Excommunication Of King Robert The Bruce

[waxwings]

Why do you assume that the excommunication was for the sin that Wishart gave Bruce absolution for?

Yes its historical fact Bruce was excommunicated for the murder or accomplice in murder,he definately met Comynn in Greyfriars Kirk,but there is suggestions that Comynn wasnt dead when Bruce left the Church,and his knights in waiting went into the Church and finished Comynn off,similar to St Thomas Beckett murder.
There were two further excommunications by Pope Clement and John,and and English Archbihop’s with Papal authority,for Bruce not obeying the Pope’s to be subject to England.The Scottish Clergy ,Nobles,and Clergy defied the Pope.and fully behind Bruce.
If they hadn’t defied the Pope,there wouldn’t be any Scottish nation today,so God was clearly on the side of the Scots,for later,Pope John XX11 lifted the ban of Excommunications,to the rage of the English.
Wheather the Pope’s was right or wrong to favour the English,was not their fault,because they was given relenting bias anti-Scottish propaganda,until the Pope seen the true light and lifted the excommunications.
Read; Catholicherald.co.uk-----Benedict XV1 Should address the Papacy’s treatment of Robert The Buce
Read; The Declaration Of Scottish Independence

 

[waxwings]

It would be impossible for Wishart to have “known” for certain prior to it actually happening. He might have thought or felt certain - but he could not “know” for certain. (The pope could have decided not to at the last minute; the pope could have suddenly died just prior to excommunicating; …)

I agree.but Wshart thought it highly likely thats why he rushed Bruce to be crowned King before and in case of excommunication,for an excommunicate could not be crowned King

Was there a Church law at the time stating a bishop was forbidden to hear the confession of a penitent requesting it if there was a chance the penitent was about to be excommunicated? If not, then Wishart broke no Church law.

I Dont know Church Laws then,ive read different versions as to Wishart could have excommunicated Bruce,and did violate Church Law,never see one that he never

No, he would not have to confess it again if he fulfilled the necessary conditions of a penitent.

This seems the key question .Did he complete his penance before or after absolution??? But then why excommunicate if it was known he fulfilled all conditions??

Lifting an excommunication does not absolve sin. The only way the Pope could have absolved him for the sin would have been if Bruce had gone to Confession to the Pope.

Yes to my knowledge an excommunicate who confesses ,is absolved,completes penance has excommunication lifted.I cant find any quotes to say if ,when how and to whom Bruce confessed to for lifting of excommunication,if indeed he ever did,for as you say absolution is not required.Bruce was also excommunicated twice more by Pope ,and English Clergy by Papal authority, and interdict on Scots Clergy and Nation for 100% supporting Bruce and ,for not obeying the Pope’s decision for Scotland to be subject to England ,all later lifted by Pope John XX11,seems the Pope was wrong here for he lifted the ban,and the whole Scots nation would never have yielded to the Pope and never did but always in respect and hope he would lift the censures,and see Scotland was not the aggressor and always loyal to Rome as her Special Daughter of The Holy See,seems a case where the Pope was wrong to meddle in politics.
All very confusing,it would need a Historian in middle age Canon Law to supply the true correct story.
Read; CatholicHerald.co.uk- Benedict XV1 should address the Papacy’s treatment of Robert The Bruce.
Read: Scottish Declaration Of Independence

 

[thistle]

Yes its historical fact Bruce was excommunicated for the murder or accomplice in murder,he definately met Comynn in Greyfriars Kirk,but there is suggestions that Comynn wasnt dead when Bruce left the Church,and his knights in waiting went into the Church and finished Comynn off,similar to St Thomas Beckett murder.
There were two further excommunications by Pope Clement and John,and and English Archbihop’s with Papal authority,for Bruce not obeying the Pope’s to be subject to England.The Scottish Clergy ,Nobles,and Clergy defied the Pope.and fully behind Bruce.
If they hadn’t defied the Pope,there wouldn’t be any Scottish nation today,so God was clearly on the side of the Scots,for later,Pope John XX11 lifted the ban of Excommunications,to the rage of the English.
Wheather the Pope’s was right or wrong to favour the English,was not their fault,because they was given relenting bias anti-Scottish propaganda,until the Pope seen the true light and lifted the excommunications.
Read; Catholicherald.co.uk-----Benedict XV1 Should address the Papacy’s treatment of Robert The Buce
Read; The Declaration Of Scottish Independence

Murder is not an excommunicable offense.

EXCOMMUNICATION

Ferendae Sententiae Excommunication (requires formal proceedings):

Canon 1378: The pretended celebration of the Eucharist or of sacramental Confession
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by an interpreter

Latae Sententiae Excommunication (automatic):

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

 

[1ke]

Murder is not an excommunicable offense.

Today.

This was 700 years ago. And as supreme legislator, the Pope could excommunicate someone for any offense he chose to.

The excommunication appears to be for treason/rebellion/usurpation of the Scottish throne vis-a-vis the English claim to it. Whether or not this was justified, right, etc, is irrelevant. The Pope excommunicated Bruce 3 different times, at one point putting Scotland under interdict.

 

[Nita]

Yes to my knowledge an excommunicate who confesses ,is absolved,completes penance has excommunication lifted.I cant find any quotes to say if ,when how and to whom Bruce confessed to for lifting of excommunication,if indeed he ever did,for as you say absolution is not required.Bruce was also excommunicated twice more by Pope ,and English Clergy by Papal authority, and interdict on Scots Clergy and Nation for 100% supporting Bruce and ,for not obeying the Pope’s decision for Scotland to be subject to England ,all later lifted by Pope John XX11,seems the Pope was wrong here for he lifted the ban,and the whole Scots nation would never have yielded to the Pope and never did but always in respect and hope he would lift the censures,and see Scotland was not the aggressor and always loyal to Rome as her Special Daughter of The Holy See,seems a case where the Pope was wrong to meddle in politics.
All very confusing,it would need a Historian in middle age Canon Law to supply the true correct story.
Read; CatholicHerald.co.uk- Benedict XV1 should address the Papacy’s treatment of Robert The Bruce.
Read: Scottish Declaration Of Independence

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a lengthy entry on “Excommunication”, including it’s history. newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

The following paragraph is one of the many I found informative (a third to half way down):
Apart from the rare cases in which excommunication is imposed for a fixed period and then ceases of itself, it is always removed by absolution. It is to be noted at once that, though the same word is used to designate the sacramental sentence by which sins are remitted and that by which excommunication is removed, there is a vast difference between the two acts. The absolution which revokes excommunication is purely jurisdictional and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in the Church; restores the rights of which he had been deprived, beginning with participation in the sacraments; and for this very reason,** it should precede sacramental absolution,** which it thenceforth renders possible and efficacious.

In the case of Robert Bruce, it appears sacramental absolution was granted before he was ever excommunicated. The later excommunication would not undo the sacramental absolution. Neither would the fact that he had confessed and been absolved from his sin serve to prevent the Pope from subsequently imposing excommunication as a penalty for the sinful act.

 

[waxwings]

Murder is not an excommunicable offense.

EXCOMMUNICATION

Ferendae Sententiae Excommunication (requires formal proceedings):

Canon 1378: The pretended celebration of the Eucharist or of sacramental Confession
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by an interpreter

Latae Sententiae Excommunication (automatic):

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

Murder in front of alter was excommunicate offence in 14th century,Canon Law may have been different then than now,thats what the four knights who murdered St Thomas Beckett were excommunicated for

 

[waxwings]

Today.

This was 700 years ago. And as supreme legislator, the Pope could excommunicate someone for any offense he chose to.

The excommunication appears to be for treason/rebellion/usurpation of the Scottish throne vis-a-vis the English claim to it. Whether or not this was justified, right, etc, is irrelevant. The Pope excommunicated Bruce 3 different times, at one point putting Scotland under interdict.

The first excommunication was for murder in front of alter,the other two were f politically and ecclessiastical because Scotlands King Clergy Nobles Nation would not submit to being subject to ,English King and Clergy,at the Popes command.I have already quoted this several times in my threads.
Furthermore Pope was wrong politically,for he lifted excommunications of Bruce and interdict of Scots nation,because Scotland won her Independence politically and ecclesiastically,after England submitted signed agreed to Scots independence.So the Pope must have seen England were the aggressor,which they were.Every historical commentator says England were the aggressor

 

[waxwings]

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a lengthy entry on “Excommunication”, including it’s history. newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

The following paragraph is one of the many I found informative (a third to half way down):
Apart from the rare cases in which excommunication is imposed for a fixed period and then ceases of itself, it is always removed by absolution. It is to be noted at once that, though the same word is used to designate the sacramental sentence by which sins are remitted and that by which excommunication is removed, there is a vast difference between the two acts. The absolution which revokes excommunication is purely jurisdictional and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in the Church; restores the rights of which he had been deprived, beginning with participation in the sacraments; and for this very reason,** it should precede sacramental absolution,** which it thenceforth renders possible and efficacious.

In the case of Robert Bruce, it appears sacramental absolution was granted before he was ever excommunicated. The later excommunication would not undo the sacramental absolution. Neither would the fact that he had confessed and been absolved from his sin serve to prevent the Pope from subsequently imposing excommunication as a penalty for the sinful act.

Yes he was granted absolution sacramental
So was the Pope excommunicating Bruce for the sinful act ,and not the murder in the sinful act?? if this makes any sense
So if as you say absolution would not be required to lift the excommunication,what was required? as Bruce would be banned from all sacraments