Say what about the excommunicated?

[frangiuliano115]

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

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.

This, too, is telling.

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

I can’t compute.

Thanks, but let’s drop it since it’s a bit off the thread.

Some couples understand that the only problem is that they cannot receive communion, NOT that they are living in mortal sin - since the church has told them to go to Mass, they believe this is all that’s needed and their spiritual condition is okay.

Nuff said.

Fran

 

[dans0622]

…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. …

Hello,

Right, that doesn’t add up. Before 1917, there was a blanket prohibition: the excommunicated were prohibited from participating. As a result, they also did not have the obligation to do so.

The 1917 law said the excommunicate did not have the right to assist, except for hearing the word of God (the first part of Mass, for example). Then, it divided matters between the two “classes” of excommunicated people. The “tolerated” could attend divine services and did not have to be removed. The “shunned”, however, were to be removed, if possible.

Since all the excommunicated did not have the right to assist, it follows that they also did not have the obligation.

In the current law, the prohibition is only for the reception of Sacraments/sacramentals. The right to assist/attend still stands.

Dan

 

[Nita]

…
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 does tell them – that’s what their excommunication does! Excommunication is only for very grave offenses. One is not excommunicated for some venial offense.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Hello,

Right, that doesn’t add up. Before 1917, there was a blanket prohibition: the excommunicated were prohibited from participating. As a result, they also did not have the obligation to do so.

The 1917 law said the excommunicate did not have the right to assist, except for hearing the word of God (the first part of Mass, for example). Then, it divided matters between the two “classes” of excommunicated people. The “tolerated” could attend divine services and did not have to be removed. The “shunned”, however, were to be removed, if possible.

Since all the excommunicated did not have the right to assist, it follows that they also did not have the obligation.

In the current law, the prohibition is only for the reception of Sacraments/sacramentals. The right to assist/attend still stands.

Dan

Hello Dan, well thank you! For some things a lawyer does come in handy! Peace be with you.

 

[PRmerger]

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

The “Ignorance is Bliss” argument is NOT a valid argument.

It’s true that God won’t hold them responsible for what they don’t know, but they are in very, bad place right now, and not letting them aware of what they could do to get out of this is uncharitable.

 

[PRmerger]

Some couples understand that the only problem is that they cannot receive communion, NOT that they are living in mortal sin - since the church has told them to go to Mass, they believe this is all that’s needed and their spiritual condition is okay

Not sure what your point is here.

It’s true that some couples aren’t well taught about divorce and re-marriage.

Not sure how that changes a single thing about what Christ taught and subsequently what the Church teaches.

 

[frangiuliano115]

The “Ignorance is Bliss” argument is NOT a valid argument.

It’s true that God won’t hold them responsible for what they don’t know, but they are in very, bad place right now, and not letting them aware of what they could do to get out of this is uncharitable.

This is my whole point.

If the church tells them they’re invited to church functions, that they should continue going to church and “participate” in the mass but not make communion - it makes it sound like all is okay as long as they go to church.

Shouldn’t the church, maybe, be saying: There is no value in your going to church because you’re living in mortal sin and you have to change your condition first.

That would, to my understanding, send a clear message.

Maybe the church feels that God could forgive them if they’re sincere in their worship and in the way they live their life for Him. Maybe they can’t receive communion because it’s not a good testimony for others who know them and are present.

Okay. If that’s the case, then that should be made plain too. I don’t see a clear message. And, quite frankly, I don’t see a good solution to all this.

Another divorced woman I know with a small child told me our church Deacon said that it would be okay for her to have a serious, ongoing relationship with another as long as they didn’t “live under the same roof”. Now, I wasn’t present at this discussion and I fear she may have misunderstood - but again, why wasn’t the message clear?

I hear of this stuff because I have a small bible study in my home (parish permission-we’re trying to get this idea to be accepted) and this discussion comes up constantly.
Last week a woman couldn’t understand why murder is forgiven and not divorce. She kept saying “I KILLED my marriage” why can’t I be forgiven?

Now I understand how it’s a covenant, but people don’t. Maybe it just doesn’t sound reasonable to them.

Anyway, not that I think ignorance is bliss is a good idea.

Fran

 

[PRmerger]

This is my whole point.

If the church tells them they’re invited to church functions, that they should continue going to church and “participate” in the mass but not make communion - it makes it sound like all is okay as long as they go to church.

Shouldn’t the church, maybe, be saying: There is no value in your going to church because you’re living in mortal sin and you have to change your condition first.

That would, to my understanding, send a clear message.

Maybe the church feels that God could forgive them if they’re sincere in their worship and in the way they live their life for Him. Maybe they can’t receive communion because it’s not a good testimony for others who know them and are present.

Okay. If that’s the case, then that should be made plain too. I don’t see a clear message. And, quite frankly, I don’t see a good solution to all this.

You have presented an implicit objection to the Church stated in this way: because folks aren’t clear about what the Church teaches, this is somehow the Church’s fault.

Let me ask you this: because folks misunderstood Jesus’ teachings when he walked on this earth 2000 years ago, was this Jesus’ fault?

Last week a woman couldn’t understand why murder is forgiven and not divorce. She kept saying “I KILLED my marriage” why can’t I be forgiven?

Why, of course she can be forgiven!

But she’s still married.

She didn’t KILL the sacramental bond between her and her husband.

She simply doesn’t have the power to break what God has joined.

 

[frangiuliano115]

You have presented an implicit objection to the Church stated in this way: because folks aren’t clear about what the Church teaches, this is somehow the Church’s fault.

Let me ask you this: because folks misunderstood Jesus’ teachings when he walked on this earth 2000 years ago, was this Jesus’ fault?

Why, of course she can be forgiven!

But she’s still married.

She didn’t KILL the sacramental bond between her and her husband.

She simply doesn’t have the power to break what God has joined.

This is my last post on this.

If church doctrine is not clear, it IS the church’s fault. And the priests I know and have worked with know how I feel about this.

WHO’S fault is it? is it not the church’s obligation to make the faith known to its members? What do we need a magesterum for if no one knows much? People here on this CAF are very knowledgeable. Do you think most people who go to Mass on Sunday know the things CAF participants know? Don’t you think it would be nice if they did?
Do you ever hear teaching from the parish you belong to at Mass? People don’t like to leave their home to go to a bible study or a catechism study. Wouldn’t it be nice to spread some teaching at Mass? But it’s Mass, not a classroom…

Protestants seem to be pretty clear about what THEY believe. Have you ever wondered why?

Jesus was very clear about what He taught. He said everything in plain language and how people of that time could understand Him. You really think the church speaks in plain language? You really think the CCC speaks in plain language? Let two people read the same chapter and then ask them what they came up with. I’ve had to do this, PRMerger – We have problems that need to be resolved which you may not know about, apparently, from your first sentence, since you take this to mean I’m against the church or whatever you mean.

Also, you say the woman can be forgiven. So I guess she could receive communion now?!

That’s if for me. I believe you misunderstood my last post. This belongs on a different thread.

Fran

 

[PRmerger]

This is my last post on this.

If church doctrine is not clear, it IS the church’s fault.

:nope:

No more than it is Jesus’ fault for being “not clear” when his disciples misunderstood him.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, you say the woman can be forgiven. So I guess she could receive communion now?!

As long as, just like the rest of us, she doesn’t continue to sin.

Typically, as you correctly pointed out, however, the couples prefer to choose the marital embrace over the Eucharist.

I don’t judge them.

I do, however, judge your comment, “So what?”

 

[PRmerger]

WHO’S fault is it?

It’s both: the giver and the receiver.

While it’s true that the Church did an abysmal job in the past providing nourishing catechesis in the past, that is changing.

And even if it’s still true, the responsibility for knowing what Christ taught remains squarely upon the adult communicant or would-be communicant’s shoulders.

Do you think most people who go to Mass on Sunday know the things CAF participants know?

Oh, I have stated oh-so-many times that most Catholics haven’t a clue about what the Church teaches, and that some of the atheists I dialogue with here could teach these Catholics a thing or two about what their Church actually teaches.

In fact, I find it amusing thinking of an atheist, who’s been catechized by being here, telling his neighbor, a lifelong lump-in-the-pew Catholic, “Oh, I’m sorry, Luigi, but your Church actually doesn’t teach that divorce and re-marriage is ok, as long as you’re sorry that you divorced.”

Don’t you think it would be nice if they did?

Oh, absolutely.

Do you ever hear teaching from the parish you belong to at Mass? People don’t like to leave their home to go to a bible study or a catechism study. Wouldn’t it be nice to spread some teaching at Mass? ** But it’s Mass, not a classroom**…

Egg-zactly.

Protestants seem to be pretty clear about what THEY believe. Have you ever wondered why?

Actually, a whole lot of Protestants are just like Catholics in this: pretty much lumpinthepews.

 

[Sy_Noe]

This is my last post on this.
You really think the church speaks in plain language? You really think the CCC speaks in plain language?
Fran

I don’t. Otherwise, and I mean this as no offense whatsoever to Dan, but if things were plain, we wouldn’t need him or other canon lawyers or so many apologists to explain things. But look how we did for words as plain as “He may not participate in public worship”.

Dan to his credit was needed. He explained that before 1917, the excommunicated were indeed prohibited from participating and as a result, they also did not have the obligation to attend Mass. After 1917 this was something the Church changed.

I realize the Catholic Church felt a need to expand upon the Christian faith over the years and develop it into a massive compilation of Catechism and do’s and don’ts, may’s and may not’s and could or could not’s. But I still just can’t imagine it took having to know so much to be a faithful Christian back in Jesus’s day. Nor that they needed lawyers to explain what it meant for them to have faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. It just seemed a simpler faith back in those days. At least to me. And it’s one of the reasons I don’t practice the Catholic faith. But that’s just my :twocents: and I’m sure it’s not worth even that here.

But anyway, so back more to my OP… with a related question…

I get that nowadays the excommunicated are obligated to attend Mass with the hope that hearing the Word and being present and participating, will somehow lead them back to the desire of returning to full communion. And that actually makes sense to me more so than the pre 1917 rule did that I found in what I realize now is an outdated Catholic Encyclopedia on this site. David Filmer actually told me something about that way back in post 2.

So my question is, pre 1917, was it that there was no obligation to attend Mass for the excommunicated because they were going to hell anyway? So it didn’t really matter if they kept compounding mortal sins each week?

 

[Dorothy]

I don’t. Otherwise, and I mean this as no offense whatsoever to Dan, but if things were plain, we wouldn’t need him or other canon lawyers or so many apologists to explain things. But look how we did for words as plain as “He may not participate in public worship”.

Dan to his credit was needed. He explained that before 1917, the excommunicated were indeed prohibited from participating and as a result, they also did not have the obligation to attend Mass. After 1917 this was something the Church changed.

I realize the Catholic Church felt a need to expand upon the Christian faith over the years and develop it into a massive compilation of Catechism and do’s and don’ts, may’s and may not’s and could or could not’s. But I still just can’t imagine it took having to know so much to be a faithful Christian back in Jesus’s day. Nor that they needed lawyers to explain what it meant for them to have faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. It just seemed a simpler faith back in those days. At least to me. And it’s one of the reasons I don’t practice the Catholic faith. But that’s just my :twocents: and I’m sure it’s not worth even that here.

But anyway, so back more to my OP… with a related question…

I get that nowadays the excommunicated are obligated to attend Mass with the hope that hearing the Word and being present and participating, will somehow lead them back to the desire of returning to full communion. And that actually makes sense to me more so than the pre 1917 rule did that I found in what I realize now is an outdated Catholic Encyclopedia on this site. David Filmer actually told me something about that way back in post 2.

So my question is, pre 1917, was it that there was no obligation to attend Mass for the excommunicated because they were going to hell anyway? So it didn’t really matter if they kept compounding mortal sins each week?

With reference to your last paragraph. I am not a canon lawyer, but the Church would never teach that they were going to hell anyway. (A priest, speaking for himself and not the Church might err and say that.). As long as one is alive they have their free will and an opportunity to turn away from sin.

And, of course compounding mortal sins does matter, as it harms their souls.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I don’t. Otherwise, and I mean this as no offense whatsoever to Dan, but if things were plain, we wouldn’t need him or other canon lawyers or so many apologists to explain things. But look how we did for words as plain as “He may not participate in public worship”.

Dan to his credit was needed. He explained that before 1917, the excommunicated were indeed prohibited from participating and as a result, they also did not have the obligation to attend Mass. After 1917 this was something the Church changed.

I realize the Catholic Church felt a need to expand upon the Christian faith over the years and develop it into a massive compilation of Catechism and do’s and don’ts, may’s and may not’s and could or could not’s. But I still just can’t imagine it took having to know so much to be a faithful Christian back in Jesus’s day. Nor that they needed lawyers to explain what it meant for them to have faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. It just seemed a simpler faith back in those days. At least to me. And it’s one of the reasons I don’t practice the Catholic faith. But that’s just my :twocents: and I’m sure it’s not worth even that here.

But anyway, so back more to my OP… with a related question…

I get that nowadays the excommunicated are obligated to attend Mass with the hope that hearing the Word and being present and participating, will somehow lead them back to the desire of returning to full communion. And that actually makes sense to me more so than the pre 1917 rule did that I found in what I realize now is an outdated Catholic Encyclopedia on this site. David Filmer actually told me something about that way back in post 2.

So my question is, pre 1917, was it that there was no obligation to attend Mass for the excommunicated because they were going to hell anyway? So it didn’t really matter if they kept compounding mortal sins each week?

Well Amen and Praise the Lord for that!
Somebody understood me.

First of all, re the change of 1917. When was the church right? BEFORE 1917 or AFTER? It’s ongoing revelation, okay. We’re trying to make it easier for people to belong to the church community. okay. But, yes, this does complicate things.

Also, I agree with you that christianity was much simpler back in the time after Jesus. Then the church got involved and started having to explain everything. I’m on another post talking about predestination and free will. But every church does this and it’s necessary but the answers should be PLAIN AND SIMPLE. You shouldn’t have to be a theologian to understand your faith AND it should be explained to everyone. I shouldn’t have to study it for 40 years to understand it on my own.

And, you’re last question is what I’ve been asking all along –

Dorothy has a nice answer in the last post, but what if I die in the meantime???

Fran

 

[Dorothy]

Hi Fran,

Fran wrote: >>Dorothy has a nice answer in the last post, but what if I die in the meantime??? >>

I believe that only God can sort out all of the questions we have, and all of what is inside each person, their faith and their obedience to the Church.

In His Omnipotence He is aware of what graces He gives, and when one accepts it wholeheartedly, even at the last moment, in perfect contrition. … (which we should not count on).

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Fran,

Fran wrote: >>Dorothy has a nice answer in the last post, but what if I die in the meantime??? >>

I believe that only God can sort out all of the questions we have, and all of what is inside each person, their faith and their obedience to the Church.

In His Omnipotence He is aware of what graces He gives, and when one accepts it wholeheartedly, even at the last moment, in perfect contrition. … (which we should not count on).

Hi Dorothy,

If only God can sort out - why are we so dogmatic? I agree with you. I’m no legalist.

But, obedience to the church? They just got divorced!
And this last moment business never cut the mustard with me - although I know it’s true. It’s also unlikely, IMO.

We just got news here (Europe) that the synod has ended and a statement has been made that each remarried couple will be valued individually to determine if they can receive communion. I knew this a year ago after we catechists filled out our questionnaire from Rome. How else could it be? You can’t eliminate half the church population from the community. OTOH, what does this mean? Some people will have committed a mortal sin if they divorced and remarried, and some won’t.

Going to go make some espresso macchiato - or latte’ espresso.

Fran

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Dorothy,

If only God can sort out - why are we so dogmatic?

I don’t believe we are “so dogmatic”. We are dogmatic enough.

Or, “just the right amount of dogmatic”.

Just like Christ was.

 

[Sy_Noe]

With reference to your last paragraph. I am not a canon lawyer, but the Church would never teach that they were going to hell anyway. (A priest, speaking for himself and not the Church might err and say that.). As long as one is alive they have their free will and an opportunity to turn away from sin.

And, of course compounding mortal sins does matter, as it harms their souls.

Hi Dorothy, I do thank you for your answer. I take it then that even an excommunication can be lifted just between the person and God on the deathbed without any Church official involved. But if compounding mortal sins matters, that’s what I now don’t get. Why before 1917, did it apparently not matter? Since back then the excommunicated were not obligated to attend Mass so it would fit with the idea that they may not participate in public worship or fit in visa versa. I’m not sure which came first. And like Fran is wondering, which was right? Pre or post 1917?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well Amen and Praise the Lord for that!
Somebody understood me.

First of all, re the change of 1917. When was the church right? BEFORE 1917 or AFTER? It’s ongoing revelation, okay. We’re trying to make it easier for people to belong to the church community. okay. But, yes, this does complicate things.

Also, I agree with you that christianity was much simpler back in the time after Jesus. Then the church got involved and started having to explain everything. I’m on another post talking about predestination and free will. But every church does this and it’s necessary but the answers should be PLAIN AND SIMPLE. You shouldn’t have to be a theologian to understand your faith AND it should be explained to everyone. I shouldn’t have to study it for 40 years to understand it on my own.

And, you’re last question is what I’ve been asking all along –

Dorothy has a nice answer in the last post, but what if I die in the meantime???

Fran

Hi Fran, thank you for your extremely kind words. I hope you enjoyed your espresso. God bless you! And peace with you.