Has anyone been barred from attending mass in a church?

Nolanger

Can the Catholic Church ban a parishoner from attending Sunday mass in their local church? Has this ever happened?

Plebs

Even the worst of sinners would never be denied the sacraments.

They may however be asked to go about things in a dignified manner.

PDN

Plebs wrote: »

Even the worst of sinners would never be denied the sacraments.

Actually they would, it's called 'excommunication'. It still happens sometimes - I seem to remember Senator Edward Kennedy being denied partaking of mass because of his voting record for abortion legislation some years ago.

However, even excommunicants are still expected to attend mass, even if they are barred from partaking.

johnfás

PDN wrote: »

Actually they would, it's called 'excommunication'. It still happens sometimes - I seem to remember Senator Edward Kennedy being denied partaking of mass because of his voting record for abortion legislation some years ago.

However, even excommunicants are still expected to attend mass, even if they are barred from partaking.

Half the Irish Government was excommunicated at one stage. A large proportion of the Anti-Treaty leadership were excommunicated during the Civil War.

dashboard_hula

I remember reading Gay Byrnes autobiography when I was a kid, and I think there was something about his Mum not being able to attend Mass/his First Communion because his older brother Ernest got accepted to Trinity, and the parish priest took massive umbrage?

I could be mis-remembering, but there was a line about her face behind the church fence which stuck with me.

Soul Winner

ratri wrote: »

I remember reading Gay Byrnes autobiography when I was a kid, and I think there was something about his Mum not being able to attend Mass/his First Communion because his older brother Ernest got accepted to Trinity, and the parish priest took massive umbrage?

I could be mis-remembering, but there was a line about her face behind the church fence which stuck with me.

You read Gay Bynre's autobiography when you were a kid? ????

The Smurf

Soul Winner wrote: »

You read Gay Bynre's autobiography when you were a kid? ????

It's nearly 4am, but that comment qualifies for one last LMAO! before I retire for the night.

dashboard_hula

Soul Winner wrote: »

You read Gay Bynre's autobiography when you were a kid? ????

I read everything I could get my hands on - as low brow as it sounds, if it was on the shelf next to the bath, I read it. That was a pretty good book, too! His Dad used to work for the Guinness factory, lots of cool stories.

The Lindy Chamberlain book now, (dingoes ate my baby), that thing was nearly bigger than I was. Even my mother looked at me a bit funny when I started reading it, but it didn't seem to have any negative effect on 10 year old me other than beginning a lifelong habit of wrecking the crap out of bookspines.

caseyann

Well i am sure if there was thievery or drunken behavior etc.. it could be done.
I know a woman who was very mentally ill,and went into our local church screaming about things.I wont say what to protect the family incase any here.
But she was welcomed back to the church with open arms.
So i will go with in majority of cases no i dont believe it would happen.

dashboard_hula

dashboard_hula wrote: »

I read everything I could get my hands on - as low brow as it sounds, if it was on the shelf next to the bath, I read it. That was a pretty good book, too! His Dad used to work for the Guinness factory, lots of cool stories.

The Lindy Chamberlain book now, (dingoes ate my baby), that thing was nearly bigger than I was. Even my mother looked at me a bit funny when I started reading it, but it didn't seem to have any negative effect on 10 year old me other than beginning a lifelong habit of wrecking the crap out of bookspines.

Sorry, I realised how that was a wee bit off-topic there. Just to bring it back - I could only find 2 descriptions of being banned from taking Communion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/rep-patrick-kennedy-banne_n_366750.html
Patrick Kennedy Banned From Receiving Communion By Bishop Thomas Tobin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/nov/16/uk.religion -
Church urged to ban BNP supporters from communion

branie

I believe assaulting a priest is one cause for excommunication

Jessibelle

I know of someone who was given a minor excommunication (I may have that term wrong) as they married a divorced partner. They are still allowed partake of mass, but cannot take the sacrement of Communion, and I think, (could be wrong on this part) Confession, as it was seen that marring a divorced person was essentially living in sin, as divorce is not recognised in the Church, and since it was a perpetual sin, i.e not one they planned on ending anytime soon, the sacrements couldn't be administered. They can still get any children they have children baptised etc though.
Given my friend was one of a few I knew with a genuine faith in the Church, this really really hurt them, but they accepted that thems the rules, and they must abide by them.

daithiocondun

It's like a lot of this in Catholicism which are still written somewhere as possible but which rarely happens. Excommunication is possible from a Church, but virtually never occurs. At the end of the day, God is all forgiving when we truely repent.

However, I do remember a local man in my parish who was refused the Sacrament of Eucharist because he left his wife and went to live with another woman. He was allowed to return to Eucharist when his wife died and he married his other woman. There seems to be a contradiction of terms here... but that was Church policy one time I think.

The Smurf

daithiocondun wrote: »

It's like a lot of this in Catholicism which are still written somewhere as possible but which rarely happens. Excommunication is possible from a Church, but virtually never occurs. At the end of the day, God is all forgiving when we truely repent.

However, I do remember a local man in my parish who was refused the Sacrament of Eucharist because he left his wife and went to live with another woman. He was allowed to return to Eucharist when his wife died and he married his other woman. There seems to be a contradiction of terms here... but that was Church policy one time I think.

A person can excommunicate themselves and a variety of sins has this as a penalty. Directly procured abortion is one of them: both the woman who procures it and all the medical staff who make it happen. The person who knowingly drives the woman to the abortion mill and anyone who encourages her in any way commit grave sin.

In the recent case of an American bishop declaring a Catholic nun/medical worker cos she decided on an abortion for a lady, the bishop only announced what had already happened: the nun incurred an excommunication latae sententiae, by the very act by which she excommunicated herself, like cutting the branch you are holding on to - you fall by your own act.

Excommunication for abortion can be lifted by a priest in confession if the person is sincerely contrite.

As regards marriage, no divorce. But the death of the wife frees the man to marry his other lady, assuming there are no other impediments. they'd be both needing to go to confession before their marriage to make sure it is proper and holy.

Xcellor

In the Jehovah's Witnesses church if you decide that its not the right religion or you openly suggest things to other members you will be disfellowshipped. You cannot hold a different opinion regardless of conscience. So wehn you get disefellowshipped/excommunicated this means that even your own family will ignore you and the friends you grew up with will cross over to the other side of the street to avoid a simple hello.

Words cannot express how dangerous this organization is. It looks very placid, gentle, ,kind, "christlike". It is up to the point where you start to question doctrine and take a pragmatic approach. Once a crack starts it doesn't take long for the hole belief system to come crashing down. Unfortunately many have to deny themselves the life they choose and decide to remain as a Jehovah's Witness so they don't lose their family and friends.

The sick thing is that they allow JW kids who are early teens (sometimes even younger) to get baptized (before they know anything else...). Once these kids grow up a bit and start questioning its too late. Baptism is a one way street, you can't unbaptize yourself...

mehfesto

Can you still get into heaven if you're excommunicated?

Xcellor

mehfesto wrote: »

Can you still get into heaven if you're excommunicated?

No you will burn in hell for all eternity so God can punish you for your wrongdoing. Alternatively you might goto purgatory where you will only be semi tortured... but at least you have the chance to climb the ladder.

Either way if you are a Catholic and you are excommunicated things won't be good for you.

mehfesto

Xcellor wrote: »

No you will burn in hell for all eternity so God can punish you for your wrongdoing. Alternatively you might goto purgatory where you will only be semi tortured... but at least you have the chance to climb the ladder.

Either way if you are a Catholic and you are excommunicated things won't be good for you.

So excommunication = damnation, or at least a barricade to heaven?
I thought only god chose who got into heaven and hell and not the church, no?

PDN

mehfesto wrote: »

So excommunication = damnation, or at least a barricade to heaven?
I thought only god chose who got into heaven and hell and not the church, no?

In Roman Catholicism the Church decides on God's behalf.

mehfesto

PDN wrote: »

In Roman Catholicism the Church decides on God's behalf.

Cool. Fair enough, I suppose - probably should've guessed that myself tbh.

Xcellor

I wouldn't be Catholic. I mean on one hand you are suppose to believe god is kind and loving but on the other hand if you're bad he will punish you by burning you for eternity (being burnt is supposed to be the most painful of all pains). Sorry but in my opinion that God is messed up in the head. That's bipolar.

Even if your son or daughter did something really really really bad as "imperfect sinners" no parent would wish the child to be punished forever and ever and ever....

SonOfAdam

Xcellor wrote:

Even if your son or daughter did something really really really bad as "imperfect sinners" no parent would wish the child to be punished forever and ever and ever....

And neither does God. "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2 Peter 3:9)

Until we see our sin as God does we will always think Him to be "messed up" and "bipolar". Our situation is so desperate that it has taken the son of God to die on a shameful cross to remedy it.

Saint Ruth

Jessibelle wrote: »

I know of someone who was given a minor excommunication (I may have that term wrong) as they married a divorced partner. They are still allowed partake of mass, but cannot take the sacrement of Communion, and I think, (could be wrong on this part) Confession...

Hardly Confession?

To receive communion, you should be in the state of grace. No mortal sins.
Receiving communion when you're not in the state of grace is itself a mortal sin.

So, if a priest knows for a fact someone is not in the state of grace, should he give that person communion? I presume that's one argument for refusing to give it.
The counter argument is that only God knows ones true state...

Xcellor

SonOfAdam wrote: »

And neither does God. "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2 Peter 3:9)

Until we see our sin as God does we will always think Him to be "messed up" and "bipolar". Our situation is so desperate that it has taken the son of God to die on a shameful cross to remedy it.

Torturing people is cruel and sadistic. God is cruel and sadistic. This argument that we can't understand the "mind of god" is a typical side step used to defend a God responsible for genocide + ethnic cleansing, killing children, bashing babies skulls etc.

He gave his son to die on a cross because Eve ate a piece of fruit because she was deceived by a talking snake. But since that story isn't taken literal exactly why did Jesus have to die?

Also I don't see much of a sacrifice, he was resurrected a few days later... Think many many many more humans through the centuries have had to endure even worse persecution by "Christians" for things like witch craft. They didn't get resurrected a few days later either.

PDN

Xcellor wrote: »

Torturing people is cruel and sadistic. God is cruel and sadistic. This argument that we can't understand the "mind of god" is a typical side step used to defend a God responsible for genocide + ethnic cleansing, killing children, bashing babies skulls etc.

He gave his son to die on a cross because Eve ate a piece of fruit because she was deceived by a talking snake. But since that story isn't taken literal exactly why did Jesus have to die?

Also I don't see much of a sacrifice, he was resurrected a few days later... Think many many many more humans through the centuries have had to endure even worse persecution by "Christians" for things like witch craft. They didn't get resurrected a few days later either.

Please consider this your one and only informal warning.

Calling God cruel and sadistic is contrary to the Forum Charter, which I would now advise you to read before posting here again.

SonOfAdam

Xcellor wrote:

Torturing people is cruel and sadistic. God is cruel and sadistic. This argument that we can't understand the "mind of god" is a typical side step used to defend a God responsible for genocide + ethnic cleansing, killing children, bashing babies skulls etc

He does no such thing

Xcellor wrote:

He gave his son to die on a cross because Eve ate a piece of fruit because she was deceived by a talking snake. But since that story isn't taken literal exactly why did Jesus have to die?

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of all of us - we are in rebellion against a holy God, each of us master of our lives, separated from God and apart from him. Jesus died to bring us back into relationship with him,
without him we'd have no hope

Xcellor wrote:

Also I don't see much of a sacrifice, he was resurrected a few days later... Think many many many more humans through the centuries have had to endure even worse persecution by "Christians" for things like witch craft. They didn't get resurrected a few days later either.

How many others have offered to die in your place?

Xcellor

SonOfAdam wrote: »

He does no such thing

Have you ever read the OT? That's supposed to be the same God as the NT. What did God do when he wanted the Israelites to have the promised land? That's right he wiped out whoever was occupying the land because he had his favourite people.

You will find accounts of songs which glorify the killing of Gods enemies and yes the bashing of baby skulls. Here are some samples:

1 Samuel 15:2,3

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

Hosea 13:16

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."

Pregnant women ripped open???

Psalms 135:1-8

Psalms 137:8-9

8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-

9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Babies being smashed against rocks?

SonOfAdam wrote: »

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of all of us - we are in rebellion against a holy God, each of us master of our lives, separated from God and apart from him. Jesus died to bring us back into relationship with him,
without him we'd have no hope

So did mankind actually rebel or were we created this way? Another confusing this is since you believe this to be just a story then you must also just consider Jesus a story since the bible traces the lineage of Jesus all the way back to Adam so at which stage did the make believey people become real?

SonOfAdam wrote: »

How many others have offered to die in your place?

I'm not God but I can think of other ways if I was so powerful to resolve this issue without putting my Son to death but as seen from above God is quite blood thirsty so it shouldn't be surprising.

But once again when you are the all powerful being of the universe and you know you can resurrect your son is the sarifice really that great?

I used to be exactly the same as you, excusing God and making concessions for him. The bible has some sick sick statements in it and glorifies brutal slaying of women and children. Whatever about soldiers of war but women and children?

Xcellor

PDN wrote: »

Please consider this your one and only informal warning.

Calling God cruel and sadistic is contrary to the Forum Charter, which I would now advise you to read before posting here again.

Thank you.

I will try and refrain from having an opinion since its clearly not a Christian quality.

SonOfAdam

He does no such thing

Was in reply to God as a parent punishing his children "forever and ever and ever"

xcellor wrote:

Another confusing this is since you believe this to be just a story then you must also just consider Jesus a story since the bible traces the lineage of Jesus all the way back to Adam so at which stage did the make believey people become real?

I never said what I believed in relation to Adam and Eve - I said their story is our story

Xcellor wrote:

I used to be exactly the same as you, excusing God and making concessions for him

And now you've been enlightened and set free from belief in such a
horrible god - good for you

daithiocondun

PDN wrote: »

In Roman Catholicism the Church decides on God's behalf.

Ah... not true at all. The Roman Catholic Church is God and Christ's representatives on Earth. They provide guiding moral teachings.

But they cannot and do not decide on who goes to heaven and hell!

No human being can decide this. That is for God only. The Chursh guides and advises and helps us to be good Christ-like people, but it cannot and would never say that it decised who is damned and who will be saved.

Be more careful in the future.

PDN

daithiocondun wrote: »

Ah... not true at all. The Roman Catholic Church is God and Christ's representatives on Earth. They provide guiding moral teachings.

But they cannot and do not decide on who goes to heaven and hell!

No human being can decide this. That is for God only. The Chursh guides and advises and helps us to be good Christ-like people, but it cannot and would never say that it decised who is damned and who will be saved.

Be more careful in the future.

Don't worry about me being careful. But it might be good for you to try reading the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

II. THE POWER OF THE KEYS

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations."526 The apostles and their successors carry out this "ministry of reconciliation," not only by announcing to men God's forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:527

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.528

982 There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.529 Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.530

983 Catechesis strives to awaken and nourish in the faithful faith in the incomparable greatness of the risen Christ's gift to his Church: the mission and the power to forgive sins through the ministry of the apostles and their successors:

The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth.531

Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels . . . . God above confirms what priests do here below.532

Were there no forgiveness of sins in the Church, there would be no hope of life to come or eternal liberation. Let us thank God who has given his Church such a gift.

daithiocondun

PDN wrote: »

Don't worry about me being careful. But it might be good for you to try reading the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

Semantics. That states that the Church has the authorityto forgive sins through God and Christ's death on the cross.

It does NOT say that the Church decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. You're reading this to suit yourself. Find me a priest who will tell you that he has to power to decide who burns in hell, and then come back to me...

PDN

daithiocondun wrote: »

Semantics. That states that the Church has the authorityto forgive sins through God and Christ's death on the cross.

You're the one playing at semantics. Forgiveness of sins is key to entering heaven. The RC Church has, for centuries, declared that as the possesser of the keys of St Peter it has the right to either forgive sins or retain them.

This was one of the doctrines that sparked the Reformation. A Dominican friar, Johann Tetzel, was commissioned by Pope Leo X as Commissioner of Indulgences for Germany. He sold indulgences with the promise that monetary payment would release souls from purgatory and into heaven. His advertising jingle was, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs."

The entire foundation of the system of indulgences was the understanding that the Church had the power to determine who did and did not enter heaven.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

daithiocondun

PDN wrote: »

You're the one playing at semantics. Forgiveness of sins is key to entering heaven. The RC Church has, for centuries, declared that as the possesser of the keys of St Peter it has the right to either forgive sins or retain them.

This was one of the doctrines that sparked the Reformation. A Dominican friar, Johann Tetzel, was commissioned by Pope Leo X as Commissioner of Indulgences for Germany. He sold indulgences with the promise that monetary payment would release souls from purgatory and into heaven. His advertising jingle was, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs."

The entire foundation of the system of indulgences was the understanding that the Church had the power to determine who did and did not enter heaven.

Oh my... you still aren't listening. The forgiveness of sins does not absolutely correlate with entry to heaven. The Church forgives sins... it does not decide who goes to heaven or hell. No priest or bishop can single any individual out and say whether they are going to heaven or hell. How can the human Church peer into an individuals soul with the same insight as an omniscient God??

Bottom line, the Vatican, the Catholic Church, Priests, Bishops or any clergyman cannot and would not decide who enters heaven... antiquated quotes or not.

PDN

daithiocondun wrote: »

How can the human Church peer into an individuals soul with the same insight as an omniscient God??.

Human reasoning would suggest that, but we are not talking about what you or I might deem reasonable or not. We are talking about the official stance and teaching of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church's position is that the Church is the Body of Christ in the world today and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. As the successor of Peter, he is deemed to hold the keys of the Kingdom of the Heaven and can retain or forgive sins. He can pronounce people to be accursed and, if he chooses, he can decide that they can skip purgatory and go instantly to heaven.

So, when Pope Urban II decided to launch the First Crusade in 1095, he was able to announce, “All who die by the way, whether by land or sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.”

By the way, it's a bit silly to make caustic remarks about "antiquated quotes" in a discussion about the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Antiquated quotes is what these things are built upon.

daithiocondun

PDN wrote: »

Human reasoning would suggest that, but we are not talking about what you or I might deem reasonable or not. We are talking about the official stance and teaching of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church's position is that the Church is the Body of Christ in the world today and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. As the successor of Peter, he is deemed to hold the keys of the Kingdom of the Heaven and can retain or forgive sins. He can pronounce people to be accursed and, if he chooses, he can decide that they can skip purgatory and go instantly to heaven.

So, when Pope Urban II decided to launch the First Crusade in 1095, he was able to announce, “All who die by the way, whether by land or sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.”

By the way, it's a bit silly to make caustic remarks about "antiquated quotes" in a discussion about the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Antiquated quotes is what these things are built upon.

OK... you win!

georgieporgy

The Smurf wrote: »

[HTML]As regards marriage, no divorce. But the death of the wife frees the man to marry his other lady, assuming there are no other impediments. they'd be both needing to go to confession before their marriage to make sure it is proper and holy
[/HTML]

Can I tweak this a little bit? When it comes to the question of divorce I think what is forbidden in the Church is "divorce and remarriage" as opposed to just divorce.

eg.if one spouse abuses the other in some serious way (let's make the husband the baddy ) the wife would be within her rights to live separately from him. They would still be husband and wife till the death of one of them, but she would be free to obtain a civil divorce so she could avail of welfare benefits etc that she maybe entitled to from the State as a single person. Likewise she would be considered to be in the state of grace and could approach the sacraments. And so could the bad (:)) husband.

The hammer would fall however should one of them decide to remarry and that guilty one would then not be free to receive communion. The innocent party still would be .

lionmqj

Quote "So, when Pope Urban II decided to launch the First Crusade in 1095, he was able to announce, “All who die by the way, whether by land or sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.”

Just a question on the above.
Does it say in the Bible that a man can give remission of sins?
I dont think it does.

georgieporgy

John 20-23 is the reference that comes immediatly to mind as being the clearest. But there are other references also.

lionmqj

georgieporgy wrote: »

John 20-23 is the reference that comes immediatly to mind as being the clearest. But there are other references also.

What are the other references?

georgieporgy

Matthew 16.19
Matthew 18.18
1 Corinthians 5 3-5
2 Corinthians 2 10-11


that's all i can come up with right now:)