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_PistoiaCathowiki 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.htmNow, 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.htmTranslation:
"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/Wxx36It'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=falseAnd 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.