Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: forlorn on July 21, 2019, 07:58:12 AM
-
So as I understand it, if you die under a valid excommunication, you're damned. But in the case of Henry IV, of the Holy Roman Empire, he was released from his excommunication after his death and his body was moved to consecrated ground. How does the release of an excommunication after death work? Was he automatically damned or not?
-
I don't know the details of Henry IV, so I can't speak to why he was moved to consecrated ground. But excommunication doesn't necessarily entail automatic damnation. It severs a man from membership in the Church (in its most severe forms at least, although not all excommunications entail loss of membership-- a toleratus is deprived of the right to sacraments but remains a member), but just as a catechumen may be saved via perfect charity despite lacking membership, so too might an excommunicate-- either owing to his excommunication being unjust in the first place (e.g. Joan of Arc) or him making a perfect act of contrition yet dying before being able to be received back into Church membership-- avail unto salvation. This is described with various expressions by theologians, although member in voto seems to be the preferred expression given its use by the Holy Office and its promotion as a term by Mgr. Fenton.
-
I don't know the details of Henry IV, so I can't speak to why he was moved to consecrated ground. But excommunication doesn't necessarily entail automatic damnation. It severs a man from membership in the Church (in its most severe forms at least, although not all excommunications entail loss of membership-- a toleratus is deprived of the right to sacraments but remains a member), but just as a catechumen may be saved via perfect charity despite lacking membership, so too might an excommunicate-- either owing to his excommunication being unjust in the first place (e.g. Joan of Arc) or him making a perfect act of contrition yet dying before being able to be received back into Church membership-- avail unto salvation. This is described with various expressions by theologians, although member in voto seems to be the preferred expression given its use by the Holy Office and its promotion as a term by Mgr. Fenton.
I see, thank for your answer. As with everything in the Church, nothing is quite so simple as it seems. There's always deeper nuances to every issue.
-
Interestingly, Dante (who was a theologian whose theology was eclipsed by his singular poetry) placed ALL the excommunicates in purgatory.
For him, all the excommunicates were -so far as the excommunication only is concerned- saved.
-
The sentence of an ecclesiatical tribunal is not infallible. Such sentences (including excommunication and declaration of ipso facto excommunication) may be misjudgments.
-
The sentence of an ecclesiatical tribunal is not infallible. Such sentences (including excommunication and declaration of ipso facto excommunication) may be misjudgments.
.
Yes, this is a good point too. The Church is not infallible in meting out penalties to individuals, as such actions lack the universal sort of scope upon which infallibility hinges. The same goes for other legal proceedings which do not concern the universal Church, like declarations of marriage validity or invalidity.
.
-
I see, thank for your answer. As with everything in the Church, nothing is quite so simple as it seems. There's always deeper nuances to every issue.
.
Well, being excommunicated is still a bad thing, and while not entailing an ipso facto damnation, it places one at-- shall we say, a significant disadvantage. When a person is excommunicated they are deprived of the usual means of grace. That is not a state anyone would wish to persist in, and it is a state which, short of either a reconciliation of some great and extraordinary grace from God, will invariably lead to damnation. The exact details are more nuanced, yes, but the basic "take away" with regard to the significance and effect of excommunication is not all that nuanced.
.
-
I see, thank for your answer. As with everything in the Church, nothing is quite so simple as it seems. There's always deeper nuances to every issue.
thanks*
-
Interestingly, Dante (who was a theologian whose theology was eclipsed by his singular poetry) placed ALL the excommunicates in purgatory.
For him, all the excommunicates were -so far as the excommunication only is concerned- saved.
Huh, I never knew. I always assumed excommunication placed you out of the Church entirely, in a way that EENS would damn you. I guess you learn something new every day.
-
Interesting info. I’ve always heard that the purpose of excommunications and other penalties was to wake up the person so that they would repent. The Church uses such measures to “knock some sense” into the person so that they’d see their errors. The salvation of souls is the ultimate goal.
-
Huh, I never knew. I always assumed excommunication placed you out of the Church entirely, in a way that EENS would damn you. I guess you learn something new every day.
Well, not sure how Dante's position holds up in light of Mystici Corporis Christii of Pius XII (which said excommunication severs one from the Church).
Either there is a way to reconcile the two, or, what was once a permissible opinion in Dante's time is no longer permissible by 1943.
As an aside, on this point, back in my indult days, Msgr. Schmitz (ICK) told me that although excommunicates are spoken of as being completely outside the Church by theologians, it is not actually true, in virtue of their baptism (i.e., It is baptism which makes one a member, and since baptism cannot be effaced, a separation cannot be complete). That sounds a lot like Dominus Iesus, Lumen Gentium, and the new ecclesiology to me.
-
Well, not sure how Dante's position holds up in light of Mystici Corporis Christii of Pius XII (which said excommunication severs one from the Church).
Either there is a way to reconcile the two, or, what was once a permissible opinion in Dante's time is no longer permissible by 1943.
As an aside, on this point, back in my indult days, Msgr. Schmitz (ICK) told me that although excommunicates are spoken of as being completely outside the Church by theologians, it is not actually true, in virtue of their baptism (i.e., It is baptism which makes one a member, and since baptism cannot be effaced, a separation cannot be complete). That sounds a lot like Dominus Iesus, Lumen Gentium, and the new ecclesiology to me.
.
Pope Pius taught excommunication severs one from external membership. But MCC also acknowledges the possibility of another type of union, later in the docuмent. I would take this to be membership in voto, given later developments; membership in voto is how we would describe the saved catechumen, and I think this applies to the excommunicant who is in the state of grace (Bellarmine argues exactly that, if I recall correctly, though with different terminology). Someone who enjoys a special and real internal union with Christ and the Church owing to their having been justified by grace and the requisite supernatural virtues, but who nevertheless does not enjoy the bond of external union.
.
Dante was described by Benedict XV as a student of St. Thomas's and he described Dante's work as thoroughly informed by Catholic principles and teaching. Benedict's encyclical on Dante was pre-MCC, true, but if there was any serious error in Dante's work (i.e., an actual contradiction with Catholic ecclesiology or soteriology) I doubt an encyclical would be able to praise him the way that Pope Benedict's did.
-
.
Pope Pius taught excommunication severs one from external membership. But MCC also acknowledges the possibility of another type of union, later in the docuмent. I would take this to be membership in voto, given later developments; membership in voto is how we would describe the saved catechumen, and I think this applies to the excommunicant who is in the state of grace (Bellarmine argues exactly that, if I recall correctly, though with different terminology). Someone who enjoys a special and real internal union with Christ and the Church owing to their having been justified by grace and the requisite supernatural virtues, but who nevertheless does not enjoy the bond of external union.
.
Dante was described by Benedict XV as a student of St. Thomas's and he described Dante's work as thoroughly informed by Catholic principles and teaching. Benedict's encyclical on Dante was pre-MCC, true, but if there was any serious error in Dante's work (i.e., an actual contradiction with Catholic ecclesiology or soteriology) I doubt an encyclical would be able to praise him the way that Pope Benedict's did.
Excellent points, Mith!
-
No, the notion of invisible membership is alien to Catholic theology.
What's at play here is the Church's judgment in the external forum regarding loss of membership. Barring some solemn pronouncement, an ordinary excommunication simply means that the Church judges, in the external forum, that the person has lost membership in the Church and will treat him as a non-member. It's possible that the Church's judgment was wrong ... such as in the case of an unjust excommunication (+Lefebvre come to mind?). Was +Lefebvre severed of actual membership in the Church in any way whatsoever? No. Otherwise, if +Lefebvre had actually been severed of visible membership, +Lefebvre would have been committing grave sin by continuing to receive the Sacraments ... no different than if a catechumen were to receive Communion because he was morally certain of the invisible in voto membership.
-
The Church is not infallible in meting out penalties to individuals, as such actions lack the universal sort of scope upon which infallibility hinges. The same goes for other legal proceedings which do not concern the universal Church, like declarations of marriage validity or invalidity.
THIS^^^ is what applies here.
-
In the case of Henry IV, the Church simply changed her mind about whether Henry IV had lost membership in the Church. In other words, the initial judgment of the Church was not, so to speak, irreformable.
-
There is a story about Pope St Gregory the Great. There was someone who he excommunicated when he was an abbot. Even this person showed great contrition, he chose not to lift the excommunication. However after this person died he had masses offered for the repose of his soul and he appeared to him in the glory of Heaven.
-
So as I understand it, if you die under a valid excommunication, you're damned. But in the case of Henry IV, of the Holy Roman Empire, he was released from his excommunication after his death and his body was moved to consecrated ground. How does the release of an excommunication after death work? Was he automatically damned or not?
In basic terms, excommunication means one is guilty of a [public] mortal which sin they refuse to repent of. It does not mean automatic, or complete severance from membership within the Church, anymore than any other mortal sin does - and all mortal sins sever us to some extent until we receive absolution in Confession.
So if one were to die unrepented and while under the censure of a *valid* excommunication, then that person died with mortal sin on their soul.
If the excommunication was lifted, it can only mean that either they found out that he repented of *that* mortal sin before he died, or the censure of excommunication itself was found to be wrong, mistaken, or otherwise invalid.
As Pax alluded to, the censure of excommunication is primarily medicinal, it is intended to prompt the accused to repent, also it is used to flag that person out as one to beware of and avoided by the Catholic community.
-
As I understand it, excommunication is both a spiritual and a legal penalty. It is both a spiritual warning to the individual AND a legal "scarlet letter" to warn others not to follow the same path. It is both an individual penalty and a warning to the catholic community. The Church's act of banning the individual from certain (but not all) public liturgical functions is a warning/prefigurement to the individual that they will not make heaven unless they repent.
.
The fact that some are released from their excommunication after death shows that the judicial aspect of the church moves slowly. Henry IV obviously repented of his sin before his death and then after he died, the Church held an inquiry into his case, to determine his status. I'm sure they interviewed his confessor and any other priest who had communications with him before he died. These priests would've confirmed that Henry repented. Then, the Church would lift his excommunication, post-death. The reason why it took so long is due to 1) the middle ages' lack of communication/travel/logistics that we're used to. 2) Any legal process (whether Church or secular) does not happen fast.
.
In the case of Pope St Gregory the Great not lifting the excommunication for the abbot, this does not mean the abbot could not be saved. It simply means that Pope St Gregory determined that he did not want an example where an excommunication was lifted easily or quickly. He was making an example of the abbot to show that whatever he did, was gravely wrong. Even if the abbot repented and gained the state of grace, the excommunication would be a spiritual penalty in the sense that it would remind the abbot of his former sin so he would not fall again. (What was he excommunicated for? If it was a sin where it is easy to fall again, i.e. fornication with one of the villagers?, then such a non-lifting of the excommunication would be a wise reminder.)
.
Back in the day, the Church had special monasteries and jails for priests, monks and clerics who violated Church laws. These monasteries were often secluded and penitential. Maybe St Gregory deemed that this abbot needed privacy and seclusion to save his soul? Not all excommunications are for heresy or mental errors. There are many in place for sins of the flesh, drunkenness or even witchcraft. These latter sins are not as easy to "abjure" since they scandalize the faithful with long-lasting consequences. Thus the Church must "set an example" when clerics cross such lines.
-
No, the notion of invisible membership is alien to Catholic theology.
.
Nothing about invisible membership. Membership in voto is not membership, just like baptism of desire is not baptism, "Hell" mentioned in the creed is not Hell, "material heresy" is not heresy, etc. The term at face value might mislead but it has a specific meaning.
-
Comparing an unbaptized person to an excommunicated one is totally wrong. An unbaptized person, spiritually speaking, has more in common with a pagan than any catholic. Excommunication would be more like to a person in schism. The Catholic encyclopedia explains it thus. Take note that an excommunicated person is cut off from the SOCIAL and PUBLIC aspects of the Church only. It does not affect his potential to obtain heaven, whereas an unbaptized person has no right to heaven, being he is not a child of God.
Excommunication (Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm) ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) of all participation in the common blessings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm) of ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm). Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) incurred by his offence.
Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm); hence, it can affect only those who by baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) have been admitted to that society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm). Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm); among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm), interdict (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08073a.htm) for clerics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm) and laymen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm), irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm) resulting from the social status of the Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) as such. The excommunicated person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), it is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), does not cease to be a Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), since his baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). Moreover, if he be a cleric (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm), he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.
-
Also, all excommunications are not equal. There major and minor; reserved and non-reserved; and a whole host of other types. This penalty was also quite different at the time of Pope St Gregory vs the Middle Ages (Henry IV). It seems it's quite complicated:
.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm)
-
Comparing an unbaptized person to an excommunicated one is totally wrong. An unbaptized person, spiritually speaking, has more in common with a pagan than any catholic. Excommunication would be more like to a person in schism. The Catholic encyclopedia explains it thus. Take note that an excommunicated person is cut off from the SOCIAL and PUBLIC aspects of the Church only. It does not affect his potential to obtain heaven, whereas an unbaptized person has no right to heaven, being he is not a child of God.
Excommunication (Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm) ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) of all participation in the common blessings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm) of ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm). Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) incurred by his offence.
Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm); hence, it can affect only those who by baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) have been admitted to that society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm). Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm); among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm), interdict (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08073a.htm) for clerics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm) and laymen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm), irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm) resulting from the social status of the Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) as such. The excommunicated person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), it is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), does not cease to be a Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), since his baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). Moreover, if he be a cleric (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm), he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.
.
The comparison was to a catechumen (not just any "unbaptized person") specifically, and the scope of the comparison was limited to their relationship to the Church vis a vis membership; obviously since it is a comparison, like all comparisons, there will be other differences. But the comparison was used by Bellarmine so I feel safe using it myself.