Home

Automatic Excommunications

(‘Latae Sententiae’)

+ + +

Why Canon Law Automatically Excommunicates

Notoriously & Pertinaciously Heretical or Schismatic Members

of the Catholic Church Without Formal Action or Declarations from

Her Leaders, and Why This Principle Applies from Highest Pope

to Lowliest Layperson from the Most Ancient of Times

A NOTE TO THE READER:

This article is an excerpt from Chapters 6 to 14 of the longer article, Should You Go to a CMRI Mass or Take Part in the Worship of Other Traditionalists? It can be found in the Books & Articles section of The Epistemologic Works website.

If Catholic --- or at least on your way to being Catholic and knowing something is hideously wrong with our world today, an evil that has only gotten more and more blatant since the mid-twentieth century --- then the information here is crucial. You will not become truly Catholic or remain truly Catholic until you grasp the principle of automatic excommunication and realize this punishment is both innate and essential to the existence of Christ’s Body. Nor will you understand our enemy or how the devil succeeds when knowledge of it is suppressed.

The text is mostly the same, with editing for clarity, chapters re-numbered (and sometimes re-titled) to fit the context, and an endnote to tie everything together, with an appeal to readers of good will to act in accordance with what they learn in this article, since the Religion of God’s Eternal Rome alone --- and humble obedience to Him --- will remedy our present plight.

+++ 1. May Catholics Go to Openly Heretical or Schismatic +++

Priests, or Along With Openly Heretical or Schismatic People

at Their Masses, in Order to Receive the Sacraments?

Why should real Catholics avoid openly heretical or schismatic priests?

Or, for that matter, openly heretical or schismatic people who regularly participate in a priest’s mass… and whether or not the priest himself is openly heretical or schismatic?

I mean, aren’t the sacraments terribly important for a Catholic to receive? Without valid or licit Roman Catholic priests, can we not justify ourselves in going to, or with, these open heretics and schismatics in order to enter the confessional booth, receive the Blessed Sacrament, and etc., etc., as long as we don’t espouse their heresies or take part in their schisms as if they are our own?

The answer to the last query is stark:

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

But if you doubt my admonition or are uninstructed about this matter, then please continue to read this article and don’t dare to act like you already know everything you could ever possibly need to know about Holy Religion or couldn’t be wrong. You may also read this even shorter letter here in the Letters & Articles section to find out more.

The point is, your immortal soul is at stake and you cannot afford to be stubborn, arrogant or careless when it comes to something with eternally damnable consequences.

Period.

Briefly, then, ponder these two canon laws and why Holy Mother Church thought fit to include them in Her regulations:

“It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258, Paragraph 1)

As well:

“A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites [in divines] with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258, incurs suspicion of heresy.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2316. All emphasis or annotation added in this and the previous quote.)

Meanwhile, reflect on a little history, easily authenticated by anyone with access to a good public library or the World Wide Web. Did the Church of Rome in the past one thousand years since the Schism of the East ever permit Catholics to go to the masses or other public liturgies, or to publicly pray with, Eastern Schismatics (self-styled ‘Eastern Orthodoxy’) when no Roman Catholic priest and no Roman Catholic sacraments were available to them?

Was this ever a permissible option?

The rejoinder is facile:

NEVER.

In short, the Roman Catholic Faith comes before the Roman Catholic Mass.

You must first publicly profess the Catholic Faith whole & entire in order to have the lawful privilege to give or receive the Holy Eucharist, and, if in a position where no Catholic priest is rightfully available to you, you are not then allowed to attend a non-Catholic mass --- no matter how validly consecrated the Eucharist may be --- to get the Blessed Sacrament from the hands of a man who is not truly Catholic or knowingly serves those who are notorious & pertinacious heretics or schismatics. Indeed, it is this public & obstinate display of heresy or schism --- either from himself or in those he serves --- which makes his Eucharist illegal, i.e., not lawful to receive… and regardless of its validity (realness) otherwise, as good Catholic sense and Canon Law make clear!

To do so would be tantamount --- through your visible and voluntary presence at their services of public prayer or worship --- to joining with them religiously, of pretending to be in communion with them as if both you and they belong to the same Divine Body and profess the same Divine Faith.

You are, at a bare minimum, suspect of heresy by doing so.

We say again:

Your participation in the worship or public prayers of openly heretical or schismatic human beings is, in the eyes of God & His Roman Catholic Church, acting like you are united with them religiously, espousing the same dogmas and obeying the same leadership or communing with the same members of their non-Catholic group. It is, in the judgment of God & His Church, the same in appearance as being an openly heretical or schismatic person, just like them, and regardless of an orthodoxy that you may keep hidden in your heart. You are, at a bare minimum, to be suspected of heresy or schism by doing this.

+++ 2. But Isn’t There a Loophole When the Hierarchy +++

of the Catholic Church Has Not Yet Officially Condemned

Particular Heretics or Schismatics Specifically by Name?

“But what about the Hierarchy?” you might say. “Doesn’t the Magisterium need to rule and make it plain that so-and-so is off-limits to worship with? Until then aren’t we off the hook --- at least technically --- in joining with the public prayers and worship of heretics or schismatics? Doesn’t the Great Schism of the West demonstrate this exception, doesn’t the example of the Arian Heresy prior to the Nicene Council reveal this course of action as permissible?”

My dear & precious soul, think very carefully.

You may have genuine concern, yet I suggest to you that your real motive --- deep down inside your soul or buried somewhere way back in the rear of your mind --- is a fear of isolation and weakness. In other words, you are afraid of not having anyone with whom you may join in worship on Sundays and socialize with afterwards as if everyone involved is a Catholic. Or you are aghast at the pain of being deprived of the Eucharist. All alone is how you would feel, with neither everyday human companionship (or very limited companionship) nor sacramentally divine companionship to assuage you in a grievous trial.

I do not mock you for this concern.

I understand it.

I go through it myself.

I therefore sympathize and weep with you.

Let us remember, though, that Jesus Christ bore an identical Cross.

More than we can imagine, he felt isolated from everyone around him. Only His Blessed Mother could even begin to fully comprehend His Divine Nature & Mission. In the desert alone for forty days, without food or drink, he faced hideous temptation by the devil and yet remained firm in God’s Catholic Testimony. In His Passion and on the Hill of the Skull, He hung like a criminal and an outcast, bleeding and dying, bereft of all comfort and His disciples having ran away. He even exclaimed in His Awful Agony, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me [why have you abandoned and rejected me]?” (Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 DRC, annotation added.)

A cry that went unanswered, for He died in His Misery.

We, too, as real Catholics can cry out the same words during the Great Apostasy.

Except for this --- Jesus was sinless & guiltless, not deserving what He suffered. We are great sinners and deserve everything we get. Nevertheless, we must imitate His Constancy. We must duplicate His Patience. We must suffer forlorn until the bitter end, if that is what God requires.

That said, formal pronouncements or rulings from the Hierarchy can be very helpful… but they are not always necessary. If the conflict is over common dogma --- something that every person with at least an average mind must know & profess in order to be Catholic to begin with --- then any Catholic with at least an average mind can know when a common dogma is being professed publicly in the right way and when it is not. Otherwise, how in the world could such people know that they themselves are surely and truly Catholic by professing this common dogma?

Ergo, where common dogma is notoriously & pertinaciously denied or opposed --- i.e., the denial or opposition is obviously public and well-known, and repeated, with no good excuse for the appearance of such objectively wicked things possible --- then we may be sure of this:

That the denier or opponent is NOT Roman Catholic.

We can be sure because notoriety (something known to the public, whose meaning is clear, explicit and beyond rational dispute) and pertinacity (the same thing repeated at least two or three times with no reasonable excuse left for it, especially after a charitable admonishment) make it stark.

+++ 3. Automatic Excommunication Is the Key +++

And if not Catholic, then the denier or opponent is excommunicated.

For how can you be a visible part of that which you visibly deny? And if denying what makes a human being Catholic in the first place, then how can you remain Catholic when you publicly and repeatedly deny these things, one of these common dogmas of the Catholic Church?

Which is why the Church decrees:

“All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto [by this very fact] excommunicated.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314.1, all emphasis & annotation added.)

To say “ipso facto” (Latin for ‘by this very fact’) is the same as to say that the excommunication is ‘latae sententiae’. In other words, that it is AUTOMATIC, with no official declaration from the Hierarchy needed to make it happen. The relevant part of the Hierarchy (say, a bishop with jurisdiction over the particular person in question) may, if willing and able, make a formal declaration in the matter later on. However, this declaration would merely affirm what has already taken place --- to wit, an excommunication that occurs through the force of canon law by the very fact of the crime itself. A crime against God’s Religion that any real Catholic can recognize as a spiritual crime due to its public --- and hence visible --- nature, and which is morally certain because of its obstinate commission. I.e., it’s obviously not a fluke or accidental thing.

“Delicts [offenses] of heresy and apostasy are dealt with most severely…. delicts against faith are visited with her heaviest punishments. The heretic immediately incurs excommunication, and is liable to further vindictive punishments. The reason is plain. Heresy indicates such a destruction of the Christian character of the delinquent, and, being externalized, has such potentialities of hindering and preventing the teaching of revealed truth to others, that immediate and decisive action must be taken to prevent any spread of the contagions of error.” (The Delict of Heresy by Rev. Eric MacKenzie, page forty-three. Published by The Catholic University of America in 1932. All emphasis & annotation added.)

Fr. MacKenzie, who wrote the book cited above from which we quote, was, as far as I can tell, a salvation heretic like practically everybody else going by the name of ‘catholic’ in the United States during the 1930s. Nevertheless, his The Delict of Heresy has much good information in it, orthodox information which explains authoritatively exactly what I have been saying. Namely, that automatic excommunications are automatic precisely because the person excommunicated can no longer be a visible part of that which he visibly denies, and thus must also be cut off from those who are still Catholic so as not to inflict on them the spiritual disease --- heresy or schism --- that he espouses. Waiting for an official condemnation in this case before acting like the excommunication is certain would be needlessly reckless… allowing deadly teachings or rebellion to spread where an immediate remedy is necessary to stop the destruction of even more precious souls! If the crime is notorious & pertinacious denial of common dogma, then no more certainty is needed; the Hierarchy cannot make any more sure that which is already sure due to it being a stark public fact. A later formal decree would only serve to clarify things for Catholics who are ignorant and untaught, or who themselves are quietly obstinate about this same crime.

As another canon law expert from the early 20^th century states:

“A penalty latae sententiae [Latin for ‘given (already passed) sentence’], whether corrective or vindictive, binds the delinquent ipso facto [by this very fact] both in the external and in the internal forum, provided he is conscious of the crime [meaning, in the case of common dogma, that he meant to say or do what he said or did against the dogma and even if he doesn’t know it’s dogma to begin with; or, as is the case with deeper dogma, that he both meant what he said or did against the dogma and also actually knows it’s a dogma, if only after being admonished].... The text continues [the text of the particular canon law being discussed, which is Canon 2232.1]: and in the external forum no one is allowed to demand this self-execution of this penalty on the part of the delinquent unless the crime is notorious…. which leaves the issuance of a declaratory sentence to the discretion of the superior and demands it only when the parties insist or when public welfare is at stake.... A declaratory sentence does not constitute a penalty, but simply affirms that a penalty has been incurred, and hence throws the penalty back to the moment when the crime was committed.” (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. 8, Bk. 5, pp. 102-4. Published by W.E. Blake& Sons, Ltd., in 1922. All italicizing of Latin words and quote in English from canon law in the original published text. All other emphases & annotation added.)

By the way, in the commentary above the word “conscious” is essentially equivalent to the requirement for ‘pertinacity’. That is to say, the apparent crime (of word or deed against the True Religion) must not have been a fluke or accident, but actually intended by the one who speaks or acts. For crimes against common dogma, at least two or three incidences of the same kind against the Catholic Religion are necessary to make it surely “conscious” and hence ‘pertinacious’, i.e., not accidental or unintended… and even if the offender does not know, for some reason, the common dogma he is violating (in which case he was never Catholic to begin with and his lack of true Catholicity is only now being revealed by his very public & repeated mistake). For crimes against deeper dogma the same requirement holds --- of at least two or three incidences of the same kind against the Catholic Religion --- but one must also make sure that this person knows, or at least ought to have known, about the deeper dogma (which is deeper because it is not part of the minimum absolutely necessary to make a person of sound mind Catholic to start with). Without this specific knowledge about a deeper dogma, and moral certainty of the person’s intent regarding his lack of knowledge, a fellow Catholic cannot justly presume the offender to be culpable of his objective offense… which is why, normally, crimes against deeper dogma need a functioning Hierarchy in order to judge the situation properly, and why, normally, crimes against deeper dogma do not incur automatic expulsion.

+++ 4. Does the Great Schism of the West Excuse Us? +++

Which brings us to the Great Schism of the West. This schism was never over common dogma; it was not even a division over deeper dogma. In fact, it had nothing to do with heresy. It was a confusion over the arcane rules of papal election. In short, there was a dispute about who, amongst two (and later three) viable candidates, really was elected pope. No one rejected a claimant because he was heretical --- they rejected him because they didn’t think he’d been rightly elected.

Nonetheless, knowledge of arcane rules about papal election is usually not needed to save most Catholics’ souls: thus why Catholics could be on the wrong side during this Great Schism and not automatically suffer God’s Wrath. A person could be genuinely confused, literally unable to know who he or she should support & obey. This is, as it were, an example of a kind of ‘invincible ignorance’, an ignorance that, in this particular case, Heaven neither demands it must be overcome in order to save one’s soul nor guarantees to aid you in overcoming as if it was absolutely necessary to save your soul. As a result, even saints were on opposite sides during this horribly chaotic period while still being, in truth, actual saints. Consequently, one could not incur automatic excommunication if someone chose the mistaken side. Schism in the West between Catholics back then was objectively real yet not necessarily culpable; wise Roman Catholics pardoned their opponents for splitting during this unavoidably troubling --- but mostly venial, or utterly inculpable --- confusion.

Once this Great Schism was over, though --- all Catholics uniting under the leadership of Martin V, who was elected pope at the end of 39 years of division --- a problem demanded Martin’s attention. Lots of priests in the area of Germany were living in concubinage (having a wife, which was legally forbidden to the clergy in the western part of the Catholic Church) and good Catholics, stung by their consciences, were refusing to participate in certain priests’ masses due to these priests being accused (whether satisfactorily proven or not) of committing this scandalous public sin and thus highly suspect.

What should the pope do?

Martin V responded with a document called Ad evitanda scandala, which was part of a German concordat that the Holy See agreed to in 1418. The text of this document relieved Catholics of any presumed duty to avoid such accused or disputed priests in matters of religion until the proper Church authority ruled against them and passed public sentence.

Or, to put it another way, no one would be held guilty of going to such a priest (who was actually living with a concubine) for the sacraments until higher Church authority with jurisdiction in the matter ruled against the priest and publicly excommunicated him, forbidding his parishioners from going to his masses.

+++ 5. Why Pope Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala +++

Cannot Apply to Situations of Heresy or Schism

Yet can this same papal document justify us in going to a non-Catholic mass?

Not at all.

What Martin V did in the fifteenth century only applies to Catholics who are declared excommunicated, NOT heretics or schismatics who are automatically excommunicated.

The point?

A heretic or schismatic is a heretic or schismatic in the eyes of others as soon as his crime is notorious & pertinacious. There is thus no ultimate need for a higher Church authority with jurisdiction to do what is already automatically done via Canon Law, or to make plain what is already factually stark.

That is to say --- and as we’ve seen prior to this --- Church’s Canon Law makes excommunications of notorious & pertinacious heretics or schismatics an automatic process. It does NOT need a bishop with jurisdiction to rule formally and make a public pronouncement. A ruling from someone in authority might be helpful, providing guidance for the confused or strong boundaries for the rebellious, but the excommunication occurs whether or not a Church authority says something, and the blatancy & obstinacy of the heresy or schism makes it both plain and inarguable for any good-willed Catholic of sound mind to see. The excommunication of a notorious & pertinacious person happens regardless of a jurisdictional bishop speaking up publicly.

We say once more:

AUTOMATIC excommunications are AUTOMATIC!

An official declaration can only affirm what has already occurred according to the Church’s Canon Law. Where heresy or schism is notorious & pertinacious, Catholics DO NOT NEED a jurisdictional bishop to formally rule or announce in order to be MORALLY CERTAIN that the crime of heresy or schism exists and that the notorious & pertinacious heretic or schismatic suffers excommunication without any unnecessary delay.

And why would that be again?

Because AUTOMATIC excommunications are AUTOMATIC.

Automatic… as in, it happens all by itself. No need to do anything more official to make it happen. The process is ready to go on its own, all set up beforehand in the Church’s Canon Law, and is instantly put in motion as soon as the crime of heresy or schism comes out into the open for any real Catholics to see.

It’s automatic.

Indeed, think about it carefully.

Why would the Church even bother putting anything into Her Canon Law about automatic excommunications (‘latae sententiae’ that occur ‘ipso facto’) if this kind of immediate punishment can never be known until the Hierarchy issues a formal declaration?

The whole thing is pointless.

Because if nobody can know it happens until an official declaration, then the person who is supposedly excommunicated ‘automatically’ is still treated by everyone around him as if he is a part of the Church… as if he’s not excommunicated. Hence, to be honest and logical, the Church in Her Canon Law would instead have to say that the excommunication takes place only AFTER proper ecclesial authority makes a public announcement --- and NOT that it occurs automatically!

I beg the reader’s pardon for being repetitious.

However, with years of experience I’ve found this canonic principle is only rarely understood. It’s like a sticking point, either because someone truly didn’t know about it (and prior to the Great Apostasy, when did anyone Roman Catholic have to know about this principle, how often would he or she need to act on it?) or else a person has indeed heard about automatic excommunication, but is nervous, stubborn or rebellious about its application (and before the Great Apostasy, there was always a Hierarchy to depend upon despite some excommunications being automatic… whereas now, without a functioning Hierarchy, if the laity doesn’t recognize a crime against the Faith as a horrible & punishable crime, then who’s left to identify those people that are automatically cast out of the Church?).

+++ 6. Driving It Home Once More: +++

Automatic Expulsions Are (Surprise!) Automatic

Consequently, let us review authoritative evidence of the Roman Catholic Church’s purpose and intent in Canon Law, concerning the hideous crimes of heresy or schism, one more time:

And what does this canon law, or other canon laws like it, mean?

That’s pretty plain.

But could it be made any clearer?

Excellent. But I’m still wary.

Can I see this topic stated still another way?

“Ipso facto denotes the automatic character of the loss of membership of a religious body by someone guilty of a specified action. Within the Roman Catholic Church, the phrase latae sententiae is more commonly used than ipso facto with regard to ecclesiastical penalties such as excommunication. It indicates that the effect follows even if no verdict (in Latin, sententia) is pronounced by an ecclesiastical superior or tribunal.” (Entry for ‘Ipso facto’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipso_facto, paragraph three, under the subheading of ‘In religion’ and retrieved on 28 July 2011. Italicizing of all Latin words in original text. All other emphases added.)

My dear soul, the evidence is plain.

As lowly laity in the Catholic Church, we do not always need a Hierarchy in order to know, with moral certainty, that excommunication has taken place, when it comes to heresy or schism, automatically. All we have to see is that the religious crime is both notorious and pertinacious, and that it involves a matter of infallible dogma that is common and necessary for any person of sound mind to know and believe and profess correctly in order to be truly Roman Catholic to begin with. Given these conditions, then we can conclude factually --- and thus with moral certainty --- that the excommunication is automatic… accomplished by the force of canon law itself, without any need of an official ruling or specific public pronouncement from a functioning Hierarchy.

How, then, does this apply to Pope Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala?

Even if someone doesn’t want to admit that Martin V intended his words in Ad evitanda scandala to apply solely to a Catholic guilty of a public crime against morals (such as priests in the western part of the Church openly having wives), the force of the Church’s Canon Law as authoritatively issued in 1917, centuries after Martin V’s papal document in 1418, thereby supersedes --- causes the earlier law to no longer have the force of current law --- the older law.

In reality, though, this is NOT the case.

The evidence is sufficiently vivid for a thorough historian or intelligent, fair-minded person to see that, while Martin V may not have composed this document as carefully as we might wish (which is debatable and not ultimately critical to our point), he was not consciously going against a wise, imperative and millennia-old tradition concerning automatic excommunication of all notorious & pertinacious heretics or schismatics. The notion that he changed or defied the ancient principle of automatic excommunication only came about in the following centuries, theologians of a modernist bent misinterpreting his intent --- perhaps on purpose --- in order to avoid the fulfillment of an ipso facto expulsion, of those guilty of a public crime against faith, from the Church’s Singularly Saving Sanctuary.

This explanation, by the way, applies to St. Thomas Aquinas’ words in his Summa Theologica, too. Certain clever people will cite him where he makes a distinction between priests who are heretics, schismatics or officially excommunicated and those priests who are merely sinners against morality. That is to say, between a priest who is a notorious & pertinacious heretic or schismatic and thus automatically excommunicated --- if not excommunicated already in some non-automatic but formal way --- and those who are simply grave sinners (but not against dogma!) in a very public way, or at least publicly accused of some serious moral crime. We cannot treat these latter priests (who allegedly sin against morals), the saint asserts, as excommunicated until the Hierarchy investigates the matter and officially says so.

The correct interpretation of St. Thomas’ words on this topic is hugely obvious when you read their full context and don’t have an axe to grind (read: a prejudice that you’re determined to ‘prove’ regardless of what the truth is). The aforementioned clever people, though, insist that the term ‘sinners’ must refer to heretics, schismatics and the officially excommunicated… and in spite of what the context makes clear! (Not to mention that, even if Thomas meant what they mistakenly want to think, God gave the charism of infallibility to popes in their solemn capacity and not to doctors of the Church in what they write.) Then, turning to something Pope Innocent III solemnly stated via the 4^th Lateran Council, they pretend that Innocent ‘proves’ their terrible mangling of St. Thomas’ words. Which is utter nonsense --- but more on that below in Chapter 8 in just a moment.

+++ 7. Does the Arian Heresy Excuse Us? +++

Bringing us to the Arian Heresy.

For here we do have a dispute over dogma. Indeed, a clash over common dogma, which makes all the difference in the world since notorious & pertinacious denial of common dogma causes a human being, if Roman Catholic to begin with and of a sound mind, to be AUTOMATICALLY EXCOMMUNICATED. This is part of the Church’s Canon Law, as we’ve seen again and again, and it’s because no one can be joined to that which he or she does not actually submit. After all, if your arm did not agree with your head or wish to acknowledge its proper function in your body, constantly disputing with and violently attacking the rest of the body --- there being no way to make the arm behave and submit to its place in the sensible scheme of things --- then could that arm remain a safe and functioning part of your body?

Of course not.

It would have to be removed to save the rest of your body.

Even so with the notorious & pertinacious heretic or schismatic. Such a person opposes the proper function of Christ’s Body, the Catholic Church, or refuses to submit to this Church’s Visible Leaders, a legitimate pope, or legitimate bishops and priests with rightful jurisdiction. And if there’s no way to get this heretic or schismatic to behave himself and submit to his place in the scheme of Christ’s Ecclesial Body, then he must --- for simple good sense, the sake of honesty and the welfare or survival of members of the Church --- be excommunicated.

In the case of a deeper dogma or a more challenging & complex problem, the excommunication would normally need to be officially ruled upon and pronounced in order to take effect.

Not so the notorious & pertinacious denial of a common dogma.

This is dogma that anyone of sound mind must know so as to be a part of Christ’s Body in the first place. Ergo, it is dogma that anyone of sound mind can recognize --- provided the denial or opposition is both notorious and pertinacious --- is being denied. And since it must be believed so as to be Catholic to start with, then its denial is equivalent to an arm refusing to submit to its place in the scheme of things, constantly disputing and violently attacking its own body. Therefore, the denier must be automatically excommunicated, to protect the rest of the Body Ecclesiastic, as we’ve already seen from the Canon Law of Holy Mother Church itself.

We reiterate:

The notorious& pertinacious denier of a common dogma is automatically excommunicated. The excommunication is NOT contingent on an official pronouncement by the Hierarchy… it is AUTOMATIC. An official pronouncement might be good; it might avoid confusion or obstinacy on the part of certain Catholics. But it is not --- we repeat, NOT --- necessary for the excommunication to take place. An AUTOMATIC excommunication occurs whether or not it is later officially pronounced. And it does so because any real Catholic of a sound and intelligent mind can know when notorious & pertinacious heresy has taken place.

Period.

The Arian heretic denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ. And yet the Divinity of Jesus Christ --- His Eternal Divinity before all creation as One of Three Persons in the Godhead --- is a common dogma, taught by Jesus & His Twelve Apostles and included in the Apostle’s Creed since the very first century. As a result, when a Catholic became Arian and publicly denied Christ’s Divinity, he was automatically excommunicated and ceased to be Catholic.

This is not speculation, nor is it debatable.

It is canon law and thus hard, indisputable and authoritative fact.

Consequently, when a Catholic priest or bishop went bad at that time, during the fourth century when Arianism struck terribly and spread widely throughout the ranks of the Church, a good and wise Catholic layman could know, with complete moral certainty, that he should not any longer mingle, religiously speaking, with this excommunicated Arian. And he could know this for a morally certain fact because a common dogma was being notoriously & pertinaciously denied, and that, therefore, an AUTOMATIC excommunication --- as well as AUTOMATIC expulsion of the leader from his office in the Church --- had taken place.

+++ 8. The Problem of Confusion Amongst Catholics +++

Unfortunately, not every Catholic is equally knowledgeable.

Plus, novel situations can arise that no one has ever yet faced before, including the clergy. This was the case with virulent Arian Heresy in the early AD 300s. On top of this, Arian heretics were famously difficult to tease out into the open. They used the same Catholic words & phrases, they professed the same Catholic formulas & creeds, they worshipped in the same Catholic devotions & ceremonies. You could not always know, merely on the surface, what they meant. Hence, how were they to be recognized for their heresy?

This is why confusion was rampant, at least in the first few decades of the heresy’s ascendancy. At first, most real Catholics didn’t even know that anyone was an Arian heretic to start with. Then, when aware of the rise of Arian Heresy, many real Catholics didn’t know how to identify, for sure, exactly who was an Arian heretic. Next, when finally aware of a particular someone’s Arianism, many (maybe even most) Catholics didn’t know that this particular someone could no longer be Catholic due to an automatic excommunication. And, if that were not enough, even if aware of the Arian’s automatic ouster from the Church, many Catholics didn’t realize that, when a priest or bishop is a notorious & pertinacious Arian heretic, they should no longer participate in his masses or receive the sacraments from him… and despite the fact that he hasn’t yet been officially declared as such with formal & public pronouncement from the Hierarchy.

This is because the Arian Heresy was massive, quick and unprecedented. It’s also because most laity --- and even much of the clergy --- never study these things or think about them deeply. Ergo, how are they to know what to do in the face of such a crisis?

This is why I am writing what I am writing:

To make real Catholics aware of these things today, right now.

Which then brings us to the point about Pope Innocent III and the 4^th Lateran Council that we mentioned in Chapter 6 just above. Because he solemnly approved the Council where it stated:

“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics… If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the Church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.” (4^th Lateran Council, Constitution 3, On Heretics, in AD 1215)

As already hinted at, certain clever people make much of the clause “…after they have been pointed out by the Church…” Aha! say they. Innocent III makes it plain that a Catholic doesn’t have to avoid these heretics in matters of religion until the Church has officially declared them to be heretics.

In reality, though, this is NOT the case. How can we know?

Because Canon Law provides for automatic excommunication of all notoriously pertinacious apostates, heretics and schismatics. “All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto [by this very fact] excommunicated.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314.1, all emphasis & annotation added)

AUTOMATIC, as in the Hierarchy does NOT have to act further or pronounce publicly to MAKE IT HAPPEN. It has already taken place… AUTOMATICALLY. Ipso facto, by the very fact of the notorious & pertinacious apostasy, heresy or schism itself.

And what have we seen that Canon Law also says?

“It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258, Paragraph 1)

As well:

Therefore, if you as a real Roman Catholic, of sound and intelligent mind, take part in the religious services of those who are automatically excommunicated, then you are committing an objectively unlawful act (Canon 1258.1), a deed that is against the Most Holy Law of both God and His Church. This unavoidably puts you under suspicion of heresy. (Canon 2316)

But what if you didn’t know better?

What if you hadn’t been able to figure it out yet?

What if your ignorance of the objective sin was --- thus far --- inculpable?

It is to this that the 4^th Lateran Council was referring. To wit, not every Roman Catholic is equally knowledgeable. If they were, then I wouldn’t have to write this article, telling a real Catholic that he or she shouldn’t have anything to do, in matters of religion and prayer and worship, with those who are not Catholic, and regardless of how ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’ such people may look, calling themselves ‘catholic’, nevertheless denying something that is infallible and explicit dogma… especially when it comes to a correct understanding and correct teaching of the ancient maxim, ‘no Salvation outside the Church’.

(A correct explanation and defense of this much-hated doctrine can be found in the tome, Helplessly Ignorant: The Nonsense of a Perfectly Intelligent But Strangely ‘Invincibly Ignorant’ Person Somehow ‘Unable’ to Know Catholicism Is True in Order to Find Salvation, Whilst, Instead, Getting into Heaven by Being ‘Sincere’ . It is in the Books & Articles section of The Epistemologic Works.)

But inasmuch as such people, who purport to be Catholic, do go ahead and receive the sacraments from the hands, and in the company, of these ‘conservatives’ or ‘traditionalists’ who are not actually Catholic in spite of their deceptive appearance, then it is unlawful to do what they do. Whether or not they realize the crime they commit --- perhaps, some of them, really thinking for a while that these ‘conservatives’ or ‘traditionalists’ are Catholic --- their sin, objectively speaking, is still sin. Ergo, a real and wise Catholic must suspect them of these religious crimes, too, and no matter how charitable he treats them or how carefully he refrains from making a judgment in the matter till further information can be known with solid certainty. Provided such people are truly Catholic, and given that they are humble enough to learn, then they will figure it out eventually. They will beg God’s forgiveness, refuse to mingle any longer with people who are false ‘catholics’, in this way proving themselves to profess the Religion of Catholicism in the sight of other Catholics who know them.

Yet in the meanwhile?

Ah, that’s different. People are confused.

Are they Catholic, or are they not? And, even if Catholic, do they realize how many people --- particularly nowadays --- call themselves ‘catholic’, and yet they’re not? And, if Catholic, will they stay Catholic in this precarious position, or will they not? Will they follow the bad example of false ‘catholics’, or figure it out and refuse to mingle religiously with them anymore?

This is the situation we face. This is the confusion that reigns.

And that’s what the Lateran Council was talking about. If the heretic is a heretic because he denies a common dogma, then many Catholics are going to be confused, not knowing what to do since they don’t know that notorious & pertinacious heretics against a common dogma are automatically excommunicated even without a formal declaration from the Hierarchy. Such confused Catholics then end up, oftentimes, religiously mingling with these automatically excommunicated heretics, committing an objectively unlawful act by doing so.

Notwithstanding, their guilt is excused or reduced in the meantime by their inculpable ignorance of ancient Canon Law. Once the Hierarchy makes a formal and clear declaration, though… ah, well, then, they have no excuse left, do they?

The Hierarchy of the Church has spoken and they should know better.

Or, if the heretic is a heretic because he denies a deeper dogma, then Catholics must wait patiently until the relevant man in the Hierarchy with proper jurisdiction investigates carefully, so as to have moral certainty in the matter and rule officially.

In either case, the conclusion is clear:

Once the Church makes a formal declaration, no Catholic is excusable and will be excommunicated by a vigilant Hierarchy for mingling religiously with heretics who have been carefully investigated and clearly pointed out. Whereas, before a formal declaration is made, such an uninformed but true Catholic --- who in his or her ignorance of Canon Law mingles religiously with notorious & pertinacious heretics or schismatics --- is not excommunicated but, in doing so, makes it look, to a real and wise Catholic, like he or she could be heretical or schismatic, too.

This is what Pope Innocent III and the Lateran Council were talking about.

And they cleared the situation up way back then, in the early part of the second millennium, by speaking plainly and starkly warning Catholics that such confusion could no longer be inculpable when the Hierarchy has formally ruled and officially declared.

It was, however, no ‘reversal’ of automatic excommunications.

For a very simple reason:

Because automatic excommunications are automatic in order to protect the members of the Catholic Church when the Hierarchy either cannot (due to lack of strength or presence) --- or will not (due to lack of goodness or courage) --- protect the sheep over which they are to be the shepherds, guarding them from the wolves.

Nowadays, the Hierarchy cannot protect us since they are not present; God has removed them from their thrones for a certain amount of time in much-deserved punishment for their sins.

Prior to Vatican II, however, in the centuries leading to the Great Apostasy, the Hierarchy more and more would not protect Catholics since they were increasingly lazy or fearful or secretly enemies; God allowed such men to afflict us in much-deserved punishment for our sins.

Nonetheless, this predicament will not last forever.

It is God’s Church, not ours. We are merely members, if truly Catholic.

Part of being truly --- and wisely --- Roman Catholic is recognizing notorious & pertinacious heretics or schismatics for what they are. And, in doing so, realizing that we cannot mingle religiously with such people. We can be kind, we can be charitable. But we cannot pretend, knowingly, to be united with such people in the Singular Catholic Body of Jesus Christ.

We must distinguish, and we must love God more than we love human beings.

Part of loving Him --- part of distinguishing --- is recognizing who is Catholic and who is not Catholic. This includes recognizing when a real Catholic ceases to be a real Catholic, revealing his or her self for what he or she truly is, denying or opposing Christ’s Roman Catholic Mind and His Roman Catholic Body. This is what being a heretic or a schismatic amounts to. And when the denial or opposition is notorious & pertinacious, our response must be decisive:

To realize that they are AUTOMATICALLY EXCOMMUNICATED.

And to NO LONGER MINGLE WITH THEM religiously.

End of adamant and very, very true sentences.

ENDNOTE:

The particularly astute or antagonistic reader will exclaim the following:

“You mean we have no pope, bishops, priests or functioning hierarchy right now because they have all been automatically excommunicated? That is astonishing and incredible!”

(Or, if antagonistic, “That’s insane!”)

And yet it’s not.

The God Who made the entire world out of nothing, destroyed the entire earth with a flood, and began an entire Roman Catholic Church out of nowhere, against murderous opposition, establishing the first pope, St. Peter, safely upon his throne, can easily resurrect the Ecclesial Body of His One & Only Roman Catholic Church in the near future, re-establishing a new & legitimate pope, along with new & legitimate bishops and priests upon the now empty clerical thrones of His Church just waiting to be filled by men who are actually Catholic and worthy of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

God is that big and that powerful.

There is nothing about our apostasy that is ‘too hard’ for Him to make right.

Oh, granted, it’s shocking when you face it for the first time --- being truly Catholic, or at least on your way to being truly Catholic, loving God’s One & Only Saving Truth --- but it is not, indeed, astonishing, incredible, or insane.

God, His Mother, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Roman Catholic Church, the Saints… they have each and every one of them warned us long ago about what was to come.

We simply didn’t listen, or have forgotten.

Truly, how could the Great Apostasy come upon us if Roman Catholics were paying attention ---and actually doing something significant, in accord with one another, to prevent it?

People had to become non-Catholics or bad Catholics for this thing to occur.

And, yes, in the end, by the 1960s, most if not all Catholics lost the Church.

Automatically so… even the pope.

This is what apostasy means.

It’s what being in the GREAT Apostasy amounts to.

As in the days of St. Noe, so, too, in the days before the Return of Christ.

As St. Peter denied Jesus, bowing to the world, so, too, did Paul VI at Vatican II.

Canon Law makes no reference to a person’s position in the Catholic Church when it warns of automatic excommunications. It doesn’t say you’re automatically excommunicated for being heretical or schismatic… unless, of course, you’re a priest, or a bishop, or the pope.

All people have free will, including the clergy.

Anybody can freely choose to deny Christ & His Catholic Faith, just as St. Eve freely chose to deny God’s Instructions, via her husband, St. Adam, and believe the deception of the Serpent, or as Judas Iscariot freely chose to betray the Christ and deliver Him into the hands of His enemies.

A study of Church History reveals that priests and bishops have betrayed Catholicism, that councils have tried to perpetrate heresies and schisms, that many popes have proven to be foolish or wicked or weak --- even, in a couple of cases, chastised for publicly teaching heterodoxy or condemned afterwards, by a successor, for doing the same and worse.

Prior to the last half millennium and our apostate era, we have seen antipopes. That is to say, men who at least some people think are popes (and, in the case of Anacletus II, everyone in the realms of Catholic Europe thought was a pope at first, for a couple of years) and act and talk like they are popes… but they’re not.

All these things have happened, all these things have been permitted by God to occur, and no intelligent, honest and educated person can pretend that they haven’t. The only thing that is totally unprecedented today --- perhaps equaled only by the time of Noe’s Flood --- is the worldwide nature of our horrible religious rebellion, and how long it has endured.

Nor am I, or anyone who agrees with me, pretending that we have ‘deposed’ a real pope.

No one stands in jurisdiction over a pope except for God Himself & His Holy Roman Church.

The Church Herself, via Canon Law as empowered by God, deposes a pope from his petrine throne if he reveals himself to be notoriously & pertinaciously heretical or schismatic.

A real and wise Catholic merely makes a factual judgment when this occurs.

To wit, he or she recognizes the event for a public & indisputable fact.

That’s all.

And, as ‘conservatives’ or ‘traditionalists’ are learning, who call themselves ‘catholic’ and like to think that the post-Vatican II antipopes are ‘popes’, the present antipope --- styling himself as ‘Francis’ --- keeps making it harder and harder for them to believe in the fantasy that modern antipopes are ‘popes’.

It used to be a stupid joke, a punch line for comedians:

“Is the pope Catholic?”

Now it’s not so funny anymore.

Not for people who consider themselves Catholic and tend to be conservative or traditional.

My dear and precious reader, if you are curious enough or humble enough to have read this far, then please realize that the threat of automatic excommunication is real, enshrined in the Canon Law of God’s One & Only Roman Catholic Church, and that the threat is not limited to the lowliness of the laity, or to everyone except the man who happens to be a pope.

Please also realize that you probably need to carefully read and study a few other things on this website, The Epistemologic Works, that relate to this matter and our perilous times of the Great Apostasy and the evil and rebellion and sin that inundates our earth. If not truly Catholic and disbelieving that ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ means --- and always has meant --- exactly what it says with no ifs, ands or buts, then examine the book, Helplessly Ignorant . If truly Catholic but tending toward schism over the theological opinions of ‘baptism of desire’ vs. ‘water only’, then examine Baptismal Confusion . Whether truly Catholic or not, but plagued with scrupulosity and a propensity for cruelty or indifference toward others, then peruse Catholic Fundamentalism . Or, if truly Catholic --- or, leastwise, seeing that our world is in dire straits --- and not knowing what to do or where to turn, knowing that our real Catholic shepherds have abandoned us for the time being, then read the articles, This Is the Great Apostasy… Now, How Do We Make Sure Our Souls Survive It? and The Sacrament of Penance Without a Priest Available , for comfort and advice. Or, if truly Catholic and craving something uplifting about Our Heavenly Mother, then pore over the scriptural treatise called Mary Exalted .

All of these writings mentioned are in the Books & Articles section.

You might also do well to look at the First Things First section.

In addition, check out the Profession & Abjuration section, looking at the subsection for Creeds. The Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed are excellent for grounding in the Catholic Faith --- assuming one actually wants to be Roman Catholic, and interprets these Creeds correctly, being well-instructed --- while the Athanasian Creed and the Tridentine Creed are particularly excellent for seeing how ‘narrow’ the Road to Salvation really is, explaining some of the Catholic doctrines people today so often misinterpret, not wanting to believe in them.

For the clear-minded & honest person, the Athanasian & Tridentine Creeds are exceptionally marvelous for exposing the lies of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II ‘popes’, who very much don’t want to believe in --- and don’t want anyone else believing in it, either --- the most ancient infallible teaching of ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ in its correct, narrow & literal sense. Vituperation of these creeds has caused them to suppress the Athanasian altogether and to ignore the Tridentine, along with the much-loathed Council of Trent, into oblivion.

Many other things exist on The Epistemologic Works website as well.

I trust you will avail yourself of their assistance.

May the Sacred & Suffering Heart of King Jesus, along with the Immaculate & Sorrowful Heart of His Mother, Queen Mary, make everything on The Epistemologic Works safe and useful to those who have good will. May they also, through the hands of Mary, dispense graces to your heart, converting you to Catholicism, or, if Catholic already, helping you to be the best Catholic that you could possibly be and so save your soul at death. May the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary’s Sovereign & Powerful Heel crush the satanic serpent’s head and so bring the horrors of the Great Apostasy to an end and usher in the Eternal & Everlasting Rule of Her Son’s Divine Monarchy, the Roman Catholic Kingdom of Heaven on Earth and the Holy, Pure & Spotless Spouse of the Triune Catholic God, Uncreated Creator of All That Exists out of nothing, by His Word, and by His Eternal Word & Spirit alone.

Amen.

+ + +

Pilate’s query met:

www.TheEpistemologicWorks.com

Note:

if you’ve come to this webpage directly from a search

engine or other website, then, when done viewing this webpage

--- and assuming you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---

please type the website’s address (as given above right before this

note) into the address bar at the top of your browser and hit the

‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.

Please go here about use of the writings

on this website.