Mormon Religion

[Answersplease]

But the Catholic view of excommunication latae sententiae does not allow for repentance; the act itself instantly imposes the excommunication, no matter what the sinner regrets or how s/he repents.

I think what she’s saying is that latae sententiae excommunication does not allow for a person to repent before the excommunication occurs (and therefore avoid excommunication), since it is “automatic”. In contrast (and this is my assumption, not sure if this is what would actually happen), ferendae sententiae excommunication (and the Mormon equivalent) could allow for a repentant person to not be excommunicated. So, let’s say that someone has an abortion, but they are repentant. The latae sententiae excommunication applies because of the very act (and of course that they meet the requirements for all penalties in the Roman Catholic church, such as age, full knowledge, etc), even if they are repentant.

In contrast, let’s say that a person does something(s) that causes them to have to appear before a church tribunal for excommunication (ferendae sententiae). If they are repentant, they could in theory therefore avoid excommunication. Again, this is in contrast to latae sententiae excommunication, where the act itself causes the immediate excommunication of someone, and because of that, being repentant does not allow for one to avoid the excommunication, since it is immediate/automatic.

 

[Answersplease]

But the Catholic view of excommunication latae sententiae does not allow for repentance; the act itself instantly imposes the excommunication, no matter what the sinner regrets or how s/he repents.

I think what she’s saying is that latae sententiae excommunication does not allow for a person to repent before the excommunication occurs (and therefore avoid excommunication), since it is “automatic”. In contrast (and this is my assumption, not sure if this is what would actually happen), ferendae sententiae excommunication (and the Mormon equivalent) could allow for a repentant person to not be excommunicated. So, let’s say that someone has an abortion, but they are repentant. The latae sententiae excommunication applies because of the very act (and of course that they meet the requirements for all penalties in the Roman Catholic church, such as age, full knowledge, etc), even if they are repentant.

In contrast, let’s say that a person does something(s) that causes them to have to appear before a church tribunal for excommunication (ferendae sententiae). If they are repentant, they could in theory therefore avoid excommunication. Again, this is in contrast to latae sententiae excommunication, where the act itself causes the immediate excommunication of someone, and because of that, being repentant does not allow for one to avoid the excommunication, since it is immediate/automatic.

God bless you again Dianaiad.

There seems to be some confusion about how and why the Catholic Church says someone has been excommunicated.

First we need a little foundation for the topic.

The Holy Bible states that all sin cuts people off from Jesus Christ who Christians and Messianic Jews believe is the one true God.

Colossians 2:13
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Romans 6:11
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

All sins informally excommunicate people, and makes them unworthy to receive the Eucharist, however they are not totally cut off.

Venial sins are forgiven during the Catholic Mass, but other more serious sins are not and require the sacrament of confession.

So now we can finally answer your question, why do some sins incurr automatic and instant excommunication and other sins don’t.

The answer is that all sins incurr automatic and instant informal excommunication, it is just that some excommunications need to be formally pronounced due to the reasons stated below, either latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae.

Latae sententiae when there is no doubt about the sin.

Ferendae sententiae when a court must rule that a sin was actually commited.

So why are some excommunications formally pronounced and others not?

The answer comes in several reasons:

1.) To show the seriousness of the sin to the person who did it and prod them to repentance.

2.) To show anyone else who is familliar with the person that they should not emulate the persons actions.

3.) Because it is common knowledge that some sins are always wrong and contemptable. But there are some serious sins that some people might think is “no big deal” or “it is not really serious.”

4.) The subject is ambiguous and there must be “no confusion” about the Catholic Churches position on the matter.

I hope that I got everything correct, I apologize to the Catholics if I got some things wrong.

Again, God bless you Dianaiad.

 

[Answersplease]

3.) Because it is common knowledge that some sins are always wrong and contemptable. But there are some serious sins that some people might think is “no big deal” or “it is not really serious.”

To further clarify reason #3,

The Catholic Church must clearly show their position on certain sins that some people might think are “no big deal” or “not really serious.” So the Catholic Church formally pronounces the excommunication in order to show that the Catholic Church really does consider the sins in question to be quite serious.

Other serious sins don’t need that kind of formally pronounced excommunication, because it is common knowledge that those sins are always wrong and always seriously sinful.

I hope that I got everything correct, I apologize to the Catholics if I got some things wrong.

 

[mariahloves]

At the risk of sounding ignorant, is it the Mormons who believe your family (kids, spouse, etc.) will be with you in Heaven when you die as your family and you’ll continue living as a family in Heaven? This could be the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I get them confused with Mormons (I don’t think they’re that similar it’s just I always see them “grouped” together).

 

[zerinus]

At the risk of sounding ignorant, is it the Mormons who believe your family (kids, spouse, etc.) will be with you in Heaven when you die as your family and you’ll continue living as a family in Heaven? This could be the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I get them confused with Mormons (I don’t think they’re that similar it’s just I always see them “grouped” together).

Yep, that is the Mormons.

 

[zerinus]

Sorry, I was referring to a “name removal” process, which isn’t a penalty, but what someone may request. The most serious penalty the Catholic Church can impose or recognize is excommunication.

It’s not something that I am familiar with, so I can’t comment on that person’s standing.

I have found the following information on how to have your name removed, which seems to suggest that excommunication and name removal amount to the same things:

atheistactivist.org/Defect.html

What I do know is that neither name removal nor excommunication can undo a person’s baptism or priesthood in the Catholic Church.

Well, in a sense that is also true of Mormonism. When an excommunicated Mormon returns to the Church, even though he is re-baptized, all of his previous ordinations and priesthood blessings are restored to him by a special ordinance of the Priesthood. He does not have to be “re-ordained” or “re-endowed;” and even his baptismal date is reset to the date of the original baptism, so that it is as though he had never been excommunicated. You couldn’t tell by looking at his membership records that he had at one time been excommunicated.

 

[Stephen168]

Thanks for that as I don’t know much about excommunication. Also I cannot understand how you can be re-baptized etc do mormons believe God has a ledger in Heaven that takes your name off a list or something?

When Mormons baptize they believe two things ‘happen’

1. Your personal sins are forgiven
2. You join the church (covenant)

That is why they reject infant baptism

Now if someone commits a horrible sin like publishing a calendar of missionaries they are excommunicated. They are thrown out of the church. They are kicked to the curb with sin all over their face. By baptizing again the sin is forgiven and they are back in the covenant.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Aren’t ALL sins actually about rebellion? Any time someone sins, it is a rebellion against God’s will.

All sins are a rebellion against God. Not all sins are a rebellion against the Church.

they were NOT all excommunicated. Why? Because Hardy is anything BUT repentant; he is proud of his calendars and keeps making them. The models were called to disciplinary hearings…and evidently were repentant. They haven’t repeated the actions, certainly. Repentant, in other words. Therefore, not excommunicated.

This doesn’t hold up, as lds are excommunicated for sins, such as adultery, and they may be very regretful and repentant.

But the Catholic view of excommunication latae sententiae does not allow for repentance; the act itself instantly imposes the excommunication, no matter what the sinner regrets or how s/he repents.

Remember there are conditions that must be met. A long while back I recommended a book on Catholic moral theology. I still think it would help you understand.

In LDS thought, repentance often prevents the excommunication…but when a Catholic commits a sin that results in latae sententiae excommunication, repentance can not PREVENT the excommunication; that’s done. All the sinner can do is begin the process to get that excommunication LIFTED.

You still need to remember latae sententiae has certain conditions that must be met.

Ergo, it’s not the rebellion; it is the specific expression of that rebellion that does the damage to a Catholic sinner. He can rebel in other ways…murder, rape, whatever—and not incur an excommunication. However, the Catholic woman who has an abortion, no matter how instantly repentant she may be, is still instantly excommunicated.

Not all sins are a rebellion against the Church. Abortion is for the fact that in these times, many Catholics have an idea they can ignore the Church’s teachings and procure an abortion for themselves, or another person. I don’t know of any Catholic, devout, lukewarm or cafeteria who has an idea the Church’s teaching on “murder, rape, whatever”, can be ignored.

There are also Catholics who actively seek to remove abortion as a sin, or who campaign for pro-choice. I read not too long ago of a nun who actively campaigns for pro-choice. There is no such thing going on for “murder, rape, whatever”.

Perhaps there will come a time when all Catholics form the same understanding for abortion as there is for murder or rape.

Getting an abortion,doesn’t fit with the rest. It stands out in that list of sins as something very different from them. Unlike the rest of them, a person procuring an abortion probably isn’t thinking about Catholicism at the time–and if s/he is, it’s not 'I’ll show you what I think of your teachings…" the way the other items in the list are, but rather “ooh, the church teaches that this is wrong…” in the way a murderer, rapist, thief or other sort of sinner would think, if the thought of what the church thought even entered their minds.

It is a rebellion against Church teaching, specifically, against our Bishops. Look up in Canon Law the responsibility Catholics have to follow their Bishops.

Well, I’m done writing to think; I’m just throwing some thoughts out to consider. I AM objecting to your idea that Mormons 'aim excommunication at the specific sin." when in fact, unlike Catholics we do not HAVE a list of sins that MUST result in excommunication.

You do, in your CHI, but since the current CHI is kept hidden from the majority of mormons and all non-mormons, we can’t really go through it and make a list.

Also, a mormon bishop usually hears a confession of serious sin, and based on that confession, can choose to go through the process of excommunicating the person. Isn’t a person who is in confession seeking repentance, and find themselves excommunicated?

What we HAVE is a process whereby excommunication is either applied to an unrepentant sinner (hey…he showed us he wanted to have nothing to do with us…let’s give him his wish) or is given to a repentant sinner who needs it to get his head and his faith together. Either way, it’s the PERSON, and not the sin committed.

You cannot show this. Adultery is automatic excommunication, as is murder.

With Catholics, though…c’mon, Rebecca, do I have to quote the list of sins that CATHOLICS say result in INSTANT excommunication, no matter who commits them? Do I have to point out the fact that once having committed those sins, the sinner must have that excommuncation LIFTED? That there is no “oh, I see that you had an abortion…but I see that you are contrite and repentant so we won’t excommunicate you,” ever. It’s “well, you had an abortion, which resulted in this excommunication…but you are repentant and contrite so let’s lift that excommunication.”

This is a fantasy, one that is not based on Catholic moral law. I can only recommend you come to understand Catholic moral law, as it would help in your interpretation of Canon Law.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I have found the following information on how to have your name removed, which seems to suggest that excommunication and name removal amount to the same things:

atheistactivist.org/Defect.html

Well, in a sense that is also true of Mormonism. When an excommunicated Mormon returns to the Church, even though he is re-baptized, all of his previous ordinations and priesthood blessings are restored to him by a special ordinance of the Priesthood. He does not have to be “re-ordained” or “re-endowed;” and even his baptismal date is reset to the date of the original baptism, so that it is as though he had never been excommunicated. You couldn’t tell by looking at his membership records that he had at one time been excommunicated.

And again we see an example of how it is perfectly acceptable for an LDS to use non-Catholic sources, atheists even.

 

[TheosisM]

I have found the following information on how to have your name removed, which seems to suggest that excommunication and name removal amount to the same things:

atheistactivist.org/Defect.html

Since that is a non-Catholic website, I would take what it says with a grain of salt. But thanks, again this isn’t really something that I’m familiar with.

Well, in a sense that is also true of Mormonism. When an excommunicated Mormon returns to the Church, even though he is re-baptized, all of his previous ordinations and priesthood blessings are restored to him by a special ordinance of the Priesthood. He does not have to be “re-ordained” or “re-endowed;” and even his baptismal date is reset to the date of the original baptism, so that it is as though he had never been excommunicated. You couldn’t tell by looking at his membership records that he had at one time been excommunicated.

Right. However as I mentioned to dianaiad, an excommunicated priest in Catholicism still has the “power of the priesthood”, in that, while in the excommunicated state, they can still validly confer most of the sacraments. For example, an excommunicated priest can still consecrate the bread and wine, can still confirm someone, can still confer anointing of the sick, and bishops can still ordain someone. All of these would be illicit, or unlawful, but they would still be valid, because the excommunicated priest’s priesthood is still active. Also, excommunicated priests are still bound by certain priestly obligations, such as praying the Divine Office, since they still remain priests.

Since an excommunication Mormon becomes a non-member, but they don’t need to be “re-ordained” (instead they go through the “restoration of blessings” ordinance), it seems to me that the priesthood in such persons is inactivated or made dormant. They can’t exercise the priesthood because it has been inactivated. In contrast, a Catholic priest can exercise the priesthood, but it would be unlawful for him to do so. This is why Catholics make a big deal about schism, and the issue of “valid but illicit” sacraments, such as in discussions about the SSPX (a group with irregular status related to the Catholic Church) or even with the Orthodox Church.

 

[Xavierlives]

I have found the following information on how to have your name removed, which seems to suggest that excommunication and name removal amount to the same things:

atheistactivist.org/Defect.html

Well, in a sense that is also true of Mormonism. When an excommunicated Mormon returns to the Church, even though he is re-baptized, all of his previous ordinations and priesthood blessings are restored to him by a special ordinance of the Priesthood. He does not have to be “re-ordained” or “re-endowed;” and even his baptismal date is reset to the date of the original baptism, so that it is as though he had never been excommunicated. You couldn’t tell by looking at his membership records that he had at one time been excommunicated.

If there was only a form I could send into the Mormons to let them know I don’t ever want to be counted on their ledgers. That would be a huge accomplishment.

 

[aspirant]

If there was only a form I could send into the Mormons to let them know I don’t ever want to be counted on their ledgers. That would be a huge accomplishment.

This is not a Mormon website, so the information may not be accurate: How to Remove Your Name from the LDS Records.

 

[dianaiad]

Wrong. This has already been discussed many times. The entire purpose of the canonical penalty is medicinal, and it certainly does not preclude repentance and reconciliation with either God or the Church.

The claim that the canons apply “no matter who commits them” is also erroneous, as has been explained many times.

Aspirant, c’mon.

I have specifically stated, MANY times now, that for both Catholics AND Mormons, the idea of excommunication is ‘medicinal.’ The whole goal for both faiths is to get those people BACK. As such, repentance is always ‘allowed for.’

But, as was my point here, in Catholic terms it is obvious that in latae sententiae excommunication, repentance is only effective to get the excommunication lifted, not to prevent it in the first place.

For Mormons, the process is: commit the sin…repent of the sin–no excommunication/excommunication as a part of the repentence process with the object of rebaptism. That’s the way it is for ALL excommunications.

For Catholics, that’s the way it is for excommunications that are imposed by church courts, but for latae sententiae, it’s: commit the sin…incur the excommunication whether you repent or not…repentance can get the excommunication lifted but cannot PREVENT it. The only way to prevent a latae sententiae excommunication is to not commit the sin that causes it. (and yes, ‘committing the sin’ ALSO includes the bits about knowing that it is a sin and understanding the consequences of committing that sin.)

This is not a criticism of the way Catholics do things. You do 'em your way, we will do 'em ours…and neither one of us has a right to criticise the way the OTHER group handles membership and hierarchical issues. However, when you guys criticize mine, I have the right to point out that if you are going to judge us by your standards, then you can’t get all huffy if we examine your practices though our own lenses.

 

[dianaiad]

I think what she’s saying is that latae sententiae excommunication does not allow for a person to repent before the excommunication occurs (and therefore avoid excommunication), since it is “automatic”. In contrast (and this is my assumption, not sure if this is what would actually happen), ferendae sententiae excommunication (and the Mormon equivalent) could allow for a repentant person to not be excommunicated. So, let’s say that someone has an abortion, but they are repentant. The latae sententiae excommunication applies because of the very act (and of course that they meet the requirements for all penalties in the Roman Catholic church, such as age, full knowledge, etc), even if they are repentant.

In contrast, let’s say that a person does something(s) that causes them to have to appear before a church tribunal for excommunication (ferendae sententiae). If they are repentant, they could in theory therefore avoid excommunication. Again, this is in contrast to latae sententiae excommunication, where the act itself causes the immediate excommunication of someone, and because of that, being repentant does not allow for one to avoid the excommunication, since it is immediate/automatic.

Thank you, theosis…that is precisely what I was saying. Now if I could only remember the term ‘ferendae sententiae’…(sigh)

 

[dianaiad]

God bless you again Dianaiad.

It seems you don’t have the correct understanding of why the Eucharist is not allowed for excommunicated Catholics.

It is because one must be worthy to receive the Eucharist, the Holy Bible states that if people receive the body of Christ unworthily, those people may be eating to the detriment of their soul.

It is the same for us Mormons, Answersplease. The sacrament/communion is as important to us as the Eucharist is to you, and for many of the same reasons.

Withholding the Eucharist from them is a merciful act since if they receive the Body of Christ unworthily, then it just adds to their sins.

Again, God bless you Dianaiad.

…and again, it is the same for us. We do not disfellowship or excommunicate in order to damn someone–we do it in order that the sinner will NOT be damned…for the same reason you exclude sinners laboring under a burden of mortal sin or excommunication from the Eucharist, we exclude some from partaking of the sacrament. It is not a bit unusual to see people refuse it because they do not consider themselves, for whatever reason, to not be worthy of taking it.

 

[Marie5890]

It is the same for us Mormons, Answersplease. The sacrament/communion is as important to us as the Eucharist is to you, and for many of the same reasons.

…and again, it is the same for us. We do not disfellowship or excommunicate in order to damn someone–we do it in order that the sinner will NOT be damned…for the same reason you exclude sinners laboring under a burden of mortal sin or excommunication from the Eucharist, we exclude some from partaking of the sacrament. It is not a bit unusual to see people refuse it because they do not consider themselves, for whatever reason, to not be worthy of taking it.

I hear what you are saying Diana, and you have very valid points.
But, and I am sure you realize this considering the the belief in the Real Presence, the danger to partaking of the Eucharist while in such a state of grave sin has a greater sense of of damnation.

I would suggest to you that, in the Mormon point of view, a better equivalent would be being denied access to the temples, where it is believed that Christ, the temples being the House of the Lord, may dwell.

Mormons believe He dwells (or may dwell according to His will) in the temples.
Catholics believe He is really present in the Eucharist.

The Mormon sacrament, even though at first glance seems to be equal to the Eucharist, really isnt in terms of the sacredness and holiness.

I would say that level of sacredness and holiness would be found in how Mormons view the temple.

I hope that make sense.

 

[dianaiad]

All sins are a rebellion against God. Not all sins are a rebellion against the Church.

This doesn’t hold up, as lds are excommunicated for sins, such as adultery, and they may be very regretful and repentant.

Yes… but not all adulterers are, y’know. Those who ARE excommunicated for such things have not only committed adultery, they have ALSO broken their Temple covenants…sort of a double whammy. For such things a period of excommunication may be the only way back. You have forgotten, I think, what excommunication is all about.

As a matter of fact, disfellowshipping is used more often in these cases than excommunication. When you are a Mormon in full fellowship, it’s HARD to take the time to reflect and get yourself back on track if your own moral compass is skewed; excommunication and/or disfellowshipping provides the time–and when it is done the way it is supposed to be done, the support and help one needs to do that, too.

Remember there are conditions that must be met. A long while back I recommended a book on Catholic moral theology. I still think it would help you understand.

You still need to remember latae sententiae has certain conditions that must be met.

Strawman, Rebecca. I understand that conditions must be met. The assumption is THAT all those conditions have actually BEEN met: sinner knowing that s/he is sinning, what the sin IS, and what the consequences are, and deliberately taking that action. I got that already. Let us assume that all those conditions have indeed been met and go from there.

Not all sins are a rebellion against the Church. Abortion is for the fact that in these times, many Catholics have an idea they can ignore the Church’s teachings and procure an abortion for themselves, or another person. I don’t know of any Catholic, devout, lukewarm or cafeteria who has an idea the Church’s teaching on “murder, rape, whatever”, can be ignored.

You, yourself, wrote that you did not know…and that probably most Catholics did not know, that abortion resulted in a latae sententiae excommunication. Judging from the other sins in that list, it’s hard to imagine that anybody could commit THEM without knowing that this penalty was attached…most of them require that one be in the religious life. I’m sure that priests, monks and nuns are given basic instructions in canon law.

So…to most Catholics, abortion would be put in the same category as murder or rape–at least in terms of consequences, but it isn’t.

…and by your own statements, most Catholics aren’t aware of that. I can’t help but wonder why that is. It’s just odd to me, I suppose.

I mean…what in the word do attempting violence against the Pope or a Bishop, defiling the Host, and having an abortion have in common? The first two? Yeah…those are deliberate acts of sacrilege. The last one?

Not so much. A Mortal sin, of course–but more serious, or more ‘rebellious against the church’ than, say, murdering an infant or raping one?

There are also Catholics who actively seek to remove abortion as a sin, or who campaign for pro-choice. I read not too long ago of a nun who actively campaigns for pro-choice. There is no such thing going on for “murder, rape, whatever”.

Actually… NAMBLA is doing precisely that for pedophilia, there are quite a few organizations that are campaigning to make prostitution legal, several for ‘right to die’ organizations…and yes, there are Catholics involved in all of those, as well. Not to mention the number of judges and people who still think that ‘the woman was asking for it’ and excusing the rapist. There are people and organizations for the support of almost everything, Rebecca. Yet Catholicism hasn’t put pedophilia on the latae sententiae list, nor is euthanasia there.

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

Perhaps there will come a time when all Catholics form the same understanding for abortion as there is for murder or rape. It is a rebellion against Church teaching, specifically, against our Bishops. Look up in Canon Law the responsibility Catholics have to follow their Bishops.

I did…and I understand the responsibility that Catholics have to follow their Bishops. The problem is, most of the Catholics here on this forum (including you) seemed to have been blindsided by the idea that abortion is ON that latae sententiae list, and went madly scrambling to excuse everybody because they didn’t know about this particular consequence; in fact, several of you made quite a point of saying that canon law was simply not taught to Catholics in general…and by the way, that’s a good thing.

It’s a dichotomy that has me a little flurmuggled, to be honest.

You do, in your CHI, but since the current CHI is kept hidden from the majority of mormons and all non-mormons, we can’t really go through it and make a list.

We don’t… and by the way, the CHI is available…and for quite awhile it was on the internet. Still is if you know where to look. The list you speak of is a list of sins that MIGHT result in excommunication, depending upon the sinner.

There is NO list that states that anybody who commits this sin, or that one. WILL be excommunicated no matter what. Sorry about that.

Also, a mormon bishop usually hears a confession of serious sin, and based on that confession, can choose to go through the process of excommunicating the person. Isn’t a person who is in confession seeking repentance, and find themselves excommunicated?

Sometimes. That happens with Catholics, too. Sometimes the nature of the sin plus the process of repentance require that ‘time out.’ Sometimes it requires a lesser penalty, like disfellowshipping. Sometimes probation…sometimes the expression of repentance and what the sinner is doing in his or her own life is sufficient. Everything is based, not upon the sin primarily, but upon the sinner and where S/HE is in the process. Someone who comes to confess to the Bishop is not only repentant–in most cases is consulted in what the proper remedy will be; I know at least three cases where it was the SINNER who requested excommunication rather than a lesser ‘penalty,’ because there is an absolute end to the process. When you are re baptized, you KNOW you are forgiven; the process is complete. With lesser consequences that can be a little more ‘squishy,’ for the penitent. Remember, we do not HAVE the confessional where the priest can grant absolution.

You cannot show this. Adultery is automatic excommunication, as is murder.

And you cannot show THAT. You are correct; murder is pretty much automatic–when it really IS premeditated murder. As you mention, there are some pretty strict requirements that must be met, and those are pretty much the same for both faiths. As for adultery, no…it’s not. Comes close–especially if the adultery was committed against a Temple marriage, but even then, sometimes not.

I find it interesting that you claim that I 'cannot show this" and then respond with a catagorical claim that you yourself cannot support.

As it happens, depending upon whether the marriage is a Temple marriage, how long ago it was committed, how repentant the sinner is, how the spouse is dealing with it, how the adultery is disclosed to the Bishop (again, a sincerely repentant person, fairly new in the church or not in a leadership position, and supported by his/her spouse, who confesses to the Bishop is a LOT less likely to be excommunicated than the first counselor in the Bishopric who runs off to Vegas with his secretary).

I know this one FIRST hand…because of a family situation. Two of them, actually. In one case the adulterer was excommunicated…and later ‘came back’ (and is now a Stake President.) In another case the sinner was NOT excommunicated–and he specifically asked to BE excommunicated. His Bishop refused–disfellowshipped him and told him to “man up” and take care of his family. Both were appropriate–and you had to know both men to understand why.

 

[Stephen168]

Also, a mormon bishop usually hears a confession of serious sin, and based on that confession, can choose to go through the process of excommunicating the person. Isn’t a person who is in confession seeking repentance, and find themselves excommunicated?

So a Mormon could go to confession and find themselves excommunicated?

 

[dianaiad]

Since that is a non-Catholic website, I would take what it says with a grain of salt. But thanks, again this isn’t really something that I’m familiar with.

Right. However as I mentioned to dianaiad, an excommunicated priest in Catholicism still has the “power of the priesthood”, in that, while in the excommunicated state, they can still validly confer most of the sacraments. For example, an excommunicated priest can still consecrate the bread and wine, can still confirm someone, can still confer anointing of the sick, and bishops can still ordain someone. All of these would be illicit, or unlawful, but they would still be valid, because the excommunicated priest’s priesthood is still active. Also, excommunicated priests are still bound by certain priestly obligations, such as praying the Divine Office, since they still remain priests.

Since an excommunication Mormon becomes a non-member, but they don’t need to be “re-ordained” (instead they go through the “restoration of blessings” ordinance), it seems to me that the priesthood in such persons is inactivated or made dormant. They can’t exercise the priesthood because it has been inactivated. In contrast, a Catholic priest can exercise the priesthood, but it would be unlawful for him to do so. This is why Catholics make a big deal about schism, and the issue of “valid but illicit” sacraments, such as in discussions about the SSPX (a group with irregular status related to the Catholic Church) or even with the Orthodox Church.

Qhestion…if an ordinance is ‘valid.’ Then what difference does it make if it is 'unlawful?"