1. DonationAcolyte
    Now With Added BA
    Loughborough
    Joined
    04 Jul '02
    Moves
    3790
    07 May '05 12:39
    These were tools which in ages past were used by Popes, often it seems for political reasons. Can anyone who is Catholic explain to me the Chruch's current position on excommunication and interdicts, both in how they might be used now, and how they were used in the past? If the Pope placed an interdict on a whole country, what consequences might this have for the souls of the people in it?

    What about other religions which practise excommunication, or something similar? What does it mean, and how does it work?
  2. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    07 May '05 12:59
    Originally posted by Acolyte
    These were tools which in ages past were used by Popes, often it seems for political reasons. Can anyone who is Catholic explain to me the Chruch's current position on excommunication and interdicts, both in how they might be used now, and how they were used in the past? If the Pope placed an interdict on a whole country, what consequences might this have ...[text shortened]... which practise excommunication, or something similar? What does it mean, and how does it work?
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08073a.htm

    They are used in pretty much the same way today as they've been used in the past.

    Neither excommunication nor interdicts have any direct consequences on the souls of persons involved.

    And one more thing - under Canon law, both penalties are automatically suspended when the person(s) involved are at risk of death.
  3. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    07 May '05 15:11
    Originally posted by lucifershammer

    And one more thing - under Canon law, both penalties are automatically suspended when the person(s) involved are at risk of death.
    Aren't people always at risk of death? Can't the good Lord strike any of us down at any moment he sees fit to? After all, you believe that he could still restore Terri Schiavo to a normal healthy state if it was his will, so it seems like you must concede that each of us must acknowledge that we are not safe from death at any moment.
  4. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    08 May '05 01:57
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Aren't people always at risk of death? Can't the good Lord strike any of us down at any moment he sees fit to? After all, you believe that he could still restore Terri Schiavo to a normal healthy state if it was his will, so it seems like you must concede that each of us must acknowledge that we are not safe from death at any moment.
    Don't go all legalistic on me. When a person realises he's dying, he has the right to certain sacraments - such as Reconciliation, Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. What I meant was that these sacraments cannot be denied to a dying person even if he has a censure placed on him by the Church.
  5. DonationAcolyte
    Now With Added BA
    Loughborough
    Joined
    04 Jul '02
    Moves
    3790
    08 May '05 08:44
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08073a.htm

    They are used in pretty much the same way today as they've been used in the past.

    Neither excommunication nor interdicts have any direct consequences on the souls of persons involved.

    And one more thing - under Canon law, both penalties are automatically suspended when the person(s) involved are at risk of death.
    Isn't that encyclopedia a bit out of date? It looks like it dates from before Vatican II, for one thing.
  6. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    08 May '05 11:12
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Don't go all legalistic on me. When a person realises he's dying, he has the right to certain sacraments - such as Reconciliation, Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. What I meant was that these sacraments cannot be denied to a dying person even if he has a censure placed on him by the Church.
    these help?

    interdict (ĭn'tərdĭkt) , ecclesiastical censure notably used in the Roman Catholic Church, especially in the Middle Ages. When a parish, state, or nation is placed under the interdict no public church ceremony may take place, only certain sacraments, especially baptism, may be administered, and the dead may not receive Christian burial. The interdict is used to sway public opinion and to force action. A famous example was the interdict placed upon England during the reign of King John by Innocent III in 1208.

    '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
    The word interdict usually refers to an ecclesiastical penalty in the Roman Catholic Church. The most common usage is a penalty which suspends all public worship and withdraws the church's sacraments in a territory or country. An interdict issued against a country was to it the equivalent of issuance of excommunication against an individual. An interdict would cause all the churches to be closed, and almost all the sacraments not to be allowed (i.e. preventing marriage, confession, Anointing of the Sick, and the eucharist). ........

    http://www.answers.com/topic/interdict
  7. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    08 May '05 11:49
    Originally posted by Acolyte
    Isn't that encyclopedia a bit out of date? It looks like it dates from before Vatican II, for one thing.
    At the very least, it answers the part of your question about how it was used in the past. You can check the Code of Canon Law to see that they are used in pretty much the same way today:

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4U.HTM
Back to Top