Territorial interdicts

[xukedol]

On 23 March 1208, the bishops of England, acting on command of Innocent III, pope regnant, imposed a territorial interdict on the kingdom. The interdict denied sacraments and opportunity to attend Mass to the laity. The obligation to attend Mass on every Sunday and to receive the Eucharist each Easter presumably continued. The pope and bishops lifted the territorial interdict in June 1214. The barons revolted against John, king of England, whose enemies ultimately surrounded him in 1215 in a meadow of Runnymeade, where he agreed to the Magna Carta, which limited his power and began the traditional liberties of Englishmen and Americans.

According to my high-school history teachers a quarter-century ago, the Catholic Church required that almost anyone who deceased under a territorial interdict, regardless of the heroic virtue of his or her earthly life, must suffer eternally in Hell. Only those who died as martyrs in an ensuing revolt or who attained sufficient ecclesial rank may escape eternal damnation. Popes, acting always in the interest of the salvation of souls, therefore engaged in a sort of utilitarian moral balancing test in deciding to impose the territorial interdict. In damning millions who otherwise entered eternal life, they scared the nobility of Europe into sanctity and obedience, which saved more souls than the interdicts damned.

This John 20:23 tells us that Jesus instructed his Apostles, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” Does the interdict accordingly retain the sins of all to ensure their eternal damnation, or does this power arise from another provision in Scripture? Is this interpretation even truly official Church teaching? Are we called to accept the inevitability of an eternity in Hell, even after a life of heroic virtue that otherwise merits eternal salvation through the grace of God, just because of an inopportune political situation?

And how does this teaching on territorial interdicts and their effects apply to the current situation with the Wuhan coronavirus and associated hysteria in 2020? Are Catholics who die in a closed diocese or of the coronavirus automatically damned eternally? Can they attain salvation through travel to or use of an open diocese or eparchy, including military services? Can God admit Protestants and persons in invincible ignorance or even unborn babies into Heaven even where Catholics must go to Hell? How does this current situation differ from the medieval territorial interdict? Should we follow our medieval forebears and revolt against our current ecclesial and civil authorities because our eternal lives depend on their permission? Whose souls might this interdict and associated mandatory damnation preserve for the possibility of eternal life? What reform do our bishops desire of us?

Sorry for the overload of strange questions. But this concept has bothered me much lately. And our diocese again may impose more closures, even for developments in the majoritarian political situation. Should I despair? Or condition my weak hope on a condition beyond my control and influence?

 

[Mythicalbio]

I can not answer all of your questions, but can tell you straight up: no human can reprobate or save a soul, or cause the salvation or reprobation of anyone. We can not even save or reprobate ourselves. Salvation is God’s alone, and no creature gets in the way of the salvation of the Elect, not even the Elect themselves. If people under the interdiction were part of the Elect, they are saved. Whatever answer you get, know this.

Do not despair, God desires your salvation, or he would not have made you. Read Divine Mercy, and Spe Salvi.

 

[SunSeeker]

I also cannot answer all of your questions, but there’s a few key differences between 2020 and 1208.

For one thing, that interdict was imposed through power, and not as the response to a plague. Several times during COVID, I have heard people say that they will risk their life going to mass, but although I cannot speak 100% certainly to the morality of our closures today, they were were imposed with the goal of protecting not just those who would have been otherwise attending mass, but also those in the wider community, whose health could have been jeopardized. People who attend mass despite personal risk of political persecution / martyrdom may be praised, but certainly if we think that someone else may have to die so we can attend, that might be a different moral argument.

Most areas I know of that are closed have provided dispensation from mass, which is something you say wasn’t in place in 1208. If a bishop or priest with the power to do so has said that you don’t need to attend mass one week, then your obligation is lifted.

I read some things about the interdict of 1208. While masses were not normally celebrated, I found an article that said that baptisms and confessions were still offered. See below. If that’s the case, I see no reason to worry about their souls, or your own now.

When England was under Interdict - Medievalists.net

I’m sure the pope knows that masses have been cancelled all over the world. Far as I know, he has not said we should persist with mass against the laws and recommendations of health. While he’s not immune from sin and error, I would expect/hope that God would not allow a pope to permit dispensations on such a wide, public level if they were immoral. It’s no small thing like some other faults of the popes that get pointed out by critics. God will protect his church from such an error.

Above all, as a previous poster has said, do not despair.

Hope is of God, despair, its opposite, can only be from below.

 

[1ke]

According to my high-school history teachers a quarter-century ago, the Catholic Church required that almost anyone who deceased under a territorial interdict, regardless of the heroic virtue of his or her earthly life, must suffer eternally in Hell.

Your history teacher was not a theologian or a canonist.

And, I’m surprised you remember what your history teacher said about the Magna Carta or the interdict on England 25 years after the fact. And, weird that a history teacher would even be talking about the disposition of souls-- unless maybe it was a Catholic school?

In short, your history teacher didn’t know what they were talking about. The Church makes no such pronouncement regarding those who die during an interdict.

During the interdict, baptism plus confession and viaticum for the dying remained available.

Does the interdict accordingly retain the sins of all to ensure their eternal damnation, or does this power arise from another provision in Scripture? Is this interpretation even truly official Church teaching? Are we called to accept the inevitability of an eternity in Hell, even after a life of heroic virtue that otherwise merits eternal salvation through the grace of God, just because of an inopportune political situation?

No.

And how does this teaching on territorial interdicts and their effects apply to the current situation with the … coronavirus and associated hysteria in 2020?

It doesn’t. No one is under interdict.

But this concept has bothered me much lately.

It need not bother you at all, because you are laboring under a false notion. We are not under interdict, nor would we be condemned to hell if we were.

 

[Glennon_P]

@1ke beat me to it - nobody is under a canonical interdict.

 

[InThePew]

According to my high-school history teachers a quarter-century ago, the Catholic Church required that almost anyone who deceased under a territorial interdict, regardless of the heroic virtue of his or her earthly life, must suffer eternally in Hell.

I have no idea where your history teaches got this from but they’re probably confused about the notion of penalties in canon law. The imposition of a penalty doesn’t preclude someone from receiving the sacraments of they dying nor does it deprive the living the means of grace (it’s possible to be absolved of the sin which led to the imposition of a penalty without the penalty itself being lifted) - baptisms were still performed, confessions were still heard.

And how does this teaching on territorial interdicts and their effects apply to the current situation with the Wuhan coronavirus and associated hysteria in 2020? Are Catholics who die in a closed diocese or of the coronavirus automatically damned eternally? Can they attain salvation through travel to or use of an open diocese or eparchy, including military services?

I’m not sure I’d call millions of death and overwhelmed hospitals hysteria but that aside, the short answer is that this “teaching” has no relevance to the current situation at all. For starters the Church doesn’t automatically damn anyone and travelling to an open diocese won’t help or hurt any more than it ordinarily would. Sure, if you happen to live near to another diocese which is open you may receive the sacraments there, although they’d probably rather not be flooded by people coming from other places.

Should we follow our medieval forebears and revolt against our current ecclesial and civil authorities because our eternal lives depend on their permission? Whose souls might this interdict and associated mandatory damnation preserve for the possibility of eternal life? What reform do our bishops desire of us?

Well there is no interdict so I’m not sure this question makes any sense. Still, revolting against civil and ecclesial authorities is hardly consistent with Christian charity (not to mention preservation of ecclesial communion) since your damnation (or perhaps more accurately, lack thereof) is unaffected by the health and wellbeing of others may be. Your bishops are trying to deal with a difficult and effectively unprecedented situation as best they can - all they ask is charity, patience and respect.

 

[OKComputer]

During the interdict, baptism plus confession and viaticum for the dying remained available.

I always wondered that-it’s a great question about interdicts. It sounds incredibly cruel at first, thank you for explaining.