Rite of Excommunication

[JPedroza]

I was wondering if the Rite of Excommunication by Anathema Ritual as found in the Pontificale Romanum prior to Vatican II can ever validly be done.

I ask if it can ever validly be done, because as I understand it the Code of Canon Law 1982 has done away with the ceremonial ritual.

The reason I’m asking is because I was fascinated with the scenes from Becket and the Borgias episode. I began my research and the first thing that popped up was by a Baptist source calling it a “Papal Curse” with incredibly exaggerated text of the ritual. Then researching more about it and coming to find out because of it’s rarity in use it was taken out of Canon Law as the prescribed procedure for excommunication.

So since its rarity, disuse, and removal from Canon Law, can a bishop or the pope for that matter ever opt to do this ceremony towards a very grievous offender?

I know it was used for the most part to show severity and bring ex-communicants to repentance.

If I’m misunderstanding something or don’t have my fact straight, please by all means correct me.

Thank you and God Bless!

For those curious as to what I’m talking about:

Formula of Excommunication from the Roman Pontifical

“[Name of the person], led by the Devil, having abandoned through apostasy the promise he had made at his Baptism, has not feared to ravage the Church of God, steal Church goods and violently oppress the poor of Christ. In our concern over this, we do not desire that he perish because of any pastoral neglect of our own. For before the dread Judgment seat, we will have to render an account to the Prince of Shepherds, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in accordance with the terrible warning the Lord Himself addresses to us with these words: If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand (Ez 3: 18). Therefore, we have canonically warned him once, twice, a third and yet a fourth time so that he might conquer his malice, inviting him to amend himself, make reparation and penance, and reprehending him with paternal affection. But he – o woe! – despising the salutary admonitions of the Church of God, which he has offended, and led by the spirit of pride, has not wanted to make any reparation

“The precepts of the Lord and of the Apostles speak clearly about what to do with such prevaricators. For the Lord says: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offends thee, cut them off and cast them from thee (Mt 8:18). And the Apostle advises: If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, do not so much as to eat. (1 Cor 5:11) And John, the favorite disciple of Christ, forbids that one should even greet one who is wicked: If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and greet him not (2 Jn 1:10).

“Therefore, carrying out the precepts of the Lord and of the Apostles, let us take from the body of the Church with the iron tongs of excommunication this putrid and incurable member who refuses to accept the remedy, so that the rest of the members of the body may not be poisoned by such a pestiferous disease. He has despised our admonitions and our repeated exhortations; having been warned three times, according to the precept of the Lord, he would not amend himself and do penance; he has not reflected upon his guilt, nor has he confessed it; neither has he presented any excuse through a third party, nor did he ask for pardon. But, with his heart hardened by the Devil, he continues to persevere in the same evil as before, according to the words of the Apostle: The impenitent heart stores up to itself wrath for the day of wrath (Rom 2:5).

“Wherefore by the judgment of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, of the St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the Saints, and by virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth that which was divinely entrusted to us, we deprive him [the person is named] with all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord; we separate him from the society of all Christians; we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth; and we declare him excommunicated and anathematized, as well as judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobates. So long as he will not burst the fetters of the Devil, amend himself and do penance and make reparation to the Church which he has offended, we deliver him to Satan for the perdition of his flesh, so that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

“To this, all the assistants answer: “Fiat, fiat, fiat” [so be it, so be it, so be it].

“The Bishop and the assisting priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying. Notice is sent in writing to all the priests in the neighboring parishes, as well as to the Bishops, of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication in order that they may have no communication with him, thus removing them from any occasion of excommunication.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: only to be prayed by a priest. A layman is not authorized to use this prayer, nor must ever attempt to do so.

(Roman Pontifical apud Catolicismo, December 1952)

 

[Vico]

Last thread on this subject was closed after seven posts.

 

[JPedroza]

Vico: Please explain. Was there a thread on this very same question? Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

I was wondering if the Rite of Excommunication by Anathema Ritual as found in the Pontificale Romanum prior to Vatican II can ever validly be done.

I ask if it can ever validly be done, because as I understand it the Code of Canon Law 1982 has done away with the ceremonial ritual.

The reason I’m asking is because I was fascinated with the scenes from Becket and the Borgias episode. I began my research and the first thing that popped up was by a Baptist source calling it a “Papal Curse” with incredibly exaggerated text of the ritual. Then researching more about it and coming to find out because of it’s rarity in use it was taken out of Canon Law as the prescribed procedure for excommunication.

So since its rarity, disuse, and removal from Canon Law, can a bishop or the pope for that matter ever opt to do this ceremony towards a very grievous offender?

I know it was used for the most part to show severity and bring ex-communicants to repentance.

If I’m misunderstanding something or don’t have my fact straight, please by all means correct me.

Thank you and God Bless!

For those curious as to what I’m talking about:

My first instinct was to say “no.”

However, after some thought and some research, the answer is actually “yes.”

The first comment I want to make, though, is that you need to understand the distinction between “canon law” and “liturgical law.” An actual rite of excommunication would not be found in canon law because that’s not how the Church’s laws work. What one might find (and no, I haven’t looked) would be a reference to the rite made in canon law. For example, it might say something like this “a sentence of excommunication takes effect when the competent authority performs the prescribed rite.” Hence my question in the next paragraph.

I’ve done a quick search through the current Code and I don’t see any reference to a formal rite of excommunication. Such a sentence must be “declared” by competent authority. Do you have a reference from the 1917 code that actually required a rite of excommunication?

Having said that, to get back to your original question:

Yes, a bishop today could choose to use that Rite of Excommunication from 1952. He could do this by virtue of Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict (the same that permits use of the Roman Missal of 1962).

See the Complementary Norms vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

Pontificale Romanum and the Rituale Romanum

1. The use of the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, as well as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum in effect in 1962, is permitted, in keeping with n. 28 of this Instruction, and always respecting n. 31 of the same Instruction.

Now, just because it’s possible that a bishop is permitted to use that Rite, I rather doubt any bishop would actually do so.

 

[JPedroza]

My first instinct was to say “no.”

However, after some thought and some research, the answer is actually “yes.”

The first comment I want to make, though, is that you need to understand the distinction between “canon law” and “liturgical law.” An actual rite of excommunication would not be found in canon law because that’s not how the Church’s laws work. What one might find (and no, I haven’t looked) would be a reference to the rite made in canon law. For example, it might say something like this “a sentence of excommunication takes effect when the competent authority performs the prescribed rite.” Hence my question in the next paragraph.

I’ve done a quick search through the current Code and I don’t see any reference to a formal rite of excommunication. Such a sentence must be “declared” by competent authority. Do you have a reference from the 1917 code that actually required a rite of excommunication?

Having said that, to get back to your original question:

Yes, a bishop today could choose to use that Rite of Excommunication from 1952. He could do this by virtue of Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict (the same that permits use of the Roman Missal of 1962).

See the Complementary Norms vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

Pontificale Romanum and the Rituale Romanum

1. The use of the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, as well as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum in effect in 1962, is permitted, in keeping with n. 28 of this Instruction, and always respecting n. 31 of the same Instruction.

Now, just because it’s possible that a bishop is permitted to use that Rite, I rather doubt any bishop would actually do so.

Yes indeed I do. I think I just expressed it inadequately, my apologies for the misunderstanding. But yes, in the 1917 Code of Canon Law does reference the rite. I used the wrong word by saying “prescribes” initially. Because yes, there’s a difference between liturgical and canon law.

Here is the reference from CIC 1917 “par.2”: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0813/_P88.HTM

**par. 2. Dicitur quoque anathema, praesertim si cum sollemnitatibus infligatur quae in Pontificali Romano describuntur.

par. 2. It is said also to be an anathema, especially if they are the set feasts of a penalty, which, in the Pontifical Roman described .**

Ok, interesting. So that most definitely answered my question. I wasn’t even thinking about Summorum Pontificum as including anything else outside the form of the Mass. Thank you very much for enlightening me on that. Not only did I get an answer I learned something new and interesting.

Very helpful! Thank you again FrDavid96! God Bless you.

 

[Vico]

Vico: Please explain. Was there a thread on this very same question? Thank you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602820

 

[FrDavid96]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602820

Well, it was closed in 2011, and the last post was from a member who was later banned. Also, it was a similar topic, but quite a different question.

When I first saw this thread, it raised some red flags for me. I did ask myself “why would someone ask such a question?” Then I re-read the question itself. The OP wrote “The reason I’m asking is because I was fascinated with the scenes from Becket and the Borgias episode.” At that point, I thought to myself “OK, many people often have questions about what they see in films.” I think the possibility of a bishop actually using the rite is pretty slim, to say the least.

Anyway, the scene from Becket is pretty powerful. It really is a memorable one. Whether or not they got every detail right one must admit that it is among the best cinema. It’s been decades since I’ve seen the movie, yet I can recall the scene immediately. St Thomas Becket was martyred in 1170, so that brings up the question of “how similar?” would that excommunication ceremony (if any) actually be, compared to the 1952 rite. It’s academic and trivial, but that doesn’t make it a problem to discuss it.

That’s a long way of saying that I don’t see any problem with having a discussion on this topic. Do you?

 

[Vico]

Well, it was closed in 2011, and the last post was from a member who was later banned. Also, it was a similar topic, but quite a different question.

When I first saw this thread, it raised some red flags for me. I did ask myself “why would someone ask such a question?” Then I re-read the question itself. The OP wrote “The reason I’m asking is because I was fascinated with the scenes from Becket and the Borgias episode.” At that point, I thought to myself “OK, many people often have questions about what they see in films.” I think the possibility of a bishop actually using the rite is pretty slim, to say the least.

Anyway, the scene from Becket is pretty powerful. It really is a memorable one. Whether or not they got every detail right one must admit that it is among the best cinema. It’s been decades since I’ve seen the movie, yet I can recall the scene immediately. St Thomas Becket was martyred in 1170, so that brings up the question of “how similar?” would that excommunication ceremony (if any) actually be, compared to the 1952 rite. It’s academic and trivial, but that doesn’t make it a problem to discuss it.

That’s a long way of saying that I don’t see any problem with having a discussion on this topic. Do you?

No. Also, in Becket which I also watched a few times, that words spoken in the excommunication scene were about 1 minute long.

 

[poche]

Rather than focusing on a rite of excommunication let us focus on avoiding the sins that can get you excommunicated.

 

[JPedroza]

Vico: Thank you for sharing that thread. But as FrDavid96 replied, my question was slightly different. Thank you also for your thoughts.

FrDavid96: I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. But yes, I guess it was a hypothetical type of question. If it were still done, would it be done in a similar manner portrayed on film, obviously without the dramatization.

It was very intriguing to me, especially when reading what the ceremony actually entails.
I agree the depiction in Becket is incredibly powerful, and still sticks out in my mind.
Though I’m not a fan of the Borgias series, it was incredibly perverse and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, I do like Jeremy Irons as an actor. The excommunication ritual for Girolamo Savonarola portrayed in the series was incredibly haunting, though I suspect that they intended it to appear more sinister than anything.

In any event, thank you for discussing this wildly obscure and trivial topic with me.

poche: Good point. Unfortunately, we need to also help instruct our brethren that are separated from Christ yet still receive the Eucharist every Sunday. Those who are excommunicated Latae sententiae, but don’t even know it.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

FrDavid96: I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. But yes, I guess it was a hypothetical type of question. If it were still done, would it be done in a similar manner portrayed on film, obviously without the dramatization.

It was very intriguing to me, especially when reading what the ceremony actually entails.
I agree the depiction in Becket is incredibly powerful, and still sticks out in my mind.
Though I’m not a fan of the Borgias series, it was incredibly perverse and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, I do like Jeremy Irons as an actor. The excommunication ritual for Girolamo Savonarola portrayed in the series was incredibly haunting, though I suspect that they intended it to appear more sinister than anything.

In any event, thank you for discussing this wildly obscure and trivial topic with me.

…

Just keep in mind the different time-periods.

I can’t say that I have any idea what the ceremony would have looked like in either time, only what the 1952 ritual says. Someone would have to do some serious research to be able to say what it was in AD 1170 in England. It might be rather easy if (let’s say) some monastery preserved a ritual book from that time, assuming one has access to the sources. Personally, all I can say is that I don’t know.

I only caution not to make the assumption that the 1952 ritual would bear any resemblance to those of the earlier times without actually doing the necessary research.

 

[JPedroza]

Just keep in mind the different time-periods.

I can’t say that I have any idea what the ceremony would have looked like in either time, only what the 1952 ritual says. Someone would have to do some serious research to be able to say what it was in AD 1170 in England. It might be rather easy if (let’s say) some monastery preserved a ritual book from that time, assuming one has access to the sources. Personally, all I can say is that I don’t know.

I only caution not to make the assumption that the 1952 ritual would bear any resemblance to those of the earlier times without actually doing the necessary research.

That is very true to keep in mind. Especially from 1170, but from 1497 when Alexander VI excommunicated Girolamo Savonarola there might still be some viable sources on the ritual for that time period. But who can really know unless the research is conducted and the sources are there. But I imagine just about every official ceremony is recorded concerning the pope. Though, if I’m remembering correctly the succeeding popes after Alexander VI did a lot to try and blot out his papacy. Anyway, I agree with you, I simply can’t just assume that the 1952 ritual would bear any resemblance to the earlier period ones.

In any case, thanks again for your insight!

 

[dans0622]

Yes indeed I do. I think I just expressed it inadequately, my apologies for the misunderstanding. But yes, in the 1917 Code of Canon Law does reference the rite. I used the wrong word by saying “prescribes” initially. Because yes, there’s a difference between liturgical and canon law.

Here is the reference from CIC 1917 “par.2”: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0813/_P88.HTM

par. 2. Dicitur quoque anathema, praesertim si cum sollemnitatibus infligatur quae in Pontificali Romano describuntur.

par. 2. It is said also to be an anathema, especially if they are the set feasts of a penalty, which, in the Pontifical Roman described . …

Hello,

For the sake of completeness, this passage from the old Code comes from canon 2257 which has been paraphrased (in Fr. S. Woywod’s commentary) to read as follows:

1. Excommunication is a censure by which a person is excluded from communion with the faithful, with the effects enumerated in the following Canons and which cannot be separated one from the other.
2. Excommunication is also called anathema, especially when inflicted with the formalities described in the Pontificale Romanum.

The current Code does not mention this ritual. If memory serves, the word “anathema” is not even in the 1983 Code, either. I haven’t checked to be sure but I would think that it is not part of the “new” Roman Pontifical.

Nevertheless, I would agree with FrDavid96’s opinion that this ritual could be licitly used (“validly/invalidly” would not be an appropriate term to use). Outside of Hollywood productions, though, I don’t expect to ever see it.

Dan

 

[JPedroza]

Hello,

For the sake of completeness, this passage from the old Code comes from canon 2257 which has been paraphrased (in Fr. S. Woywod’s commentary) to read as follows:

1. Excommunication is a censure by which a person is excluded from communion with the faithful, with the effects enumerated in the following Canons and which cannot be separated one from the other.
2. Excommunication is also called anathema, especially when inflicted with the formalities described in the Pontificale Romanum.

The current Code does not mention this ritual. If memory serves, the word “anathema” is not even in the 1983 Code, either. I haven’t checked to be sure but I would think that it is not part of the “new” Roman Pontifical.

Nevertheless, I would agree with FrDavid96’s opinion that this ritual could be licitly used (“validly/invalidly” would not be an appropriate term to use). Outside of Hollywood productions, though, I don’t expect to ever see it.

Dan

Thanks for the clarification and added thoughts Dan. Much appreciated. God Bless!