Excommunication in the Renaissance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Startingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Startingcatholic

Guest
My teacher said that Excommunication in the Catholic Church during the Renaissance was essentially viewed by the church as a sentence to damnation! And that it is only recently that it has been viewed otherwise! Is this true and how does this work with changing of doctrine?
Edit: I called him out on the damnation thing and he basically said “Sure, that is the understanding as it is now. But during the Renaissance they understood it differently and even if they weren’t technically damning you that was the cultural expectation and the expectation of the Church.” He then went on to try to demonstrate the change by mentioning Gallileo being excommunicated and the Church apologizing for it just recently.
 
Last edited:
excommunication hasn’t changed. The church can’t ‘condemn’ anyone. Only God can do that. Excommunication can lead to damnation. But it is not a sentence of damnation.
 
The “proof” that this is not the case is here: Please show us a document from the “Church” that states that someone IS in hell.

You will not find one. The Church has declared “infallibly” that some people ARE in Heaven. (Saints)
Never has She committed any one to hell. Not even Judas Iscariot, the Apostle who betrayed Jesus.

Peace!
 
Also I would like to point out that “Excommunication” forbids the person from receiving “Communion”. However he/she CAN receive confession and absolution if they repent from the sin that caused the sentence.
When that happens the Excommunication is lifted.
Which HAS happened.

Peace!
 
I believe that excommunication was partly meant to impress upon the excommunicated person just how serious the situation was - kind of like a “scared straight” moment!
Literally the Church was trying to say “time for a come to Jesus moment!”
 
Excommunication places one outside the communion of the Church for a grave sin committed. That person is no longer a member of the Church in full communion. If it is valid and just, and the excommunicated person does not repent, then that person would not be saved. That has always been the case and still is.

But the Church can’t cause someone to be damned by excommunicating them unless that person was worthy of damnation anyway. It would also not affect a person’s salvation if inflicted unjustly or invalidly. There is certainly debate as to whether Galilieo’s excommunication was just or not.
 
Last edited:
Startingcatholic said:
My teacher said that Excommunication in the Catholic Church during the Renaissance was essentially viewed by the church as a sentence to damnation!
Click to expand...
Excommunication has been and still is a serious canonical penalty to underscore the seriousness of one’s actions and to draw the person to repentance and back to communion with the Church.
Startingcatholic said:
And that it is only recently that it has been viewed otherwise! Is this true and how does this work with changing of doctrine?
Click to expand...
A) it’s not true.

B) it has nothing to do with doctrine. Excommunication is a disciplinary penalty.
Startingcatholic said:
He then went on to try to demonstrate the change by mentioning Gallileo being excommunicated and the Church apologizing for it just recently.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t demonstrate any change at all.
 
Genesis315 said:
Excommunication places one outside the communion of the Church for a grave sin committed. That person is no longer a member of the Church in full communion. If it is valid and just, and the excommunicated person does not repent, then that person would not be saved. That has always been the case and still is.

But the Church can’t cause someone to be damned by excommunicating them unless that person was worthy of damnation anyway. It would also not affect a person’s salvation if inflicted unjustly or invalidly. There is certainly debate as to whether Galilieo’s excommunication was just or not.
Click to expand...
Can the church be wrong because it is human judgment involved in the excommunication?
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
B) it has nothing to do with doctrine. Excommunication is a disciplinary penalty.
Click to expand...
Is someone who’s excommunicated cutoff from the mass or can they still go to mass?
 
Last edited:
whichwaytogo47 said:
Is someone who’s excommunicated cutoff from the mass or can they still go to mass?
Click to expand...
Yes they can attend mass, indeed the obligation remains for Sundays and Holy Days.

They may not receive the sacraments until they have repented.
 
Last edited:
JerryZ said:
The “proof” that this is not the case is here: Please show us a document from the “Church” that states that someone IS in hell.

You will not find one. The Church has declared “infallibly” that some people ARE in Heaven. (Saints)
Never has She committed any one to hell. Not even Judas Iscariot, the Apostle who betrayed Jesus.

Peace!
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does teach that unnamed souls are in Hell.

AAS ( Acta Apostolicae Sedis) Saint Pope John Paul II (from 1999)
Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of which human beings are effectively involved in it.
Click to expand...
Lateran Council IV, 1215 A.D., Chapter 1 The Catholic Faith (present tense reference in bold)
(Definition directed against the Albigensians and other heretics)
And finally the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, incarnate by the whole Trinity in common, conceived of Mary ever Virgin with the Holy Spirit cooperating, made true man, formed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, clearly pointed out the way of life. And although He according to divinity is immortal and impassible, the very same according to humanity was made passible and mortal, who, for the salvation of the human race, having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell, arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, and He arose in the flesh, and He ascended equally in both, to come at the end of time, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect, all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ.
Click to expand...
 
whichwaytogo47 said:
Can the church be wrong because it is human judgment involved in the excommunication?
Click to expand...
That’s correct. Here’s how the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it:
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty…[such a person] has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help.
Click to expand...
This was understood even in medieval/reneaissance times as Popes like Innocent III and the canonists at the time discuss it.

It should be noted, someone unjustly excommunicated is still supposed to respect authority and the sentence passed while they work to prove their innocence, etc.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
This was understood even in medieval/reneaissance times as Popes like Innocent III and the canonists at the time discuss it.

It should be noted, someone unjustly excommunicated is still supposed to respect authority and the sentence passed while they work to prove their innocence, etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much and God bless. I also appreciate the wisdom of following / respecting authority while attempting to prove innocence. I think it is wisdom to choose to obey when you should obey.
 
Last edited:
That depends on the level of excommunication.

What you describe is the lowest form known as Latae sententiae and can be lifted by the sacrament of Confession.

Higher forms could involve the person recanting publicly the offense which cause the Bishop to excommunicate them. This hasn’t happened in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
JerryZ said:
Also I would like to point out that “Excommunication” forbids the person from receiving “Communion”. However he/she CAN receive confession and absolution if they repent from the sin that caused the sentence.
When that happens the Excommunication is lifted.
Which HAS happened.

Peace!
Click to expand...
No, excommunication prevents one from being validly absolved. It in fact prevents the offender from validly receiving any sacraments.

An excommunicated person cannot be absolved unless the confessor has the faculties to lift the penalty. If someone is under excommunication reserved to the Holy See, then the priest cannot absolve until he gets the necessary faculties from Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top