Seperation, Excommunication, and the meaning of "Adultery" in Mark 10:11-12?

  • Thread starter Thread starter J.W.B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

J.W.B

Guest
Is to be “Seperated from the Church” to be in danger of eternal seperation from God? Or is to be excommunicated from the Church mean to be lost? To be “Seperated from the Church” means to be seperated from the body of Christ I assume, so if you are not seperated from the church then you are not seperated from the body of Christ. I ask this because of what the Catechism says on people who are living in unlawful marriages:

1650…“Reconciliation through the sacrament of penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelityto Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continuence.”

1651:"Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they DO NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES SEPERATED FROM THE CHURCH, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized person:

They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to preserve in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace."

1665:“The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. THEY ARE NOT SEPERATED FROM THE CHURCH, but they cannot receive Eucharistic Communion. They will lead Christian lives especialy by educating their children in the Faith.”

So is “Adultery” in Mark 10:11-12 a different kind of Adultery than adultery of sleeping with a woman while already being married and living with another? I’ll be right back.
 
What I am confused with is that when one is continuing in Adultery by cheating on his wife who he is not divorced to yet, and refuses to repent, then he cannot partake in holy communion or penance and will be in mortal sin and excommunicated from the church or seperated from the Church (the Body of Christ). But then adultery when Christ speaks of it on remarriage must be a different kind of adultery right? Since the Church teaches that they are NOT seperated from the Church. Otherwise they would be seperated because they would be living in a continuence mortal sin.

It’s just confusing and has always been for me. I understand that as a conequence for marrying another woman they can not partake in holy communion, but they are still NOT seperated from the Church as the Catechism teaches.

Correct me if I’m wrong but is clearly says that in the Catechism.
 
I HIGHLY recommend that you “Ask an Apologist” on this one. You may have to break it up, you are really asking a couple of very different questions and your assumption I believe is not quite right, which also affects one of the questions.

One thing can do is give you the meaning of “excommunication” which is found HERE, in great detail, in the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent. . .newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

That will help you a bit.

Separation from the Church is also different from “separation” from a spouse. That’s where you might need to “ask an apologist” by giving your statement and seeing what the church has to say about it.

The Mark reference to “adultery” really has no bearing on divorce and divorce is NOT a Catholic “option” (a decree of nullity, commonly miscalled an Annulment, does not relate to adultery per se and is not a dissolution of a marriage but rather states that there was no valid marriage to begin with. For example, a man or woman may commit adultery yet still have a valid sacramental marriage, because adultery does not “negate” a marriage. There may be a factor that keeps one of the original partners from being able to validly consent or understand marriage in the FIRST place, and because they did not validly consent or know what they were doing that MAY mean that since marriage requires full free consent that the particular marriage may not be valid. . .but that is a decision that is up to the Rota, or Tribunal, to assess, and requires a great deal of work on the part of the petitioner, witnesses and the professional theologians and canonists on a tribunal.)

But DO definitely talk on the Ask an Apologist forum to get a professional’s POV on your main topics. It may take a few days, but be patient.

God bless.
 
J.W.B.:
So does anyone have any answers to this question?
Click to expand...
Maybe I’d better have another go at understanding the question.

Are you talking about Catholics getting civil marriage while previous marriages are not annulled?

What kinds of adultery are you talking about – and what characteristics distinguish the kinds? For example, are you comparing adultery of married person going outside his/her marriage v. two nonmarried persons (which technically is not adultery but is associated with the same commandment)?

Alan
 
We all know what Adultery is (a husband or wife cheating on their spouse) but Christ said “Whoever marries a divorced woman committs Adultery” but the Catechism states that people in an UNVALID marriage “ARE NOT SEPERATED FROM THE CHURCH.”

So Adultery is a mortal sin, but why are people who have gotten civil divorves and new civil unions not seperated from the Church?
 
I think I’m going with Tantum Ergo on this one.

It sounds like a technical question outside of my expertise; AAA may just be your best bet unless someone else who has better knowledge of these things jump in.

Alan
 
I’ll go with the advice of Alan and Tantum, but I would venture the answer lies in CCC 1651 that you posted above and the degree of seperation. The paragraph appears to distinguish between the sinful act inhibiting the recpetion of Communion and the exercise of certain ecclesial reponsibilities (from the part of 1650 that was omitted above) and COMPLETE seperation from the Church. Might this be a case where the English does not properly reflect the Latin??? Thanks and God Bless.
 
I think you’re equating excommunication with mortal sin. They are not the same. For example, abortion incurs an automatic penalty of excommunication, which places a person completely outside the Church, and the excommunication can only be lifted through a formal process involving one’s bishop. Confession is not enough to get an excommunication lifted.

Adultery is a mortal sin. If unrepented and unconfessed, it will eventually lead one to separation from the Church at death. But one is not considered to be excommunicated, or separated from, the Church while living in a state of mortal sin.

In this passage in Mark, Jesus is saying that divorce and remarriage is the same as adultery. This is a mortal sin, but does not result in excommunication or separation from the Church unless one happens to die in this state.
 
40.png
RocketScientist:
I think you’re equating excommunication with mortal sin. They are not the same. For example, abortion incurs an automatic penalty of excommunication, which places a person completely outside the Church, and the excommunication can only be lifted through a formal process involving one’s bishop. Confession is not enough to get an excommunication lifted.

Adultery is a mortal sin. If unrepented and unconfessed, it will eventually lead one to separation from the Church at death. But one is not considered to be excommunicated, or separated from, the Church while living in a state of mortal sin.

In this passage in Mark, Jesus is saying that divorce and remarriage is the same as adultery. This is a mortal sin, but does not result in excommunication or separation from the Church unless one happens to die in this state.
Click to expand...
Well put, but I would venture after Tantum’s post from the Catholic Encyclopedia that not all excommunication requires a formal lift through the bishop. Your thoughts on the article??? Thanks and God Bless.
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia article was more than I wanted to wade through, but you’re right, it indicates that there are exceptions. Since the online CE dates back to 1913 or thereabout, long before the latest code of canon law (1983? 87?), it’s best to check against a more modern source.

From the CCC

CCC said:
1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.
Click to expand...

So you’re right, there are exceptions. The larger point that mortal sin is not the same as excommunication is unchanged.
 
40.png
RocketScientist:
The Catholic Encyclopedia article was more than I wanted to wade through, but you’re right, it indicates that there are exceptions. Since the online CE dates back to 1913 or thereabout, long before the latest code of canon law (1983? 87?), it’s best to check against a more modern source.

From the CCC

So you’re right, there are exceptions. The larger point that mortal sin is not the same as excommunication is unchanged.
Click to expand...
Congrats on graduating to Regular Member. 🙂 And yes, thank for pointing out that mortal sin does not equal forms of excommunication always. Some mortal sins do (ex. abortion when the three criteria are met). The latest Canon Law was promulgated by JPII in 1983 I believe, but the Code’s predecessor I believe is the Pio-Benedictine Code of 1917. (Please correct me if I am wrong). Isn;t there a Code of Canon Law from the Council of Trent??? Thanks and God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top