Say what about the excommunicated?

[frangiuliano115]

“He may not participate in public worship”.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

What on earth does that mean? I had always heard an excommunicated Catholic was still under obligation to attend Mass but was not to receive the Sacraments. No?

Am I just too simple?

Who can’t receive communion?
Someone with an unconfessed mortal sin.

Is that person saved (going to heaven).
No. According to the catholic church.

So I can’t receive communion. So I’m not saved.
So why am I going to Mass??

I’ve asked a couple of priests this and they will not give a solid answer. The typical stuff, we can’t know their heart, it doesn’t mean they’re not right with God…

Wha??

You just told me they can’t receive communion!

Vicious circle. It’s like, we just can’t be upfront about some things.

This seems to be a very important issue (to me). What’s the use of participating or not participating if I’m being told I’m going to hell?

Fran
The I and the ME is figurative. Not speaking about myself –

 

[Usige]

But they can sit in the pew and worship publicly, say the prayers, sing the hymns, right?

Yes. The whole purpose of excommunication is supposed to be a wakeup call to return the person to the fold. The hope is the anguish of being seperated from the sacraments will cause the offender to return to orthodoxy and seek reconciliation with the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

If an excommunicated person cannot receive Eucharist, then he is forever in violation of the Church commandment to received Eucharist during Easter time. He is therefore damned. What say you?

I’m not sure why you think that not being able to receive the Eucharist equals “therefore damned”?

One is damned when one dies, and refuses to turn towards Him.

 

[Usige]

If an excommunicated person cannot receive Eucharist, then he is forever in violation of the Church commandment to received Eucharist during Easter time. He is therefore damned. What say you?

They are not forever barred. All one has to do is reject those things that lead to the excommunication and seek reconciliation with Christ and his Church. Yes they would fail in both the Easter duty and to confess once a year, but I suspect what ever lead to their excommunication would have already put their soul in mortal jeopardy.

The intent of excommunication is to return them to the truth, but only the person can take the steps to make amends. Unfortunately in this day and age, many Catholics freely reject the teaching authority of the Church and basically do not see excommunication as a big deal. If they can pick and chose what moral teaching to follow, they can chose to ignore any pesky juridical act also. It’s not like we have the bell, book, and candle ceremonies of the past that were hard to ignore.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Participating in Mass is, I believe, considered celebrating (#2). In fact, as I read #2, it seems that the excommunicate cannot even pray a private Rosary (which is a sacramental)! That’s something I had never thought about.

David:

Only a priest or bishop can “celebrate Mass”.

Canon law is of the temporal authority of the Church. These laws can NEVER nullify or change the eternal moral law, including all the negative and positive precepts. The moral obligation to pray, to worship God, to keep holy the Sabbath cannot be remitted by any law.

It is completely ridiculous to interpret #2 (on sacramentals) to mean that the excommunicate cannot pray the rosary privately.

Your claim that the excommunicate can sit in the pews, but may not “participate” by praying, singing, etc. is baseless. The rule for interpretation of Canon law is stated:

“Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.”

Since excommunication is a penalty, the Canons applying that penalty are to be interpreted strictly, meaning narrowly. That means you absolutely cannot draw an unstated conclusion, such as that the excommunicate cannot pray during Mass, or cannot pray the rosary, or cannot attend Mass, etc.

But sacramentals (like Indulgences) are exercises of the temporal authority of the Church. The acts are meaningless apart from the Church. If the Church denies sacramentals to the excommunicate, then there is no Grace associated with them.

The excommunicated person may be in the state of grace. And even persons who are unrepentant from actual mortal sin can receive and cooperate with actual graces to some extent. So the idea that grace is denied to the excommunicate using a sacramental is contrary to the mercy of God and the teaching of the Church on grace.

The Canon “to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments” refers to clerics in the first part “celebrate”, and to everyone in the second part “receive”. Notice that sacramentals is absent from the second part. This means that lay persons and clerics can receive sacramentals, even when excommunicated.

To every poster: Certain questions in theology and Canon law, if answered incorrectly, can do grave harm to the souls of readers. We must all be careful not to jump to conclusions which would place unnecessary obstacles before the path of salvation of anyone.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is not “wrong”. It is correct according to the canon law in force at the time it was written.

The 1983 code supersedes the older code.

Prior to 1983, were excommunicated Catholics not obligated to attend Mass? Or were they obligated to but required not to participate in any way in the worship while there? No prayers? No singing? But maybe if the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is outdated, it should be removed from CA as a source? What good is it to present outdated information to those trying to learn the current faith?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Am I just too simple?

Who can’t receive communion?
Someone with an unconfessed mortal sin.

Is that person saved (going to heaven).
No. According to the catholic church.

So I can’t receive communion. So I’m not saved.
So why am I going to Mass??

I’ve asked a couple of priests this and they will not give a solid answer. The typical stuff, we can’t know their heart, it doesn’t mean they’re not right with God…

Wha??

You just told me they can’t receive communion!

Vicious circle. It’s like, we just can’t be upfront about some things.

This seems to be a very important issue (to me). What’s the use of participating or not participating if I’m being told I’m going to hell?

Fran
The I and the ME is figurative. Not speaking about myself –

It is simply a confusing circle to me. They don’t know the heart. EXCEPT at the moment when it’s time to get in line to receive Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

It is simply a confusing circle to me. They don’t know the heart. EXCEPT at the moment when it’s time to get in line to receive Jesus.

I think a good parallel is to a man and a woman.

If they are divorced, then it’s quite clear that they shouldn’t be engaging in the marital embrace.

But if a husband and wife are fighting, perhaps even publically, it’s not for us to know whether they can engage in the marital embrace. That’s between them.

 

[dans0622]

“sigh” I’ll get dans0622 the canon lawyer again. He’s qualified to answer this question.

It’s nice to feel needed and wanted.

What makes him more qualified than the Pope or anyone else on this? Canon lawyers may have their place but why do we need a canon lawyer …

Or…not…

It’s worthwhile to note that the Catholic encyclopedia article predates even the 1917 Code of Canon Law. In that Code, there wasn’t a blanket prohibition as stated in the encyclopedia article. The 1917 Code said the excommunicated “did not have the right to assist at divine services”, it did not say that they were forbidden from them. Furthermore, the old Code said that all the excommunicated did have the right to hear the preaching of the Word of God.

That being said, there was a practical prohibition for the “vitandus” (he should be expelled, if possible) but not the “toleratus” (he doesn’t have to be expelled). This expulsion, it seems, would only happen after the preaching of the Word of God had completed.

Dan

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is simply a confusing circle to me. They don’t know the heart. EXCEPT at the moment when it’s time to get in line to receive Jesus.

Yes. Well, with all the knowledgeable people on this thread, it speaks volumes that no one has answered my question.

It’ll never be answered because no one is willing to face up to it.

Which is why I believe our relationship has to be with God…

Fran

 

[Usige]

Am I just too simple?

Who can’t receive communion?
Someone with an unconfessed mortal sin.

Is that person saved (going to heaven).
No. According to the catholic church.

So I can’t receive communion. So I’m not saved.
So why am I going to Mass??

I’ve asked a couple of priests this and they will not give a solid answer. The typical stuff, we can’t know their heart, it doesn’t mean they’re not right with God…

Wha??

You just told me they can’t receive communion!

Vicious circle. It’s like, we just can’t be upfront about some things.

This seems to be a very important issue (to me). What’s the use of participating or not participating if I’m being told I’m going to hell?

Fran
The I and the ME is figurative. Not speaking about myself –

This assumes that the reason to go to Mass is to receive the Eucharist. This thinking that Mass = receivng the Eucharist is a fairly recent phenomenon. The first 6 months I attended Mass I could not receive, but I was still nourished by the word of God. It lead to my conversion to the faith.

For someone who is excommunicated the reason to attend Mass is to be nourished by the word of God. Hopefully that nourishment would help them to repent and reconcile to Christ and his Church. Don’t discount the word of God during Mass in softening a hardened heart. The only reason it would be worthless is if a person refused to repent because of hardness of heart.

Excommunication isn’t permanent unless a person refuses to repent and reconcile.

 

[frangiuliano115]

This assumes that the reason to go to Mass is to receive the Eucharist. This thinking that Mass = receivng the Eucharist is a fairly recent phenomenon. The first 6 months I attended Mass I could not receive, but I was still nourished by the word of God. It lead to my conversion to the faith.

For someone who is excommunicated the reason to attend Mass is to be nourished by the word of God. Hopefully that nourishment would help them to repent and reconcile to Christ and his Church. Don’t discount the word of God during Mass in softening a hardened heart. The only reason it would be worthless is if a person refused to repent because of hardness of heart.

Excommunication isn’t permanent unless a person refuses to repent and reconcile.

Thanks for the reply. My problem is not with your first sentence.

I’m having a problem with remarried couples.

Civilly remarried couples cannot receive communion. This is because they’re living “in sin” and cannot enjoy the privilege of confession since there can be no absolution.

So the couple goes to church every Sunday like clockwork (real example) and cannot participate in the eucharist.

Isn’t the problem the fact that their soul is lost, and NOT that they can’t receive communion? Maybe I just can’t make myself be understood. Maybe we hate to tell them, “you’re lost right now” - because what could possibly be the solution? Not to many are willing to live as brother and sister.

Most couples feel like it’s okay. The only problem is that they can’t receive. So what? They keep going to church and all will be fine. I certainly would not speak such condeming words to anyone - but shouldn’t someone?

I agree re hearing the word of God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. Very good. But they’ve been sitting there at the mass for about 20 yrs now. Wouldn’t it be the church’s responsibility to inform them of the spiritual situation they’re in?

The church made marriage a sacrament and an alliance instead of a contract, in conjunction with Jesus’ teaching, of course.

I’m really confused. About why we’re not clear, I mean.

Fran

 

[Ron_Conte]

Who can’t receive communion?
Someone with an unconfessed mortal sin.

The Council of Trent infallibly taught that a priest who commits actual mortal sin can still say Mass and receive Communion, prior to Confession, if he makes an act of perfect contrition (and has no opportunity to confess). [Trent, 13th Session, Chapter VII]

So Catholics may not claim that all persons, without exception, who have committed an unconfessed mortal sin may not receive, nor can we say that the Church lacks the authority to decide who may receive after mortal sin, prior to Confession, but after perfect contrition.

Is that person saved (going to heaven).
No. According to the catholic church.

The Church teaches that a grave sin (an act that is objectively mortal sin) only deprives the baptized person of the state of grace if it is committed with full knowledge and complete consent, making it an “actual mortal sin”. If the unconfessed mortal sin is objectively a mortal sin, but lacks full knowledge or complete consent, it is only venial and does not deserve eternal punishment.

Also, a person can return to the state of grace, after actual mortal sin, by an act of perfect contrition, prior to Confession. So the person who commits an actual mortal sin, and who does not confess before dying might still die in the state of grace if he has made an act of perfect contrition.

So I can’t receive communion. So I’m not saved.
So why am I going to Mass??

Non-Catholics generally cannot receive Communion, and yet they can be saved.

Persons who cannot receive Communion can still benefit from Mass through grace and prayer.

 

[frangiuliano115]

The Council of Trent infallibly taught that a priest who commits actual mortal sin can still say Mass and receive Communion, prior to Confession, if he makes an act of perfect contrition (and has no opportunity to confess). [Trent, 13th Session, Chapter VII]

So Catholics may not claim that all persons, without exception, who have committed an unconfessed mortal sin may not receive, nor can we say that the Church lacks the authority to decide who may receive after mortal sin, prior to Confession, but after perfect contrition.

The Church teaches that a grave sin (an act that is objectively mortal sin) only deprives the baptized person of the state of grace if it is committed with full knowledge and complete consent, making it an “actual mortal sin”. If the unconfessed mortal sin is objectively a mortal sin, but lacks full knowledge or complete consent, it is only venial and does not deserve eternal punishment.

Also, a person can return to the state of grace, after actual mortal sin, by an act of perfect contrition, prior to Confession. So the person who commits an actual mortal sin, and who does not confess before dying might still die in the state of grace if he has made an act of perfect contrition.

Non-Catholics generally cannot receive Communion, and yet they can be saved.

Persons who cannot receive Communion can still benefit from Mass through grace and prayer.

Thanks Ron Conte.

Please see my post just above.

If we tell someone they cannot receive communion it’s because they have a mortal sin. THIS is the problem, NOT that they cannot receive communion, as most people believe.

If marriage is an oath, sacrament and covenant, and divorce is not allowed, and one gets remarried, shouldn’t they understand their spiritual state?

This is what I’m saying. I don’t understand why we insist on just saying that they can’t receive communion w/o making them understand the whole story.

Anyway, let’s see what happens in 2016. I mean, I’m not a legalistic person and do believe that something has to change, but how do you change doctrine? It’s confusing. Glad I’m not the Pope!

Fran

 

[Dorothy]

It is my understanding that they are encouraged to go to Mass, as that may nurture the hunger for them to want to receive. Hopefully, they can accept the grace to be strengthened by Jesus, and become strong by His grace to want to put Him first, and so live as brother and sister.

If this has not been explained to them it certainly should be.

 

[Inquiringperson]

It’s nice to feel needed and wanted.

Glad to see you come, Dan. We need your expertise. I just hate it when people think they don’t need an expert on canon lawyer because they’re “qualified” to do it. Though I am thankful for David for expressing the disclaimer that he is not a canon lawyer.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Glad to see you come, Dan. We need your expertise. I just hate it when people think they don’t need an expert on canon lawyer because they’re “qualified” to do it. Though I am thankful for David for expressing the disclaimer that he is not a canon lawyer.

Neither am I a lawyer but I just had hoped we didn’t have to be a lawyer to read the words, “He may not participate in public worship”. And then need one to determine for us what the word, “participate” means. It is just sad to me to see a Christian faith become so complicated that we need lawyers for so many things.

But that aside, I have seen here the date 1983 and Dan referenced 1917. I don’t mind who answers. Dan is welcome to or whomever knows. I’m just still trying to get the answer at this point.

When were excommunicated Catholics not obligated to attend Mass where they could hear the Word and might even participate in public worship by praying and singing? I guess what I’m asking is when were they not to participate in public worship as the Catholic Encyclopedia article states? Pre-1917 then? If they weren’t obligated to attend Mass, I could better see it. And I get they can’t celebrate a Mass on the altar. I get they are not to receive Sacraments except Reconciliation. But I just don’t see how you can be under obligation to attend Mass but then told you “may not participate in public worship”. The 2 simply don’t add up to me. Unless now prior to 1917, they were not under the Mass obligation and if that’s something that changed. Thank you all for your time. I will check back for any answers. And I apologize if I’m being such a pain. But peace to you all and God bless.

 

[PRmerger]

So the couple goes to church every Sunday like clockwork (real example) and cannot participate in the eucharist.

They can, if they repent, have perfect contrition and stop continuing to commit adultery.

Isn’t the problem the fact that their soul is lost, and NOT that they can’t receive communion? Maybe I just can’t make myself be understood. Maybe we hate to tell them, “you’re lost right now” - because what could possibly be the solution? Not to many are willing to live as brother and sister.

Well, it’s either forego the Eucharist or forego the marital embrace.

Most couples choose the former rather than the latter.

I don’t judge them.

But it is telling to me what their choice is.

Seek first the kingdom of God. And then everything else will fall into place.

Most couples feel like it’s okay. The only problem is that they can’t receive. So what?

This, too, is telling.

“So what?” to receiving the most important thing they’ll ever receive? Ever.

I can’t compute.

 

[Elizium23]

It is worth noting that prior to 1965, there was very little verbal participation in the Sacred Liturgy. Except for Dialogue Masses, which were a novelty even before then, all the Latin responses to the priest were given by the altar servers, not by the congregation. The music was all sung by the choir - sometimes hymns were sung by all, but not always.

When the first Vatican II Mass reforms came around, it was a well-known fact that most people were actually very timid about speaking up in church. The responses were first not given at all, and then sometime after that only in a whisper. This was how conditioned people were to being reverent and silent inside the church building before the Blessed Sacrament while the Sacred Liturgy was in progress. Nowadays, of course, that has all gone out the window.

But no, in the days of the Tridentine Mass, it was/is considered “active participation” to kneel and silently pray your rosary while all the action is going on around you. So an excommunicant would not be doing anything different than the faithful.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is my understanding that they are encouraged to go to Mass, as that may nurture the hunger for them to want to receive. Hopefully, they can accept the grace to be strengthened by Jesus, and become strong by His grace to want to put Him first, and so live as brother and sister.

If this has not been explained to them it certainly should be.

Yes. Well, let’s leave it at this.

Your last sentence is my only reason for bringing this up. An older couple, friendly with the priest, has decided on the brother/sister arrangement.

A younger couple I know knows nothing about this concept, and although I’ve skirted the issue, I feel I am certainly not the one to bring it up since I don’t know them that well. It should be up to the church.

OTOH, I guess God can’t hold them responsible for what they don’t know, so…

I also thank the other two posters for their reply.

Fran