept itself or the sentence or decree which imposes the penalty defines the extent of a suspension.

§2. A law, but not a precept, can establish a latae sententiae suspension without additional determination or limitation; such a penalty has all the eVects listed in ⇒ can. 1333, §1.

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

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.

 

[Yerusalyim]

“Interogated?”

In a Temple Recomend interview, I am asked if I am a full tithe payer. I say yes–and that’s the end of that. If I say “no,” the bishop might ask when I thought I could become a full tithe payer. I would answer with when, or simply 'not yet," and that would be the end of that. If you call that “interogation,” you haven’t been watching enough episodes of 'The Closer."

And no, we don’t have to wear strange underwear. Those of us who have gone to the Temple WANT to wear Temple garments, but we don’t think they are strange at all. In fact, they are a lot more comfortable, both summer and winter, than the typical bra/pantie/briefs/boxers choice.

A friend of mine who used to be an LDS chaplain in the Army told me a funny story about temple garments. Before he became a Chaplain and was an enlisted man, his first visit to the doctor at sick call was a trial. The doctor wanted to lift his T-shirt out of his pants to listen to his lungs with the stethescope…beings he was wearing his temple garments and the doc, not satisfied with one gentle tug, nearly lifted my friend off the exam table with a wank that gave him a terrible wedgy…it happend again on other visits with other docs…but the first was the worst.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Wow! SO the church makes the underware?!? That’s amazing! The Gap makes mine.

Your underwear has gaps?

 

[aspirant]

I LOVE the show BIG LOVE. As a former mormon, I have to say that in most cases they are “dead on”.

I have been impressed, especially as the show has progressed, by the research behind some elements of the show.

 

[aspirant]

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

Just for the record, this is not a useful source for many issues pertaining to canon law, since it was not only published before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, but even before the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Much canon law, unlike doctrine and moral teaching, is changeable.

 

[aspirant]

The Catholic Encyclopedia still indicates

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.

Both belief systems (at least officially) view excommunication as a discipline–a tool for repentance. The idea is to prod the wandering one back to the 'straight and narrow path," not to kick 'em to the curb.

Yes, though if I’m not mistaken it is used much less frequently among Catholics.

Catholics have a concept of automatic excommunication that Mormons do not.

For the record, the law and its consequence must be known at the time of its violation in order for an automatic excommunication to be incurred. Direct procurement of an abortion, for example, incurs automatic excommunication, but only if the person procuring the abortion knows the law and consequence at the time the abortion is procured. If a Catholic woman procured an abortion without knowing it is excommunicable, no excommunication would be incurred.