Did the Pope and Patriarch Go to Hell?

[porthos11]

First, a valid excommunication puts one outside the Church.
Second, there is no salvation outside the Church.

Therefore, anyone under excommunication is in a very serious situation in regards to their salvation.

No, excommunication does not put one outside the Church. Canon Law very clearly defines excommunication. It disallows the offender from receiving or administering the sacraments, and if the excommunication is ferendae sententiae, renders one from validly exercising governing authority in the Church.

But yes, it puts the offender in a very serious situation, because an excommunication is always attached to a mortal sin, which can be ordinarily forgiven in Confession. Unfortunately, one cannot be absolved while excommunicated.

 

[slavko]

Did the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople go to Hell?

I can’t be sure, but I firmly believe Athenagoras is in Hell now. Many Orthodox I know share the same belief.

 

[marlo]

If both churches are not in excommunication, then we should be in communion, why this is not the case?

The text admits that actions of excommunication took place.
The text never admits that the excommunications were against each others’ Churches.
The text admits that the excommunication did not rupture relations between the Churches, but rather that it was one of the circumstances that eventually led to the rupture in unity.

Joseph Ratzinger, in his book “Theological Highlights of Vatican II” written in 1966 states plainly that the parties recognized the excommunications were against the Patriarch himself (not the EOC) and the papal legates (not the CC).

The lifting of the excommunications was not an invalid act.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[LilyM]

If both churches are not in excommunication, then we should be in communion, why this is not the case?

Nope - the lifting of the excommunication doesn’t mean that as a practical matter we aren’t still out of communion with each other.

It’s not like the lifting of the excommunication equals an agreement by the Orthodox to submit to Rome’s authority for their part, nor an agreement by us Catholics for ours to rid our creed of that pesky filioque clause, after all!

Just that those particular pronouncements have been reversed.

 

[Aramis]

If both churches are not in excommunication, then we should be in communion, why this is not the case?

What it means, in practical terms, is that communion is now possible to restore.

Both still consider the other in schism, instead of cut off from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Genesis315]

Excommunication is a formal declaration and penalty imposted by the Pope, bishop, or Council of bishops. It is a medicinal punishment that is imposed on a sinner.

A schismatic act is a an act that itself separates (resulting ing a schism) regardless of any declaration or imposition.

The schism remains until there is no longer an objectively schismatic situation (according to the CCC: *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.)

By lifting the imposed punishment, both sides acknowledged that the other seeks to rectify the situation in the spirit of good will, and therefore the medicinal punishment is not needed anymore. But that fact itself doesn’t rectify the underlying schism or visible separation.

 

[Evan]

Excommunication is a formal declaration and penalty imposted by the Pope, bishop, or Council of bishops. It is a medicinal punishment that is imposed on a sinner.

Along these lines… An excommunication is imposed on a person. Not on an office (pope or patriarch). So if one did excommunicate a king, his heirs would not be excommunicated. If one excommunicated a patriarch, the patriarchs that follow would not be excommunicated.

Similarly, if Martin Luther were excommunicated, that does not imply all Lutherans are excomminicate.

 

[JackQ]

No, excommunication does not put one outside the Church. Canon Law very clearly defines excommunication. It disallows the offender from receiving or administering the sacraments, and if the excommunication is ferendae sententiae, renders one from validly exercising governing authority in the Church.

But yes, it puts the offender in a very serious situation, because an excommunication is always attached to a mortal sin, which can be ordinarily forgiven in Confession. Unfortunately, one cannot be absolved while excommunicated.

No, this would be wrong. What gave you the idea that one cannot be absolved while excommunicated? How would someone get unexcommunicated?

 

[JackQ]

If both churches are not in excommunication, then we should be in communion, why this is not the case?

Politics. The doctrinal differences are only used as an excuse, because in normal circumstances the doctrinal issues could be resolved through an ecumenical council.

 

[porthos11]

No, this would be wrong. What gave you the idea that one cannot be absolved while excommunicated? How would someone get unexcommunicated?

Canon law.

Because of what excommunication does, namely, renders a person ineligible to receive or administer the sacraments, including Confession. An excommunicated person cannot be absolved. For the offender to be absolved, the excommunication must be lifted first.

To get an excommunication lifted, it depends on what the law says. Some offenses are so severe that the lifting is reserved to the Apostolic See. Such offenses are attacking the Pope and ordaining a bishop without a mandate from the Holy See. Only Rome can lift these excommunications before absolution can be given.

Other excommunications are reserved to the bishop, or sometimes, to the priest confessor if so deputed by the bishop.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Did the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople go to Hell? Because I’ve been taught that both Churches are correct, and if they are, doesn’t that mean that excommunicating each other sent them both to Hell? And what about every single pope and patriarch since, excluding those from sometime around 1961 when the pope and patriarch lifted the excommunications and reconciled?

The Orthodox position:​

• Michael Cerularius is a Saint - Pope Leo IX of Old Rome is anathematised
• Rome - the reverse position
  Take your pick

Even if both were rightly anathematised, both could have repented. Neither is necessarily in hell, even if only one is a Saint, or neither. All in heaven are Saints.

 

[Ignatius]

Did the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople go to Hell? Because I’ve been taught that both Churches are correct, and if they are, doesn’t that mean that excommunicating each other sent them both to Hell?

Excommunication doesn’t send you to hell!

 

[JackQ]

Canon law.

Because of what excommunication does, namely, renders a person ineligible to receive or administer the sacraments, including Confession. An excommunicated person cannot be absolved. For the offender to be absolved, the excommunication must be lifted first.

To get an excommunication lifted, it depends on what the law says. Some offenses are so severe that the lifting is reserved to the Apostolic See. Such offenses are attacking the Pope and ordaining a bishop without a mandate from the Holy See. Only Rome can lift these excommunications before absolution can be given.

Other excommunications are reserved to the bishop, or sometimes, to the priest confessor if so deputed by the bishop.

Well, actually, Canon 1357 says this:

Can. 1357 §1. Without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 508 and 976, a confessor can remit in the internal sacramental forum an undeclared latae sententiae censure of excommunication or interdict if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision.
§2. In granting the remission, the confessor is to impose on the penitent, under the penalty of reincidence, the obligation of making recourse within a month to the competent superior or to a priest endowed with the faculty and the obligation of obeying his mandates; in the meantime he is to impose a suitable penance and, insofar as it is demanded, reparation of any scandal and damage; however, recourse can also be made through the confessor, without mention of the name.
§3. After they have recovered, those for whom an imposed or declared censure or one reserved to the Apostolic See has been remitted according to the norm of ⇒ can. 976 are also obliged to make recourse.

So, you see, there are circumstances where one excommunicated can avail himself of confession: when he has been excommunicated by operation of canon law, and it has not been declared.

 

[LilyM]

The Orthodox position:​

• Michael Cerularius is a Saint - Pope Leo IX of Old Rome is anathematised
• Rome - the reverse position
  Take your pick

Even if both were rightly anathematised, both could have repented. Neither is necessarily in hell, even if only one is a Saint, or neither. All in heaven are Saints.

Well, given that Pope Leo’s ‘canonisation’ occurred in the days before official Vatican ceremonies of canonisation, and is likely not an infallible declaration as a result, Catholics are not necessarily strictly bound to acclaim him as a saint.

 

[porthos11]

Well, actually, Canon 1357 says this:

Can. 1357 §1. Without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 508 and 976, a confessor can remit in the internal sacramental forum an undeclared latae sententiae censure of excommunication or interdict if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision.
§2. In granting the remission, the confessor is to impose on the penitent, under the penalty of reincidence, the obligation of making recourse within a month to the competent superior or to a priest endowed with the faculty and the obligation of obeying his mandates; in the meantime he is to impose a suitable penance and, insofar as it is demanded, reparation of any scandal and damage; however, recourse can also be made through the confessor, without mention of the name.
§3. After they have recovered, those for whom an imposed or declared censure or one reserved to the Apostolic See has been remitted according to the norm of ⇒ can. 976 are also obliged to make recourse.

So, you see, there are circumstances where one excommunicated can avail himself of confession: when he has been excommunicated by operation of canon law, and it has not been declared.

True, but three points:

1. The excommunication must still be lifted before absolution can be given, even if recourse is made to 1357, if only by the confessor himself; and then not without conditions; and
2. This applies only to latae sententiae excommunications.
3. Canon 976 specifically covers those in danger of death, which empowers all priests to lift censures.

So it does not change the same point made earlier. Before absolution can be granted, excommunication must be lifted.

 

[JackQ]

True, but three points:

1. The excommunication must still be lifted before absolution can be given, even if recourse is made to 1357, if only by the confessor himself; and then not without conditions; and
2. This applies only to latae sententiae excommunications.
3. Canon 976 specifically covers those in danger of death, which empowers all priests to lift censures.

So it does not change the same point made earlier. Before absolution can be granted, excommunication must be lifted.

Well, the excommunication is lifted in the internal forum, which happens in confession. I suppose you’re right in that the excommunication is lifted then the absolution is given. But I wouldn’t want to give people the impression that if they found themselves in the situation for which excommunication is automatic, such as apostasy or abortion, that they wouldn’t be able to avail themselves of confession until they obtained some sort of edict.

 

[porthos11]

Well, the excommunication is lifted in the internal forum, which happens in confession. I suppose you’re right in that the excommunication is lifted then the absolution is given. But I wouldn’t want to give people the impression that if they found themselves in the situation for which excommunication is automatic, such as apostasy or abortion, that they wouldn’t be able to avail themselves of confession until they obtained some sort of edict.

Again, it depends on the severity of the crime. Abortion and apostasy have been deputed, I believe to the priest confessor in most cases, as is heresy.

But assaulting the Pope and illicit episcopal ordinations are still reserved to the Apostolic See, which means, barring danger of death, the offender cannot be absolved from the sin until the penalty is lifted by the Apostolic Penitentiary.

 

[JackQ]

Again, it depends on the severity of the crime. Abortion and apostasy have been deputed, I believe to the priest confessor in most cases, as is heresy.

But assaulting the Pope and illicit episcopal ordinations are still reserved to the Apostolic See, which means, barring danger of death, the offender cannot be absolved from the sin until the penalty is lifted by the Apostolic Penitentiary.

That’s fine. As I said, I wouldn’t want to give people the impression that going to confession was unavailable to them, necessarily, if they were excommunicated. Few internet surfers coming to this site will have assaulted the Pope or engaged in an illicit episcopal ordination. The original post that gave rise to this discussion gave that impression, in my opinion. Merry Christmas.

 

[porthos11]

That’s fine. As I said, I wouldn’t want to give people the impression that going to confession was unavailable to them, necessarily, if they were excommunicated. Few internet surfers coming to this site will have assaulted the Pope or engaged in an illicit episcopal ordination. The original post that gave rise to this discussion gave that impression, in my opinion. Merry Christmas.

Oh, there are other offenses that are punishable and reserved to the Apostolic See, such as throwing away or reserving for a sacriligeous purpose the Holy Eucharist, a priest absolving a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment, violation of the sacramental seal.

The point is, if one is excommunicated, a priest cannot absolve him unless he has the faculties to do so. If he doesn’t, then the priest must defer absolution and obtain them.