So, as told already, I knew about the condemnation from Pope Paul IV in Auctorem Fidei in 1794 (in the Condemned Positions attachment) written in response to the Synod of Pistoia from 1786.

Cathowiki article about the Synod:

http://it.cathopedia.org/wiki/Template:Concilio_di_Pistoia

Cathowiki article about Auctorem Fidei:
http://it.cathopedia.org/wiki/Auctorem_Fidei


NovusOrdoWatch snippet about the same Bull:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/auctorem-fidei-pius-vi-1794.htm




Now, the condemned article dealing specifically with so-called "Ipso facto Excommunicationes" is the following:


Ibidem, §§ 21, 23.

XLVII. Similmente quella che dice essere necessario, secondo le leggi naturali e divine, che tanto alla scomunica quanto alla sospensione debba precedere un personale esame, e che perciò le cosiddette sentenze ipso facto non abbiano altra forza che di una seria minaccia senza alcun effetto attuale;

FALSA, TEMERARIA, PERNICIOSA, INGIURIOSA AL POTERE DELLA CHIESA, ERRONEA.

from the italian text (did not ever manage to track down an english version of the same) from: http://digilander.libero.it/magistero/p6auctor.htm


Translation:

"Similarly that which says it is necessary, according to Natural and Divine Laws, that both  Excommunication and Suspension need to be preceded by a personal examination, and therefore so called "Ipso Facto" sentences would not have any other force than a grave menace/admonition without any actual effect;

FALSE, TEMERIOUS, PERNICIOUS, INJURIOUS TO THE POWER OF THE CHURCH, ERRONEOUS."



Now, others including user Stubborn advanced the hypothesis that Paul IV was in fact merely alluding to "excommunications for murder" or any other non-faith related censures.
That, on the surface, is a legitimate and convincing objection.

But, one has only to look up the text of the Synod itself to find the context.

I finally managed to do this, and can now produce it, and show everyone once and for all the veracity of my claim.

Here it is:

http://imgur.com/a/Wxx36

It's 3 digital snippets from: https://books.google.it/books?id=0ktBAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=sinodo+pistoia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXp_uF5KbKAhXI2Q4KHSfkAqQQ6AEIZDAK#v=onepage&q=sinodo%20pistoia&f=false


And translate as such:

"ON EXCOMMUNICATIONS.

XX. Excommunication is the greatest and ultimate sentence that can be given by the Church. We have the doctrine expressely in the Holy Gospel.

If your brother sins against you, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If he will not listen, take one or two others along.
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the Church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as pagan and publican.

Being therefore divided from the Church and segregated from his communion, here what constitutes the nature and effect of this sentence.
A man who does not listen to the Church, and contumaciously perseveres in rebellion against her gravest precept and fights with willful malice her doctrine, if corrected but does not repent, is exiled from participation in Divine Mysteries, he can't give his name in public oblation, can't be united with others in public preces(?) and is broken away formally with all ecclesial and sacred bond.

This is the reason for which the highest enlightened theologians teach the effect of excommunication is solely exterior, because it only excludes from the exterior communion of the Church.

The only sin is, that by breaking the internal bonds of charity, by means of which we live united interiorly in the Body of the Church, he breaks therefore the interior communion, that which cannot be together with sin.

We reject however the inexact false idea of many, who believe Excommunication alone, by its own nature, sufficient to break any communion whatsoever with the goods of the Church;
 but even more so we reject the other multitude of others that added to this sentence the bad impressions left from unhappy studies, and the usurpations of the savage centuries, that cannot alter in any way the sacred teachings of Christ, and the venerable antiquity.

Even more so we are astonished with the Council of Trent in considering the exorbitant number of these censures, for many most vane reasons they exposed themselves to derision, instead of the benefit of sinners; and for a strange reversal of ideas they demanded introducing a type of censure, called by barbarous centuries ipso facto incurrenda.

Such type of excommunication, not having any of the characters attributed by Christ, avoiding those degrees of admonition He preferred to establish, we recognise as an abuse with no effect.

How could in fact, in such grave matters, be considered valid a vague sentence comminated without examinations against undetermined people and unknown either by the judge or the faithful, who have to break communion with?

We therefore believe necessary, according to all Natural and Divine laws, that excommunication requires a preceding personal examination, and therefore the so-called ipso facto sentences, do not have any force except a grave warning without any actual effect.

XXII.
From that two consequences derive:
 
Being useless and vain the formula introduced since some centuries of absolving in general from excommunications, to which a faithful could have incurred in.

The effects of excommunication are exterior, and only by its nature it excludes from the exterior communion of the Church.
In such a manner a person could be re admitted to aforementioned external communion, who never ceased continuing without any pause or without having been expelled?

Secondly, being null and invalid those excommunications by which the order established by Christ Supreme Chief and Infallible of the Church, are neglected.

Dissipation and abuse of a prerogative never produces the effect, coming only from the legitimate use of the same. "



As you can see, leaving aside the impressive degree of heterodoxy and progressivism imbued in the text, the language is clear and context idem.

They (synod fathers) openly say that ipso facto, without a further declaration, sentences are null and invalid and that a personal examination is necessary.
A canonical pronouncement is needed also, following Matthew 18:15-17.

This is in fact the all too common R&R oxymoronical argument for which a sentence not requiring any further declaration... needs a declaration.

In fact, to prove the synod fathers are expressely talking about excommunication for heresy, they cite Trent by means of criticism.


So, hopefully, reading the direct and word for word condemnation by Pope Paul IV against this novelty of considering anathemas and ipso facto excommunication as merely "admonitions with no actual effect", can convince most of stopping this insanity.

Explain the difference between excommunicate being
Labeled Toleratus and Vitandus. That will start to clear it up for you.

Can you please avoid going offtopic/derailing the thread with things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand?
You can open a new thread about your newfound Vitandus vs Toleratus canonical distinction.

Thanks.

Quote from: Gregory I

Explain the difference between excommunicate being
Labeled Toleratus and Vitandus. That will start to clear it up for you.

Can you please avoid going offtopic/derailing the thread with things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand?
You can open a new thread about your newfound Vitandus vs Toleratus canonical distinction.

Thanks.

No. Because you are writing about the penalties of automatic excommunication.

Among those who incur automatic excommunication, according to canon law there are those who can automatically incur the label of Vitandus, but the VAST majority, including heretics, are labeled Toleratus:

In the context of your own post, for clarifies sake, why don't you do a word search in the 1917 code and commentary on canon law and include the differences, both for your own benefit and to more throughly represent your own position?

It is DIRECTLY relevant.

Here, these are the canons:

1541.  Excommunication  is  a  censure  by  which  a  person  is  excluded  from  communion  with  the  faithful, with  the  effects  enumerated  in  the  following  Canons  and  which  cannot  be  separated  one  from  the  other. Excommunication  is  also  called  anathema,  especially  when  inflicted  with  the  formalities  described  in the  Pontificale  Romanum.  (Canon  2257.)

1542.  The  excommunicated  persons  may  be  either  excommunicati  vitandi,  or  tolerati. No  one  is  considered  a  vitandus  unless  he  has  been  excommunicated  by  name  by  the  Holy  See,  has been  publicly  denounced  as  such,  and  explicitly  declared  a  vitandus  in  the  decree  or  canonical  sentence.  He who  lays  violent  hands  on  the  Roman  Pontiff  becomes  by  this  very  deed  an  excommunicatus  vitandus, according to Canon 2343, 1, n. 1. (Canon 2258.)

Now you should do the amazingly difficult task of determining whether or not there is a difference in the penalties and censures and the way they are treated and apply it to the idea of automatic excommunication.

I found a PDF file in English of Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794

From the link:

47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect, false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

As I posted already, I do not disagree with the above teaching, yet the fact remains we cannot do anything anything about it:

Post
.....If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.

The next paragraphs Fr. Wathen details what can be done and what should have been done - and if this would have been done, I think you will agree that there likely would be no crisis and no sedevacantism at all:

However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.

Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

I found a PDF file in English of Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794

Nice find, it seems to be a correct translation.

Quote from: Stubborn

From the link:
(...)

As I posted already, I do not disagree with the above teaching, yet the fact remains we cannot do anything anything about it:
(...)

You seemed to say you agreed only as far as an accessory penalty to already sanctioned acts, such as murder.
I took your earlier comment as saying "Yes, they are also auto-excommunicated if guilty of another crime, declared as such by Canonical authorities, by virtue of the sanctioned crime itself also carrying an accessory excommunication". In a reductive manner.

As you seem to recognise now, it is not merely the case.

I will not discuss the consequences regarding the validity of a Pontiff or prelate even, as this is not the right thread to do so.

The crucial thing is recognising that claims similar as the one of Ricci/synod fathers at Pistoia is erroneous if not worse.
Yet, it is all too common today.

This is regardless of SV or any other issue.


Anathemas and Ipso Facto excommunications are by divine law efficacious by themselves without any need for the Church to officially recognise canonically one's status.

Also the #46 condemnation above is important, as it says that excommunication is not merely a censure affecting the exterior forum, visibly.
Which is another claim/confusion of our time.

Yes, they are efficacious. But what is their effect? Are those incur the penalty of automatic excommunication tolerati or Vitandi?

And what are the consequences? Follow the line of thought all the way through Desmond, you don't get to stop halfway and just say: "well they are excommunicated!"

In what way, in what mode, in what effect, to what end, and with which exceptions?

Follow through.

Anathemas and Ipso Facto excommunications are by divine law efficacious by themselves without any need for the Church to officially recognise canonically one's status.

Also the #46 condemnation above is important, as it says that excommunication is not merely a censure affecting the exterior forum, visibly.
Which is another claim/confusion of our time.

The whole problem with ipso facto excommunication is even if incurred by your own cousin or brother, there is nothing you can do about it - other than make their priest aware of the offense.

But when it comes to the pope - "Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.

Also of interest to this topic, regardless of SV or any other issue.......

It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is "under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal. (Not surprisingly, all mention of censures has been dropped in the Conciliar "Rite of Reconciliation.") Thus:

Misereatur tui omnipotens Deus, etc.

Indulgentiam, absolutionem, et remissionem, etc.

Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat; et ego auctoritate
ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis,
suspensionis, et interdicti, in quantum possum, et tu indiges.
Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris, et Filii,
et Spiritus Sancti Amen.

May almighty God have mercy upon you, etc.

May the omnipotent and merciful Lord grant you pardon,
absolution, and remission, etc.

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A
cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should
he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)

(a) Interdiction: the removal of all faculties of the clergy of a
place, or group of people (such as the priests of a religious community),
so that the Mass and Sacraments are denied to them, except
under certain specified conditions. Interdiction is imposed either
because all (or apparently all) who suffer it are involved to some degree
in a grave sin, or it is imposed as a desperate measure on the
faithful of a place because of the persistent, scandalous, and obstructive
sins of those in authority over them, either civil or religious. In
the latter case, the interdiction deprives the people of the Mass and
the Sacraments, in order to provoke them to exert moral pressure on
their superiors.

(b) Suspension: the prohibition of the right to exercise one's
priestly (or episcopal) orders.

(c) Excommunication: exclusion from the communal life of the
Church.

Quote from: Gregory I

[
No. Because you are writing about the penalties of automatic excommunication.

No I am not.
The OP explains the issue and defines the topic.
Which is the claim that ipso facto excommunications require a declaration/personal exam and have no force on their own.

Please refrain from going off topic or derailing the thread.

Thanks.

Very interesting thread for me Desmond. I have always understood that all heresies have ipso facto excommunication for the one who accepts the heresy whether actually condemned for the heresy or not. Do you accept this?

My special interest is in the Copernican heresy. It is my experience that theologians can argue away anything id it doesn't suit them.

One cannot abjure its sin without abjuring the heresy.

Until that time he is outside the Church just like... Protestants are.

Or, conversely, if we were to accept such an idea, that someone holding heresy is still inside the Church, then everyone validly baptised is also.


Keep in mind that #46 condemns the idea that "excommunication" (all excommunications) only regards the external forum

Take the case of an excommunicated priest, let's use arch heretic Fr. Martin Luther.

After his public heresy, publicly rejecting and condemning the pope, the Church, the sacraments, Our Lady and etc. and splitting from the Church in schism, and after being formally excommunicated by the pope, how is it that after all of that, he still retained the power to validly absolve sins in the sacrament of penance and administer the last sacraments?

How is it that he was able to validly do something that only a member of the clergy of the Catholic Church is able to do, if by virtue of his excommunication and etc., he was no longer a member of the Church and therefore not even Catholic?