Is this the equivalent to LDS disfellowship?


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

(CNSNews.com) --  Because of her longstanding support for abortion, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, must be denied Communion under the law of the Catholic Church, said Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican.

 

 

Cardinal Burke referenced his remarks about Pelosi to Canon Law--the law  governing the Catholic Church--and specifically Canon 915, which says those Catholics who obstinately persevere “in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”


 


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/vatican-chief-justice-nancy-pelosi-must-be-denied-communion


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe so.  Even if this is enforced--and I doubt it will be--except by this cardinal--she would still be a member.  There are Catholics who cannot take Communion, because of some on-going sin in their lives.  Nevertheless, the attend mass, and continue to call themselves Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe so.  Even if this is enforced--and I doubt it will be--except by this cardinal--she would still be a member.  There are Catholics who cannot take Communion, because of some on-going sin in their lives.  Nevertheless, the attend mass, and continue to call themselves Catholic.

 

Even with disfellowship within the LDS church, the person is still a member.  They still attend church. They still call themselves Mormons.  They, majority of the time, can not take the Sacrament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(CNSNews.com) --  Because of her longstanding support for abortion, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, must be denied Communion under the law of the Catholic Church, said Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican.

 

 

Cardinal Burke referenced his remarks about Pelosi to Canon Law--the law  governing the Catholic Church--and specifically Canon 915, which says those Catholics who obstinately persevere “in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/vatican-chief-justice-nancy-pelosi-must-be-denied-communion

I would say no .... In the LDS church you could put a memebers on Probation with the guideline of no partaking of the Saccrament etc ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

(CNSNews.com) --  Because of her longstanding support for abortion, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, must be denied Communion under the law of the Catholic Church, said Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican.
 
 

Cardinal Burke referenced his remarks about Pelosi to Canon Law--the law  governing the Catholic Church--and specifically Canon 915, which says those Catholics who obstinately persevere “in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/vatican-chief-justice-nancy-pelosi-must-be-denied-communion

 

 

I'm inclined to say "no" simply because I'm adverse to saying Catholic faith/culture/traditions = Mormon faith/culture/traditions.  It's an apple and oranges case, even if there are something similar.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane Doe is right.

Holy Communion is one of the 7 sacraments of the Catholic Church. Not being able to partake of this sacrament is similar to being disfellowshipped in a sense that this is a decision made by her ecclesiastical leader as a result of a severe sin. The ecclesiastical leader would then counsel with her to get her back into full communion through the sacrament of Penance. It is different from being disfellowshipped in such that this is the only thing she is barred from doing. She is still required to observe the holy days of obligation (attend mass), and everything else.

Now, there is a big difference between the Holy Communion and the LDS Sacrament in that the Catholics believe in transubstantiation. This is when the Eucharist and sacramental wine become the physical body and blood of Christ that renews a Catholic's spirit. Being barred from partaking of the Eucharist, for a Catholic, is a ginormous deal. Partaking of the Eucharist when one has been instructed not to is a severe sin. Also, other sacraments are administered with the Eucharist. For example, the Eucharist is a part of the Sacrament of Marriage and Last Rites, etc.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being barred from partaking of the Eucharist, for a Catholic, is a ginormous deal. Partaking of the Eucharist when one has been instructed not to is a severe sin.

 

While the LDS and Catholic understandings of sin differ, the above observations apply equally well to Latter-day Saints being disfellowshipped and not allowed to partake of the sacrament. It is possible that Catholics view their equivalency much more seriously than do most Latter-day Saints, but if that is the case, it simply means the Catholics have a better understanding of what the barring is supposed to mean. (Well, and also a different understanding of the nature of sin and repentance.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

It's possible to come back to the church if you repent, right? Is disfellowship permanent? 

 

Remember I've only been a member for a brief time-never thought about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disfellowship is not permanent.  It is given a time frame that the Bishop/Stake President gives to the member who is having problems.  At the end of the time, the member then goes back to the Bishop/Stake President and is either taken off being Disfellowshiped or time can be added to it if the problem is not resolved.  If further evaluation is needed, i.e. perhaps Excommunication, then the Bishop/Stake President will look at that also.  Also, during the Disfellowship, there most likely will be meetings with the Bishop/Stake President to evaluate their progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Disfellowship is not permanent.  It is given a time frame that the Bishop/Stake President gives to the member who is having problems.  At the end of the time, the member then goes back to the Bishop/Stake President and is either taken off being Disfellowshiped or time can be added to it if the problem is not resolved.  If further evaluation is needed, i.e. perhaps Excommunication, then the Bishop/Stake President will look at that also.  Also, during the Disfellowship, there most likely will be meetings with the Bishop/Stake President to evaluate their progress.

 Thanks. I had no idea. I don't like the idea or permanently excluding anyone, but if you've done things time and time again that are anti-LDS, there is only so much the church can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disfellowshipment is not permanent. Furthermore, afaik, generally no one is aware of the disfellowshipment except the member and the bishop (plus maybe anyone else who might need to know incidentally, e.g. the stake president, the other bishopric members, the executive secretary -- never having been a bishop, I don't know who these other people might be, or even if there are any others besides the stake president).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disfellowshipment is not permanent. Furthermore, afaik, generally no one is aware of the disfellowshipment except the member and the bishop (plus maybe anyone else who might need to know incidentally, e.g. the stake president, the other bishopric members, the executive secretary -- never having been a bishop, I don't know who these other people might be, or even if there are any others besides the stake president).

You have to speak with the Stake President on all these matters. Just like the Bishop has the final say in the Ward the Stake President is responsible and has final say for the Stake. Usually on Discipline Councils the Stake Presdident will determine if the Stake will handle it or you the Bishop will handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

(CNSNews.com) -- Because of her longstanding support for abortion, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, must be denied Communion under the law of the Catholic Church, said Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican.

Cardinal Burke referenced his remarks about Pelosi to Canon Law--the law governing the Catholic Church--and specifically Canon 915, which says those Catholics who obstinately persevere “in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/vatican-chief-justice-nancy-pelosi-must-be-denied-communion

Different types of excommunication. A self-excommunication, which is private. A person who has commited a mortal sin and has not repented, should not receive communion. An apostate, someone who has publicly renounced the catholic faith, should not receive communion. Both need to go to confession, and that's it, the self-excommunication is lifted.

And then there is a formal excommunication is public, that is, the person is declared anathema publicly, and is denied receiving any sacrament, a Christian burial, participation in liturgy (such as lector, or the like) and barred from the prayers of the church. If the person is a member of the clergy there are additional penalties. Cannot celebrate the sacraments, cannot receive church properties or funds, and will be laicized.

However, pre council of Trent, formal excommunication by a Bishop, was abused by some, as a means to political coercion. The reforms following Trent rightly forbid withholding the sacraments for political coercion. This puts high profile politicians in a unique position, as, a formal excommunication could inadvertently be viewed as political coercion.

Formal excommunication is rare. Which also causes pause for excommunicating politicians, as its rarity, used against a politician, makes it more likely it will be viewed as political coercion.

A person who has been formally excommunicated by their Bishop cannot receive any sacraments, including the Sacrament of penance, without the Bishop formally lifting the excommunication. A formal excommunication is reserved for those who obstinately defy church teaching or a directive of their Bishop. Pastorally, it is the jurisdiction of a priest or bishop as to the disposition of the unrepentant. That is, is it obstinate or something else?

Also, since a formal excommunication removes the person from the sacraments entirely, including confession, it blocks the person from receiving absolution. Very serious for a Catholic. Essentially, the result is eternal damnation, should the person die before being reconciled. Yikes! So the Church is also very reluctant to remove a person from the Sacraments, and will seek every remedy possible before declaring a person anathema. Of corse, the every remedy possible should be a private matter between the person and their priest or bishop.

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

disfellowshipment permanent? ==

 

For a short time, I home taught someone who had been disfellowshipped.  For many years he continued to be inactive in the church BUT he had moved to a different stake.  I was told that the original stake president (or his successor) had to be the one to decide whether this was grounds for excommunication.

 

But, since he no longer lived in THAT stake..... ??

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share